Statement From RST Resigned Board Members

[ClemensKrauss 0]

The RST make much of their amateur spirit, the idea that people are volunteers and working toward a worthy ethic, but for someone to (allegedly) fail to show when up for election due to un-Presbyterian alcohol abuse is terrible PR.

And makes it harder to take seriously the promises of a new and improved body.

[nvager 498]

Sad day when the RST in effect becomes FF.

I will wait and see what happens in the future, but it does not look promising.

The RST should reflect a wide range of views. FF is only one view. We need a far more diverse board to run the RST.

This will lead to problems.

[ClemensKrauss 0]

Sad day when the RST in effect becomes FF.

I will wait and see what happens in the future, but it does not look promising.

The RST should reflect a wide range of views. FF is only one view. We need a far more diverse board to run the RST.

This will lead to problems.

FF appears to me to be about six or seven views, to the point that discussion of the RST ends in chaos, without fail.

Diversity is useful, in terms of background, location, etc - but quality is more important than quotas.

And 5 years on can you say that those who make up the RST board are a more impressive bunch, year on year, as would befit a group on the rise?

No.

[Paintbox 0]

Sad day when the RST in effect becomes FF.

The RST should reflect a wide range of views. FF is only one view. We need a far more diverse board to run the RST.

On the last point, the response will always be that anyone can stand for election and be voted in. You would just have to take along a big enough group of friends that are members to vote for you. It's not a great response because things aren't that simple, we know that, but it's the one you would probably get.

As for the other point, FF is perceived as anti Murray whereas the RST has to work with Murray to gain ground. Unless the new RST board have it taking a militant stance, I can't see how that can possibly work.

It shouldn't be an FF view. It should be a Rangers view.

[minstral 5,375]

Sad day when the RST in effect becomes FF.

The RST should reflect a wide range of views. FF is only one view. We need a far more diverse board to run the RST.

On the last point, the response will always be that anyone can stand for election and be voted in. You would just have to take along a big enough group of friends that are members to vote for you. It's not a great response because things aren't that simple, we know that, but it's the one you would probably get.

As for the other point, FF is perceived as anti Murray whereas the RST has to work with Murray to gain ground. Unless the new RST board have it taking a militant stance, I can't see how that can possibly work.

It shouldn't be an FF view. It should be a Rangers view.

murray only wants to give a seat to a yes man on the board, and do everything they are told.

[Paintbox 0]

murray only wants to give a seat to a yes man on the board, and do everything they are told.

That's true but in reality it doesn't matter if it's a yes man or not, since with over 90% of the share holding Murray can do whatever he likes.

[TMWWBK 0]

Sad day when the RST in effect becomes FF.

I will wait and see what happens in the future, but it does not look promising.

The RST should reflect a wide range of views. FF is only one view. We need a far more diverse board to run the RST.

This will lead to problems.

FF appears to me to be about six or seven views, to the point that discussion of the RST ends in chaos, without fail.

Diversity is useful, in terms of background, location, etc - but quality is more important than quotas.

And 5 years on can you say that those who make up the RST board are a more impressive bunch, year on year, as would befit a group on the rise?

No.

Theres hardly any middle ground on FF. If you're a fan of Murray then you are a "cretin" etc.

Im not a fan of Murray and i agree with most of the posters on FF, however, as one poster said there is absolutely no diversity.

FF is a joke of a site these days and the "recognised" posters on it are more interested in getting one over on one another rather than posting anything thats actually useful.

[ClemensKrauss 0]

What do you mean by 'diversity'?

There are people who believe some things to be black, some things to be white, and various levels of grey or whatever Dulux call it, inbetween. You need only read any board to see that.

I think your latter point is true but needs widened - people on different forums, as well as factions on individual boards, would rather play games of oneupmanship.

X and Z forum said this, they are ALL B and C.

And all the while the Club sinks.

The Tims disagree but they have a united front on important issues. We argue, and take great pride in division and segregation.

[TMWWBK 0]

What do you mean by 'diversity'?

There are people who believe some things to be black, some things to be white, and various levels of grey or whatever Dulux call it, inbetween. You need only read any board to see that.

I think your latter point is true but needs widened - people on different forums, as well as factions on individual boards, would rather play games of oneupmanship.

X and Z forum said this, they are ALL B and C.

And all the while the Club sinks.

The Tims disagree but they have a united front on important issues. We argue, and take great pride in division and segregation.

I do agree with your latter point. Im a lurker on various Celtic forums and they seem to have some sort of denial about the actual downsides of their club in the present time. We cannot be criticised for this.

I do however, disagree with your point about FF having "inbetween" sorta' members. I can only think of 1 or 2 posters who seem to call a spade a spade and even then, i wouldn't say they're "recognised" posters.

Ive not been on here for a long time but ive noticed already thats its much more fairer in its general thinking.

[minstral 5,375]

this is a great site which allows both points of view, and people would need to do something really bad before they would get banned, plus the mods are top class and only step in if they think things are getting to heated.

[Friedmarsbar 1]

It seems like an FF coup.

Can you imagine people like Mark Dingwall, The Govanhill Gub and a guy who seems to have has disappeared from the scene, Feriens Togo(was it?) being the voice of the RST.

Chilling thought, is'nt it?

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

one was hungover from yesterday

An RST member was simply too pished to attend a meeting for an election as a board member?

I'm a Rangers supporter and can't take that seriously, so why should Murray even consider accepting a representative from such an organisation onto the board at The Rangers? All that money invested in the RST by Rangers supporters wasted by individuals with an agenda not committed to the stated goals of the RST.

To me it all seems pretty clear - the RST has been dragged from a place of credibility to a place of ridicule.

[minstral 5,375]

one was hungover from yesterday

An RST member was simply too pished to attend a meeting for an election as a board member?

I'm a Rangers supporter and can't take that seriously, so why should Murray even consider accepting a representative from such an organisation onto the board at The Rangers? All that money invested in the RST by Rangers supporters wasted by individuals with an agenda not committed to the stated goals of the RST.

To me it all seems pretty clear - the RST has been dragged from a place of credibility to a place of ridicule.

just the same as our owner.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

just the same as our owner.

We have no current alternative, Minstral.

I simply do not understand why there is no viable purchaser given Murray's oft-stated will to sell. We know the scale and importance of Rangers, we know the potential, but not a single, credible individual or consortium has come forward with an acceptable offer for one of the worlds truly great clubs?

Murray's lack of ambition and - probably more importantly - failure to exploit the potential of the club means we are treading water in so many ways when we should be moving on. For example, Ajax have just spent some £12m on Sulejmani - a club McCoist says we should emulate. He also said that days of such spending are over for Rangers. That's a statement intent on downgrading ambition for our club that I find completely unacceptable.

Murray's time is over, he knows it as well as we do - so why the hell can't we find a buyer?

[Jimenez 1]

just the same as our owner.

We have no current alternative, Minstral.

I simply do not understand why there is no viable purchaser given Murray's oft-stated will to sell. We know the scale and importance of Rangers, we know the potential, but not a single, credible individual or consortium has come forward with an acceptable offer for one of the worlds truly great clubs?

Murray's lack of ambition and - probably more importantly - failure to exploit the potential of the club means we are treading water in so many ways when we should be moving on. For example, Ajax have just spent some £12m on Sulejmani - a club McCoist says we should emulate. He also said that days of such spending are over for Rangers. That's a statement intent on downgrading ambition for our club that I find completely unacceptable.

Murray's time is over, he knows it as well as we do - so why the hell can't we find a buyer?

Would you do business with Murray?

[Paintbox 0]

but not a single, credible individual or consortium has come forward with an acceptable offer for one of the worlds truly great clubs?

Actually two buyers have expressed interest and one group got well into talks with Murray about purchasing the club. To the best of my knowledge, the issues lay in the creative accounting and the desire from Murray to take control of the training ground for purposes of development. Talks broke down. The second group, as far as I'm aware, didn't take it very far but in their case I would say that's a good thing.

This isn't hear say and don't believe it's not happening just because it isn't in the papers. There could well be more but even the ones mentioned above have been spun by Murray with his usual "I'll only sell if it's right for Rangers" nonsense, which is swallowed by the majority it would seem.

The ideal scenario is a group of Rangers supporters with cash to spare. Otherwise it takes on a totally commerical perspective and you look into what you're actually buying (the land under Ibrox, the sell-on fee for players, future marketing rights) so it becomes even less about the football.

[yellowcross 5]

this is a great site which allows both points of view, and people would need to do something really bad before they would get banned, plus the mods are top class and only step in if they think things are getting to heated.

I agree with that whole-heartedly.

Only other point I'll make on an RST thread - not being a member or even a politically motivated person at any level really - is that Frankie has acted with great decency/intelligence/balance throughout this IMO and his input on RST matters and Rangers matters generally is always a pleasure/interesting to read etc.

But, I am one of those supporters who follows the team fervently but has little interest in the politics of the club or the RST etc so there is little else I can contribute to this.

[Frankie 505]

I was one of the 42 at the meeting, and can I say how very disappointed I was with the decision of the 7 former board members not to turn up to say their piece.

The meeting went along very obvious lines as a result.

Frankie, I have since heard that you were keen to go, but as you would have been on your own, you decided not to be a lamb to the slaughter, and I suppose that must have been a hard decision for you and one I have some sympathy with. But the fact remains that we have a statement released from the 7 who resigned, an entirely different story from the remaining board, some of whom were there to answer questions, and the membership as a whole being the losers as without the actual debate of the issues at hand, nothing can be resolved.

TB:

I'm also very disappointed none of our group couldn't make it. The majority are/were on holiday or had prior engagements and while two of us hoped to go (including myself), one had to pull out late due to his mother's ill-health.

Reading some of the stuff on FF referring to our group as 'saps' and 'suckers' and seeing posts about the abusive text message being chopped, I'm glad I didn't go to be honest. That doesn't mean I don't regret letting the membership down by not being there.

Our presence may have helped ensure a more open debate but we'll see what the meeting minutes say before commenting further (if at all).

[Jimenez 1]

Here's my take on it.

It seems a lot of good bears on either side are going to come out looking bad from this whole sorry scenario.

I had always had the feeling that a simple 'clear the air' meeting between the old board could have prevented this, but judging from the claims and counter claims it appears that those bridges could never be rebuilt.

To be honest I don't know what way to turn in this, I have a lot of respect for remaining board members but likewise with one or two of those who resigned.

When those who care so passionately about our club and give up their time and effort can't work together then it's disappointing, sure there's going to be disagreements on issues. To expect there not to be a differing of opinions on a whole range of topics would be an an unattainable one. But considering we all have the interests of Rangers F.C. at heart I would at least expect those issues to be ironed out.

I'm losing interest in the politics of Rangers F.C. over this. I will continue to be a member of the trust due to their excellent work in handling an agenda driven mhedia, but as far as my support for the club is concerned. I'm going to focus on only giving a damn on how the team is performing on the park.

[Friedmarsbar 1]

I was one of the 42 at the meeting, and can I say how very disappointed I was with the decision of the 7 former board members not to turn up to say their piece.

The meeting went along very obvious lines as a result.

Frankie, I have since heard that you were keen to go, but as you would have been on your own, you decided not to be a lamb to the slaughter, and I suppose that must have been a hard decision for you and one I have some sympathy with. But the fact remains that we have a statement released from the 7 who resigned, an entirely different story from the remaining board, some of whom were there to answer questions, and the membership as a whole being the losers as without the actual debate of the issues at hand, nothing can be resolved.

TB:

I'm also very disappointed none of our group couldn't make it. The majority are/were on holiday or had prior engagements and while two of us hoped to go (including myself), one had to pull out late due to his mother's ill-health.

Reading some of the stuff on FF referring to our group as 'saps' and 'suckers' and seeing posts about the abusive text message being chopped, I'm glad I didn't go to be honest. That doesn't mean I don't regret letting the membership down by not being there.

Our presence may have helped ensure a more open debate but we'll see what the meeting minutes say before commenting further (if at all).

Frankie, I totally understand your feelings regarding attending that meeting. There is a real sinister element to Suck and his like, judging by their responses

on FF.

[Canadaready 9,437]

I think its kinda funny that the RST would be dragged into such a non-mature situation. You see this kind of stunt occur in municipal politics. Am I to assume that the current form of the RST would feel just fine in operating as a second rate organization, put much to shame by those peddling girl scout cookies to my front door?

[TannochsideBear 355]

TB:

I'm also very disappointed none of our group couldn't make it. The majority are/were on holiday or had prior engagements and while two of us hoped to go (including myself), one had to pull out late due to his mother's ill-health.

Reading some of the stuff on FF referring to our group as 'saps' and 'suckers' and seeing posts about the abusive text message being chopped, I'm glad I didn't go to be honest. That doesn't mean I don't regret letting the membership down by not being there.

Our presence may have helped ensure a more open debate but we'll see what the meeting minutes say before commenting further (if at all).

I dont think the minutes are going to tell you anything to be honest. I didn't see the sec writing too many quotes down or who said what kind of thing. I am sure you already have a couple of full verbal accounts of what was said together with the message boards punters who were there like myself. Malcolm and Scott took a verbal battering, and made to look like they were not keeping the rest of the board informed of the discussions taking place at Ibrox, and making it clear that they did not trust the rest of the board to maintain the confidentiality agreements, but to them that just looked suspicious that they two had crossed too far over the line from representing the RST board, and acting for themselves in the bid to be elected to the RFC board.

[TheFlyingPig 0]

Heard the stuff about the new Trust Board member being too pissed to attend but still getting voted in. There was much pub ridicule on that one.

Also heard that two of the now resigned Board members refused to inform the rest of the Board about what was discussed at meetings with SDM.

If both of these are true the Trust had and has some serious issues which need to be straightened out before they are taken seriously by the ordinary fan.

[Jimenez 1]

Heard the stuff about the new Trust Board member being too pissed to attend but still getting voted in. There was much pub ridicule on that one.

Also heard that two of the now resigned Board members refused to inform the rest of the Board about what was discussed at meetings with SDM.

If both of these are true the Trust had and has some serious issues which need to be straightened out before they are taken seriously by the ordinary fan.

From what I gather it was joke. The guy in question was attending church with his family, though I may be wrong on that.

On the latter point, that's why their was proposal to set up A committee for Special Tasks. They point blank deny that a Purposes Disciplinary Committee was anything to do with it.

Joanne who attended this meeting where the committee was proposed and someone I respect says it simply wasn't the case.

We have two different factions chucking mud at each other and the RST's members are left to form an opinion from recriminations on both sides. It's a total mess IMO

[*Manticore* 1,893]

Has anybody been on the management course that talks about teams going through various stages?

Can't remember it all but it's a series of words, forming, norming, storming, performing or the like.

The RST has obviously reached the 'storming' stage, where things get tough, hopefully we will move on to the 'performing' stage now.

Ever the optimist

WATP