Apologies, 3 Points and Parties

[bmck 117]

The main 'bone of contention' was with one agenda item which was the formation of a Special Tasks and Purposes Committee. People interpreted this in different ways and ultimately led to the resignation of the Chairman, followed by 6 others. At this point the facts become opinions. Some thought it was an attempt to undermine the Chairman, others saw it as merely trying to make sure that the RST operated within its' rules and kept it's focus.

 

I have no wish to slag off anyone who resigned but I am unwilling for those who remained to constantly be portrayed as the bad guys in all this.

 

I dont think they are being portrayed as the bad guys. Using your own words, at the point where facts become opinions, the people who saw it as an attempt to undermine the chairman think of it as a coup, whereas yourself, presumably, and others who also post here and whose opinions get a fair hearing, saw it as an opportunity to ensure the trust kept within its rules. The reason you will find the former being more widely discussed is because they came out and said it, wheras the latter, like yourself until now, kept quiet about it. Chinese whispers only exist when people, for whatever reason, decide not to speak clearly for everyone to hear. All the whys etc are the debate we are having. Glad you made your first post, and if you want your username changed we can sort that for you

[pete 2,499]

Talk about Chinese Whispers. I've been a member of this forum since November 2006 and this is my first post. One of the main reasons is that I'm pretty embarrassed by my username but I simply can't let this go.

 

Firstly, the meeting to which you refer was a scheduled Board meeting with a full agenda, although the main purpose was to hear from the then Chairman on progress on negotiations with the Club on the Associate Director positions that were going to be offered to him and also the then Assembly President. An e-mail was sent out around 2.30 pm (might have been a bit earlier or a bit later) asking to cancel the meeting as the Chairman had auditors in and couldn't get away. At this point one of the Board members was on route from the Midlands specifically to attend the meeting. Board members were given the option on whether or not to attend, some did, some didn't. Five of the people who subsequently resigned didn't attend the meeting.

 

The directorship was only one thing discussed at the meeting. Others included a matchday experience report, the Assembly, Supporters Direct, Gersave, development of Ibrox, billboard advertising, the Dublin Loyal banner, membership, communication, Manchester, NARSA and RSCs.

 

 

I'm not on here to defend Mark Dingwall but he has never been an office bearer of the Trust nor has he ever put himself forward as a potential fans representative on the Rangers Board, he simply doesn't have the right credentials for such an office and he is fully aware of this.

 

Everything I have stated is fact.

 

The main 'bone of contention' was with one agenda item which was the formation of a Special Tasks and Purposes Committee. People interpreted this in different ways and ultimately led to the resignation of the Chairman, followed by 6 others. At this point the facts become opinions. Some thought it was an attempt to undermine the Chairman, others saw it as merely trying to make sure that the RST operated within its' rules and kept it's focus.

 

I have no wish to slag off anyone who resigned but I am unwilling for those who remained to constantly be portrayed as the bad guys in all this.

 

 

Thanks for the post mate, that certainly opens up the issue for more debate and another insight to what went on.

My thoughts on this though are that to have a mass resignation then something must have been wrong anyway. If this was a one of then everyone would have accepted the meeting was unfortunately nullified and a new date would have been made

PM me a new name and i will see that it is changed for you. Pleas don't wait another three years to post.

[plgsarmy 111]

I dont think they are being portrayed as the bad guys. Using your own words, at the point where facts become opinions, the people who saw it as an attempt to undermine the chairman think of it as a coup, whereas yourself, presumably, and others who also post here and whose opinions get a fair hearing, saw it as an opportunity to ensure the trust kept within its rules. The reason you will find the former being more widely discussed is because they came out and said it, wheras the latter, like yourself until now, kept quiet about it. Chinese whispers only exist when people, for whatever reason, decide not to speak clearly for everyone to hear. All the whys etc are the debate we are having. Glad you made your first post, and if you want your username changed we can sort that for you

 

Yes we did keep quiet. Much of it was discussed at the Special General Meeting we held at the time. I think many felt it would be inappropriate to get into a public slanging match with our ex-colleagues so we kept silent, perhaps in hindsight that was wrong. I believe that the Board were all behind Malcolm but many of us were worried because the whole directorship thing was dragging out, given that we were told in January that it was going to the next RFC Board meeting for ratification and we were in May and things hadn't progressed. In addition, the then vice-chairman had sent out an e-mail in April stating that in his opinion we shouldn't even accept the directorship. Jim Templeton's subsequent resignation from the Assembly probably says a lot about this too. There was a lot of frustration around at the time, especially as we had tried to stop openly criticising the regime in public, even when many of us thought it was justified. Far from being a coup, the resignations shocked the remaining Board members.

 

As for my username, what about Fans Reunited.:spl:

[craig 5,199]

Fans Reunited would be great... dont hold your breath though Waltersarmy

[plgsarmy 111]

Fans Reunited would be great... dont hold your breath though Waltersarmy

 

 

Perhaps maineflyersworstnightmare would be better.

[craig 5,199]

Perhaps maineflyersworstnightmare would be better.

 

Our very own maineflyer's reputation precedes him, surely not ? :devil:

[pete 2,499]

I think if you look at the accounts of the Trust you will find that the most taken in subscriptions in any one year is circa �£18K.

 

Sorry PLG i have never been a member of the trust or any other organisation so i have no idea what the subscription is or the membership. What i do want is that all the flogged horses are now brought out in the open and we as Rangers supporters can march as one unit to our goal. It is in the new young managers bible. Transparency rules the world.

[plgsarmy 111]

Thanks for the post mate, that certainly opens up the issue for more debate and another insight to what went on.

My thoughts on this though are that to have a mass resignation then something must have been wrong anyway. If this was a one of then everyone would have accepted the meeting was unfortunately nullified and a new date would have been made

PM me a new name and i will see that it is changed for you. Pleas don't wait another three years to post.

 

I think there probably were things wrong to be honest. The main problem probably being that the Chairman resigned the very next morning. The vice-chairman resigned a week later. There was never a 'clear the air' meeting suggested by anyone. Anyway, it's too late to go into this tonight, I'll be back on tomorrow to answer questions. I do not want this to drag on and would prefer to stick to the task in hand but I can't sit back and read things that are simply not true.

[plgsarmy 111]

Sorry PLG i have never been a member of the trust or any other organisation so i have no idea what the subscription is or the membership. What i do want is that all the flogged horses are now brought out in the open and we as Rangers supporters can march as one unit to our goal. It is in the new young managers bible. Transparency rules the world.

 

Pete,

 

I am only saying this because I have read numerous posts referring to membership going from 4000 to 1000, 2000-3000 resigning from the Trust. It's simply not true, since Year 1 we have struggled to retain members and I'll give you an explanation for that tomorrow but I'm getting tired now.

[pete 2,499]

I think there probably were things wrong to be honest. The main problem probably being that the Chairman resigned the very next morning. The vice-chairman resigned a week later. There was never a 'clear the air' meeting suggested by anyone. Anyway, it's too late to go into this tonight, I'll be back on tomorrow to answer questions. I do not want this to drag on and would prefer to stick to the task in hand but I can't sit back and read things that are simply not true.

 

I am glad now this has opened up but to be honest, speaking on a forum can do nothing to rectify matters. I would ask the people on the board at that time to rectify matters and find a mutual ground to support each other.Until these problems are out of the way we can never be united.