RST - we can't go on like this

[Union City Blue 0]

There's something faintly ridiculous about that question .... but not surprising since it encapsulates the essence of what the RST has always misunderstood.

 

UCB, you chose to accept an invitation to be co-opted on to the board of the RST. Presumably no one forced this upon you. In my world it would be reasonable to think you took this conscious decision with a purpose in mind and since you first appeared over our horizon, some of us have encouraged you to reveal what you believed that purpose to be. So far you've offered observations on collective responsibility, semantics about aims and objectives, and you have continually sought opinion from others as to what you should do.

 

Here's my take on it. If you didn't know what you meant to achieve when you joined the RST and if you still don't know how you will address the issues arising since your elevation then I would start questioning why you're there at all. I don't mean this to be antagonistic but it's hard to draw many other conclusions. You're obviously well respected on this website and many established members afford you a great deal more courtesy than is generally the case. I believe they do this because they wish to maintain influence and access to an RST that is otherwise closed to them. In return it might be useful if you were to tell us/them what you intend to do, rather than simply asking for advice.

 

I'd just like to add that there is no need to be in the dark about the resignations issue just because it didn't happen yesterday. Frankie was intimately involved - you know that - why not get in touch, talk privately, I'm sure he has all the information you could possibly need.

 

Oh dear.

 

It was mainly a rhetorical question mainflyer, as you probably know - which is probably why you didn't answer it.

 

I'm sorry but I'm not here to promote my personal contribution to the RST, nor explain it. I'm not an attention seeker nor a walking ego so, in public, this is a non-issue for me. It's a shame that you see me in the way you do, but you have your own mind and I won't lose any sleep over it.

 

If people are courteous to me because they wish to have some kind of "influence", then so be it. I must admit I thought people were being decent because they are decent people, but I'll watch out for that now so thanks for the tip. Frankie can explain about the past all he likes - in fact he already has privately to some extent, as have others. I've heard 'both sides' and have also spoken to neutral people who have spoken to people on 'both sides', so I have a reasonably broad picture - broader than you and many others I imagine. The ever-helpful 'boss' chap has just posted some information too, I see. Very interesting it is, although it lacks one crucial thing; balance.

 

Having said all that, I'm moving on. There is nothing to be gained by discussing this any more. I wasn't there, I've heard the tales, it was 18 months ago, times have changed, new things are happening, so what else can I add? That's about 250 words and 10 minutes of my life wasted, so I won't be doing that again.

 

I know that won't satisfy you but sometimes you can't please everybody. I'm not going to be dragged back there no matter how hard you try.

[OnlyOneAmoruso 0]

Maineflyer appears to be asking questions of myself and UCB, relative newcomers to the Trust and with different degrees of relevance within it with regards to things that happened 18 months ago.

 

Why, I'm not so sure, neither of us were there and as UCB says, we only know the information we have been told from various different angles and viewpoints.

 

Perhaps it would be more pertinent for maineflyer to address Trust members who were actually involved if he seeks these answers so desperately?

Edited December 3, 2009 by OnlyOneAmoruso

[maineflyer 0]

Maineflyer appears to be asking questions of myself and UCB, relative newcomers to the Trust and with different degrees of relevance within it with regards to things that happened 18 months ago.

 

Why, I'm not so sure, neither of us were there and as UCB says, we only know the information we have been told from various different angles and viewpoints.

 

Perhaps it would be more pertinent for maineflyer to address Trust members who were actually involved?

 

Oh I tried that for years with no luck either. Mind you, if I were a board member of the RST I think I would have made myself abundantly aware of the circumstances around the most profound event of it's short history. What is this anyway, a plea for clemency?

 

Ignorantia juris non excusat.

[Bluedell 5,601]

The bottom line is that there were faults on both "sides" of the split of the RST and anyone who knows all the details and doesn't accept that isn't being objective (at best).

 

The on-going spat is similar. Yes, Boss should not have had his dig, but likewise there should not have been the undignified and unprofessional responses from at least 3 current board members, who need to remember that they are in positions of responsibility, particularly at the moment when the image of the RST is important. Further sniping isn't doing any good.

 

I've certainly answered PMs and given unsolicited advice to more than one current board member and am happy to carry on doing so if anyone on the Trust board feels that my views would be helpful in any way.

 

Hopefully going forward, people who are questioning the RST can do it in a constructive manner, and those on the board can realise that they have put themselves in a position to be shot at and that constructive criticism or questions does not mean that those putting forward these points are not also wanting what is best for the club, and that these points are not valid ones even if they are difficult to answer.

[Frankie 8,529]

Great post Bluedell - in complete agreement with it.

[OnlyOneAmoruso 0]

The bottom line is that there were faults on both "sides" of the split of the RST and anyone who knows all the details and doesn't accept that isn't being objective (at best).

 

The on-going spat is similar. Yes, Boss should not have had his dig, but likewise there should not have been the undignified and unprofessional responses from at least 3 current board members, who need to remember that they are in positions of responsibility, particularly at the moment when the image of the RST is important. Further sniping isn't doing any good.

 

I've certainly answered PMs and given unsolicited advice to more than one current board member and am happy to carry on doing so if anyone on the Trust board feels that my views would be helpful in any way.

 

Hopefully going forward, people who are questioning the RST can do it in a constructive manner, and those on the board can realise that they have put themselves in a position to be shot at and that constructive criticism or questions does not mean that those putting forward these points are not also wanting what is best for the club, and that these points are not valid ones even if they are difficult to answer.

 

 

Excellent post Bluedell. As you say, mistakes have been made and no-one is perfect. I don't think anyone would ever claim to be.

 

Criticism should be welcomed and taken on board, I don't doubt it is. It's how the Trust will continue to grow and hopefully make an impact in the potentially exciting times we find ourselves coming into.

[maineflyer 0]

Fine words. However, the RST declined from just under 4000 members to nearer 1000 over the space of about three years. For an organisation where influence comes directly from it's constituency, I'm not sure I'd so glibly describe that as "continuing to grow". Strange how the truth is still so elusive.

 

It's a little like UCB now finding his questions rather less necessary and confiding to having a broaderpicture of the resignation issue than expected, drawn out of at least partial consultation with some of those involved on both sides. But whatever that knowledge amounts to it's not being shared apparently, by anyone. This doesn't apply to me now of course that the RST refunded my life membership rather than have me justified in debating membership numbers, but I'm aware there are current RST members who would very much like to know what their elected representatives have been up to. Mind you, I'm not sure just how many of the current outfit have actually been elected by anyone.

[pete 2,499]

I can assure you that there will be no "guaranteed places" for people in supporters groups on the board of Rangers FC. If people are concerned about that, then I hope this clears it up. I speak only for the Trust, but we'd want the best CEO, the best FD, the best Operations Manager, and the best Team Manager etc. the club could attract. Definitely.

 

If the initial structure lends itself to fans rep's (i.e. some grass roots, not just money) being on the board then any Rangers fan should be able to stand (or fall) in a free and open members' election. That includes current RST Board members, the Euro-neds, and Gersnet posters. I know this sounds ridiculous, but I would argue that even maineflyer could stand. Well maybe that's stretching it a bit but in my ideal world, anybody can stand and I certainly hope that's the case.

 

The OMOV issue tortures everyone it seems (apart from the people with the big money). I think we need to be grown-up about things and accept that if you are going to put in �£1m or �£1k then you might get a different say from the next guy who puts in a tenner. Where to draw the lines is the issue, with the added concern that money = power once again. This is just a personal opinion but I see the ownership of Rangers by fans as a process and I'll be happy to secure as much as possible if the first stage is meaningful and the next stage, in principal, is more.

 

It's well known that rich guys dont necessarily get rich by being nice guys at the same time, so the issue of wealthy people being inclined to share power is sensitive & absolutely crucial. That is why diplomacy and co-operation is required at certain stages and why mischief-making is unhelpful at certain times.

 

What worries me with your statement, and i have no knowledge of what actually went on, is that a handful of people could force a large number of the RST board members to step down and stay in power without calling for a vote of non-confidence. Then the said members stay in control of the RST without putting it to a vote. As i say i don't know what went on but this is the message i have envisaged. This gives me little confidence to put people in power who have got there through dictator antics. As i say this is looking from the outside in.

 

You said you did not know what i meant UCB in answer to the post above. The fact that it was over the resignations has now been further discussed. To further explain is the fact you stated

" I can assure you that there will be no "guaranteed places" for people in supporters groups on the board of Rangers FC."

I am sure before the resignations, i would have had the same assurances from the people who resigned. The fact is people tend to have a modus operandi and to trust anyone who has grabbed power by gaining support in the shadows worries me a lot. Enough to say you can assure me what you want but you only live in hope that lightning can't strike twice in the same place. Unfortunately Lightning can strike twice in the same place and that makes it hard for me to trust the people running the show at the RST.

As i said i have never been a member, but the fact that so many members resigned their membership should have made the new board look for a vote of confidence before they warmed their bums in the boardroom.

[Union City Blue 0]

You said you did not know what i meant UCB in answer to the post above. The fact that it was over the resignations has now been further discussed. To further explain is the fact you stated

I am sure before the resignations, i would have had the same assurances from the people who resigned. The fact is people tend to have a modus operandi and to trust anyone who has grabbed power by gaining support in the shadows worries me a lot. Enough to say you can assure me what you want but you only live in hope that lightning can't strike twice in the same place. Unfortunately Lightning can strike twice in the same place and that makes it hard for me to trust the people running the show at the RST.

As i said i have never been a member, but the fact that so many members resigned their membership should have made the new board look for a vote of confidence before they warmed their bums in the boardroom.

 

Thanks for clarifying, Pete.

 

Not sure what else I can say or how much clearer I can be. Only time will tell, so I accept that and move on.

[pete 2,499]

Thanks for clarifying, Pete.

 

Not sure what else I can say or how much clearer I can be. Only time will tell, so I accept that and move on.

 

I can only give my opinion and that is what i have read on the press reports above and that the RST have nose dived in popularity : David Murray and the Rangers board didn't want to work with Mark Dingwall. Will a new board think any different? As i have read the biggest hurdle in uniting the fans is Mark Dingwall. If i was him and i wanted the best for Rangers and the best way to unite the fans then i would step down and free the way for people who can take us forward. Personally i don't think he will because i feel he is driven by self-success. I don't know the man i am just looking at the best way to get the fans united behind this cause.