RST - Let it sink without trace

[minstral 5,375]

So the question is do we give up on the Trust or do we hang in there because what was a good idea a couple of weeks ago is still a good idea? Give the new Board a chance?

But then I don't share in RM's demonisation of Mark Dingwall.

1. The RST, with Dingwall at the helm, will get precisely nowhere with The Rangers whilst Murray is in charge. Dingwall must know this. So many RST aims are scuppered before they take a foot forward.

2. Dingwall is far from demonised on here. He is open to criticism (and gets it) - something not allowed on the pages or internets of FF.

you have to kiss murrays arse, and do what your told before you will get anywhere with murray.

[parkheadbear 0]

It shouldn't be allowed to sink without a trace unless something good comes out of it. Fans representation is something that im 100% for but at the moment im not the RST is what I see as an ideal representative of me as an ordinary Rangers fan.

I would love to see the RST be more militant as for me with the guys I have around me at games and the guys I know when im drinking in Rangers pubs it represents the view of most Bears I come in contact with. It could be a case that im surrounded by nut cases and we represent a minority but the problem is the Trust have never asked people what they want. We should be asked how we want the trust to be wither it be militant or not and then take it from there.

For a good while (even when I was a member of the Trust) I felt that it would lead to the situation we have now. I asked what the trust would do when they found out that they wouldn't get the seat on the board and was never given an answer. I felt that to get their seat on the board they were selling their soul to the Maorray. It would end in tears as either they would get but would have trampled on ever Bear they represent to get it or they wouldn’t and still be in same situation and no one can trust them.

Now my main concern is that all but one of the new members put on the board are all FF posters. I see this as a lack of vision and lack of communication from the trust. I do fully accept that FF has some highly intelligent Bears and because they post on FF doesn’t mean they will be bad reps. The fact most came from FF shows what lack of communication or standing that the RST has within the wider Rangers support and keeps it to the confines of FF. The RST should be looking to ditch the old theory of FF/RST the same thing rather looking to strengthen it.

I have sit with many guys and the mere mention of FF turns the blood for many. Old school Bears who can’t stand everything that is FF. Now with the strengthening of the links this moves it away from these guys even more.

For now I will stand afar and see what the trust does and maybe if they can show the reason that they began then I could support them again.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

So the question is do we give up on the Trust or do we hang in there because what was a good idea a couple of weeks ago is still a good idea? Give the new Board a chance?

But then I don't share in RM's demonisation of Mark Dingwall.

1. The RST, with Dingwall at the helm, will get precisely nowhere with The Rangers whilst Murray is in charge. Dingwall must know this. So many RST aims are scuppered before they take a foot forward.

2. Dingwall is far from demonised on here. He is open to criticism (and gets it) - something not allowed on the pages or internets of FF.

I think 'demonised' is fair comment.

There are clearly a number of posters pursuing a bitter agenda against him, maybe some have a case, at least one I would put in the 'tin foil hat' Brigade from his ranting PMs.

But I do agree, having a go at a Moderator on FF will get you into soapy.

There's a shocker

[Briton 394]

But I do agree, having a go at a Moderator on FF will get you into soapy.

You do not need to do anything approaching that to get banned from FF as many have said on this forum.

[parkheadbear 0]

But I do agree, having a go at a Moderator on FF will get you into soapy.

You do not need to do anything approaching that to get banned from FF as many have said on this forum.

Their admin apart from a select few are cocks. End of.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

But I do agree, having a go at a Moderator on FF will get you into soapy.

You do not need to do anything approaching that to get banned from FF as many have said on this forum.

I can't understand your obsession withh FF banning you for nothing according to you.

It's time to move on.

[Briton 394]

But I do agree, having a go at a Moderator on FF will get you into soapy.

You do not need to do anything approaching that to get banned from FF as many have said on this forum.

I can't understand your obsession withh FF banning you for nothing according to you.

It's time to move on.

I do think your continued cowardly insinuations that I and others are lying about that is pathetic. You've seen many others say the same thing but still you come out with crap like this in your obsessive defense of that site and your beloved 'Suck'.

[JR 1,480]

If you disagree with the perceived new direction of the RST, would joining and giving money not just support that direction?

There's an underlying assumption here that the baddies have won the day and the goodies are vanquished.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that.

The few members of the Board that I know I regard as good bears, as I do the couple of the departed ones that I know.

The aim of the RST remains the same whoever is on the Board, presumably the way of going about it will change.

So the question is do we give up on the Trust or do we hang in there because what was a good idea a couple of weeks ago is still a good idea? Give the new Board a chance?

Pesonally I'm hanging in there.

But then I don't share in RM's demonisation of Mark Dingwall.

I think you need to address that point - Rangersmedia has not nor will demonise Mr Dingwall - all we strive to do is to let both sides of any arguement have their say and try to remain as impartial as possible within the terms of our rules.

To make that sweeping generalisation is unwarranted and a little unfair.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

I do think your continued cowardly insinuations that I and others are lying about that is pathetic. You've seen many others say the same thing but still you come out with crap like this in your obsessive defense of that site and your beloved 'Suck'.

You can get counselling for your anger.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

But then I don't share in RM's demonisation of Mark Dingwall.

I think you need to address that point - Rangersmedia has not nor will demonise Mr Dingwall - all we strive to do is to let both sides of any arguement have their say and try to remain as impartial as possible within the terms of our rules.

To make that sweeping generalisation is unwarranted and a little unfair.

Fair enough, as I said above a number of posters on RM seem to me to be obsessed with him, I didn't mean RM as an institution (so to speak).

[JR 1,480]

But then I don't share in RM's demonisation of Mark Dingwall.

I think you need to address that point - Rangersmedia has not nor will demonise Mr Dingwall - all we strive to do is to let both sides of any arguement have their say and try to remain as impartial as possible within the terms of our rules.

To make that sweeping generalisation is unwarranted and a little unfair.

Fair enough, as I said above a number of posters on RM seem to me to be obsessed with him, I didn't mean RM as an institution (so to speak).

No problem

As I don't use FF maybe you could shed some light - would it be a fair assumption to suggest that there appears to be more detractors of Mr Dingwall on here because they don't have the ability to question him on FF?

I guess what I'm asking is do you think the more vociferous of his critics are mainly FF posters, posting here to get their views aired?

[Briton 394]

I do think your continued cowardly insinuations that I and others are lying about that is pathetic. You've seen many others say the same thing but still you come out with crap like this in your obsessive defense of that site and your beloved 'Suck'.

You can get counselling for your anger.

Yet another childish reply...I'll take it from that you can't back up your snidey accusations.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

I do think your continued cowardly insinuations that I and others are lying about that is pathetic. You've seen many others say the same thing but still you come out with crap like this in your obsessive defense of that site and your beloved 'Suck'.

You can get counselling for your anger.

Yet another childish reply...I'll take it from that you can't back up your snidey accusations.

Yawn.

OK I'll bite.

What snidey accusations?

[JBear 0]

Can't believe this nonsense.

If you don't like the current direction join up and change it.

Bottom line is the members are in charge, it's just dumb to take a hissy fit, stamp your feet and leave when something happens that you don't like.

But then some folk have always had an agenda against the trust, whoever is on the Board.

You are exactly right there mate, The one person who would benefit from it sinking would be SDM

Join it and change it

Some one on this thread made a point about dingwall representing the fans which of course is untrue as up until lately mcniven was to be the representive of the trust on the board of the club, Dingwall will never be that person

[Briton 394]

I do think your continued cowardly insinuations that I and others are lying about that is pathetic. You've seen many others say the same thing but still you come out with crap like this in your obsessive defense of that site and your beloved 'Suck'.

You can get counselling for your anger.

Yet another childish reply...I'll take it from that you can't back up your snidey accusations.

Yawn.

OK I'll bite.

What snidey accusations?

That I (and presumably others that have said the same) are lying about being banned for nothing from FF. Funny that as when you have (wrongly) been accusing someone of being a Tim on this site, you have said something like, 'If this were FF, he'd be gone by now'.

[JR 1,480]

Gentlemen, please try and keep this topic on the the thread starter's intended course.

I suggest you settle any personal differences via PM, or hopefully agree to disagree and move on

[*Manticore* 1,893]

I do think your continued cowardly insinuations that I and others are lying about that is pathetic. You've seen many others say the same thing but still you come out with crap like this in your obsessive defense of that site and your beloved 'Suck'.

You can get counselling for your anger.

Yet another childish reply...I'll take it from that you can't back up your snidey accusations.

Yawn.

OK I'll bite.

What snidey accusations?

That I (and presumably others that have said the same) are lying about being banned for nothing from FF. Funny that as when you have (wrongly) been accusing someone of being a Tim on this site, you have said something like, 'If this were FF, he'd be gone by now'.

Still haven't seen anything snidey.

But as JR said, if you want to carry this on PM me.

[Jimenez 1]

It certainly looks like it needs a name change at the moment.....

Yes, how about...The Proddy Fuck The Pope There Ain't No BLack In The Union Jack Big Jock Knew No One Likes Us We Don't Care Supporters Trust?

Surely you jest?

Otherwise I can only imagine you haven't followed the work of the RST in any aspect whatsoever.

Aint no black in the Union jack?

Just what the fuck are you suggesting here?

[*Manticore* 1,893]

It certainly looks like it needs a name change at the moment.....

Yes, how about...The Proddy Fuck The Pope There Ain't No BLack In The Union Jack Big Jock Knew No One Likes Us We Don't Care Supporters Trust?

Surely you jest?

Otherwise I can only imagine you haven't followed the work of the RST in any aspect whatsoever.

Aint no black in the Union jack?

Just what the fuck are you suggesting here?

Good question.

I thought he was serious.

[Jimenez 1]

But I do agree, having a go at a Moderator on FF will get you into soapy.

You do not need to do anything approaching that to get banned from FF as many have said on this forum.

Their admin apart from a select few are cocks. End of.

So are the Admin on the UB site

[Jimenez 1]

The RST was a great idea, and it had some great people involved. However, there were also clearly some bad apples, and this element have managed to manouvere themselves into a position of influence.

I was never a member of the RST, and I always had my criticisms and concerns. However, I liked the idea and the fact that good work was done by the good members is undeniable. Now though, it is potentially a vehicle for an unsavoury element of our support to gain more exposure and arguably a degree of power.

Rather than the RST potentially being a positive body for it's members, the fans and the club in general......in my view, it can now only be a hinderance and cause future embarrassment.

I'd urge all non-members to not sign up. I'd urge all members to abandon ship ASAP. Let it sink, let it die and lets hope that in future other supporters bodies, old or new, can make a positive contribution.

It seems quite clear that the RST cannot be saved, certainly not in terms of offering representation that mirrors the majority of Rangers supporters.

There was a time where it could be argued that joining the RST could help move us forwards. Now I believe that it can only take us backwards.

Having never been a member you seem to hold much sway of opinion on 'bad apples' this the same bad apple that was influential in the idea of the Trust and its founding ideas (one you claim was a great idea)?

You may be embarrassed by an organization that is willing to defend the name of Rangers Football Club. But as someone who offers no alternative then your post is full of self pompous nonsense purely driven by hatred for one or two members who are prepared to go public with their ideas.

I'd urge you to let the supporters of Rangers F.C. to decide what they feel is best for the club.

We'll see. I think that once the dust has settled the RST can go from strength to strength.

Backwards? You are a rabid fan of chairman Maorray. Your definition of backwards may just be music to our ears.

I can't believe how much 'authority' someone who has offered an organization nothing in the way of support in the past, is trying to dictate to others on how to go about their business.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

So the question is do we give up on the Trust or do we hang in there because what was a good idea a couple of weeks ago is still a good idea? Give the new Board a chance?

But then I don't share in RM's demonisation of Mark Dingwall.

1. The RST, with Dingwall at the helm, will get precisely nowhere with The Rangers whilst Murray is in charge. Dingwall must know this. So many RST aims are scuppered before they take a foot forward.

2. Dingwall is far from demonised on here. He is open to criticism (and gets it) - something not allowed on the pages or internets of FF.

I think 'demonised' is fair comment.

I don't. We wouldn't be having this nature of discussion on MD or the RST within FF - it would not be allowed. That's one of my points and I can't see that as demonisation.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

So the question is do we give up on the Trust or do we hang in there because what was a good idea a couple of weeks ago is still a good idea? Give the new Board a chance?

But then I don't share in RM's demonisation of Mark Dingwall.

1. The RST, with Dingwall at the helm, will get precisely nowhere with The Rangers whilst Murray is in charge. Dingwall must know this. So many RST aims are scuppered before they take a foot forward.

2. Dingwall is far from demonised on here. He is open to criticism (and gets it) - something not allowed on the pages or internets of FF.

I think 'demonised' is fair comment.

I don't. We wouldn't be having this nature of discussion on MD or the RST within FF - it would not be allowed. That's one of my points and I can't see that as demonisation.

:bullshit: You produce an example of a comment that is not demonisation, and assert that this means he's not demonised.

It's known as a logical fallacy.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

You may be embarrassed by an organization that is willing to defend the name of Rangers Football Club. But as someone who offers no alternative then your post is full of self pompous nonsense purely driven by hatred for one or two members who are prepared to go public with their ideas.

There are many willing to defend the name of The Rangers. How they conduct themselves or methods chosen to do so are crucially important to any likely success. MD publishes FF - a right wing, low-circulation, poorly written ragzine that represents not much of how I see The Rangers. Which is fair enough - but it seems that he will have a central role in how the RST moves forward - so what should we expect? More of the mindset displayed in FF? If he's in charge of both the RST and FF - why would we expect his conduct or those of his supporters to be substantially different?

[Jimenez 1]

You may be embarrassed by an organization that is willing to defend the name of Rangers Football Club. But as someone who offers no alternative then your post is full of self pompous nonsense purely driven by hatred for one or two members who are prepared to go public with their ideas.

There are many willing to defend the name of The Rangers. How they conduct themselves or methods chosen to do so are crucially important to any likely success. MD publishes FF - a right wing, low-circulation, poorly written ragzine that represents not much of how I see The Rangers. Which is fair enough - but it seems that he will have a central role in how the RST moves forward - so what should we expect? More of the mindset displayed in FF? If he's in charge of both the RST and FF - why would we expect his conduct or those of his supporters to be substantially different?

can you explain to me how FF is 'right wing'?

I read it and so does my oriental friend.

So what major gripes do you have in the methods of the RST?

As for the Dingwall factor. I believe it has already been established that his influence has been grossly over-exagerated on here.