UnionCityBlue

I think one thing that most of us agree on is that if the fans step up its definitely NOT to pur money into SDM's pockets. Total ownership is where I'd ideally like to get to but how soon that can be achieved depends on an awful lot of things. I almost went into an 'known unknowns' type speach there, but I managed to restrain myself just in time! And yes, the font is definitely annoying

Definitely agree about June - January, I agree, cannot be proven one way or the other until the time comes. Just taking the view by reading between the lines that we may regret it if we do nothing in the meantime. The bank situation clearly stinks and the new business plan which "is acceptable but not satisfactory" according to AJ only points to more cutbacks. Whether the club will resist January sales or not is another question. We also now have the real prospect of another 10,000-15,000 (who knows?) empty seats at the last CL game which might knock another £half a million out of the currently agreed business plan, so I'm not sure we can be certain about anything tbh.

Certainly no instructions have been given to me. It would be good if we could cover all the sites at the same time, large or small.

Not suggesting anybody is lying mate, just that things don't seem to be so black and white. If for example, an offer of £3m comes in for somebody who might ordinarily be worth £4m and it's considered by the board (as all offers presumably are), then we might lose the player on the basis that (in the overall circumstances) it's still a reasonable offer, and should be taken. The question then is, will we replace him? So, the subtlety is around the difference between 'needing to sell' as instructed by the bank, and the board choosing to sell to alleviate overall pressure. To my knowledge, the Chairman hasn't said we won't sell anybody and given our overall position I wouldn't be surprised if we did. As I say, this is only a possible scenario, but it's realistic if there is no change in ownership in my opinion. What do you think? Would you rule it out, and why?

Despite all the rights and wrongs and some comments that would be best left in the gutter at least the issue is being debated on here and elsewhere. If genuine Rangers fans didn't care about the club or the concepts of a Supperters Trust then why is it that every time a thread like this comes up it is by far the most popular of them all? And the answer to that is easy because the vast majority of Rangers fans would like to see some kind of supporter representation within the club that was able to influence or indeed control issues concerning them and the club. I think that's the biggest issue here tbh; the rest is in some ways distracting attention whether deliberate or not. Personalities aside, the situation we all face together appears to be pretty bleak for Rangers and at the end of the day, that's why we're all here and that's what we all care about. Sometimes on the internet it's hard to recognise that we're all on the same side. The way I see it, the fans could very well be required to put money into the Club in various circumstances and we need to get into a position to do that sooner rather than later. If Dave King rolls into town he might well want some financial input from us. If he doesn't and someone else appears on the scene, they might too. If they turn up late, we might want to put money in during January if players start disappearing. If nobody turns up at all, we might need to help the club sometime in January or in June. There are just so many possible scenarios at the moment that we could be facing - none of them particularly attractive unless the mystery white knight arrives and chucks maybe £30m-£40m in. There's no concrete sign of him yet. Seperately, fan representation leading to ownership is not supported by all, but there does seem to be a lot of interest from a lot of people. It would be interesting to hear what people think would be the right models for Rangers and what structures etc people think should be put in place and using which principals etc. These will be the questions if and when this moves on a step or two. I do understand that some people have a reluctance to get on board with the Trust as things stand for a variety of reasons, and for others it is a bridge too far in any circumstances. But as I say, significant supporters' contributions might well be required quite soon and at the moment the RST and partners are (rightly or wrongly) focussed on these eventualities. It would be good to hear more about what the folks on Rangersmedia would like to see with respect to this.

Boss, Your position is 100% clear and it's obvious that, for your own reasons, you will put obstacles in the way of anything the RST is trying to do here. That is understood. Tannochsidebear, as far as I know, is an organisationally-neutral, well-respected Rangers fan who happens to be a member of just about every organisation going and a friend of all. To ask him (or anybody) nearly 40 questions on a thread like this one and the one on Gersnet is, with the greatest of respect, ridiculous. It's close to pointless trying to have a conversation when it's framed in such a way. One suspects that even if you got nearly 40 satisfactory answers, you'd have another 80 questions within the hour. If he (or any other individual) tried to answer your questions it would be an impossible task which would almost inevitibly result in inaccuracies and lead to ridicule. If your questions are avoided it will make those avoiding them look stupid and leave them open to ridicule. So you win, and this particular conversation is probably over. If your aim is to kill the debate and isolate it to places other than RM and Gersnet, this is definitely the way to go.

I'm not on the board of the RST, I do wholehearteddly agree that there has to be more unity, more inclusion of all forums and groups, and I can certtainly understand the reluctance of some to all of a sudden believe that things have changed. I recognise your user name as being from Vanguard primarily, who I know do not generally support the RST as a result of MD's involvement, and so therefore are probably the group least likely to trust anything said by him and the RST, but I would like to ask you, if you dont mind, if you think there would be any way that you would support a fans membership scheme if it was facilitated by the RST, the Assembly and the Association in a joint group project, in order to raise funds to gain an influential share of the running of the club, democratically run by all of us. Or is the fact that the influence of MD in all of this, and the history therein, would 100% preclude you from getting involved in any scheme he was a part of? Or is it less personal than that and it is the RST you disagree with? I dont know, but I am trying to get a wide-ranging selection of views as to who would not get behind such a shceme, and their reasons for that decision. Not back on not till much later tonight, but hope you can answer this. Correct I do post on Vanguard but that came about because they helped me with a campaign I was involved with, funnily enough I approached MD and the RST and asked for help also, to date the RST have still to acknowledge my emails. Least said about MD's attitude towards me the better. The guys on Vanguard also helped get some of the other sites involved including RM which is why I'm also on here. First impressions and all that... Would I support a fans membership scheme? Absolutely but only in certain circumstances, here's part of my problem. Say a "board" is put together to represent all the fans who get involved and on this basis I decided to donate my money because I'm happy with who is overseeing the running of the scheme and I trust them to make the correct decisions for the club. Given the previous "internal" politics that have went before with the RST what's to say MD or A.N.Other egotist doesn't just orchestrate another round of resiginations to have themselves and their cronies running affairs and our club? I know there will be elections etc but egotists generally find ways of making these things happen? TBH My problem is part MD and part the RST, the RST allowed themselves to solely associated with his website and seem to run all their business through that website. This in turn alienates other websites/groups as MD business comes first and the others are seen as competition. The RST also has a list of achievements which are are more out date than the marathon bar I have in the fridge, the RST seem overly eager to promote themselves without actually doing anything worthy of the "fame" they seem to crave. After Fraser Martins comments after Bucharest I will never ever be a member of anything that he holds an official position in, he should resign his "spokesman" job for his comments on Sky Sports. I'm about to start going off on different tangents so I will leave it at that for the moment.. Bit of a vicious circle that one mate - trying to do something about that on here now, hopefully that's a start. As a Trust board member why don't you suggest that something is done formally to address this situation? No offence but I've heard a lot of noises from the Trust on this before but nothing ever seems to be done, many members and board members have stated on several forums that the trust "are working on this" or words to that effect. When it comes down to it though nothing changes, why is this? I've got to be sceptical and suggest that one man is influencing this, why doesn't the trust have it's own forum where subjects like this can be discussed? This would go a long long way to removing the trust and FF are one and the same tag. I've been able to exchange views with Andy Kerr on the bluenose forum and its refreshing to put your point of view across directly to a fans rep. having gotten on board fairly recently, I really don't know mate, and FWIW I do believe it's the way to go and that the Trust should have a members forum. In the meantime (and even though I'm not a "fan's rep"!), you can of course talk to me here if you choose.

I'm assuming you are on the RST board, correct me if I'm wrong? Yes I am. It's interesting that it is presented as a joint venture, but whenever it gets to the nitty gritty it becomes "the Trust ... providing a vehicle to invest funds in the club" and "what the Trust aims to be in a position to do sooner rather than later." Would it be correct to say that this is a Trust initiative, which has the backing of the other associations? Would any money be recieved and handled by the Trust? If so, it's a bit of a stretch to be selling it as a joint venture, don't you think? It couldn't be clearer that this is a joint initiative, but the fact is that the RST already a scheme in place (Gersave) which enables the purchase of shares in Rangers. On that basis, that aspect of supporting fundraising in the short-term would naturally sit on 'that side of the fence', if you will. I think most people would recognise that as being sensible and hopefully not see it as too much of a stretch. By the way, how many members do you have? As you probably know, the RST AGM reported the membership in the 1600-1700 range. With recent activity i.e. people joining and re-joining every day, from what I understand, we are looking at approx. 2000. ^^^^^ As a Rangers Group, why doesn't the RST give press releases to Vanguard Bears as it does to other groups? And is it a decision from the RST board? Feel free to pm me an answer if you don't wish it publicly known. Assuming this is true, I didn't actually know that.

I'm not on the board of the RST, I do wholehearteddly agree that there has to be more unity, more inclusion of all forums and groups, and I can certtainly understand the reluctance of some to all of a sudden believe that things have changed. I recognise your user name as being from Vanguard primarily, who I know do not generally support the RST as a result of MD's involvement, and so therefore are probably the group least likely to trust anything said by him and the RST, but I would like to ask you, if you dont mind, if you think there would be any way that you would support a fans membership scheme if it was facilitated by the RST, the Assembly and the Association in a joint group project, in order to raise funds to gain an influential share of the running of the club, democratically run by all of us. Or is the fact that the influence of MD in all of this, and the history therein, would 100% preclude you from getting involved in any scheme he was a part of? Or is it less personal than that and it is the RST you disagree with? I dont know, but I am trying to get a wide-ranging selection of views as to who would not get behind such a shceme, and their reasons for that decision. Not back on not till much later tonight, but hope you can answer this. Correct I do post on Vanguard but that came about because they helped me with a campaign I was involved with, funnily enough I approached MD and the RST and asked for help also, to date the RST have still to acknowledge my emails. Least said about MD's attitude towards me the better. The guys on Vanguard also helped get some of the other sites involved including RM which is why I'm also on here. First impressions and all that... Would I support a fans membership scheme? Absolutely but only in certain circumstances, here's part of my problem. Say a "board" is put together to represent all the fans who get involved and on this basis I decided to donate my money because I'm happy with who is overseeing the running of the scheme and I trust them to make the correct decisions for the club. Given the previous "internal" politics that have went before with the RST what's to say MD or A.N.Other egotist doesn't just orchestrate another round of resiginations to have themselves and their cronies running affairs and our club? I know there will be elections etc but egotists generally find ways of making these things happen? TBH My problem is part MD and part the RST, the RST allowed themselves to solely associated with his website and seem to run all their business through that website. This in turn alienates other websites/groups as MD business comes first and the others are seen as competition. The RST also has a list of achievements which are are more out date than the marathon bar I have in the fridge, the RST seem overly eager to promote themselves without actually doing anything worthy of the "fame" they seem to crave. After Fraser Martins comments after Bucharest I will never ever be a member of anything that he holds an official position in, he should resign his "spokesman" job for his comments on Sky Sports. I'm about to start going off on different tangents so I will leave it at that for the moment.. Bit of a vicious circle that one mate - trying to do something about that on here now, hopefully that's a start.

I'm assuming you are on the RST board, correct me if I'm wrong? Yes I am. It's interesting that it is presented as a joint venture, but whenever it gets to the nitty gritty it becomes "the Trust ... providing a vehicle to invest funds in the club" and "what the Trust aims to be in a position to do sooner rather than later." Would it be correct to say that this is a Trust initiative, which has the backing of the other associations? Would any money be recieved and handled by the Trust? If so, it's a bit of a stretch to be selling it as a joint venture, don't you think? It couldn't be clearer that this is a joint initiative, but the fact is that the RST already a scheme in place (Gersave) which enables the purchase of shares in Rangers. On that basis, that aspect of supporting fundraising in the short-term would naturally sit on 'that side of the fence', if you will. I think most people would recognise that as being sensible and hopefully not see it as too much of a stretch. By the way, how many members do you have? As you probably know, the RST AGM reported the membership in the 1600-1700 range. With recent activity i.e. people joining and re-joining every day, from what I understand, we are looking at approx. 2000. ^^^^^

Answers inc. OK mate, your position and level of support is perfectly clear. I hope you can be persuaded to get on board at some point but we'll have to wait and see.

What is it that "the fans want, which the RST is not representitive of"? What would you say the RST and the other fans' groups should be doing in these circumstances that they're not doing? If there are other ways forward now's the time to get them out there mate. The RST calls for unity yet is happy to ignore sections of the support, how about changing that? Why is it the RST wants unity but ONLY when it suits them? When someone who is "earning a living" from the Rangers support is a leading player in this campaign then you can understand the reluctance from Rangers fans to get involved. His interests ALWAYS come first. The RST couldn't even arrange this conference properly yet you want us to trust you with our hard earned cash and the running of our club If some of the figures quoted are correct about annual investment from the fans(£100-£1,500) were correct I could and would pay this but only to someone I trust. The whole picture has changed in the last 6 months and the last few weeks in particular. The Assembly, the Association and the Trust are all calling for unity and have united - that is the situation. We all need to be grown-up about this now and have serious conversations about what the future of Rangers is going to be. Think of the Trust as providing a vehicle to invest funds in the club - this is open to all fans. Nobody is asking you to trust the Trust with "running the club" - if and when supporter representation is achieved, it will obviously be decided upon democratically, not by self-appointment of people in the RST. It's encouraging to hear you'd contribute, so the deal now is to present something to you which you'll take seriously and consider getting involved with. That's what the Trust aims to be in a position to do sooner rather than later.

Gersave money will be used to buy shares in the club. That's what it's for and that's why people pay into it. That's always been the case.

What is it that "the fans want, which the RST is not representitive of"? What would you say the RST and the other fans' groups should be doing in these circumstances that they're not doing? If there are other ways forward now's the time to get them out there mate. If the fans wanted to buy into this scheme it would have been represented by more than 100-150 attendees, it was well advertised on TV, newspapers and websites so there was no excuse for people not to go. Bottom line, they aren't interested, they want a leader, a sole leader of the likes of those in the past and not like the recent charlatan. Fans at this point in time are looking for honesty and direction, that they won't get from being asked to to buy into a scheme which has no defined details and is being lead by people that fans don't trust. This situation we are in is unfortunately outwith the fans control and it should remain that way. Our white knight may or may not come, there is nothing we can do about that. What we can do is amalgamate fans support groups, but that takes the best wishes and intentions of all concerned, that would be a major task in itself, but it should be the first step forward in any of all this. Otherwise it's all a waste of time, we as fans all look at Rangers differently, what we need to do is look for the common ground and encourage it. As has been said petty squabbles are ruining our fanbase and ruin any chance of influence we have. Thanks, appreciate your thoughts there. For me, the worry is that while the fans might 'want' a sole leader as you describe, in actual fact nobody has stepped up to the plate as yet. The club's been for sale for at least 3 years and the leader you describe has not emerged. And so we move into January and then to June..... TBH, I can't see the value in taking a position that there is nothing we can do. Advocating doing nothing will achieve exactly that - nothing. I also think in the circumstances and timescales that amalgamating supporters groups isn't feasible. What they can do is work together on common ground, which is what the Assy, Assoc and Trust have been trying hard to do. Having said all that, everybody is obviously free to make their own choices and to do nothing or to do something. The Trust has decided to try to do something designed to assist and support Rangers. I'd say that's a good first step forward too.

What is it that "the fans want, which the RST is not representitive of"? What would you say the RST and the other fans' groups should be doing in these circumstances that they're not doing? If there are other ways forward now's the time to get them out there mate.