Name your price, Lloyds

[Frankie 8,674]

Can we put the membership figure thing to bed please...? I think the point has been made a hundred times and the fact the membership has never arisen above say 5-10% of season ticket holders is not only an indictment of an imperfect Trust but also a fan-base not overly interested in such representation outwith the very worst scenarios.

 

With respect, let's move onto more important issues or at least different ones that may keep people interested in the debate as opposed to missing other points lost amongst the chaff.

[pete 2,499]

I totally agree Frankie what has happened is in the past and things should now move on. What i would give for the future is that maybe the RST should look in the mirror and ask why there is so much criticism and animosity against them.

 

As far as i can see the fans take-over was another disaster for the RST. While i admit i got carried away with the idea of a supporters take-over as well, surely amongst a board of 20 members there was someone who could have thought, let's slow down here and work things out before splashing the papers full of 17 different scenario, stories.

I still hope for fan participation but I now believe it has to be set up by the Rangers board and not a supporters organisation. I don't want to have to pay a membership to a supporters club so as i can put my cash into Rangers FC. In saying that, if Rangers did start an official supporters club i would imagine it would make all other supporters groups surplus to need and they would be soaked up in the new organisation.

 

On the same subject i would also like to criticise our currant Rangers chairman. Who is he to dismiss the possibility of (part)supporter ownership with a wave of his hand and a statement that Rangers supporters shell out enough.

I realise that a supporter take-over on such short notice is a dream, but i find it very short-sighted to dismiss the possibility of supporters paying into the club with the possibility that the seeds could grow. I would imagine that the people paying for a season ticket and buying Rangers shirts are only the tip of the iceberg and it is at least worth looking into the possibilities of fan participation, Surely every penny coming in to the club should be welcomed.

[maineflyer 0]

Can we put the membership figure thing to bed please...? I think the point has been made a hundred times and the fact the membership has never arisen above say 5-10% of season ticket holders is not only an indictment of an imperfect Trust but also a fan-base not overly interested in such representation outwith the very worst scenarios.

 

With respect, let's move onto more important issues or at least different ones that may keep people interested in the debate as opposed to missing other points lost amongst the chaff.

 

Sorry Frankie but no, that would not be appropriate, not until the RST board either take this into the public arena or stop deliberately massaging figures to infer something that clearly doesn't exist. It can certainly be put to bed but not by me, I'm not in that position. All I can do is try to persuade others to do so, either that or keep exposing the fundamental dishonesty of those who keep trying to claim representation where they don't actually have it.

 

How exactly do we move on where the RST is concerned until or unless they address their shortcomings. The only reason these people still dominate the RST is because others continually prefer to put the debate to bed. How do we address more the important matters you allude to when at the hub of it is a pretence that the supporters views are somehow represented by a redundant and dysfunctional group of wannabees. Forty-eight Hours to Save Rangers, We Deserve Better, the Only Show in Town, Our Seventeen Plans, etc. Who exactly is it that's throwing around this chaff you refer to?

 

All I've ever asked for from the RST is truth and clarity. That doesn't strike me as something that should deflect anyone from the important issues. Only the lack of these two things causes the repetitious nature of the questions but even I would spend less time on the subject if these RST propagandists wouldn't insist on this continual revisionism.

[Frankie 8,674]

I did say there were people guilty on both sides of the debate in detracting from important issues with irrelevant and repetitive stuff.

 

The membership numbers thing has been answered by the Trust recently (on FF at least) and apparently if you check their most recent accounts (summer 2009) then I believe the number is around 1400. I doubt these accounts can be massaged in the same way someone can on a forum without question. Ergo, it is up to the person interested in the Trust how they take these numbers into consideration when approaching the overall subject. On Gersnet the point has been made by yourself many, many times and I don't think we have much to gain from repeating it.

 

The reason for this isn't to contribute to revisionism but simply so we can concentrate on more important issues (in my opinion of course) - one of which you allude to above. Keeping such questions simple and not accompanied with chaff (or personal crap we see elsewhere) is arguably more likely to precipitate answers. If not, it gives people an easy get out clause to reject debate - even if in itself that is flawed as I've pointed out earlier. Similarly, if these questions are not answered when asked respectfully, then that also allows the casual observer to make up their mind about the intentions of those questioned.

 

Maybe I'm too easy going but I do have a care of duty to the membership here and want to keep debates on-topic and easy to read/contribute to. I'm sure you respect that just as much as I respect the otherwise fair and challenging contribution you have a right to make.

 

[maineflyer 0]

I did say there were people guilty on both sides of the debate in detracting from important issues with irrelevant and repetitive stuff.

 

The membership numbers thing has been answered by the Trust recently (on FF at least) and apparently if you check their most recent accounts (summer 2009) then I believe the number is around 1400. I doubt these accounts can be massaged in the same way someone can on a forum without question. Ergo, it is up to the person interested in the Trust how they take these numbers into consideration when approaching the overall subject. On Gersnet the point has been made by yourself many, many times and I don't think we have much to gain from repeating it.

 

The reason for this isn't to contribute to revisionism but simply so we can concentrate on more important issues (in my opinion of course) - one of which you allude to above. Keeping such questions simple and not accompanied with chaff (or personal crap we see elsewhere) is arguably more likely to precipitate answers. If not, it gives people an easy get out clause to reject debate - even if in itself that is flawed as I've pointed out earlier. Similarly, if these questions are not answered when asked respectfully, then that also allows the casual observer to make up their mind about the intentions of those questioned.

 

Maybe I'm too easy going but I do have a care of duty to the membership here and want to keep debates on-topic and easy to read/contribute to. I'm sure you respect that just as much as I respect the otherwise fair and challenging contribution you have a right to make.

 

 

You're just a smooth-talking devil who knows just how to get what you want by charm alone.

 

I'm thoroughly dis-armed, I've abandoned repetition and I'll be sending off my RST membership fee in the morning. Or I might change my mind again. Hard to say really.

 

...... and it's duty of care, :devil:

[Frankie 8,674]

I always make mistakes in my prose when smooth-talking.... Online equivalent of a stutter...