Jump to content

RST in meltdown ............


JTP

Recommended Posts

People forgot that Dingwall has only ever been in it for himself.

While those guys who resigned put in enormous amounts of unpaid time and energy, Dingwall is selling fanzines and enything else that will mean a few bob to him and him alone.

It would have been much better if maybe he and Edgar resigned instead of guys who are actually intelligent and showed the RST in a good light and put the club and its fans before themselves....................can Edgar and Dingwall say the same?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You have to laugh out loud at the way the anti SDM brigade have tried to turn this story into something its NOT - It is NOT a story placed by SDM - it is a story run based on the fact that there is something happening at the RST and NO ONE will come out and say what that 'something is'. All we know is 6 directors resigned, no replacements (as yet) and some stupid pronouncements from the RST.

(I also love the conspiricy theory that SDM had 'fans for hire' to defend him against a protest. - what a load of crock!)

Now unless I am wrong the RST were to be given a seat on the board by Murray - hardly stinks of 'conspiricy' - if he DIDNT want them on he would NOT have offered. SDM did NOT make the members resign (or if he did he is one clever bugger!!) but while I am NOT an RST member I find this 'story' interesting and I am glad the paper shed some light on it and even that Dingwall made a response. How this story can be tied to SDM only the extremely paranoid could begin to answer and the response on FF to the article does NOT show Dingwall in a great light.

thats right defend uncle davie, and he was behind the fans that attacked the decent fans, he is nothing but a coward who also tell lies all the time and the quicker he gets to fuck the better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to laugh out loud at the way the anti SDM brigade have tried to turn this story into something its NOT - It is NOT a story placed by SDM - it is a story run based on the fact that there is something happening at the RST and NO ONE will come out and say what that 'something is'. All we know is 6 directors resigned, no replacements (as yet) and some stupid pronouncements from the RST.

(I also love the conspiricy theory that SDM had 'fans for hire' to defend him against a protest. - what a load of crock!)

Now unless I am wrong the RST were to be given a seat on the board by Murray - hardly stinks of 'conspiricy' - if he DIDNT want them on he would NOT have offered. SDM did NOT make the members resign (or if he did he is one clever bugger!!) but while I am NOT an RST member I find this 'story' interesting and I am glad the paper shed some light on it and even that Dingwall made a response. How this story can be tied to SDM only the extremely paranoid could begin to answer and the response on FF to the article does NOT show Dingwall in a great light.

This has Sir Dodgy written all over it. Traynor (Gers fans deserved a beating) is his go to guy when he wants anything leaked. Causing disharmony amongst the Rangers support. All the while diverting attention away from his shambolic running of the club.

It helps that the article also has a dig at the guy responsible for Follow Follow site/zine where criticism and scrutiny of Murray is openly discussed.

Yes you are wrong. Murray agreed to allow there to be a supporter representation on the board that the RST campaigned long and hard for. That's not to say it will be anyone from the RST who will be on it. He will want someone he knows will agree to his every whim - Step up to the plate Jim Templeton (some Gers fans deserved a beating)

That's the biggest disappointment in this whole thing, we had the chance to put someone in place that could actively try and put the supporters views across, that chance I fear is now lost. The RST need to be open and honest about this and it has to happen now! Further disillusionment will see more people leave and the RST left to the more militant type people like BlueIsTheColour speaks out about.

Personally I'd like the RST to be more militant in their dealing with Murray. Five years of meeting for tea and biscuits has got us nowhere (excluding the fan representation to the board) but I also believe that the RST's members need to have various views on a whole range of topics. Differing opinions is healthy in a democratic organization.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'd like the RST to be more militant in their dealing with Murray. Five years of meeting for tea and biscuits has got us nowhere (excluding the fan representation to the board) but I also believe that the RST's members need to have various views on a whole range of topics. Differing opinions is healthy in a democratic organization.

Looks as though there's far and wide split to where key board members wanted to take the RST. I've no idea what Mark's view is so I can't judge him by a Daily Record article saying he was more "militant" which sounds as though he's going to use the RST and perform a coup on Ireland to give it back to the British.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a myth that Murray hired a mob to attack the protest. I listened to then spoke to the so-called mob on the way down the Drive and can confirm it was a spontaneous reaction by normal fans.

Of course it is. Only complete balloons think otherwise. Rent-a-mob...if it wasn't so pathetically stupid and paranoid it'd be funny.

He praised them for their brutality on the official site.

What did he actually say when he praised this 'brutality'?

Personally I don't feel he had to hire anyone.

No he didn't. The suggestion that he did is nonsense and put about by Dingwall and those that support his views to try and disguise the fact that the majority of Bears were opposed to the protest.

He praised fans who opposed the protests knowing full well that those who opposed it used physical violence.

I've seen people accuse Murray on FF of being responsible, but never Dingwall himself, but I don't read everything posted there so I'll take your word for it.

We've also seen it said here, not just FF. Fair enough if Dingwall hasn't actually said that though, I shouldn't have said he did but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. Suffice to say that his protest was opposed by real Bears.

I didn't think Murray would praise 'brutallity'. Thanks for clearing that up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'd like the RST to be more militant in their dealing with Murray. Five years of meeting for tea and biscuits has got us nowhere (excluding the fan representation to the board) but I also believe that the RST's members need to have various views on a whole range of topics. Differing opinions is healthy in a democratic organization.

Looks as though there's far and wide split to where key board members wanted to take the RST. I've no idea what Mark's view is so I can't judge him by a Daily Record article saying he was more "militant" which sounds as though he's going to use the RST and perform a coup on Ireland to give it back to the British.

This article hints at Dingwall being the reason behind the resignations, I've not heard anyone say that. But the RST not being honest has led to this opportunity.

Supporters have always had different views on the trust, some clearly don't agree with it whatsoever. Some weren't happy with them cozying up to Murray and others were happy with the way it was going. That's always been the case, just recent shenanigans has left it open to attack. The RST has to accept the blame for that.

I have no idea what Dingwall's views are now but he has argued the RST's case many times when the more 'militant' types have criticized it in the past for not being enough of an anti-Murray/Murray out organization.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'd like the RST to be more militant in their dealing with Murray. Five years of meeting for tea and biscuits has got us nowhere (excluding the fan representation to the board) but I also believe that the RST's members need to have various views on a whole range of topics. Differing opinions is healthy in a democratic organization.

With respect, it's all very well wanting the organisation to be more militant but to do so it must have good reasons for doing so.

In the first couple of years, the RST actually was pretty militant. In fact, it struggled to really build it's membership too high because many fans thought it was too militant or more specifically too anti-Murray. Something had to give to improve results.

In more recent times, a lot of fans felt it was being too pro-Murray simply because it had embarked on a strategy of attempting dialogue with the club to achieve results. And results were happening... GerSave was one excellent initiative - made more efficient via club dialogue; concessions about parts of our heritage was another; we also had the chance to make more recommendations - even if they weren't applied how we'd like.

There were more including the chance to have a member on the board of the club - a vital step in terms of the Trust aims; increasing the membership; attaining credibility from non-RST members; and, obviously, the best way of obtaining further changes within the club. This strategy - coupled with the odd strong media statement when required - was working. Perhaps too slowly for some but political processes are never fast.

Being more militant may well speed this process up but I'm not sure if it will address what the RST aims are - ie, increase membership to a level where it can achieve more credibility; achieve a director on the board which will open up more avenues of representation; and improve the GerSave scheme to dilute SDM further etc.

I'd contend neither strategy has been perfect previously but one was working and was on the brink of delivering something that would completely change democratic RFC fan representation for the better. It remains to be seen if this opportunity has been lost and/or if a new outlook will improve results for Trust members.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is true that the members that resigned did so because of Dingwall, and any 'militant direction he wanted to take the supporters' group', then I for one salute them.

Aye, me too (tu)

Well then you are both wrong, and you can bloody well shake yourself for believing such utter pish.

We are allowed to be just as militant about our chairman on here.

Murray is behind all of this, he doesn't like his custodianship being questioned.

Nice try Minty, I hope Mark's lawyers get to the bottom of this.

I'll pass on that, thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This article hints at Dingwall being the reason behind the resignations, I've not heard anyone say that. But the RST not being honest has led to this opportunity.

Hit. Nail. Head.

Irrespective of any truth in the accusations of Mr Dingwall, the Trust's unwillingness to address the situation to it's members via EGM or otherwise has given this debacle a home. Let's not be coy about this - this will cost the Trust members & reputation, both of which weaken any possible position it held in the past or could hold in the future.

It needs to act, and it needs to act now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is true that the members that resigned did so because of Dingwall, and any 'militant direction he wanted to take the supporters' group', then I for one salute them.

Aye, me too (tu)

Well then you are both wrong, and you can bloody well shake yourself for believing such utter pish.

We are allowed to be just as militant about our chairman on here.

Murray is behind all of this, he doesn't like his custodianship being questioned.

Nice try Minty, I hope Mark's lawyers get to the bottom of this.

I'll pass on that, thanks.

Make sure you do Boabarino :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

People forgot that Dingwall has only ever been in it for himself.

While those guys who resigned put in enormous amounts of unpaid time and energy, Dingwall is selling fanzines and enything else that will mean a few bob to him and him alone.

It would have been much better if maybe he and Edgar resigned instead of guys who are actually intelligent and showed the RST in a good light and put the club and its fans before themselves....................can Edgar and Dingwall say the same?

Excuse me but what has the magazine got to do with the RST?

If you feel you could make some money on a Rangers related fanzine then by all means start one of your own, i would if I thought I could.

Dingwall is on the board of the RST because he cares about the direction Rangers are taking, you may disagree with him but he is giving up his time and effort for what he believes in.

Are you? I know I aint but then I'm not pointing the finger at a fellow bear claiming he's making money out of the trust when it's completely untrue.

And if you believe Edgar isn't an intelligent man then you must still believe in the tooth fairy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...he (Murray) was behind the fans that attacked the decent fans..

How do you come to that conclusion?

because i know.

Quite the opposite. Don't really see the point in making stuff up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'd like the RST to be more militant in their dealing with Murray. Five years of meeting for tea and biscuits has got us nowhere (excluding the fan representation to the board) but I also believe that the RST's members need to have various views on a whole range of topics. Differing opinions is healthy in a democratic organization.

With respect, it's all very well wanting the organisation to be more militant but to do so it must have good reasons for doing so.

In the first couple of years, the RST actually was pretty militant. In fact, it struggled to really build it's membership too high because many fans thought it was too militant or more specifically too anti-Murray. Something had to give to improve results.

In more recent times, a lot of fans felt it was being too pro-Murray simply because it had embarked on a strategy of attempting dialogue with the club to achieve results. And results were happening... GerSave was one excellent initiative - made more efficient via club dialogue; concessions about parts of our heritage was another; we also had the chance to make more recommendations - even if they weren't applied how we'd like.

There were more including the chance to have a member on the board of the club - a vital step in terms of the Trust aims; increasing the membership; attaining credibility from non-RST members; and, obviously, the best way of obtaining further changes within the club. This strategy - coupled with the odd strong media statement when required - was working. Perhaps too slowly for some but political processes are never fast.

Being more militant may well speed this process up but I'm not sure if it will address what the RST aims are - ie, increase membership to a level where it can achieve more credibility; achieve a director on the board which will open up more avenues of representation; and improve the GerSave scheme to dilute SDM further etc.

I'd contend neither strategy has been perfect previously but one was working and was on the brink of delivering something that would completely change democratic RFC fan representation for the better. It remains to be seen if this opportunity has been lost and/or if a new outlook will improve results for Trust members.

I lived abroad without Internet access when the RST 1st came in to being. So I wouldn't have been aware of its initial stances.

The majority of the RST strategies I agree with which is why I joined, when I say take a more militant approach I mean in terms of public statements where I feel the RST didn't do enough to apply pressure on the mint. Perhaps that would alienate them from the Murrayites, but it would however draw peoples attention and perhaps endear them to take a closer look at Murray's activities. It could well encourage more people to join.

It remains to be seen right enough, but McNiven's decision to resign when he was the RST's candidate for board representation doesn't bode well for that particular triumph.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimenez:

Like I say, public statements have their place. The work the Trust media team did in the last few years was generally very good. They helped raise the profile of the organisation to new levels which, in turn, enabled them achieve aspects of the primary aims.

However, and I'm no media expert, there's a vast different between making informed, reasonable comment on issues at the club using evidence and supporter opinion to make your point compared to making aggressive, ill-informed statements with no evidence or supporter opinion to justify it.

There are many critics of the club and specifically SDM online - on this board and elsewhere. A cursory look at my posting history will show I am one of the biggest critics - even if I'm less confrontational than others in style. I feel this approach has served me well in terms of highlighting certain issues for people to read about enabling them to make up their own mind without being made to feel less of a fan because they're not 'politically active' so to speak.

There is a fine line to such debate at any level. One can choose different strategies and I think a less militant route - while never forgetting the issues involved - was actually working in tandem with strong public lobbying. The Trust has been going for over 5 years now and has tried various tacts. IMO, the last 2-3 years has seen it at it's most successful because of the combination of strategies.

Yes, it was a slow, laborious process but it will be interesting to see if a return to more aggressive tactics is more successful in all aspects of the RST constitution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Frankie.

But there are subjects the RST never touched on such as Rangers stores throughout Scotland still left empty with 'Rangers' written above it, it gives people the opinion that we are closed for business, Murray promised at the AGM that those signs would be taken down within 48hours, that was over a year a go. Moving our ticket office in to a portokabin is an absolute embarrassment. These are just two subjects I feel the RST could have factually came out and spoke out against Murray.

They may appear minor issues to others but they are small instances where the Trust could have delivered a hint of exasperation with Murray's management. I can't honestly remember an incident where the Trust has come out and categorically criticized him.

If the RST is to become a little more confrontational on the examples I've given then I welcome it.

Their work these past couple of years on the mhedia front has been splendid and I've felt proud to be part of an organization that wont tolerate the support of Rangers F.C. to be lied about, Spiers's assassination after his move to RC was an exceptionally good moment to feel part of the RST. If you had anything to do with that statement I'll kiss your feet. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

People forgot that Dingwall has only ever been in it for himself.

... Dingwall is selling fanzines and enything else that will mean a few bob to him and him alone.

Said exactly the same thing a few weeks ago. I would love to see the Follow Follow accounts and who pockets the profit

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimenez:

With respect, IIRC it was an RST member (under guidance from the annual RST member club AGM strategy) who asked the question about the frontage problem. The issue was also later raised at meetings with the club. Murray essentially lied about saying he'd sort it out but the RST did try their best to force the issue. Perhaps more public comment may have precipitated more action but there were many more issues on the go at the time and it was felt this one was not as serious as others. I agree, sometimes subjective opinion can result in wrong decisions though.

As for the ticket office problems, again I agree the situation there is very poor. Indeed, before I resigned there was much work going into detailing the issues involved in order to make a report to the club for comment. I also recall DE in the media strongly criticising the club - specifically Bain - with regard to the shambles we often hear about in that area.

As for criticism of Murray personally well I agree that doesn't happen too often. However, you can be assured Murray takes criticism of the club (as the RST continually offer in different ways) as criticism of himself. That's why he was forced into working with the Trust - because of strong criticism via private dialogue and because of strong criticism via public media work. There are lots of examples of this.

Like I say it was imperfect in many ways but it was yielding results - albeit slowly but surely.

In contrast, I'm not so sure the kind of statements the Trust has released lately is evidence of a more workable solution. The reaction on here and elsewhere shows that. By all means be more confrontational but be reasoned, sensible and use facts to justify it.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprised in the slightest at the suggestion that Dingwall had a part to play in all of this. The guy is a muppet and the RST would be well rid of him. The thought of someone like him having any sort of influence with our club sends shivers through me.

You're absolutely spot on mate - Dingwall's bawbaggery strikes again. doh

Link to post
Share on other sites

People forgot that Dingwall has only ever been in it for himself.

... Dingwall is selling fanzines and enything else that will mean a few bob to him and him alone.

Said exactly the same thing a few weeks ago. I would love to see the Follow Follow accounts and who pockets the profit

Again, what have the profits of a supporters fanzine got to do with you or me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprised in the slightest at the suggestion that Dingwall had a part to play in all of this. The guy is a muppet and the RST would be well rid of him. The thought of someone like him having any sort of influence with our club sends shivers through me.

You're absolutely spot on mate - Dingwall's bawbaggery strikes again. doh

you dont even know the facts, so how can you judge the man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprised in the slightest at the suggestion that Dingwall had a part to play in all of this. The guy is a muppet and the RST would be well rid of him. The thought of someone like him having any sort of influence with our club sends shivers through me.

You're absolutely spot on mate - Dingwall's bawbaggery strikes again. doh

you dont even know the facts, so how can you judge the man.

I don't need to know the facts, I've fell out with him before on FF and I know he's a bawbag.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Upcoming Events

    • 30 March 2024 15:00 Until 17:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hibernian
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership

×
×
  • Create New...