David Edgar on changes at RFC Board

[BigSpliff 0]

The debates would be more valuable if they were about what the RST does and what it can do better. Or what alternatives there are. And why they are better. Oh, and by "criticism", I mean constructive criticism and plausible ideas

You make some valid enough points mate but, IMHO, the RST are not doing enough to invite the constructive criticism or suggestions you mention. That's why people often get frustrated to the point of filling threads with the same arguments.

The Trust board don't go beyond FF for online debate (and we all know debate there is often censured) and they have ignored requests to get involved in the initiative you mentioned in your post for reasons best known to themselves. Sure, some of the issues within it may have been raised previously by the Trust over two years ago but there appears to be a distinct lack of appetite within that organisation to revisit these points constructively in the manner the STS report has done. That of course is their prerogative but it hardly helps their image on forums outwith FF when they refuse to work with others.

Of course the STS project is far from perfect itself and admits so within it including listing any inherent problems mentioned about each issue. That's why we opened the debate up to others (including the fan organisations and other websites) to invite further debate to refine and improve its content. Fortunately steps have been taken in that regard (STS update tomorrow I promise) to ensure that when people do want to offer something, they are listened to and their opinion acted upon.

Perhaps if the RST did something similar as we've urged the Assembly (for one) to do, their credibility/membership would increase once more. Unfortunately, all the signs are that they'd rather oppose strategies that could actually help achieve their aims and recent campaigns. That doesn't make sense and that's why the subsequent criticism is often on the strong side from some. What results is continued division instead of unity. That fails us all....

To be clear, this isn't about one organisation, one initiative or one person. This is about supporters working together as best we can to improve our club while examining our own faults. We do deserve better but we can't sit about and expect others to deliver for us if they've already shown they're not interested. If the club won't do the hard work, then we need to. I'm one supporter who thinks that is possible and that we can put the club under pressure due to well researched, well intentioned and workable debate.

Interesting points made and taken there Frankie - thanks. I'm sure nobody would have a problem with constructive criticism like this.

[Fixxxer 4]

The debates would be more valuable if they were about what the RST does and what it can do better. Or what alternatives there are. And why they are better. Oh, and by "criticism", I mean constructive criticism and plausible ideas

You make some valid enough points mate but, IMHO, the RST are not doing enough to invite the constructive criticism or suggestions you mention. That's why people often get frustrated to the point of filling threads with the same arguments.

The Trust board don't go beyond FF for online debate (and we all know debate there is often censured) and they have ignored requests to get involved in the initiative you mentioned in your post for reasons best known to themselves. Sure, some of the issues within it may have been raised previously by the Trust over two years ago but there appears to be a distinct lack of appetite within that organisation to revisit these points constructively in the manner the STS report has done. That of course is their prerogative but it hardly helps their image on forums outwith FF when they refuse to work with others.

Of course the STS project is far from perfect itself and admits so within it including listing any inherent problems mentioned about each issue. That's why we opened the debate up to others (including the fan organisations and other websites) to invite further debate to refine and improve its content. Fortunately steps have been taken in that regard (STS update tomorrow I promise) to ensure that when people do want to offer something, they are listened to and their opinion acted upon.

Perhaps if the RST did something similar as we've urged the Assembly (for one) to do, their credibility/membership would increase once more. Unfortunately, all the signs are that they'd rather oppose strategies that could actually help achieve their aims and recent campaigns. That doesn't make sense and that's why the subsequent criticism is often on the strong side from some. What results is continued division instead of unity. That fails us all....

To be clear, this isn't about one organisation, one initiative or one person. This is about supporters working together as best we can to improve our club while examining our own faults. We do deserve better but we can't sit about and expect others to deliver for us if they've already shown they're not interested. If the club won't do the hard work, then we need to. I'm one supporter who thinks that is possible and that we can put the club under pressure due to well researched, well intentioned and workable debate.

Interesting points made and taken there Frankie - thanks. I'm sure nobody would have a problem with constructive criticism like this.

Said person in the thread title..