Gerspride conference, Sat 14 nov

[craig 5,199]

Hi Craig,

 

I typed out a long response there, but I've deleted it. As things stand, the Trust has set its course and signalled its intentions, in concert with the Assembly and the Association. It is going ahead mate.

 

Now, if people want to stand on the sidelines shouting "resign! disunity!" that's up to them and they (and everyone else) can make their own minds up on whether that helps or hinders Rangers. And on whether it unifies or otherwise.

 

What we have is a broad and growing bunch of Rangers fans who believe in supporter ownership and the need for action. That is the common ground and is what we should build on.

 

Dont confuse what I have said with what I believe in though UCB

 

I am a great believer in supporter ownership and, in fact, it was the possibility of having fan representation at Board level that ignited my interest and also convinced me to become a lifetime member of the RST.

 

However, from my vantage point, it was that same representation which seemed to cause what looked like an implosion at the RST due to personal agendas and certain individuals wanting their ego to be massaged and the in-fighting started such that people were posturing to be the "right representative".

 

I could be the only person that feels this way but I would be slightly surprised by that.

 

Will I sit on the sidelines ? I highly doubt it. Rangers is bigger than any one of us so I would be more than likely to invest in supporter ownership (would I be barred seeing as i have an ownership interest in Ebbsfleet ? ). However, I have seen nothing from the Trust that suggests that personal egos are not still at play here.

 

We are being asked to place our trust in people whose egos got the better of them when they had a great opportunity a couple of years ago - they let their ego get in the way of the greater good of the support at large (and I am not levelling that at just the RST - there was much posturing IIRC from more than just the Trust). Who is to say that things would change now ?

 

If it is a straight choice between :

 

a) not supporting the fans organisations with hard cash and seeing the club go bankrupt and

b) supporting them (even though skeptical) but the club survives

 

then that is a no-brainer for me. Still doesnt mean we have to like it and it also doesnt mean that we will have the appropriate people running the show.

 

If I am wrong in any of the above respects then I gladly apologise.

[rbr 1,270]

Hi Craig,

 

I typed out a long response there, but I've deleted it. As things stand, the Trust has set its course and signalled its intentions, in concert with the Assembly and the Association. It is going ahead mate.

 

Now, if people want to stand on the sidelines shouting "resign! disunity!" that's up to them and they (and everyone else) can make their own minds up on whether that helps or hinders Rangers. And on whether it unifies or otherwise.

 

What we have is a broad and growing bunch of Rangers fans who believe in supporter ownership and the need for action. That is the common ground and is what we should build on.

 

 

The RST , Assembly and Association should all be applauded for their actions , and like Frankis alludes to should be getting together to try and get one unified message across , now we have a different leadership at Rangers , Murray is away and from what I have seen and heard from Bain to a certain degree the shackles have been removed . Surely now is the time for the club to work with the support in getting the message out to the high fan base the club holds on file , whether through a mass e-mail , text , clubweb site what ever .

 

Also it should be explained who and what each supporters group actually represents , I as a member of the RST know what their aims and objectives are , well some of them anyway , but as for the Assembly and Association , not a clue .

 

Also what about NARSA they have a hugh fanbase , we are limited only by our own imagination and from what I have seen and read over the last few weeks and even years the Rangers fans are truly in a league of their own .

 

:spl::spl:

[maineflyer 0]

Hi Craig,

 

I typed out a long response there, but I've deleted it. As things stand, the Trust has set its course and signalled its intentions, in concert with the Assembly and the Association. It is going ahead mate.

 

Now, if people want to stand on the sidelines shouting "resign! disunity!" that's up to them and they (and everyone else) can make their own minds up on whether that helps or hinders Rangers. And on whether it unifies or otherwise.

 

What we have is a broad and growing bunch of Rangers fans who believe in supporter ownership and the need for action. That is the common ground and is what we should build on.

I suppose we can say that this at least seems to have caused a temporary suspension of hostilities between the Trust and the Assembly, in public anyway, so that's not a bad thing. But less useful is the inevitable re-appearance of the Huffy Trust. 'You don't like us but we're going ahead anyway and you're all wrong, so see ya.' Unity brothers, unity.

[Union City Blue 0]

I suppose we can say that this at least seems to have caused a temporary suspension of hostilities between the Trust and the Assembly, in public anyway, so that's not a bad thing. But less useful is the inevitable re-appearance of the Huffy Trust. 'You don't like us but we're going ahead anyway and you're all wrong, so see ya.' Unity brothers, unity.

 

I was just saying we are where we are and we're going to carry on, that's all. I've probably said my last on the 'unity' question for now, it's going round in circles.

[Frankie 8,665]

I was just saying we are where we are and we're going to carry on, that's all. I've probably said my last on the 'unity' question for now, it's going round in circles.

 

Here's something for you to chew on with your peers...

 

The duration of the upcoming AGM is hugely important. Instead of 30-45mins, 2-3 hours is required for real debate.

 

Now, the unified fan organisations should be calling for that publicly to ensure it happens. That is something that everyone would agree with and thus some common ground would be found. Something small but solid to build on.

[rbr 1,270]

I was just saying we are where we are and we're going to carry on, that's all. I've probably said my last on the 'unity' question for now, it's going round in circles.

 

 

This is / was my point it isn't your responsibility to declare peace/unity , it is for the club to enter into dialogue with us the fans through all these many different groups and come up with a concrete workable coherent plan that we can all unite behind , that's the only way we will move forward .

 

When the majority of the non internet browsers get the message that is when the ground swell will begin and you are correct in that there is massive good feeling towards this club that can help via the media you talked of this earlier , but for any of this to happen the club needs to get a grip of where it wants to be , whether they are serious about fans owning the club or whether it is just a smokescreen to try and flush out would be investors .

[craig 5,199]

To get back onto the topic of ownership and away from the unity issue UCB (I am not sure that unity issue will ever fully be resolved anyway)...

 

1. Is there any kind of timeline surrounding when the 17 different plans will be made public ?

2. Will the fans as a whole have the opportunity to provide feedback ?

3. Who will determine the best plan ? The fan groups or is there some other mechanism to allow others input ?

4. Have the fan groups approached the club with these ?

5. Have the fan groups spoken to the club about what the citical path timing wise is ?

 

I am sure there are other questions but trying to move forward I think that the pivotal piece for us is what the plans are with regards to fan ownership, be it OMOV, proportional representation or some form of hybrid.

[rbr 1,270]

Here's something for you to chew on with your peers...

 

The duration of the upcoming AGM is hugely important. Instead of 30-45mins, 2-3 hours is required for real debate.

 

Now, the unified fan organisations should be calling for that publicly to ensure it happens. That is something that everyone would agree with and thus some common ground would be found. Something small but solid to build on.

 

That is a very very good point and hopefully something that the club would recognise without having to be asked , if they seriously think this years AGM is going to be done and dusted as per they are very much mistaken

[rbr 1,270]

To get back onto the topic of ownership and away from the unity issue UCB (I am not sure that unity issue will ever fully be resolved anyway)...

 

1. Is there any kind of timeline surrounding when the 17 different plans will be made public ?2. Will the fans as a whole have the opportunity to provide feedback ?

3. Who will determine the best plan ? The fan groups or is there some other mechanism to allow others input ?

4. Have the fan groups approached the club with these ?

5. Have the fan groups spoken to the club about what the citical path timing wise is ?

 

I am sure there are other questions but trying to move forward I think that the pivotal piece for us is what the plans are with regards to fan ownership, be it OMOV, proportional representation or some form of hybrid.

 

sorry I seem to have missed this point where did this point 1 come from

[craig 5,199]

sorry I seem to have missed this point where did this point 1 come from

 

I think, could be wrong, that UCB mentioned there being a bunch of different plans being mooted. Maybe it was a 17 point plan or maybe I am just going insane.

 

Apologies if wrong.