Gerspride conference, Sat 14 nov

[Bluedell 5,679]

As I said publish your facts, I am not claiming to be any guru, you claim to have the relevant paper work so post it, otherwise we can file it under supposition.

 

You can file it where you want.

[maineflyer 0]

In all this turmoil, I just didn't see it coming; the redemption of David Murray as the white knight riding out to save Rangers.

 

These really are the strangest of times. One day, Graham Spiers will write a failed book about them.

[Union City Blue 0]

I've not been on RM yet today so not sure if you (or TB) replied there.

 

However, ignoring perfectly valid questions just because the intent may be seen by some as mischievous is rather disappointing. I've not heard about some of the stuff Boss mentions (despite the disingenuous attempts by Trust board members to lump as together elsewhere) so it may be his information is incorrect.

 

Ergo, I'd suggest answering his questions that are relevant to the RST is a better way of showing that as opposed to saying his opinion doesn't count for whatever reason.

 

I think I've said to you before that representing the Trust online is somewhat of a thankless task. Separating the honest concerns from the more obtuse isn't always easy and arguably shouldn't even be attempted as ignoring anyone is not the way to go. That is exactly why we have people arguing on here, on RM, on VB and on FF.

 

Far be from me to tell you how to suck eggs of course....

 

Frankie,

 

I dip in and out as much as I can and try to keep on top of things on-line as best as my job allows. Only a fool wouldn't know that chucking 40 (arguably "mischievous") questions into a running debate will grind the conversation to a halt. If people are disappointed by that then I apologise for my part in it but I don't feel that I shoulder the blame alone.

[Frankie 8,665]

Morning Frankie,

 

Sending public, warm signals to a potential overseas bidder (the only bidder) who has not yet appeared does no harm whatsoever - this was definitely not an error and has no negative consequences that I know of.

 

 

Morning - I'll separate your post into two replies as they're two rather different subjects.

 

Firstly, I don't think it was a warm public signal. I think it was a premature attempt to get in bed with someone who had offered nothing to accommodate such support at this stage. Yes, the situation is somewhat desperate but that only means we should be more measured in our decision-making. Had the RST membership backed their organisation backing the King bid?

 

I agree not all that much harm was done but some people I spoken with do think the RST appeared too eager to jump on the first bus to come along without considering other options available. Other options are still available is my understanding.

 

Do the Trust publicly back every potential buyer? Surely you need to know more before doing so?

[maineflyer 0]

Frankie,

 

I dip in and out as much as I can and try to keep on top of things on-line as best as my job allows. Only a fool wouldn't know that chucking 40 (arguably "mischievous") questions into a running debate will grind the conversation to a halt. If people are disappointed by that then I apologise for my part in it but I don't feel that I shoulder the blame alone.

It will if they're not answered - how much time has there now been to do so. Surely it can't be so difficult.

[Union City Blue 0]

Morning - I'll separate your post into two replies as they're two rather different subjects.

 

Firstly, I don't think it was a warm public signal. I think it was a premature attempt to get in bed with someone who had offered nothing to accommodate such support at this stage. Yes, the situation is somewhat desperate but that only means we should be more measured in our decision-making. Had the RST membership backed their organisation backing the King bid?

 

I agree not all that much harm was done but some people I spoken with do think the RST appeared too eager to jump on the first bus to come along without considering other options available. Other options are still available is my understanding.

 

Do the Trust publicly back every potential buyer? Surely you need to know more before doing so?

 

We'll agree to differ on what it was then. As I see it was a probably-harmless 'signal', and definitely not a committment to ultimately 'back' so no, the RST membership was not consulted. I guess we'd take each case as it comes.

[Frankie 8,665]

Morning Frankie,

 

As you know, I have no truck with inter-forum squabbles and it saddens me when I see people indulging. However, I have to accept that it happens on FF and is indirectly aimed at RM and that it also happens on RM and is directed at FF. It also happens here and elsewhere, and is mainly directed at FF.

 

The number of participants is tiny and it is obvious to anyone that there is a barely-hidden undercurrent of emotion influencing what comes out of the keyboard. People can say what the hell they like on the internet because they are generally unaccountable. There is actually so much rubbish and ill-informed hearsay being written that it is not even possible to counter it most of the time. Even justified criticism gets lost in amongst unneccessary tripe. What can I say?

 

More broadly, I think what has changed is the position of Rangers FC. The club is at or close to a real and tangible tipping point and 17-point plans, STS and WDB are what they are. None of them have achieved anything of any note, yet good ideas remain within and can hopefully be resurrected in a more positive climate another day.

 

The bottom line is that what's changed is the position of Rangers FC and I think a lot of people have woken up to the genuine peril. That in itself dictates that people should consider moving into a new place. For some, the conditions may not yet be right or there is too much water under the bridge or a middle ground hasn't been found yet. That is depressing but I assume people will change positions if they are able and when they're ready to (or not).

 

Everybody dragging everyone else backwards when the clock is ticking will be counter-productive to Rangers FC IMHO. We are where we are. It may be of little consequence to some, but at least the unity between the RST, Assembly and Association is a start and hopefully we can build from there. We really need to.

 

I can't possibly get involved in justifying or necessarily explaining past decisions when I wasn't involved - they may have been right, they may have been wrong, they may have been neither or both. Again, what else can I say? Honestly mate, I'm not going back there and if it slows us all down I will be very upset indeed.

 

The number of participants is small but these people are opinion-formers to coin a phrase. As such, their input is important and others will take note of it - even in an offline sense.

 

I also appreciate your relatively new position means you're not party to what decisions were made for what reasons before. However, you do know they happened and so you must appreciate that some people (again not me) find the sudden call for unity somewhat galling and hypocritical. That may mean emotion is prevalent is posts but that doesn't mean these posts are null and void.

 

There are still concerns and questions about the overall dynamic - not just in a personality sense either. The reluctance to answer these coupled with the subsequent tedious insults elsewhere isn't helping expedite the process.

 

In saying that, I'd much rather look forward than back so am happy to leave some of those and the petty accusations/personal tripe in the past.

 

So, what next? Let's move forward.

[Union City Blue 0]

The number of participants is small but these people are opinion-formers to coin a phrase. As such, their input is important and others will take note of it - even in an offline sense.

 

I also appreciate your relatively new position means you're not party to what decisions were made for what reasons before. However, you do know they happened and so you must appreciate that some people (again not me) find the sudden call for unity somewhat galling and hypocritical. That may mean emotion is prevalent is posts but that doesn't mean these posts are null and void.

 

There are still concerns and questions about the overall dynamic - not just in a personality sense either. The reluctance to answer these coupled with the subsequent tedious insults elsewhere isn't helping expedite the process.

 

In saying that, I'd much rather look forward than back so am happy to leave some of those and the petty accusations/personal tripe in the past.

 

So, what next? Let's move forward.

 

I honestly do appreciate all of these things Frankie and the whole unity issue has been discussed extensively and directly over the last 2-3 days. I do hope we can find ways forward.

[Frankie 8,665]

We'll agree to differ on what it was then. As I see it was a probably-harmless 'signal', and definitely not a committment to ultimately 'back' so no, the RST membership was not consulted. I guess we'd take each case as it comes.

 

"Having held fire for a number of weeks the crisis has reached such a pitch that the three organisations felt the need to publicly thrown their weight behind the King bid and give clear leadership to the Rangers Family."

 

I didn't read that 'pre-statement' statement on the Trust/Assembly/Association websites - only on FF - so perhaps it was flawed but that seems like a clear commitment to me.

 

If I was a Trust member, I'd be rather annoyed by that statement without clear details of why that commitment was agreed being made available to me - which didn't happen as far as I know.

 

I'd also be asking what had changed now and how the board were going to act on hearing about any new bids.

[Union City Blue 0]

You can file it where you want.

 

made me laugh anyway....