David Edgar on changes at RFC Board

[damien1 29]

Good interview by David Edgar. Agree with the vast majority of what he said.

Near the end the interviewer asked 'would you worry if SDM sold his shareholding?'

What a benile question. Of course he would. You would be worried and hopefull for new things. Who writes these questions?

There will always be uncertainty when the unknown comes upon us, a new owner may be good, may be bad.

[cooperonthewing 0]

The RST is the only organisation that has campaigned for supporters representation but why should it come from the Assembly. Shouldn't season ticket holders and shareholders have a say? This is pretty much what we said to the Club but maybe they couldn't then control what happened rather than go for a democratic vote.

Still the quest for a seat on the board goes on I see, why? You have supporter representation, it's called voting with your feet. Amass a membership large enough to follow your campaign then act on it. Simples.

Are you suggesting we stop following the team?

Not at all, what I am saying is the RST is now unviable for any board seat when it can't amass a membership enough to be interested in what it has to say anymore.

To prove me wrong, quote your most recent membership figure, you are the Treasurer you should have that at hand.

We are an organisation that primarily wants the Club to be owned by the fans and helps facilitate this by increasing share ownership amongst the wider support our via membership and our Gersave scheme. I'd be the first to concede that the vast majority of our fans don't really care who owns Rangers as long as we are successful on the pitch. However, we believe that any fan elected to the Board should represent the people who regularly invest in the club ie season ticket holders and shareholders, on a one man (or woman) one vote process. The club disagree and that is the sticking point.

Over the last few years we have taken on the mantle of defending the Club and the support in the media because nobody at the Club is willing to do so.

As for our membership numbers, we have changed policy on this. Under the previous regime, we used to count everyone who had ever joined the Trust in our membership figures. Now we start at zero on 6th April every year and people are still joining and renewing so I don't have a figure to hand. We do have about 400 lifetime members plus those who join on a year to year basis.

[djgazbcm 55]

edgar talks a helluva lot of sense ,but watching that i couldnt get the he looks like a tim out of my head,then i clicked JOHN HIGGINS ,he looks too much like that twat.

[cooperonthewing 0]

You are taking petty swipes, insinuating they can't be impartial if you are part of the assembly. Even though, as you say, senior members of your orginisation sit on the board, should we not trust them. Do you say such things at assembly meetings ? Why have you never resigned in disgust from the assembly ?

Many of the assembly members probably will be/have been RST memebrs, most of us have been at one time and another, me included, but most now just feel let down by the trust

As an aside your boss (or whatever his title is in the trust) used to be fond of a bit of free hospitality from the club but seemed to fall out with them when they removed his press pass (funny that) , is that why the trust grudge the assembly any perks that come there way ?

I must be barking up the wrong tree with the gerry duffy thing, he must have lifted the quotes as surely you wouldn't speak to a journalist who makes a living out of running our club into the ground in the most ridiculous manner......surely.......put me out my misery, tell me it was just a press release and not an interview (no lying though as i can easily check).

Your true colours are really starting to emerge. I'm saying you can't be impartial when your funding comes from the Club. I brought up that very subject at a recent fans forum held by the Assembly. I did not say at any time that any member of the Assembly was not to be trusted, stop trying to put words into my mouth. My boss actually works for a local authority. If you are talking about the RST, I have no boss but I see where you are going. I don't believe than any fans organisation should be taking perks from the Club. As RST Treasurer, I know that individuals concerned have made donations to charity when this has happened in the past. It seems that you are trying to discredit a Board nember. Were you banned from FF and are bitter about it?

I ain't trying to discredit anyone, unlike your attack on the assembly (that rather bizzarely you are part of) i am merely pointing out a possible contradiction in the rst's stance on this hospitality that rankles you so. Dress it up any way you want but you are questioning there impartiality.

As RST Treasurer, I know that individuals concerned have made donations to charity when this has happened in the past

So you are saying you have accepted hospitality from the club, what's the difference (charity donation or not) in RST guys accepting it and assembly guys accepting it ?

Why do you keep ignoring me concerning Gerry Duffy, you do realise it's making you look a bit daft. Are the RST giving interviews to Gerry Duffy, a yes or no will suffice, surely it can't be a secret it was in the sun today FFS.............

I haven't attacked the Assembly. I am questioning their impartiality when various things are funded by the Club. I haven't personally accepted hospitality from the Club. I was offered it 2 weeks ago and declined because I was working in the RST shop in the WRC that day. The difference is that the RST guys have paid for what they got, albeit to charity. Can the others say the same?

As for Gerry Duffy, believe what you like but he supports Rangers.

[cooperonthewing 0]

edgar talks a helluva lot of sense ,but watching that i couldnt get the he looks like a tim out of my head,then i clicked JOHN HIGGINS ,he looks too much like that twat.

He is ginger, I'll give you that.

[djgazbcm 55]

edgar talks a helluva lot of sense ,but watching that i couldnt get the he looks like a tim out of my head,then i clicked JOHN HIGGINS ,he looks too much like that twat.

He is ginger, I'll give you that.

dont you think he looks too much like higgins,hehe,

as i said speaks sense and thinks how 95% of bears think,(well you do get that minority that think they know better)and sticks by what he says,i cant see how anyone can argue with that.

[gsa 3,906]

Why does he say things like 'tomorrow we'll look at where we are'? Does the little attention seeker not realise he is only a fan like the rest of us? Ideas way above his station.

[cooperonthewing 0]

edgar talks a helluva lot of sense ,but watching that i couldnt get the he looks like a tim out of my head,then i clicked JOHN HIGGINS ,he looks too much like that twat.

He is ginger, I'll give you that.

dont you think he looks too much like higgins,hehe,

as i said speaks sense and thinks how 95% of bears think,(well you do get that minority that think they know better)and sticks by what he says,i cant see how anyone can argue with that.

And yet some will because of who he represents. Sad.

[cooperonthewing 0]

Why does he say things like 'tomorrow we'll look at where we are'? Does the little attention seeker not realise he is only a fan like the rest of us? Ideas way above his station.

Only a fan? Are the fans not supposed to have an interest in the Club's future?

[djgazbcm 55]

Why does he say things like 'tomorrow we'll look at where we are'? Does the little attention seeker not realise he is only a fan like the rest of us? Ideas way above his station.

well where was your tv interview then?

obviously he aint only a fan mate

[cooperonthewing 0]

edgar talks a helluva lot of sense ,but watching that i couldnt get the he looks like a tim out of my head,then i clicked JOHN HIGGINS ,he looks too much like that twat.

He is ginger, I'll give you that.

dont you think he looks too much like higgins,hehe,

as i said speaks sense and thinks how 95% of bears think,(well you do get that minority that think they know better)and sticks by what he says,i cant see how anyone can argue with that.

He may look like Higgins but he is a Bear- 100%

[djgazbcm 55]

edgar talks a helluva lot of sense ,but watching that i couldnt get the he looks like a tim out of my head,then i clicked JOHN HIGGINS ,he looks too much like that twat.

He is ginger, I'll give you that.

dont you think he looks too much like higgins,hehe,

as i said speaks sense and thinks how 95% of bears think,(well you do get that minority that think they know better)and sticks by what he says,i cant see how anyone can argue with that.

He may look like Higgins but he is a Bear- 100%

never in doubt mate

[cooperonthewing 0]

Why does he say things like 'tomorrow we'll look at where we are'? Does the little attention seeker not realise he is only a fan like the rest of us? Ideas way above his station.

He is one of the RST media spokesmen. He does not seek attention, people seek his views, thankfully.

[WeeTed 0]

Why does he say things like 'tomorrow we'll look at where we are'? Does the little attention seeker not realise he is only a fan like the rest of us? Ideas way above his station.

And what do you do when you don't like what's going on with something? Stick your head in the sand? At least DE has enough balls to stand up and be counted and try and do something for the club he cares about.

[Frankie 505]

As for our membership numbers, we have changed policy on this. Under the previous regime, we used to count everyone who had ever joined the Trust in our membership figures.

What does 'previous regime' mean in this context? I'm a bit puzzled given there are still 11 (out of 19) people on the current board who were there before the 7 resignations of over a year ago - which I assume you're referring to.

As such, surely there is no 'regime' change - unless you're suggesting the previous chairman instilled some sort of formal members numbers policy which, as far as I can remember, he didn't.

[Boab 73]

After all that the stuff wae Frankie and the others, I'm just not interested in what the RST or David Edgar has to say any-more.

If that's short-sighted then so be it

Oh dear.

I make no apologises for that, its now a tainted organisation in my eyes because of that debacle.

I'm sure I won't be the only who feels this way either.

[Frankie 505]

After all that the stuff wae Frankie and the others, I'm just not interested in what the RST or David Edgar has to say any-more.

If that's short-sighted then so be it

I think that is rather short-sighted Boab.

I've not had a chance to listen to the interview yet but I'm sure what David is saying reflects much of the concerns the STS report published. As such, publicising these concerns and debating them (constructively of course) is something we all need to buy in to - irrespective of the people/organisations involved.

To that end, I'm hoping I'll have a full STS update over the next few days (or possibly early next week) regarding progress of what we're trying to achieve regarding the issues in the report. I'm hoping the majority of people will be interested in that - no matter who or where the project originates.

[Bluedell 14]

As for our membership numbers, we have changed policy on this. Under the previous regime, we used to count everyone who had ever joined the Trust in our membership figures. Now we start at zero on 6th April every year and people are still joining and renewing so I don't have a figure to hand. We do have about 400 lifetime members plus those who join on a year to year basis.

Previous regime? That's a prejorative term.

Surely the current regime made up more than 50% of the previous board? They must therefore have been fully supportive of any policies in place.

I fail to see the need to try and imply that some past policy is nothing to do with the current board, particularly when you are happy enough to take credit for any past achievements.

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

I haven't attacked the Assembly. I am questioning their impartiality when various things are funded by the Club. I haven't personally accepted hospitality from the Club. I was offered it 2 weeks ago and declined because I was working in the RST shop in the WRC that day. The difference is that the RST guys have paid for what they got, albeit to charity. Can the others say the same?

Jesus, you really can't see the contradiction in what you have just typed, are you serious......

Saying someone is accepting freebies so can't be impartial is accusing them of being dishonest, do the Assembly board members know that is how the trust treasurer speaks about them on MB's ? Do you call them dishonest when you sit at the assembly board meetings ?

What difference does apparent donations to charity make if you accept freebies from the club. how would that affect you being impartial or not ? You do the exact same thing as the assembly only you give a fiver to charity to take some sort of false moral highground.

to get this straight the trust, who claims to stick up for the fans in the media, are best chums with real radio, who have a history of lying about our club on air and gerry effing duffy, who , rangers fan or not, has written more anti rangers fluff pieces for the sun than any other journalist. Having read various Stephen Smith rants over the years to call him a hypocrite on this issue would be an understatement. Will you speak to anyone as long as you get your mugs in the gutter press ? What next a trust hour long special on radio clyde ? Maybe Gerry mcnee could come out of retirement and do expose on the assemblys hospitality shame.......

The trusts hypocrisy makes me laugh and thank god you are here to highlight to everyone in this exchange......

[outlaw69uk 123]

After all that the stuff wae Frankie and the others, I'm just not interested in what the RST or David Edgar has to say any-more.

If that's short-sighted then so be it

I think that is rather short-sighted Boab.

I've not had a chance to listen to the interview yet but I'm sure what David is saying reflects much of the concerns the STS report published. As such, publicising these concerns and debating them (constructively of course) is something we all need to buy in to - irrespective of the people/organisations involved.

To that end, I'm hoping I'll have a full STS update over the next few days (or possibly early next week) regarding progress of what we're trying to achieve regarding the issues in the report. I'm hoping the majority of people will be interested in that - no matter who or where the project originates.

I agree, but, I also feel thats where the trust falls down. Without having a pop at them, I cant fully support them, because I dont fully trust them. They may come up with some good ideas, however, their implimentation is generally poor. There is also the secretive side of things, where, as mentioned before, I believe someones membership was refunded rather than a simple question answered. Once things like this are no more, maybe a lot more people will buy into them again

[Frankie 505]

Outlaw/GCL,

Enough of this please - you're both better than this handbags nonsense...

[Frankie 505]

I agree, but, I also feel thats where the trust falls down. Without having a pop at them, I cant fully support them, because I dont fully trust them. They may come up with some good ideas, however, their implimentation is generally poor. There is also the secretive side of things, where, as mentioned before, I believe someones membership was refunded rather than a simple question answered. Once things like this are no more, maybe a lot more people will buy into them again

I'm not saying folk should trust people they can't, just that sometimes they may still have things to say that we agree with.

As such, cutting off our noses to spite our face, may not help in the grand scheme of things.

[outlaw69uk 123]

I agree, but, I also feel thats where the trust falls down. Without having a pop at them, I cant fully support them, because I dont fully trust them. They may come up with some good ideas, however, their implimentation is generally poor. There is also the secretive side of things, where, as mentioned before, I believe someones membership was refunded rather than a simple question answered. Once things like this are no more, maybe a lot more people will buy into them again

I'm not saying folk should trust people they can't, just that sometimes they may still have things to say that we agree with.

As such, cutting off our noses to spite our face, may not help in the grand scheme of things.

Thats very true, then again, its said that a monkey with a typewriter would eventually write the collective works of shakespeare

it wont help, in the long run, however, as a support, we need confidence in those representing us. If the organisation (and I mean that as a verb) is poor, you can t have confidence in it, and, the right motives, and right words, will not come across as they were meant. The WDB campaign is a prime example, I think most would have agreed with the sentiment, however, putting it into action was shocking.

I dont think any of the current groups are what we, as a support, need to achieve what all fans want, the are all too self serving (for themselves, not the fans), and, their own agendas are more important, as is raising their own profile, as opposed to effecting real change for the better.

The STS reports were the best option I have seen in a long time

[Frankie 505]

Thats very true, then again, its said that a monkey with a typewriter would eventually write the collective works of shakespeare

it wont help, in the long run, however, as a support, we need confidence in those representing us. If the organisation (and I mean that as a verb) is poor, you can t have confidence in it, and, the right motives, and right words, will not come across as they were meant. The WDB campaign is a prime example, I think most would have agreed with the sentiment, however, putting it into action was shocking.

I dont think any of the current groups are what we, as a support, need to achieve what all fans want, the are all too self serving (for themselves, not the fans), and, their own agendas are more important, as is raising their own profile, as opposed to effecting real change for the better.

The STS reports were the best option I have seen in a long time

I think organisations (or projects) having to raise their profile is a necessary evil unfortunately. How else can the message get out. I also don't blame anyone for disagreeing with the methods applied to issues but that disagreement has to be constructive IMO.

I do agree that supporters representation is average as it stands so, as you seen in the STS report, we're looking to help change that if possible. As mentioned above, I'll be able to post more on that asap.

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

Look forward to hearing the progress report Frankie.

Maybe cooperonthewing could answer this when she returns because i haven't heard anything form them on the subject, did the trust read the STS report, if so what were there thoughts on the various articles published ?