Latest News - David Edgar RST

[Frankie 8,562]

EB:

 

I think you'll find craig is one of the milder critics of the Trust to be honest.

 

Sure, perhaps the criticism of SS's comments about this journalist are unimportant in the grand scheme of things but we're all entitled to our opinion.

 

There are far more interesting criticisms which are more relevant and which we don't see answered. Perhaps if these were answered more openly, we could all move forward a bit more constructively.

 

But I agree, people need to avoid complaining about every singly little thing as that will put the Trust on the defensive.

[craig 5,199]

Craig. Be honest here. It doesn't matter HOW he worded it. You would still have had a go at him.

 

Absolutely NOT true. Many of the statements I have seen from the RST in the past have done nothing but convince me that they were the RIGHT voice of Rangers. As I have said before, I was so impressed with some of the statements coming out of the RST that I paid for people here to become members. I am still a life member myself.

 

Had the RST (not just Stephen Smith because although the statement was attributed to him he is acting on behalf of the Trust) left that simple one-liner out then I would have had no problem with the statement itself. I just prefer for us to rise above the pettiness of it. That single line is school playground prose IMO.

 

So, no, if it was worded without that particular reference then I wouldn't have had a go.

 

You've an axe to grind with the RST that's obvious. But, again being honest, who's appearing petty ?

 

Again, you are wrong. I have no axe to grind with the RST. Tell me what axe I have to grind. I was a strong supporter of the Trust when I joined because of all the good that happened. I am disappointed that the wheels fell off when we were looking at fan representation on the board and mostly because it appeared from my viewpoint that much of the reason the wheels fell off was due to personal agenda. If I am wrong I am happy to apologise but nothing I have heard or read since would convince me it is. Would be nice to just know, but we would be flogging a dead horse again.

 

People asking pertinent, relevant questions of those that represent you is not having an axe to grind. It is called trying to be armed with full information in what will undoubtedly be a very major event for the club, the fans and everyone else connected with the club.

 

So no, I have no axe to grind with the Trust.

 

Sorry. I'm only back on here a few days after a long absence but it gets very tiring reading folk girning on and on about some perceived mistake the RST or their reps have made. There are far more important things for Rangers fans to be worrying about right now. If they drop a complete bollock take them to task but this one has the distinct whiff of 'petty' about it.

 

Just a shame that you have chosen to take me to task on ONE item in what was a rather more lengthy post elderslie. Take a look at the post where I referenced this statement (post number 9) and you will actually find that this comment was one small element of a larger post with other elements to it. I wasn't just taking the Trust to task on that one item, there was more in there - but by highlighting one element you make me out to be petty, which I am actually NOT trying to be.

 

Oh, and I agree, it IS tiring. And you are right in that there are far more important things for Rangers fans to worry about. But if the RST is truly to be the one organisation to assist in realising fan ownership and they are expected to convince the Rangers support at large then, rightly or wrongly, they still have to overcome the perceptions of their actions in the past (unless of course those who have issues with the Trust, valid or otherwise, are considered to be in the small minority, in which case they can ignore them).

 

My tuppence.

[elderslieblue 0]

EB:

 

I think you'll find craig is one of the milder critics of the Trust to be honest.

 

Sure, perhaps the criticism of SS's comments about this journalist are unimportant in the grand scheme of things but we're all entitled to our opinion.

 

There are far more interesting criticisms which are more relevant and which we don't see answered. Perhaps if these were answered more openly, we could all move forward a bit more constructively.

 

But I agree, people need to avoid complaining about every singly little thing as that will put the Trust on the defensive.

 

Frankie. I meant no offence to anyone [and would apologise if it were perceived that I did].

 

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the poster appeared to be having a go at someone he has a grievance against. Fair enough if there was something to attack. But there wasn't.

 

Smith is there to represent RST members. He didn't hatch out of an egg. He's a supporter himself and is saying what the majority of Rangers fans will have been wanting to hear. How he says it, doesn't matter. It's the fact he DOES say it that's important to me.

[craig 5,199]

And by the way - I am certainly not anti-RST. I am very open-minded and hope that they (or the Assembly or some other group) can achieve fan ownership and/or board representation.

 

I will, however, reserve my right to a healthy cynicism with regards to the Trust and it's board members (sorry UCB, dont mean to lump you in the bucket but it is only fair if I am cynical it is with you all) :devil:

[craig 5,199]

Frankie. I meant no offence to anyone [and would apologise if it were perceived that I did].

 

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the poster appeared to be having a go at someone he has a grievance against. Fair enough if there was something to attack. But there wasn't.

 

Edgar is there to represent RST members. He didn't hatch out of an egg. He's a supporter himself and is saying what the majority of Rangers fans will have been wanting to hear. How he says it, doesn't matter. It's the fact he DOES say it that's important to me.

 

No offence taken, likewise hopefully you werent offended by me.

 

Read my previous post(s). I do believe that I state RST because SS is acting on their behalf. If what I said was taken as a personal attack on SS then I apologise because that is NOT the intent. IMO anyone acting on behalf of the Trust is making a Trust statement and it is endorsed by all - which means I am talking about the Trust, not the individual. If it came across that way then I apologise (I think I first mentioned SS when I was quoting the actual statement).

 

I can assure you that I have absolutely no problem with SS. I have no grievance against him and, to be honest, I am appalled that it is conceived that way (not at you EB but at myself for perhaps posting in such a way that it could be seen in such a light). I have never met SS and I have always had values which teach me that unless I know someone I shouldn't judge them (Neil Lennon aside ) - I am sure that SS is a fine upstanding person and I wouldnt suggest otherwise without at least knowing of the person first. Anyone who knows me well will confirm that. It simply isnt my style.

 

Re your last paragraph - I have no doubt he is a fan (why put yourself in the firing line otherwise ?). The rest of that paragraph we will simply have to agree to disagree on. You don't care how the statement is portrayed so long as it is, whilst I prefer the dignified, professional rebuttal of people like Chick Young - I would rather castigate him from a position of integrity rather than get down into the gutter beside him. But that is just me.

[elderslieblue 0]

Craig. your quote from above: "Just a shame that you have chosen to take me to task on ONE item in what was a rather more lengthy post elderslie. Take a look at the post where I referenced this statement (post number 9) and you will actually find that this comment was one small element of a larger post with other elements to it. I wasn't just taking the Trust to task on that one item, there was more in there - but by highlighting one element you make me out to be petty, which I am actually NOT trying to be."

 

I didn't 'take you to task' from post number 9. I hadn't even read post number nine.

 

I was 'taking you to task' on having a go at S.S. for his comment when I can see nothing wrong in what he said. You wanted a 'far more dignified comment'. Why ? Young and his ilk deserve nothing from any Rangers fan and how it's said doesn't come into it.

[elderslieblue 0]

Just saw your reply above Craig.

 

As said, I'm not long back here and it will maybe take some time to catch the pace of the flow as far as the RST are concerned here.

 

I apologise if needed and hope we can debate [without misunderstandings] often in the future.

[craig 5,199]

Just saw your reply above Craig.

 

As said, I'm not long back here and it will maybe take some time to catch the pace of the flow as far as the RST are concerned here.

 

I apologise if needed and hope we can debate [without misunderstandings] often in the future.

 

No apology needed my man. Misunderstandings happen all the time. Check your PM

 

Even if perceived to be anti-Trust I like to think I am not. I only hope that they (or some other group) allow the fans to achieve what we ultimately ALL want - and that is the continued survival of our club.

[maineflyer 0]

There's no great pleasure in continually repeating the same thing but this notion of anyone being "anti-RST" really does need refuting. Some things most certainly are being criticised but not the existence of a Rangers Supporters Trust.

 

I have yet to find any Rangers supporter, posting on any message board, who has expressed hinself/herself as anti-RST. Not once. If any of those posting here know different then please show the example. Otherwise, please stop the defence of a false premise.

 

What is under scrutiny here and what I, among others, are vigorously critical of is the performance of the Trust, together with the strategy and conduct of some of its leading lights. No one wants an end to the RST - quite the opposite. We want to see an end to the dysfunctional nonsense that has hobbled its achievements, particularly during the last two year, and we want to see a RST growing in size and influence.

 

I have several times advocated that the RST should be the only body representing Rangers fans and an end to all other existing organisations. But not until it is flushed clean of the personality cult that currently drives and ruins it.

 

So please, let's all stop this shite about an "anti-RST" sentiment that simply does not exist. The RST is not Mark Dingwall or Stephen Smith and the sooner they accept that fact, the sooner the RST can start functioning again.

[OnlyOneAmoruso 0]

There's no great pleasure in continually repeating the same thing but this notion of anyone being "anti-RST" really does need refuting. Some things most certainly are being criticised but not the existence of a Rangers Supporters Trust.

 

I have yet to find any Rangers supporter, posting on any message board, who has expressed hinself/herself as anti-RST. Not once. If any of those posting here know different then please show the example. Otherwise, please stop the defence of a false premise.

 

What is under scrutiny here and what I, among others, are vigorously critical of is the performance of the Trust, together with the strategy and conduct of some of its leading lights. No one wants an end to the RST - quite the opposite. We want to see an end to the dysfunctional nonsense that has hobbled its achievements, particularly during the last two year, and we want to see a RST growing in size and influence.

 

I have several times advocated that the RST should be the only body representing Rangers fans and an end to all other existing organisations. But not until it is flushed clean of the personality cult that currently drives and ruins it.

 

So please, let's all stop this shite about an "anti-RST" sentiment that simply does not exist. The RST is not Mark Dingwall or Stephen Smith and the sooner they accept that fact, the sooner the RST can start functioning again.

 

Coming across as rather bitter for reasons unbeknown to myself.

 

Mark or Stephen certainly do not class themselves as 'The RST.'

 

I can understand why people perceive you and others to have anti RST sentiments. The reason for this is personal agendas and problems that have been encountered in the past have caused others and perhaps yourself to take a dislike for members of the board so much so that when the RST is spoken of by yourself and others its always with a negative tone. Maybe that's why people believe you to be anti-RST even though it's obvious to me you care even if you're opinions are a little bit....interesting.