Apologies, 3 Points and Parties

[pete 2,499]

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.

 

Cheers mate. And i like your name for what it is worth but that is another story.

[maineflyer 0]

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.

 

It's a pity then that you stayed silent for so long..... and the term chinese whispers doesn't come close to doing it justice. The absurdity of two of our longest-standing members falling squarely behind and even advocating the merits of secrecy is beyond humour. I have to say I find it most telling that they present opinions and conclusions in place of evidence and seem unusually motivated to ensure those involved feel no obligation to share facts. Why so? What's to gain from it?

 

Every bit of the ludicrous politiking that has screwed up supporter representation at this club has come from this willingness to tolerate secrecy and to guard information like a treasure. To argue about where the "right" in this lies is farcical, this isn't a court of law and there's no obvious need to adopt such a defensive posture even if it was. It's not about a "right" to secrecy, any more than it's about a "right" to knowledge. How stupendously misguided do you have to be to put some kind of assumed "right" of individuals in front of the wider good of the club?

 

To the best of my knowledge, the origin of chinese whispers lies in the artificiality of the chinese walls we put up around ourselves and by far the best way to remove the whicspers is simply to remove those walls.

 

As for maineflyersworstnightmare ........... can I change my username too.

[maineflyer 0]

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.

 

And until these issues are finally dealt with, we'll still have accusations like "gang of seven" thrown around like we've see this week and there will be no resolution to anything.

 

Change means actually doing something different.

[Zappa 0]

I believe that this was the full statement regarding the RST resignations -

 

Statement From RST Resigned Board Members

Written by Administrator

 

This statement is from the seven of us noted below who have recently resigned from executive positions on the RST board.

 

Background

 

Due to the unsuitability of the date of the RST Special General Meeting it is appropriate to make public this statement as we consider the RST members deserve an explanation of recent events.

 

We all continue to believe in the aims, principles and constitution of the RST. Despite strong and unnecessary provocation we do not wish to become embroiled in personal issues about individual board members.

 

Following negative actions by certain factions within the remaining board, together with serious differences of opinion with regard to strategy, we each, individually, and at appropriate times to affect an orderly handover, took the decision to resign.

 

 

Board split

 

We had been aware of a recent lack of support from certain sections of the board but felt this could be properly addressed during the close season. Unfortunately, because of the continual negative actions detailed below, it was evident such a split was incapable of being fixed.

 

Examples of this lack of support include: leaking information to individuals and websites; negative political behind-the-scenes briefings involving members of this faction; non-completion of action points in reasonable time-frames; and the formation of a ââ?¬Ë?Special Tasks and Purposes Disciplinary Committeeââ?¬â?¢ (see Note A) to unnecessarily control and restrict the work of some board members.

 

The Chairman and Vice-chairman resigned as both understandably felt they no longer had the trust and support of the majority of their peers. Subsequently five more key board members resigned in a short period underlining the problem of the serious split in the board.

 

Further issues which have occurred after the initial two resignations include: attempts to release incorrect information when addressing the resignations of their former colleagues; dismissing and denigrating the efforts of the resigned members; and a disgracefully abusive text message received by one of us.

 

We have documented and commented upon the issues regarding the split in the board however the remaining board members have failed to release this disappointing but serious information to the membership. To ensure clarity, we urge them to provide this statement to the membership at the SGM and to include it within the minutes for those unable to attend.

 

 

Future RST Strategy

 

Recently it has been obvious that one aspect of the board split was down to differences of opinion in the direction of the Trust.

 

The three year chairmanship of Malcolm McNiven brought significant success in a number of key areas: the fact the club were about to offer the RST a directorship; acceptance within the wider fan base, business community and media; the formation of the innovative ââ?¬Ë?GerSaveââ?¬â?¢ scheme; record fundraising amounts; and steadily increasing membership. Maintaining a positive relationship with the club, and Sir David Murray in particular, did not preclude constructive criticism of the club where necessary, which was still apparent and ongoing.

 

Despite these achievements, many of the remaining board preferred a more ââ?¬Ë?militantââ?¬â?¢ direction, a policy which had shown little success or wider appeal in the early years of the Trust. We believe that such a strategy is divisive, unconstitutional, and will not benefit the membership or the Trust.

 

With the offer of a directorship now gone and club relations very poor, we believe this regression by the Trust is incompatible with our own ideals.

 

 

Conclusion

 

We know the Trust was extremely close to achieving genuine and sustained success which would have benefitted all supporters for generations to come. We lament that our efforts now appear to have been in vain due to the premature, overly aggressive, and controlling actions of a small faction.

 

We trust the membership uses this statement to ensure the problems above are openly addressed and the RST moves forwards and not backwards.

 

 

With sincere disappointment,

 

Malcolm McNiven (Former Chairman)

Scott McMillan (Former Vice-chairman)

David Tweed (RST Co-founder, NARSA Officer, and former Vice-chairman)

Derek Howie (Former Secretary)

Callum Renton (Former Treasurer)

Stewart Franklin (Former Webmaster)

Andrew McGowan (Former Marketing Officer)

 

* Note A - Formation of a ââ?¬Ë?Special Tasks and Purposes Disciplinary Committeeââ?¬â?¢

 

This bizarre committee was formed in May 2008 and as of mid-June the personnel and remit had yet to be detailed by the proposer despite the obvious negative effects it has had on recent events.

 

At the 2007 RST AGM it was unanimously agreed that the board should pursue a strategy of obtaining a place on the board of the club following Sir David Murray�s concession that such a position would become available. The following period brought much dialogue between the RST and the club regarding such an appointment. The sensitive and confidential nature of these discussions, including the legal implications of access to price-sensitive information, prevented the Trust from making public comment on these negotiations. Furthermore, as there was, and remains, at least one leak on the RST board some information obtained in discussions with the club could not be relayed back to the full board.

 

In early May 2008, it was suggested by the club that a position would be offered to Malcolm McNiven who would communicate the details in person to the rest of the board, and a board meeting was arranged primarily for this purpose. Unavoidable work-related issues meant that both the Chairman and the Vice-chairman had to call off, rendering the principal business of the meeting redundant and the venue unavailable. Other board members holding executive positions could not attend and requested the meeting be re-arranged.

 

Nevertheless, the meeting went ahead with ten (out of 19) board members in attendance at another venue. What followed was essentially a coup dââ?¬â?¢Ã?©tat to ensure the control and/or removal of the senior office holders by the faction detailed above. A same-day addition to the Agenda by one of those in attendance proposed the formation of a ââ?¬Ë?Special Tasks and Purposes Disciplinary Committeeââ?¬â?¢, and it was suggested that four members be appointed all of whom presently remain on the board. Despite the expressed concerns of two board members that the formation of such a committee would result in resignations and serious problems thereafter, the proposal was passed by a majority of 8-2. The reason given for this committee was to install a process of control and accountability over RST board membersââ?¬â?¢ meetings with outside bodies and individuals. However, this did not extend to all members, with certain external relationships given dispensation.

 

We believe the committee was specifically conceived with the RST�s meetings with the club in mind. This was symptomatic of a direct lack of trust in Malcolm McNiven and Scott McMillan who participated in these meetings, and whose resignations thereafter were inevitable.

[Zappa 0]

And here is the link to the statement - http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=7628

Edited December 6, 2009 by Bluedell
Linking to this site rather than another

[Frankie 8,674]

Sorry but that's being as evasive as any currently at the RST. Much was indeed said but almost nothing was ever clarified. Here we have no shortage of fans discussing an event that virtually none of them know anything about.

 

I think your assessment above is entirely wrong and I really don't understand why you are being so coy about those events. Either they happened or they didn't. If they happened then either they are relevant to \Rangers fans or they are not. If they are then why would anyone want to deny supporters a definitive picture?

 

I'm really not sure what you want me to say?

 

The 7 lads who resigned last year released a full statement on why we felt we needed to resign (Zappa has posted it above). There were full debates on it afterwards on here and other forums about this (if IIRC, the one on RM was particularly interesting). From that it was up to the individual Rangers supporter (Trust member or not) to decide who they believed as what one had was basically two alternative viewpoints on the events behind the scenes.

 

If you, or anyone else, has any further questions then I'd be happy to answer them as I've absolutely nothing to hide. However, I don't really think the answers would prove all that useful in the current climate and I certainly don't fancy reading more of the nonsense I did this time last week as the same situation as when we resigned still stands now: i.e. two different sides to a story none of us can really prove with any sort of facts.

[Frankie 8,674]

Disagree totally Craig the people who made the action should clarify their motives. The people on the RST board are sitting pretty, why in gods-name will they come out say they were wrong. I don't want to put any pressure on Frankie but i feel this action has split the RST and i feel the seven should now stand up again and name the problems and say what it would take for them to get back on board and pull the support together. Yes this could backfire but when David Murray offered a place on the board to one of these people and a reputed 2-4000 people resigned their membership(assumption not knowledge) then they must have been doing something right. The seven and the RST have to get together and look for a way forward. Out of sight is not always out of mind.

 

I will also add i have never been a member of the trust so i really have no right to speak.

 

We stated very clearly at the time why we resigned.

 

Since that time, as you know, I led a new project called STS and asked the Trust to get involved by email (a few of the resigned people also contributed). That tells you that I was more than prepared to leave the past in the past in order to achieve the aims I felt I still shared with the organisation.

 

I was ignored.

 

Since I resigned I've been referred to as 'spineless', 'stupid', 'jealous' and out to 'trash the trust' as part of a 'gang of 7' by senior RST Board members because I've done what any Rangers fan and interested RST observer/supporter would do and ask relevant questions and constructively criticise the organisation when necessary.

 

This has all happened while I've also helped the organisation behind the scenes with a few small issues and defended them strongly when they've been criticised unfairly across the community. I've also never been personal with anyone despite the strongest of provocations.

 

As such, I'll again let the casual neutral decide who wants to heal any rifts and who doesn't.

[rbr 1,270]

The fact is we are where we are and nothing will or can change the past , whilst I agree with maineflyer in that until we get a full expanation on why the current RST board took the decisions they did especially with regards " the special tasks and disciplinary committee " we will forever hold the current incumbents with suspicion , well I will anyway .

 

However nothing that anyone says on here will effect any change amongst the present RST board so best let sleeping dogs lie . More pertinant is how they conduct themselves in the present and the members such as UCB and oneamoruso help restore faith to a certain degree though I still do not fully understand where MD thinks he is going or if he expects to use the RST as a means to an end , only time will tell .

[rbr 1,270]

We stated very clearly at the time why we resigned.

 

Since that time, as you know, I led a new project called STS and asked the Trust to get involved by email (a few of the resigned people also contributed). That tells you that I was more than prepared to leave the past in the past in order to achieve the aims I felt I still shared with the organisation.

 

I was ignored.

 

Since I resigned I've been referred to as 'spineless', 'stupid', 'jealous' and out to 'trash the trust' as part of a 'gang of 7' by senior RST Board members because I've done what any Rangers fan and interested RST observer/supporter would do and ask relevant questions and constructively criticise the organisation when necessary.

 

This has all happened while I've also helped the organisation behind the scenes with a few small issues and defended them strongly when they've been criticised unfairly across the community. I've also never been personal with anyone despite the strongest of provocations.

 

As such, I'll again let the casual neutral decide who wants to heal any rifts and who doesn't.

 

 

Frankie what they are doing is what all amangement now do , when asked questions they cannot answer they turn the tables and answer back with a question back making you out to be negative or any other decription you choose to make as long as it is anti them , my company actually send management on courses on how to do this , it's no wonder no one flies from Glasgow anymore oops

[Frankie 8,674]

Pete, if i remember correctly, they weren't able to resign together so it's unlikely they'll be any more able or willing to act together now. No one is asking any of them to "come out" , simply to let the truth out. How hard can that be? I'm not interested in their split being repaired, simply that someone, somewhere realises that in order to represent Rangers fans you first have to have a conviction of honesty and integrity - and an occasional inclination to put those fans before personal issues.

 

Maybe this is what they're missing.........

 

 

 

My moral compass is perfectly fine thanks. I'll also thank you not to question my honesty and integrity so flippantly.

 

I'm completely comfortable with the way myself (and my resigned colleagues) conduced ourselves last spring and felt we said more than enough for people to make up their own minds on what happened.

 

Going over it again (IMO) is only going to reopen old wounds (healed for some but not others unfortunately) and it certainly won't help anyone but those who yearn for some kind of gruesome, public surgery of an injury received 18 months past.

 

The Rangers Supporters Trust remains an organisation open to anyone who is interested in it and a few posts on an internet forum will do little to change its aims, directions and strategy over the coming months with regard to anything - never mind the ownership policy.

 

Ergo, instead of going over old battles, why not do something more constructive and challenge the organisation properly to ensure the job is done properly. May or may not work but it will be more successful than discussing an event that is consigned to history.