outlaw69uk 123 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 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. Ah, I was unclear, it may not be the case but, it appears at times that raising their profiles is their goal, above all else. A self importance trip as it were. It is definately average, which for a club of our size and stature, is almost criminal. We have such a big fanbase, worldwide, that, a consolidated support group could more than likely force any changes it would like. However, getting all on board and together would appear to be the most difficult task, which is strange given the ultimate goal is what is best for the fans and the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekweir29 505 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 David Egar speaks for every Rangers Supporter, not for me he doesnt guy is a fucking wanker. Thanks for the memories SDM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dado 334 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 David Egar speaks for every Rangers Supporter I dont remember him ever claiming he did to be honest, he speaks in behalf of the RST. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 505 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 David Egar speaks for every Rangers Supporter, not for me he doesnt guy is a fucking wanker. Thanks for the memories SDM Please desist from the pointless and unnecessary abuse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepeter 5,627 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 David Egar speaks for every Rangers Supporter I dont remember him ever claiming he did to be honest, he speaks on behalf of the RST committee. Fixed that for you mate Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Don't think anybody could disagree on what he had to say there - I fuly expected to listen to 'mince' from Mr Edgar, as (IMHO) thats what he has spouted before - but he has obviously been on a PR course and managed to be non-contriversial in this interview - was OK - I could nit pick on a couple of points but I wont! at least not today! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperonthewing 0 Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share Posted August 28, 2009 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. Sorry D, bad wording on my part. Reading it back it looks like I'm perhaps having a dig and that wasn't the intention. I've also given the impression that there was some kind of policy in place which of course there wasn't, it was just something that evolved. Humble apologies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcbear 10,913 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 I like David Edgar, comes across very well and eloquent, i dont know who has had issues with him in the past but most of what he says i agree with near all of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperonthewing 0 Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share Posted August 28, 2009 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? Talking of perks! Do you know if anyone from the RST is paid by Gerry Duffy for Rangers stories? No. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 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. So there was a policy under the previous regime that was completely against the Trust Rules ? http://www.rangerssupporterstrust.co.uk/rs...2&Itemid=44 That is what you have just said. Interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueIsTheColour 35 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 All these petty remarks about the Assembly and the Trust really help the Rangers support at this stage, don't they? For the first time we all have a chance to make a fresh start with a new Chairman, an opportunity to band together and all point in the same direction for the benefit of the club and supporters. But no, you'd all just rather continue having digs at each other and the Assembly/RST. I expected better to be honest but please, continue with your arguments while a rare opportunity is missed...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperonthewing 0 Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share Posted August 28, 2009 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. So there was a policy under the previous regime that was completely against the Trust Rules ? http://www.rangerssupporterstrust.co.uk/rs...2&Itemid=44 That is what you have just said. Interesting. Please see my response to Bluedell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 So there was a policy under the previous regime that was completely against the Trust Rules ? http://www.rangerssupporterstrust.co.uk/rs...2&Itemid=44 That is what you have just said. Interesting. Please see my response to Bluedell. I see your response that says: "I've also given the impression that there was some kind of policy". No, you didn't 'give the impression'. You quite clearly and unambiguously stated that 'we have changed policy on this'. Why? Indeed why is it that every time you come on here ..... Nah, forget it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperonthewing 0 Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share Posted August 28, 2009 So there was a policy under the previous regime that was completely against the Trust Rules ? http://www.rangerssupporterstrust.co.uk/rs...2&Itemid=44 That is what you have just said. Interesting. Please see my response to Bluedell. I see your response that says: "I've also given the impression that there was some kind of policy". No, you didn't 'give the impression'. You quite clearly and unambiguously stated that 'we have changed policy on this'. Why? Indeed why is it that every time you come on here ..... Nah, forget it. I have already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 I see your response that says: "I've also given the impression that there was some kind of policy". No, you didn't 'give the impression'. You quite clearly and unambiguously stated that 'we have changed policy on this'. Why? Indeed why is it that every time you come on here ..... Nah, forget it. I have already. Glad to hear it. No more blatant lies then please. It wouldn't do for an RST board member to deliberately lie to Rangers Media. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 At least she told the truth that her organisation are more than willing to give quotes to the very media they pretend to defend us against, that is those , like Gerry Duffy, who deliberately print lies about club to grab a few sensational headlines. Bit disappointed cooperonthewing has chosen to ignore the rest of my post and wasn't willing to explain her hypocrisy on the trust being allowed to accept freebies whereas the assembly’s honesty is being called into question for doing the very same thing but it doesn't really surprise me. Stephen smith questions why we don’t have a fan representative on the board at rangers, and lays the blame at the door of the ex chairman he should maybe look a bit closer to home when board members of the trust are coming out with this sort of stuff….. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 2 Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 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. Isn't it truly amazing how much these RST people are prepared to challenge our intelligence? Year after year we ask them how many members they have. Now we find out that the number of 5000 previously quoted on national radio by David Edgar were bullshit incorrect. Some sort of innocent oversight means they managed to ignore every time someone resigned or failed to renew. Oh yes, an oversight has been found and explains everything, such a relief. So now that the RST has fixed its membership numbers, will Cooperonthewing simply tell us how many members the RST has and reveal the credentials for David Edgar to speak as a representative of the Rangers support. Or arte there still some "oversights" in the RST system? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 2 Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 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 That was MY life membership. Rather than reveal how many members the RST has, Cooperonthewing, in her RST capacity, invited me to accept a refund of my membership fee rather than answer my question about RST membership. That my friends is the true nature of this opaque group trying and failing to run OUR Supporters Trust. Which is why I accepted and received £100 refunded life membership. Now that the RST has set this precedent, perhaps other life members can assume they have the same right to withdraw their membership if they wish - and receive their fees back as I did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab4113 124 Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 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. The 7 resignations were over a couple of weeks, not a whole year, That says everything to most rangers supporters, Something happened and the trust is now tarnished with that, do not try and kid yourself or anyone else, They ones who were left wanted that to happen, but now most people read into that and won't have anything to do with the RST, Fact as you will know by your membership, which as a poster above asked, what the numbers were, easy to obtain for a treasurer, unless you are trying to hide something!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bouncy 315 Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 i think Edgar did very well he spoke about match day and grass roots which are being battered left right and centre and same here i hope Johnston as a Rangers man does us proud in the two issues i just said plus several others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 505 Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 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. The 7 resignations were over a couple of weeks, not a whole year, That says everything to most rangers supporters, Something happened and the trust is now tarnished with that, do not try and kid yourself or anyone else, They ones who were left wanted that to happen, but now most people read into that and won't have anything to do with the RST, Fact as you will know by your membership, which as a poster above asked, what the numbers were, easy to obtain for a treasurer, unless you are trying to hide something!! I think it was pretty clear that I meant the 7 resignations happened over a year ago not that they happened over a course of a year. Furthermore, I was being critical of Cooperonthewing's erroneous claims. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianBacon 2,088 Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 So..........refunds on offer? This could be a floodgate shot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macka1990 0 Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 ha i was sat with him after the game on yesterday, and have met him a few times and it never really clicked very funny man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
contacts 0 Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 So..........refunds on offer? This could be a floodgate shot. If the make it policy I will have my dosh back Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 If the make it policy I will have my dosh back It's not a policy. It was simply a misuse of the word 'refund'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts