babyblueger

175 fans x £373 = £65275. That's under £5000 each from Walter and the 13 players on show last night. Surely, as a peace offering, the travelling fans should at least be offered it. I could not agree more.

Or in July, when they had a meeting that was mentioned in the papers, the RST website and FF. But don't let the facts spoil your story David Edgar said on RR The RST havent had contact from SDM in over a year. Just going by what the man said on real radio. So i have no story No he didn't!

Can anyone? He said 'the result last night is entirely down to Walter'. I admit Davie is a mate of mine, but I can't see how that statement can be seen as defending Walter! I'm talking about Jim Templeton who was on Superscoreboard here! Apologies mate!

Or in July, when they had a meeting that was mentioned in the papers, the RST website and FF. But don't let the facts spoil your story

Can anyone? He said 'the result last night is entirely down to Walter'. I admit Davie is a mate of mine, but I can't see how that statement can be seen as defending Walter!

One of the 7 told me that he returned from holiday to see the statement and was embarrassed by it. It was, apparently, even more self-pitying and verbose and he insisted they cut it. He regrets the timing and putting his name to it (he also told me that it was driven by one particular member of the 7.) Anyway, it's all over now. The RST still function and no-one is being forced to do things they are uncomfortable with.

Jiminez: FF is published by a man who stood for election for the Scottish Unionist party. Not, to my knowledge, a hotbed of left wing radical political thought. I'm not certain of the relevance of you or your friend (or indeed his oriental orientation) reading FF. The stated goals of the RST are healthy - enough for me to have signed up. But, the last few months have really booted the arse of it's credibility, resulted some truly childish mud-slinging and I struggle to see how it's going to improve with a strong FF influence. Maybe I'll be proven wrong - as you said above in this thread: we'll see. One of his best friends is Stepehn Smith, a Trade Union Official who has a Ché Guevara tatoo for goodness sake! Admin SM is more left-wing than Lenin. MD has his politics, but he doesn't judge people by theirs. You might care to do the same.

You think he's demonised. I don't. No fanciful inventions of logical fallacy required. And I didn't produce an example of a comment - I made the comment. He's been labeled a bigot and a muppet on here. If that isn't demonization I really don't know what is. You have touched on his politics previously as a way to attack the Trust. When asked for evidence on this bigotry I have received hee haw in the way of a reply. Funny that! There are a select few on here happy to partake in an assassination campaign of someone who is only doing what he feels is best for the club. It's pathetic MD isn't perfect, nowhere near, but at least he's got off his arse and done something which he believes will help his club, more than the internet warriors who smugly sit and pass judgement behind a cloak of anonymity. It's easy to moan and then do f*ck all. And for the record, I think his admin are cocksockets. Been banned many a time for very little. But that has nothing to do with the RST.

I think that's true, but there have always been a few posters who are fanatically anti RST for whatever reason (mental illness in one case judging from his PMs). Anti RST feeling is currently being enmeshed with the anti Mark Dingwall/ FF feeling which has also been around for a while among a few posters. And what's emerging is a picture where the big bad bigots have chucked the nice guys out of the Trust. Can I make my own feelings clear 1. I am now an ex Trust Member 2. I think we should drop references to FF/RST, it is a huge site and we cannot lump every poster on FF, every Rangers supporter, into this militant camp reference. Let me say I like FF, I read it most days, I love the content and I am fearful that a lot of people see it as an FF/Media split, this would be wrong as what someone else has said, we are all Rangers supporters. 3. Where I do have worries is that the very dictatorial line followed by the FF Administrators where anyone not toeing the party line has his post terminated and then his account suspended, while their well known posters are allowed to say what they like, condemn people in the most abusive terms, are allowed to carry on regardless. 4. This site is run by Mark Dingwall, do not know the man personally, but have had dealings with him on a number of issues through the years, and I am perturbed that a man that runs his website in this way will have a prominent position in the Rangers Trust, that is why I am leaving the Trust, as I feel that the infiltration of the Trust by his followers will be unstoppable, and has probably started, judging by reports. 5. A Trust run in this manner will result in it being marginalised and its influence reduced. As Mark has been on the board since the RST's inception, therefore having been on it longer than all but 2 of the 7 who resigned, wouldn't this have happened before now? You are entitled to your opinion, but I have to say apart from a 'feeling' you have no evidence for it. And you make the classic mistake of confusing the RST with FF. Mark Dingwall may well like to run the RST, he may well like to run it like FF - but he doesn't so he can't. I really can't believe how much some over-rate the influence of Dingwall - he wishes he has this power!

Thomson. Agree about Cuellar and I'm never keen on a goalie as Captain.

A rational person would always hear out the two sides to the story and come to a conclusion. Although it is interesting from a lot of members' point of view to see such vocal opinions, you can probably understand it will get stressful for the main parties who are being questioned and criticised. Ahh politics. Great, innit? :beer2: Good night all.

Known Mark for many years and not blind to his flaws. But this image which has been portrayed of him is untrue. And if any Rangers Fan had a hand in the Daily Record character assassination of him, then they should be deeply ashamed of themselves.

After 12 posts, you've made your mind up on the politics and manner of this entire forum? Rather ignorant, maybe you should try and understand andypendek's post, and draw a parallel from it? I think there has been ignorance on abundance on this thread. Sadly a lot of it wilful. And sadly, the most ignorant post of the lot? We have a winner! Congratulations What a big mature admin you are! You must be awful big and clever! Compare your post with that of the previous admin. Simply sad.

What future plans? The militant direction that none of the Board who were there on Sunday seemed to know about? This is my problem. The official line form the RST Board on Sunday was that there has been no shift except they have to improve their communications. But everyone on here seems to have taken at face value everything those who have left have said. As John Lydon sang - 'two sides to every story.' Frankie by his own admission didn't attend the now infamous 'Special Purposes' committee and didn't attend the SGM. Hardly the best placed to comment on things, no? cooperonthewing has asked several pertinent questions, all of which have been ignored. My view on reading this thread is that the split suits everybody.

We're certainly not anti-trust. Perhaps a fair few members on here are skeptical of the RST at this moment, but as a website we certainly are not, or have any intention to ever be, anti-RST. I'm happy to let discussion pass on the matter, provided it doesn't get personal, and let those that read it make up their own minds. Nobody from the new board has ever been in contact with us, even before this all kicked off. If in future the RST wanted to promote things on here, we'd happily oblige. I will pass that on to them. It's an attitude which does you credit.

Maybe they're doing something in the real world And yet still logged onto this site. I believe I am the only other ex-board member on this thread so I suppose you are pointing the finger at me. There are a few things I want to point out. The first is that Frankie does not need any help and secondly it is really disappointing that folk that Frankie probably knows well are coming on here trying to point score. Further to this board members of the RST are saying that everyone should move on and give the RST a chance to recover. In all seriousness I think you should do the same. And will the 7 do that? The statement's timing was...to be kind...suspicious if that's really the way you guys feel.

After 12 posts, you've made your mind up on the politics and manner of this entire forum? Rather ignorant, maybe you should try and understand andypendek's post, and draw a parallel from it? I think there has been ignorance on abundance on this thread. Sadly a lot of it wilful.

Not really. His time has come Yes there time has indeed come......... Jesus wept.

Nice open mind and neutral starting position there, then. And your paragraph two is a belter - you'll judge Frankie by his words but the RST Board by their supporters on this, a fairly anti-trust website (well, since Frankie chucked it, anyway?) Who would have thought that they would be a bit defensive over here? cooperonthewing got it for having the audacity to post here! The truth is what it is, not what people want it to be.

Maybe they're doing something in the real world And yet still logged onto this site. It was Frankie who set his own deadline. Had he not been on the site most of the week I'd have agreed that cooperonthewing was hassling him. But he's managed to react to an awful lot of posts on this thread but not those ones.

Let's take this one point at a time. 1. You suggest there is nothing to be concerned about in the statement other than the fact we took the huff. If you actually read the statement with a semblance of objectivity, you'll see there are several issues. One - a major leak in information from the board who is still present; Two - underhand dealings from a faction of the board conspiring against others; Three - minimal contribution/support from members still on the board; Four - committees to control and restrict board members who were capable of doing work and acting on initiative but always within the rules; Five - the remaining board releasing false information about the reasons for the resignations; Six - the disrespect of the resignees since from parts of the remaining board; Seven - a remaining board member sending abusive text messages to other RST members. 2. I never said you (or JG) getting the committee detail was a 'big' thing. In fact, I said I totally understood why he may be confused given the complicated nature of what has happened. The same could be said of our alleged mistake regarding the naming of the committee (even although it still accurately described the proposed function of it given the details I posted from the minutes). Hardly a major crime for the name to be wrong. I think there are more important things to concentrate on but it's no surprise that some are attempting to deflect the main issues above. 3. Of course no-one was asked to resign. People did so because of a combination of the above reasons in '1'. We didn't argue our case because we felt relations had gone beyond that of any possible working relationship. There was obviously a complete breakdown of trust and conspiracy against us. Would you work voluntarily under those restrictions? 4. You're suggesting just because no-one asked us to go, what happened couldn't be a 'coup d'etat'? My understanding of such an act is that it is a sudden, unexpected, aggressive, politically engineered tactical move to gain an advantage on a rival. I'd suggest that's exactly what happened. 5. 7 people did know where they'd be that day though. 2 thought they could go. Their circumstances changed due to unexpected occurrences explained earlier. Perhaps the AGM will be different? 6. If you don't want people to think you have personal issues, I suggest you don't infer people are liars (then try and laughably deny that to be the case), don't infer they are part of a gang and don't infer they resigned simply because they took the huff. 7. I'd like to think I've always been professional and courteous where ever I've posted and with regard to any subject - particularly in relation to the RST. You can be disappointed in what I did all you like (that's your opinion) but, with respect, I think you should perhaps re-read the problems in our statement and ask yourself did 7 key board members really resign just because they weren't happy. That's a very simplistic conclusion to reach no matter what side of the argument you may agree with. You had all these issues you want me to talk about but when you had the same issues with the remaining board you didn't even try to work them out? And your defence of the phrase 'coup' is laughable. The remaining board members will be in big demand to get rid of regimes if they can do it without ever asking calling for anyone to go. I was looking for some clarification on why you and your fellow ex-board members left. I felt the statement was whiny and self-serving. I have heard nothing from you to persuade me I was wrong. It seems that the split was in everybody's best interests. Adios.

Ah, from facts, it's now semantics. You call me a liar when it's quite clearly not the case. Is JG now the liar dealing 'fast and loose' in facts? Or, is as a I suspect, is he just simply confused about what happened? As for the naming of the committee, well I think that's a red herring somewhat when it comes to dealing with what was said in the statement. It's remit was to cover discipline so I think it's had a few names during the last 8 weeks from several different sources. Of course, if I (we) got the official name wrong, then fine, we'll call it the 'special tasks' committee which deals in many matters including discipline. The actual name is no big deal when one considers the stuff within the statement (that you still haven't addressed I see). As for the timing of the release of the statement well that was only done because it wasn't until around then we knew none of us could attend. As for it causing trouble, well I disagree with that - it's informing the members of why we took our decision in the absence of a suitable alternative for us. It makes many points that I'm sure interest the membership. As for your last paragraph, well again your hypocrisy is quite amazing. I didn't see the remaining board consider their moral obligations or us before releasing snippets of private emails and official minutes. Neither did I see them consult the membership before releasing them onto a website supposedly not officially related to the RST. Further, despite you claiming we 'clearly have personal issues with people on the board', our statement actually clearly refrained from making any personal accusations to avoid exactly the kind of mud-slinging you and others have resorted to in the last few days. We've been called 'rebels', 'saps', 'suckers', 'failures' and 'liars'. All without any basis whatsoever. We could retaliate in that regard but have not done so. Now, why don't you address some of the issues in the statement? Or would that mean questioning the morality of your own argument? I would do, but I'm afraid I can't actually find any other than 'we weren't happy, so we took our ball and went home.' I like the way you deal with things though Frankie - people get who proposed the committe detail wrong, it is a big thing. It is established that you got the committee name badly wrong, but that is just a simple mistake. And you want to talk about hypocrisy? Then you try to brush it aside by saying 'ah, but that's what it was set up for.' Why should we believe you when a) you weren't at the meeting it was created at and b) you can't even get the name of it correct? It was stated on Sunday that the RST Board never asked for any of the 7 (happy now everyone? ;-) ) to resign - is this correct? It was also stated that the 7 who resigned never attended a board meeting to argue their case - is this correct? If so I find it staggering. You mention in your statement a 'coup d'etat'. How is it possible to have one of those if nobody asked you to go? I will apologise if you were asked to leave. And, if you want to be pedantic, I never accused you of being a liar. I said you played fast and loose with the facts. I stand by that. I do not, however, believe that the timing of the release was entirely due to circumstance and I do find it incredible that with a fortnight's notice that 7 people didn't know where they would be that day until less than 12 hours before it started. And, believe it or not, this is not a go at you personally. I used to correspond with you on FF and found you courteous and professional to deal with. indeed, it is one of the reasons why I find it so disappointing you took the course you did.

Not a Board member but close to one. Not anti- any of the members who resigned. Very pro-RST. Now, can I have the answers to my questions? Just curious too.....

It should be noted that before the meeting, MM had suggested 6 alternative days the following week for this report to be provided - as well as his intention to send round an email update. That's why several board members (including myself) decided to wait for that as the meeting was set up with that business in mind. Nonetheless, further into the report, we can see Mark Dingwall proposed the following committee (NOT John Gilligan despite what you say he said at the SGM): As we can see, this committee was proposed to carry out a wide range of tasks which have still to be clarified. What wasn't included in the minutes (but was requested to be added later) is that 2 board members present who voted against the proposal told the proposer that it would result in serious problems - including resignations. That was dismissed by the proposer - extremely inaccurately as it turned out. To conclude, these are the facts as I am aware of. At no point have I said that my opinion on the above matters was any more than an a personal opinion. An opinion which, added together with other serious issues in the statement (which you conveniently seem to ignore) made myself and 6 other key office-holders resign from an organisation we had put several years hard work into. If you, or anyone else, thinks we would resign just because we 'spat the dummy' or the other ridiculous claims I've heard, then that's extremely disrespectful to the achievements we had contributed to in our times on the board - as well as the many future projects we were involved with to help improve the RST further. Okay Frankie. If we are dealing in semantics here - it seems from the notes that a Special Tasks committe is proposed, not a Special Purposes and Disciplinary Committee. Seems that you guys decided that that is what it was to be called, even though the notes say otherwise. Why? And, I won't patronise you, you seem to be a bright guy and I hope you'll afford me the same courtesy when you answer this. Why did the Gang of 7 wait until Saturday night to issue the statement if it wasn't to cause trouble? I'd also think, as a former Board member, you have certain moral obligations to the Institution (even if, as the 7 clearly do, you have personal issues with certain people who remain in it). Did you ask the current Board for permission to issue private minutes on a public board? If not, do you really feel it was appropriate?

If I'm, wrong, I certainly will retract what I said. I'll check again first thing tomorrow morning at work just to confirm. I don't have my records on this laptop unfortunately. The reason I know you are wrong is that John Gilligan was at the SGM and said he said it was him who proposed it!