BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Buy Rangers is a good scheme, and has a place going forward. What's being perpetrated elsewhere is that SD are somehow abandoning the Trust and Buy Rangers and setting up something opposition - far from it. Rangers fans should look at it as more strings to their bow. Fan ownership is the goal, and the successful vehicle elsewhere is being presented to a group of fans to see what their thoughts are on it. By any chance are you Paul Goodwin? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Yes I was. I always find posters on various Forums have history with each other. If you're in the clear, sorry. I do know quite a few on this thread (perhaps even TWWC, but not quite sure who he is). Perhaps the people involved with this are slightly different (which seems to have put a nose or two out of joint). I'd say though that those who know each other don't have a problem with anyone although there can be disagreements as is the case with PLG and BH, but it's not personal IMO. Perhaps I'm missing the point that you were trying to make though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 By any chance are you Paul Goodwin? It's not fair to ask someone their identity. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 By the same token, urging people to spend money from behind a pseudonym is not entirely cricket either! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 By the same token, urging people to spend money from behind a pseudonym is not entirely cricket either! Agreed. However I'd fully expect those involved to have their names announced. If TWWC is one of these, he still deserves anonimity within a forum setting. However having looked at his posts again, it doesn't take too much detective work to find out TWWC's real name. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 It was part of a proposal to update the Trust's PR/Comms policy. It was suggested that the Trust become a single-issue entity and that the Trust don't have a spokesman - they simply allow Paul Goodwin/SD to promote the issues. The benefits, it was suggested, was that he couldn't be drawn on things like whether the Easdales are good or bad and whether Jack Irvine is good or bad - his only message would be fan ownership. He would also be free to sit in the BBC studio and promote fan ownership of Rangers and go on Clyde, whereas a Rangers fan would lose credibility if he did it. It was outvoted, democratically, but it seems to have got Mark's goat. Not sure why. That is complete and utter nonsense and betrays the fact that those who proposed it have no idea of the concept of a Supporters Trust. A Supporters Trust IS a single issue entity i.e. to promote democratic supporter ownership e.g. "The purpose of a supporters’ trust is to establish a strong, positive working relationship with the owners of its football club, with a view to supporter input." (Crystal Palace). No member of the Trust Board should ever be drawn on whether the Easdales are good or bad and whether Jack Irvine is good or bad ; if they can't subscribe to that notion they shouldn't be members of the Board and certainly shouldn't need to "employ" anyone else for that purpose. If the Trust Board can't espouse there own raison d'etre then that shows them in a very poor light indeed. Why on earth would it be incredible for a Rangers fan to promote fan ownership of Rangers; that is utterly bizarre. The fact that there had to be a vote on this issue at all is evidence, if any more was needed, that the Trust has lost all credibility and relevance. To that extent, I think this is the second time in my life that I have agreed with Mr Mark Dingwall; and you can feel free to tell him I said so. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 It's not fair to ask someone their identity. If the answer to the question is YES; then I think it's entirely fair. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I do know quite a few on this thread (perhaps even TWWC, but not quite sure who he is). Perhaps the people involved with this are slightly different (which seems to have put a nose or two out of joint). I'd say though that those who know each other don't have a problem with anyone although there can be disagreements as is the case with PLG and BH, but it's not personal IMO. Perhaps I'm missing the point that you were trying to make though. And BD is often highly critical of things I say, though I am more tolerant of him 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 At least Richard Atkinson made it clear who he was. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 By the same token, urging people to spend money from behind a pseudonym is not entirely cricket either! I agree with Andy entirely; if you are promoting a vehicle such as has been described you have no business doing so anonymously. 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.