samNewton

I take it this applies across the board, including key figures on this forum? If not, you have surely had an irony bypass. This site recently posted a very slanted piece on Graham Duffy. It did not seek to investigate the issues it purported to raise. Did it not strike anyone that there could possibly have been a relatively benign explanation for the alleged problems? The crux of the matter is that the very future of the club is at stake and that Mr. Duffy could well play a role in saving it. Is he not entitled to more respect? (Please save me the waffle about 'legitimate questions' - the story was clearly intended to lead readers to one conclusion. This was precisely the angle STV took.) Should Graham Duffy emerge as a major shareholder in the club in the near future, I suspect he will not look very kindly on this forum - or, more accurately, certain people associated with it. So much for the call for 'unity'!

The RST never said that Dave King was 'the only show in town'. This canard seems to have arisen because of a comment which preceded an official statement posted on another m/board - the comment was not part of the statement. To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence that Dave King was ever interested. The Trust is working in conjunction with the Assembly and Association. In an ideal world certain matters would be kept behind closed doors. However, Sir David Murray uses newspapers for his own benefit - as we have just seen at the weekend. Those who are interested in buying Rangers have surely every right to go public - especially bearing in mind that the AGM is being held next week. Instead of deflecting about alleged 'canards' based on valid concerns which are entirely relevant given I'm sure the owner of said message-board (a prominent board member of the RST and their delegate on the Assembly) approved (or more probably wrote) said preceding comment, why not answer the questions properly. If a mistake was made there, just say so and we'll all move on to the more important stuff. Why is the Duffy bid considered 'the only show in town'? Why is he (and/or his colleagues on this consortium) the right person/people to buy Rangers and the right man/men for the Rangers support to invest their money in? Do Duffy's previous and ongoing questionable business activities not concern the Trust given the months of talks you've had with him? If not, why not? Why, despite those months of talks, are you no closer to buying the club or offering a tangible model to the wider support? I've no problem with using the media to put across one's message. However, I do think the credibility of said message is in question given the Trust's premature comments on King previously juxtaposed with the dubious background of Duffy. Add in the fact there is still nothing concrete to buy into for any interested fan (we can all post our workable schemes on ownership with or without the backing of journalists); then I think my own mild criticism and disappointment is warranted. Like I say, I'm very interested in what the Trust have to say on the matter but feel they'd be better served keeping their powder dry for when something real is on the table. Anything else just looks unprofessional and somewhat desperate IMHO. That is a shame as it is good to know all the fan groups are still working together. To that end, how do the fan groups intend reaching out to others to 'unite' further? I corrected the myth about the 'Dave King-RST statement' a couple of weeks back. I said then that it was a mistake on the part of an FF admin. Yet you have clearly ignored this. Are you simply interested in using any means you can to trash the RST? I believe that as far as the RST is aware, there has been no interest shown in buying the club from any other source. Therefore, the consortium - of which Mr. Duffy is but one part - is 'the only show in town' in that respect. Given that these people appear to be very sympathetic to ownership of Rangers FC by supporters, it can hardly be a surprise to anyone that the RST welcomes their interest. The RST has been in contact with people in the consortium and their representatives. Despite the NOTW comment, I do not know if prolonged discussions with Mr. Duffy personally have taken place. These people will not present a 'model' simply because someone on a m/board demands it. Likewise, I don't think they need to take your advice on when to bid and at what price. They are not stupid. There is a serious case of the green-eyed monster on this forum.

The RST never said that Dave King was 'the only show in town'. This canard seems to have arisen because of a comment which preceded an official statement posted on another m/board - the comment was not part of the statement. To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence that Dave King was ever interested. The Trust is working in conjunction with the Assembly and Association. In an ideal world certain matters would be kept behind closed doors. However, Sir David Murray uses newspapers for his own benefit - as we have just seen at the weekend. Those who are interested in buying Rangers have surely every right to go public - especially bearing in mind that the AGM is being held next week.

TBH, I think you're only interested in bad-mouthing current members of the RST board and twisting words and are not genuinely seeking information or offering positive criticism. You also seem blissfully unaware that criticisms you make of the RST board apply to people who run this very forum.

I didn't know there was a requirement to answer every single point made by a poster. I have certainly not come across it on this or any other forum before. Suffice it to say that I have explained why I think the situations facing the NUST and the RST (and many other STs) are different - we won the Double, NU got relegated. Until very recently, much of our support hadn't a clue how serious our financial problems were - some still don't. Others - including quite a few on this forum - are seemingly in denial. Communication between the Trust and its members will improve and steps are being taken in this direction. With all due respect, you and others have been using this line for the past two years and yet the communication has got steadily worse. What steps are being taken? Or is this yet another facet of the Trust that the members don't get told about? I'm not having a go at the RST for the sake of it, i deperately want to see it's aims achieved. But there are many things which concern me about the current set-up. New members have been added to the RST board recently. The communications issue is one that needs improving. As of the last few weeks (and presumably the next few) the Trust has had (and will undoubtedly have) quite a lot on its plate, though.

I didn't know there was a requirement to answer every single point made by a poster. I have certainly not come across it on this or any other forum before. Suffice it to say that I have explained why I think the situations facing the NUST and the RST (and many other STs) are different - we won the Double, NU got relegated. Until very recently, much of our support hadn't a clue how serious our financial problems were - some still don't. Others - including quite a few on this forum - are seemingly in denial. Communication between the Trust and its members will improve and steps are being taken in this direction.

Rangers' debt was down to something like 6 mill only 3 or 4 years ago. Therefore, the club has not permanently been in a dire financial position. However, the club's overall strategy, seemingly lurching between extremes, does raise concerns. The RST issued the 'We Deserve Better' statement last January in an attempt to open up a debate on how well the club was being run. The Trust has surely been at the forefront of bringing concerns about the club's financial performance into the public eye, much to the dissatisfaction of Sir David Murray.

I haven't a clue who wrote it but it is not reflective of the situation now. Whether the Trust would 'back' a bid by a particular individual or a consortium would surely be related to how enthusiastic any bidder was to the idea of fan ownership/part-ownership. With regard to RST members being asked for their views, there is clearly a practical problem concerning the time factor. In other words, as things stand there is surely a strong possibility that the support will be presented with a fait accomplis by Lloyd's Bank.

Does this (from FF.com) help you answer the questions above? As far as I am aware, the text you posted was the pre-amble contained on FF.com to a joint statement from the Assembly, Trust, WWA and Association released on 29th October. The actual statement itself said nothing about Dave King. The pre-amble may have been a direct response to media speculation at that time regarding Dave King and the precarious position the club was thought to be in. However, the situation has developed since then.

What about the Trust's vocal backing of the Dave King bid? How does that translate to tenability and member representation given his legal and associated financial problems? What are your members' thoughts on this backing? Do you still back the King bid? What aspects of his bid led you to back it and how would you deal with any problems that could arise RE: his tax issues in SA? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. As far as I am aware, Dave King has not announced that he will make (or has made) a bid for the club. There are also surely legal constraints on what anyone can say in public regarding takeovers/mergers.

What is the RST's most recent position on this? Clearly, the issue is irrelevant now. However, had the RST accepted an 'associate directorship' or whatever else was suggested by SDM 18 months ago, it would have put itself in an extremely awkward and almost certainly untenable position with regard to representing its members - especially given the information we now know about the club's (and his) finances. I have never believed Murray would have welcomed genuine fans' involvement on the Rangers board. I think he was only interested in 'divide and rule' tactics. However, I never objected to the Trust or any other supporters' body having meetings over issues from which the club and support could benefit.

A situation not unlike our own, aside from the relegation. They have recruited 3'500 members in 5 months, a figure which the RST had around at their most promient of times. The NUST has a clear strategy, visible to all and an established network of communicating with both members and non-members. It is being run in such a way that if the RST adopted a similar strategy, they could attract many thousands of fans to become members. As i have said, the communication is an issue which has plagued the Trust right from the very beginning and has got steadily worse over the years. The question is, why isn't this being addressed? It is baffling. That's a pretty huge 'aside' and one that tends to concentrate minds wonderfully. Meanwhile Rangers won the League and Cup double while fans have only very recently read or heard reports indicating that the club has serious financial problems.

See above, hope you're enlightened. You've certainly had long enough to get the point about the RST. So, you don't think the RST should have accepted a seat on a Murray-led board? Yet, you refer to 'hijacking the RST'! I see - strong on character assassination but a tad weak when it comes to mounting a cogent argument.

The history of Supporters Trusts in the UK suggests that there is a very strong correlation between the problems (or lack thereof) facing a club and membership of the associated Trust. NUST is a case in point; it was only formed just over a year ago, but its real boost in popularity came following the club's relegation last season and the ongoing situation with Mike Ashley. In other words, these supporters are confronting a major problem and have been forced to act. Where were they before September 2008? Other Supporters Trusts have had little success in attracting members. The Celtic ST has (I believe) only a few score. I notice the OP uses the expression 'hijackers of the RST'. I wonder if he can justify the use of such emotive and misleading language. He might also care to enlighten us as to his stance regarding whether the RST should have accepted a position on a David Murray-led Rangers board.

Basically, if the bank's representatives are charged with recouping debt and selling the club (or MIH's stake) they may think any comment from within the club would be unhelpful. Given the statement released on October 26th referring to the 'City Code on Takeovers and Mergers' there may also be legal constraints on exactly what can be said. The sums owed by Rangers may be a 'drop in the ocean' in comparison with those owed by MIH as a whole, but Lloyd's will see these as easily recoverable. It looks like it will have to write off much of the money it is owed.