bmck 117 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 That the conversation took a ridiculous turn. The vast majority of the fans >99% have no idea what happend with the RST, that was clearly a big issue. But we'll just never discuss it, fully, in truth and then pretend that everyone is trustworthy. It's a nonsense. They made a statement about why they left. Im not even sure what the trustworthy comment refers to. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 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......... I am just a wee internet poster, a person hiding behind a keyboard, who never will have a reality voice, but only the honest are honest. The dishonest normally walk away with the rewards. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 They made a statement about why they left. Im not even sure what the trustworthy comment refers to. It refers to some of the people who seized control of the RST 18 months ago. Not the guys who left. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 It refers to some of the people who seized control of the RST 18 months ago. Not the guys who left. Ah. That makes sense. Thought we were talking past each other - I wasnt clear enough in my first post at all, reading it back. The ridiculous turn Im referring to is that people who left on a matter of conscience, and made a statement about why they left, somehow have more to do to maintain their honesty and integrity than what they did. As for the trusts response of thanking those who left and electing never to talk about it; well people can make of that what they will. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 I totally agree with you if it is just a normal resignation but if these people have accepted the responsibility to represent 5000 supporters and do so for a number of years then surely when something happens that upsets the daily running of things enough for them to resign, then they also have the responsibility to explain their motives to the people who voted them on to represent them. My opinion. When you wrote this did you realise that this is precisely what the people who resigned did, or are you talking about the remaining trust members and Im missing the point again? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 When you wrote this did you realise that this is precisely what the people who resigned did, or are you talking about the remaining trust members and Im missing the point again? Sorry i have never read a real explanation about anything. I read speculation in the papers but never from the horse's mouth. Maybe i am missing something? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Craig, I'm actually quite disturbed that someone as intelligent as you could put so little store in openness and honesty. I can only assume you're taking this view on the basis of personal loyalties because it's inconceivable you actually believe what you're posting. I have no personal loyalties to anyone MF. Tell me what is inconceivable about it ? That you disagree and want to know why they left ? Serious question, what right do you have to know that ? As a member of the RST you have a right to ask the question of them. They arent obligated to tell you the truth. Of those that left you, again, have a right to ask the question of them. Again, they are not obligated to tell you anything. I didnt think it was that complex to be fair. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Disagree. I don't often agree with MF, but it's clear that the lack of clarity on such a major issue within the trust holds them back now and will do until it is resolved in public. Might not be a popular answer, but doesn't make it any less true. It also doesnt mean that either the Trust OR those who resigned have an obligation to publicise it, no matter how much we want that. Just because we want to know, doesnt mean we have a right to know. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Sorry i have never read a real explanation about anything. I read speculation in the papers but never from the horse's mouth. Maybe i am missing something? Yup, you are missing the statement they made about why they left. Im fairly sure it was a newsnow article posted from here. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Yup, you are missing the statement they made about why they left. Im fairly sure it was a newsnow article posted from here. I will repeat i have never read the real reason just the bullshit reason. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.