Frankie 8,562 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Is there anything exceptionaly generous about internet bears giving two minutes of their cyber time to aknowledge the Rangers Supporters Trust, and other official fans groups volunteers, hard graft in the real world? Nope, it's the least we can do which is why I was only kidding about the generous part - hence the wink. As a former Trust board member myself, I appreciate just how difficult it is to reach our supporters - online or not - which is why I try to ensure this forum delivers constructive criticism instead of the gratuitous stuff we read elsewhere. On the other hand, just because people may not have the time to help out shouldn't preclude anyone from criticising supporters groups. I don't think it's overly difficult to sort out the wheat from that chaff in that sense. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,562 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Frankie, I have to agree with your first paragraph and wish people would stop fighting battles from nearly five years ago. SS was wrong in what he said and as far as I'm aware there is only one resignee who still seems to be particularly bitter. Regarding Leggo's article, I think the £2m bit was plucked out the air and took away from the point of the article. The fact is that there was a campaign to discredit the Community Share Scheme. It resulted in Facebook pages and Twitter being bombarded with comments about it being a scam and e-mails being sent to NARSA and ORSA warning them not to invest via the RST. If this did lead to the Club losing out on cash then it is very sad. It is very sad that people will take things too far and although I didn't see much people actively working against it (not to the tune of £2million anyway) there's a big difference between fair criticism, valid concerns and mischief-making. IMHO Leggo would have been better ignoring such people as his article only seems to have served to cause more friction than solve anything. As for others it's definitely well before time they left previous rifts in the past where they belong. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I would hardly call it "slagging the thread off" gs' date=' that thread served to highlight how deep the divisions are within elements of the Rangers support. The wording of my article was carefully structured not to point the finger of blame at anyone, but to call those involved to resolve their differences in such a way that we can move forward for the benefit of the club without destroying ourselves from within.[/quote'] fair enough mate but when the divisions are so deep people are actively trying to derail a vehicle for investing in the club you've got some task ahead of you on that one. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7 6,002 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 You're in good company D'Art. I got banned from FF a few years back for rubbishing the BJK farrago. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I have the kind of memory that cannot recall something that has never happened eg; the Trust attempting to buy out the club during the administration process. I do not recall either, the Rangers attempting to lift the Champions League Trophy while in administration. Such things are ambitions and surely without ambition we are nothing? It is the struggle we live and breath for? 2000 Rangers fans joining the RST community share ownership scheme is a major step forward? Nice one. Internet thing? I've just lost a detailed reply to you here (so much for the auto-save, grrrr) and I'm not typing it out again, so I'll just try to answer your 4 questions: Yes, perhaps yes, sort of & with the last question I'm not sure what you mean. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 A very small percentage but it's a start. It is indeed a start plg and I'm not trying to be mean here, but I think you guys must be concerned about the chances of achieving the objective of getting a seat on the club's board and I was under the impression that that's one of the primary objectives of the scheme in order to give fans the chance to have a real say in the actual running of the club. How are the investors in the community share scheme going to have a say in the running of the club if the block shareholding isn't big enough to get a seat on the board? (Bare Able, this point I'm making to plgsarmy was part of my lost reply to you.) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,256 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 A very small percentage but it's a start. As you are probably aware we started the Save Rangers website to try to guage what could be raised by fans. However, others, led by people at the Club, wanted to go down the RFFF route. We were asked to stop all activity or we would be going against the wishes of all the other fans. Reluctantly we agreed. I was banned from FF for taking Mark Dingwall to task about that very point , he blatantly lied about what went on at the RFFF meeting when he told the meeting he would take the save Rangers site down . He still lies about it to this day . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,562 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Let's not start down the route of the FF thread and add to the division. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plgsarmy 111 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I was banned from FF for taking Mark Dingwall to task about that very point , he blatantly lied about what went on at the RFFF meeting when he told the meeting he would take the save Rangers site down . He still lies about it to this day . I wasn't at said meeting rbr but as for taking the site down that wasn't his call to make. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,256 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I wasn't at said meeting rbr but as for taking the site down that wasn't his call to make. I never said it was , my point was he was asked by Sandy Jardine at the RFFF meeting , he later denied that the conversation even happened , the mans a liar 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.