The New RST

[craig 5,199]

It must be selective memory Frankie. I was one of several RST members who volunteered suggestions to the Trust. When posted on the RST website these were generally ignored completely, leaving only that other chosen RST medium, the FF forum, as an option for communication. Of course, as you well know, in recent times even a mention of the RST on that forum invariably resulted in life bans. This happened to over forty long term FF members with more than 1000 posts, as well as many others. The RST removed itself from its membership, not he other way round. You also know that there is no way this is going to improve until and unless the Trust becomes a truly independent and democratic organisation. Or have I got it wrong?

 

I wasn't as engrained in the RST as you seem to have been MF - I got a life membership as I felt that they truly had the fans best interests at heart and many of the public statements originally made by the Trust were well thought, professional, articulate and defended both the club and the fans against a biased media (in fact, some would say they played a role that should have been carried out by the club itself).

 

I was of the impression that the worm turned at roughly the time when the resignations began to become public. At that point the Trust seemed to implode very, very quickly (so quickly that it was apparent, to me at least, that something was wrong prior to that point but which had been suppressed successfully).

 

Obviously as I dont know anything about the behind the scenes actions of the Trust and its Board I am surmising.

 

The one thing which upsets me is that the Trust COULD HAVE been to the betterment of both the club AND the fans - but egos and agendas stood in the way of that and any of the progress and credibility initially made by the Trust was eroded far quicker than it had been built.

[Frankie 8,552]

It must be selective memory Frankie. I was one of several RST members who volunteered suggestions to the Trust. When posted on the RST website these were generally ignored completely, leaving only that other chosen RST medium, the FF forum, as an option for communication. Of course, as you well know, in recent times even a mention of the RST on that forum invariably resulted in life bans. This happened to over forty long term FF members with more than 1000 posts, as well as many others. The RST removed itself from its membership, not he other way round. You also know that there is no way this is going to improve until and unless the Trust becomes a truly independent and democratic organisation. Or have I got it wrong?

 

MF:

 

I can assure you every email that was received via the RST website was passed on by me to the rest of the board for consideration.

 

Not every suggestion we received (and there weren't many to start that I can recall) was workable but those that were (including the one suggestion on record I have from you outwith your membership queries) were followed up on and carried out. I myself answered many, many emails and any I couldn't were passed onto the relevant office-holders (such as the secretary, members secretary or media guys) for their attention.

 

Moreover, in the few months before I resigned I personally tried to address the issues with regard to communication to members. 'The Blue Spirit' was revived, modernised and a copy sent to all names in our database (old or new members) as well as a full questionnaire for feedback within a pre-paid envelope. From late November last year, regular weekly emails were also sent out in a new email newsletter component I secured for the website. I also personally openly posted on 4 of the major Rangers forums and introduced a RSS feed for anyone else that wanted to subscribe to our latest news.

 

Unfortunately, because of my resignation I can't tell you the results of the feedback from the Blue Spirit questionnaire and we've all seen that the regular emails have stopped for whatever reason since the resignations. The website also seems to be generally redundant despite there being a lot of Trust happenings of late. No other remaining Trust board member appears eager to take an active part in forums other than FF either. Certainly communication hasn't improved as they claimed it would.

 

I can't comment on why other websites have banned long-standing members. Obviously I certainly agree this should not have happened if the questions they were asking were reasonably polite, valid and constructive. We both know some people are neither of those things when it comes to their criticism of the organisation.

 

It's also obvious that despite your criticisms you still invest a lot of time in thinking about the Trust. As such, I an only suggest that if you were unable to attend the recent SGM, you try and make the forthcoming AGM along with the other aggrieved members you know and raise every issue you have.

 

Certainly if over 40 people care as much as you do and are as annoyed at being banned simply for asking questions, then going by the numbers present at previous formal meetings, you could certainly address the valid issues you have with formal motions via the constitution. If you are concerned about the organisation not being truly independent or democratic, then that's the best way to prove it one way or the other.

[Frankie 8,552]

. The only thing I'm aware of disagreeing with him on was the Gersave escapade. Some saw it as a means of achieving influence, I saw it as a ball and chain to make sure we could never act freely and independently.

 

 

I completely disagree with that.

 

Many fans complain that the fans don't have enough influence, the club doesn't spend enough money or that they want SDM to leave.

 

GerSave was the answer to all those concerns. Yes, at first the price wasn't ideal but once we managed to get that reduced in line with the market price, the scheme was (and still is) a great way to achieve many things.

 

At no point did it mean we couldn't act independently either. Criticism of the club remained and while we wanted to remain in necessary positive dialogue to achieve our aims - which all members surely bought into when they joined - neither would we accept being silenced just to keep GerSave going.

 

If people want to protest against the running of Rangers, want SDM to leave or simply want to help raise money for the club; GerSave remains a wholly positive way of doing all three. Indeed, currently it may be the only way of removing SDM from his position and I'm astounded it's ignored or slated by the very people who should be maximising it's chances of success. Not everyone can afford to take part but those that can certainly should.

 

Importantly, the Trust itself should be doing a lot more to promote it. There has never been a better time to do so in fact. Yet, despite the various media appearances of their representatives recently, it hasn't been mentioned once. Bizarre!

[maineflyer 0]

I completely disagree with that.

 

Many fans complain that the fans don't have enough influence, the club doesn't spend enough money or that they want SDM to leave.

 

GerSave was the answer to all those concerns. Yes, at first the price wasn't ideal but once we managed to get that reduced in line with the market price, the scheme was (and still is) a great way to achieve many things.

 

At no point did it mean we couldn't act independently either. Criticism of the club remained and while we wanted to remain in necessary positive dialogue to achieve our aims - which all members surely bought into when they joined - neither would we accept being silenced just to keep GerSave going.

 

If people want to protest against the running of Rangers, want SDM to leave or simply want to help raise money for the club; GerSave remains a wholly positive way of doing all three. Indeed, currently it may be the only way of removing SDM from his position and I'm astounded it's ignored or slated by the very people who should be maximising it's chances of success. Not everyone can afford to take part but those that can certainly should.

 

Importantly, the Trust itself should be doing a lot more to promote it. There has never been a better time to do so in fact. Yet, despite the various media appearances of their representatives recently, it hasn't been mentioned once. Bizarre!

And I completely disagree with just about everything you have ever said about Gersave, here and elsewhere. There we'll have to leave it. I will only add that the outcome seems to be reinforcing my point of view, not yours.

[maineflyer 0]

MF:

 

I can assure you every email that was received via the RST website was passed on by me to the rest of the board for consideration.

 

Not every suggestion we received (and there weren't many to start that I can recall) was workable but those that were (including the one suggestion on record I have from you outwith your membership queries) were followed up on and carried out. I myself answered many, many emails and any I couldn't were passed onto the relevant office-holders (such as the secretary, members secretary or media guys) for their attention.

 

Moreover, in the few months before I resigned I personally tried to address the issues with regard to communication to members. 'The Blue Spirit' was revived, modernised and a copy sent to all names in our database (old or new members) as well as a full questionnaire for feedback within a pre-paid envelope. From late November last year, regular weekly emails were also sent out in a new email newsletter component I secured for the website. I also personally openly posted on 4 of the major Rangers forums and introduced a RSS feed for anyone else that wanted to subscribe to our latest news.

 

Unfortunately, because of my resignation I can't tell you the results of the feedback from the Blue Spirit questionnaire and we've all seen that the regular emails have stopped for whatever reason since the resignations. The website also seems to be generally redundant despite there being a lot of Trust happenings of late. No other remaining Trust board member appears eager to take an active part in forums other than FF either. Certainly communication hasn't improved as they claimed it would.

 

I can't comment on why other websites have banned long-standing members. Obviously I certainly agree this should not have happened if the questions they were asking were reasonably polite, valid and constructive. We both know some people are neither of those things when it comes to their criticism of the organisation.

 

It's also obvious that despite your criticisms you still invest a lot of time in thinking about the Trust. As such, I an only suggest that if you were unable to attend the recent SGM, you try and make the forthcoming AGM along with the other aggrieved members you know and raise every issue you have.

 

Certainly if over 40 people care as much as you do and are as annoyed at being banned simply for asking questions, then going by the numbers present at previous formal meetings, you could certainly address the valid issues you have with formal motions via the constitution. If you are concerned about the organisation not being truly independent or democratic, then that's the best way to prove it one way or the other.

That's all very well but I really wasn't fishing for a personal vindication. I know how committed you are and have been. What I wrote in my previous post was factual and no amount of contrary statements will change that. I did indeed make suggestions and ask questions - and I am still waiting for a response - except for the one single exception when the current chairman wrote to me to assure me that communication was the new priority and that we would see the results of this very soon. Now, Mr Smith is a decent chap and might even have believed what he wrote but the results over the last few months have clearly shown that in fact nothing at all has changed. This isn't good enough from the Rangers Trust.

 

Apart from the fact that the previous board probably wouldn't have tolerated me and that I live much too far away to attend meetings, I would like nothing more than to have played a part. However, since the ridiculous attempt to sweep under the carpet the recent shenanigans and deny the ordinary member any credible facts about the aims and intentions of the Trust, even this wishful thinking has ebbed away. Rather like your own perhaps?

 

Regarding the bannings, you know that my point was the mistake of allowing the overlap between FF and the RST. Why did this happen and why did the Trust not have a forum on its own website that could have been exclusive to Trust members and therefore the perfect platform for soliciting and receiving member opinion. At the moment, it looks like the Trust is some kind of subsect of Follow Follow and that is most inappropriate, with FF admin deciding what can or cannot be posted about an entirely separate and unrelated fans' organisation.

[maineflyer 0]

The one thing which upsets me is that the Trust COULD HAVE been to the betterment of both the club AND the fans - but egos and agendas stood in the way of that and any of the progress and credibility initially made by the Trust was eroded far quicker than it had been built.

That pretty much sums up how I feel about it too. And now the dust has settled, neutral has been engaged again by the dynamic few who entrust the RST to their own keeping. It's a bad business.

[Frankie 8,552]

That's all very well but I really wasn't fishing for a personal vindication. I know how committed you are and have been. What I wrote in my previous post was factual and no amount of contrary statements will change that. I did indeed make suggestions and ask questions - and I am still waiting for a response - except for the one single exception when the current chairman wrote to me to assure me that communication was the new priority and that we would see the results of this very soon. Now, Mr Smith is a decent chap and might even have believed what he wrote but the results over the last few months have clearly shown that in fact nothing at all has changed. This isn't good enough from the Rangers Trust.

 

Apart from the fact that the previous board probably wouldn't have tolerated me and that I live much too far away to attend meetings, I would like nothing more than to have played a part. However, since the ridiculous attempt to sweep under the carpet the recent shenanigans and deny the ordinary member any credible facts about the aims and intentions of the Trust, even this wishful thinking has ebbed away. Rather like your own perhaps?

 

Regarding the bannings, you know that my point was the mistake of allowing the overlap between FF and the RST. Why did this happen and why did the Trust not have a forum on its own website that could have been exclusive to Trust members and therefore the perfect platform for soliciting and receiving member opinion. At the moment, it looks like the Trust is some kind of subsect of Follow Follow and that is most inappropriate, with FF admin deciding what can or cannot be posted about an entirely separate and unrelated fans' organisation.

 

Oh, I wasn't trying to vindicate myself. I'm more than comfortable with my contribution over the 3 years I served on the board. What I was trying to do was take issue with what you claimed.

 

Like I say, I have around 4 emails from you (which I received via the RST website contact form). Only one was a suggestion which had previously been discussed in many ways already by the board. Nonetheless, it was always found useful when members contacted us with the same ideas so it helped cement policy/actions. The suggestion you offered was carried out in full even if you may not have received a reply to that end. I don't know if you attend games at Ibrox but you would have seen evidence of that at a game last season (or maybe the season before).

 

I'm not sure if you sent other suggestions but if you did, they certainly never came through me and I wasn't made aware of them if they were sent to others.

 

How far away do you live so you can't attend the annual meetings? Could you not appoint a proxy to attend on your behalf? I don't think distance is really a valid excuse. I myself live a reasonable 65mile distance from Glasgow but played a full part in all Trust meetings - monthly board or annual.

 

Regarding the overlap between FF and the RST - well I'm not so sure that was much of a problem up until of late where it certainly has become extremely pronounced. A forum on the RST site was discussed by the board a few times (but never proposed by any member than I'm aware of) but it was felt it would take too much time to manage - time which was better spent elsewhere taking the debate to current and potential members. As I indicated I think that was done pretty well in the past.

 

I agree that now it may be a better solution as it seems no serving RST board member has the time (or the will) to take this debate outside FF. As such, a RST forum would arguably now be agreeable. I believe this was promised at the recent SGM. No idea why hasn't been implemented as it's an hour's job at the most to set it up and invite members to sign up.

 

Now you belief may have ebbed (mine has all but disappeared for what it's worth) but if you still retain some, I suggest you raise the relevant questions you have in the proper place. The RST AGM next month is that place.

 

[bmck 117]

And I completely disagree with just about everything you have ever said about Gersave, here and elsewhere. There we'll have to leave it. I will only add that the outcome seems to be reinforcing my point of view, not yours.

 

that's just the same as saying "let's not talk about this, but i'm right". gersave seems like an obviously good idea (if done properly) but it'd be good to hear another perspective.

[Frankie 8,552]

And I completely disagree with just about everything you have ever said about Gersave, here and elsewhere. There we'll have to leave it. I will only add that the outcome seems to be reinforcing my point of view, not yours.

 

By all means disagree.

 

However, since Gersnet members may not have had the pleasure of our previous discussions, the only way for you to reinforce your view is to say why you disagree.

 

I've not been slow in admitting the issues the scheme has had. It's certainly not been as successful as I wish it had been but the facts are it remains a workable method of positive protest against Sir David Murray's shareholding.

 

As it stands now, the 'credit-crunch', the problems with the Trust and the usual issues with apathy; may well be contributing to the scheme under-achieving (or indeed dying in it's present form) but I'm surprised anyone - particularly those who want Murray out - would disagree the concept is a good one.

 

I think people have to remember that while the scheme did have it's problems, it was actually an incredible achievement to even get it off the ground.

[Wija 0]

That pretty much sums up how I feel about it too. And now the dust has settled, neutral has been engaged again by the dynamic few who entrust the RST to their own keeping. It's a bad business.

 

Maine...

 

At least put up your side or your findings against it.

 

 

You sound a little egotistical ....