ThatsWhyWeirChamps 0 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 You won't find any personal attacks on here if I can help it but we can criticise comments where necessary. As for the chap Goodwin, I don't know him but in his SD work he simply must be a neutral professional so I'd hope and assume his influence would be related more to those virtues than any suggestion his Partick affiliations would suggest he would work against us. Moreover, we have to remember he's only one cog on what appears to be a larger wheel. I doubt the people involved would allow him to offer bad advice but the point about having someone across from Hamburg is a good one. I know Paul, and have worked with him in the fan ownership issue. He's a good guy and his organisation will help where they can, who he supports is irrelevant to me personally. No job is worth forcing yourself to watch Partick Thistle over and over, in any case! SD are dedicated to delivering community ownership, it's their ultimate purpose, and will work with any group who has an idea or wish to implement it. They are not suggesting a competing fans group. Drew is right to have doubts about it - all of us should - but the idea is worth an airing and then we can all decide for ourselves. His point about groups not being consulted - that's what the meeting is for. Drew and all groups have had people invited. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 A Supporters’ Trust is a democratic, not-for-profit organisation of supporters, committed to strengthening the voice for supporters in the decision making process at a club, and strengthening the links between the club and the community it serves. - See more at: http://www.supporters-direct.org/homepage/what-we-do/faqs#sthash.NEDFIr66.dpuf Perhaps I should have referred to its primary purpose but essentially it exists to promote fan involvement/ownership; everything else flows from that. With he greatest of respect I am uniquely placed to voice an opinion on this as to the best of my knowledge and belief I am this only person on this forum and probably in the UK to have served on the Board of SDUK, SD Scotland (and its first Chair), the Board of RST and as its Secretary. And that would be a YES So basically you agree with me that your previous definition was incorrect and the fact that it has a primary purpose, but that is therefore not it's sole purpose. With the greatest respect, you may have held these positions but your posts are contradictory. I'd also add that while you were on the board of the RST, the RST got involved in other issues. From memory this included the WDB campaign, campaigning against the use of the H word, commenting on ticket pricing, player bans etc. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 "The Rangers Supporters Trust is a supporter's group with 3 aims: wider share ownership supporter representation & defending the reputation of the Gers family." Which was the entire purpose of the proposal. I'm not going to say it's wrong to comment on the issues it does, I just don't think it helps when trying to unite fans behind fan ownership. How can you call the board spivs on Twitter and go in to meet them the following day to debate issues with them? (as an extreme example) Three PR experts said the RST social media policy was spot on. Btw, this was flung at me on email and no one showed proof, where did the RST Twitter ever say #spivsout? Goodwin wanted to be spokesperson for FoH and Pars Unted and they knocked him back too. His proposal which was supported by the guys doing the CIC was laughed at by PR experts. They had to be convinced it was a serious proposal before commenting from a professional perspective. Moreover, a neutral observer, who's very respected on here and across the support, warned one CIC committee guy not to push the media proposal, before the proposal was ever presented to the RST board. Go figure! Iain, by all means promote the CIC but if you're going to be disingenuous then I will start commenting....commenting on behaviour of certain individuals too. I'm letting folk make their own mind up by observing but I'm not sitting back reading that pish. You were caught lying on Saturday with posts on FF, don't ruin your credibility as you're a very decent guy with loads to offer. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Clearly you cannot. Also in my time as Secretary, as BD has alluded to: The RST were forced to withdraw comments about the so called Famine Song or their membership of SD would not have been renewed. I prevented comment about the OBB because it was not part of their remit to make such comments. I find it incredible that SD were threatening to ban RST over the WDYGH chant, but have allowed Jeanette Findlay and the Celtic Trust free reign with their continuous pro-terrorist agenda over many, many yeras. Personally I'd have told SD to do one. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatsWhyWeirChamps 0 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Three PR experts said the RST social media policy was spot on. Btw, this was flung at me on email and no one showed proof, where did the RST Twitter ever say #spivsout? Goodwin wanted to be spokesperson for FoH and Pars Unted and they knocked him back too. His proposal which was supported by the guys doing the CIC was laughed at by PR experts. They had to be convinced it was a serious proposal before commenting from a professional perspective. Moreover, a neutral observer, who's very respected on here and across the support, warned one CIC committee guy not to push the media proposal, before the proposal was ever presented to the RST board. Go figure! Iain, by all means promote the CIC but if you're going to be disingenuous then I will start commenting....commenting on behaviour of certain individuals too. I'm letting folk make their own mind up by observing but I'm not sitting back reading that pish. You were caught lying on Saturday with posts on FF, don't ruin your credibility as you're a very decent guy with loads to offer. Disingenious? Why was there no denial that the RST twitter frequently tweeted #SpivsOut at the time? Don't have them to hand anymore, but there were statistics which had the number of times it was mentioned and you didn't challenge them any of the times it was mentioned. We both know it happened, to claim otherwise IS disingenious. That wasn't supposed to be a dig at you either, but it's fact that there was debate on that issue between board members several times. If you'd never done that and the statistics which were used were false you could easily have said so. I don't think I said I supported Paul Goodwin as spokesman either. But I supported the single-issue policy. And lying on FF on Saturday? That's a big accusation. About what exactly? EDIT: My apologies, it wasn't #SpivsOut - it was #SackTheBoard 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatsWhyWeirChamps 0 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I find it incredible that SD were threatening to ban RST over the WDYGH chant, but have allowed Jeanette Findlay and the Celtic Trust free reign with their continuous pro-terrorist agenda over many, many yeras. Personally I'd have told SD to do one. The Celtic Trust aren't SD members. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Disingenious? Why was there no denial that the RST twitter frequently tweeted #SpivsOut at the time? Don't have them to hand anymore, but there were statistics which had the number of times it was mentioned and you didn't challenge them any of the times it was mentioned. We both know it happened, to claim otherwise IS disingenious. That wasn't supposed to be a dig at you either, but it's fact that there was debate on that issue between board members several times. If you'd never done that and the statistics which were used were false you could easily have said so. I don't think I said I supported Paul Goodwin as spokesman either. But I supported the single-issue policy. And lying on FF on Saturday? That's a big accusation. About what exactly? Erm, not only did I challenge the stats because they were cherry picked and asked for a complete picture of one year, I also asked for proof of where we said #spivsout. I'm still waiting. And on. Saturday you said BuyRangers was non compliant which you later retracted because it was false and misleading. Also, why was Graham Campbell briefing a journo on the media policy before it was ever presented to the board.....or even the board knew such a thing existed and that he, Campbell, was even on the board or applied to be on the board? Funnily he also briefed the same journo on the CIC before he was on the board or the board knowing the plans. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatsWhyWeirChamps 0 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 https://twitter.com/rangersfctrust/status/383907213938790400 https://twitter.com/rangersfctrust/status/386398241035943936 https://twitter.com/rangersfctrust/status/386974001509044224 https://twitter.com/rangersfctrust/status/385894985712672768 https://twitter.com/rangersfctrust/status/385109911757410304 https://twitter.com/rangersfctrust/status/383901288460992513 Was that part of the perfectly acceptable policy which 3 experts commented on? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 The Celtic Trust aren't SD members. They were at one point. Perhaps I've been unfair on SD and they did chuck them out. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatsWhyWeirChamps 0 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Erm, not only did I challenge the stats because they were cherry picked and asked for a complete picture of one year, I also asked for proof of where we said #spivsout. I'm still waiting. And on. Saturday you said BuyRangers was non compliant which you later retracted because it was false and misleading. I didn't say Buy Rangers is non-compliant. The thread is still there for anyone who wants to go and see. The Compliance Officer resigned. Therefore, as things stand and on an ongoing basis the scheme can't and won't meet compliance procedures. That's a fact. Perhaps the Trust have since appointed a new Compliance Officer, and hopefully they have, but that was the truth when I said it. It wasn't supposed to be about criticising Buy Rangers either, but I suppose getting worked up when someone is smearing you on a public forum can perhaps be excused. Since then I've been called a liar, had my moral fibre questioned, been called deceitful and many other wretched insults from a bitter man who seems to blame other people for his departure from the Trust. 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.