Supporters Trusts don't have to fail

[gennaro 0]

i think getting 100 people to attend the next agm to vote people out (if that floated your boat) would be far easier.....

I get the feeling on here that there should be enough people on this forum alone who could vote back in the folk who were ousted 18 months ago. I don't know if they are still members of the Trust though.

I am merely a life time member who has not been privy to what actually happened back then but I reckon the calibre of people now on the board is inferior to what they replaced. There are many snipers on here who I wish would join up and affect the change many feel is necessary. I just wish they had done it before this crisis

[cooper1872 0]

i think getting 100 people to attend the next agm to vote people out (if that floated your boat) would be far easier.....

I get the feeling on here that there should be enough people on this forum alone who could vote back in the folk who were ousted 18 months ago. I don't know if they are still members of the Trust though.

I am merely a life time member who has not been privy to what actually happened back then but I reckon the calibre of people now on the board is inferior to what they replaced. There are many snipers on here who I wish would join up and affect the change many feel is necessary. I just wish they had done it before this crisis

Why don't you contact the Trust as a life time member and get their take on it?

[TheFlyingPig 0]

The situation between Newcastle and Rangers is somewhat different which may explain the contrasting reactions of the two supports.

Newcastle have not won a jot for a long time and have steadily went backwards in recent years culminating in their relegation last season. Add in an owner who wants to sell one minute, then stay the next; it isn't any wonder the support are looking at other alternatives. Even so, I wouldn't say 3500 new members is all that much in 5 months given the circumstances.

We, meanwhile, have just won the league title, have recently contested a European final and are one game in hand from topping the league again in a few weeks. Obviously, some fans can see beyond that to the obvious problems that exist, but the majority (and it's a large one) will not or do not want to see the problems we have off-the-pitch. As such, it doesn't surprise me that the Trust membership has supposedly stagnated in recent times.

The problem the RST has is reaching the apathetic supporters mentioned above. To be fair they have had some good media coverage of late, have organised an interesting conference and are apparently working hard in the background to deliver something of interest in the short-term. Will that be enough for some people? Possibly (or probably) not and the other problems associated with the Trust (such as their image and communication issues which seem to be evident from reading a variety of sources) can only add to the challenge they face.

As such it may be easy to criticise (as always) but if people don't agree with the Trust offerings then they must bring something else to the table. That may actually happen but if it doesn't then, while any criticism of the RST (and the other fan organisations) may well be valid, we're all equally culpable for not changing the situation.

Very well put. I cant bring anything better than the Trust has put forward in the last few days and it seems they have some potential high level backing in a financial sense if you care to search FF. They are doing a lot more than most of us and hopefully they will realise that they need us all onboard for their endeavours to go forward. Time to cut them a bit of slack I reckon.

[Bluedell 14]

He might also care to enlighten us as to his stance regarding whether the RST should have accepted a position on a David Murray-led Rangers board.

What is the RST's most recent position on this?

[samNewton 0]

The history of Supporters Trusts in the UK suggests that there is a very strong correlation between the problems (or lack thereof) facing a club and membership of the associated Trust.

NUST is a case in point; it was only formed just over a year ago, but its real boost in popularity came following the club's relegation last season and the ongoing situation with Mike Ashley. In other words, these supporters are confronting a major problem and have been forced to act. Where were they before September 2008?

Other Supporters Trusts have had little success in attracting members. The Celtic ST has (I believe) only a few score.

I notice the OP uses the expression 'hijackers of the RST'. I wonder if he can justify the use of such emotive and misleading language.

He might also care to enlighten us as to his stance regarding whether the RST should have accepted a position on a David Murray-led Rangers board.

A situation not unlike our own, aside from the relegation.

They have recruited 3'500 members in 5 months, a figure which the RST had around at their most promient of times. The NUST has a clear strategy, visible to all and an established network of communicating with both members and non-members.

It is being run in such a way that if the RST adopted a similar strategy, they could attract many thousands of fans to become members. As i have said, the communication is an issue which has plagued the Trust right from the very beginning and has got steadily worse over the years. The question is, why isn't this being addressed? It is baffling.

That's a pretty huge 'aside' and one that tends to concentrate minds wonderfully.

Meanwhile Rangers won the League and Cup double while fans have only very recently read or heard reports indicating that the club has serious financial problems.

[samNewton 0]

He might also care to enlighten us as to his stance regarding whether the RST should have accepted a position on a David Murray-led Rangers board.

What is the RST's most recent position on this?

Clearly, the issue is irrelevant now.

However, had the RST accepted an 'associate directorship' or whatever else was suggested by SDM 18 months ago, it would have put itself in an extremely awkward and almost certainly untenable position with regard to representing its members - especially given the information we now know about the club's (and his) finances.

I have never believed Murray would have welcomed genuine fans' involvement on the Rangers board. I think he was only interested in 'divide and rule' tactics.

However, I never objected to the Trust or any other supporters' body having meetings over issues from which the club and support could benefit.

[Bluedell 14]

He might also care to enlighten us as to his stance regarding whether the RST should have accepted a position on a David Murray-led Rangers board.

What is the RST's most recent position on this?

Clearly, the issue is irrelevant now.

However, had the RST accepted an 'associate directorship' or whatever else was suggested by SDM 18 months ago, it would have put itself in an extremely awkward and almost certainly untenable position with regard to representing its members - especially given the information we now know about the club's (and his) finances.

I have never believed Murray would have welcomed genuine fans' involvement on the Rangers board. I think he was only interested in 'divide and rule' tactics.

However, I never objected to the Trust or any other supporters' body having meetings over issues from which the club and support could benefit.

I was more asking for the Trust's views rather than your own, but as you say, it's less relevant now (so I'm not sure why you brought it up), although also I'd say that we don't know more now about the club's or Murray's finances than we did 18 months ago. The economic situation has changed rather than our knowledge.

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

Quite impressive, and after having a look at their plans they certainly seem to be determined to involve the majority of Newcastle fans.

One of the major criticisms of the RST has always been communication. There is simply not enough interaction between Board members and the ordinary RST member, or the wider Rangers support. In the past couple of years this has steadily deteriorated to a level where members will recieve the odd e-mail and a yearly newsletter.

It really isn't enough to garner support and oppinions from the membership or to recruit more members to what is certainly a worthwhile cause. I'm sure the RST Board are well aware of this, and have been for a long time. So it always baffles me why no real attempts are made to improve this.

I concur with the "communications" part of BlueIsTheColour's comment - speaking as one who was to be "kept in the information loop.....honest wee man" I have to report that sadly that didn't happen time after time after time.

The thing is, they were getting a FREE printed platform to spread the word and chose not to use it.

As Peter Green once wrote, "Oh Well"!! :pierre:

[Creampuff 22,628]

I really hate the Supporters Trust, but I don't really know why..

[cooper1872 0]

I really hate the Supporters Trust, but I don't really know why..

Are you Derek Johnstone?

[*Manticore* 1,893]

I really hate the Supporters Trust

I really hate liver.

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

"I'm Brian.....and so's my wife!"

[Frankie 505]

it would have put itself in an extremely awkward and almost certainly untenable position with regard to representing its members - especially given the information we now know about the club's (and his) finances.

What about the Trust's vocal backing of the Dave King bid? How does that translate to tenability and member representation given his legal and associated financial problems?

What are your members' thoughts on this backing?

Do you still back the King bid? What aspects of his bid led you to back it and how would you deal with any problems that could arise RE: his tax issues in SA?

[samNewton 0]

it would have put itself in an extremely awkward and almost certainly untenable position with regard to representing its members - especially given the information we now know about the club's (and his) finances.

What about the Trust's vocal backing of the Dave King bid? How does that translate to tenability and member representation given his legal and associated financial problems?

What are your members' thoughts on this backing?

Do you still back the King bid? What aspects of his bid led you to back it and how would you deal with any problems that could arise RE: his tax issues in SA?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

As far as I am aware, Dave King has not announced that he will make (or has made) a bid for the club. There are also surely legal constraints on what anyone can say in public regarding takeovers/mergers.

[Frankie 505]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

As far as I am aware, Dave King has not announced that he will make (or has made) a bid for the club. There are also surely legal constraints on what anyone can say in public regarding takeovers/mergers.

Does this (from FF.com) help you answer the questions above?

Rangers supporters groups unite to slam Lloyds Bank

Thursday, 29th October 2009

The three major Rangers fans groups have united to force the bank to stop holding the club's progress to ransom by being unreasonable in the price being asked of the Dave King consortium.

Many fans consider the bank's previous stupidity as a major cause of the current financial crisis engulfing the club and fail to see why Rangers should be held to ransom for their misdeeds.

Having held fire for a number of weeks the crisis has reached such a pitch that the three organisations felt the need to publicly thrown their weight behind the King bid and give clear leadership to the Rangers Family.

Of particular concern is the news that the bank are actively contemplating the sale of the club's training facility and any major player for whom a bid is made.

[samNewton 0]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

As far as I am aware, Dave King has not announced that he will make (or has made) a bid for the club. There are also surely legal constraints on what anyone can say in public regarding takeovers/mergers.

Does this (from FF.com) help you answer the questions above?

Rangers supporters groups unite to slam Lloyds Bank

Thursday, 29th October 2009

The three major Rangers fans groups have united to force the bank to stop holding the club's progress to ransom by being unreasonable in the price being asked of the Dave King consortium.

Many fans consider the bank's previous stupidity as a major cause of the current financial crisis engulfing the club and fail to see why Rangers should be held to ransom for their misdeeds.

Having held fire for a number of weeks the crisis has reached such a pitch that the three organisations felt the need to publicly thrown their weight behind the King bid and give clear leadership to the Rangers Family.

Of particular concern is the news that the bank are actively contemplating the sale of the club's training facility and any major player for whom a bid is made.

As far as I am aware, the text you posted was the pre-amble contained on FF.com to a joint statement from the Assembly, Trust, WWA and Association released on 29th October.

The actual statement itself said nothing about Dave King.

The pre-amble may have been a direct response to media speculation at that time regarding Dave King and the precarious position the club was thought to be in. However, the situation has developed since then.

[Frankie 505]

So, who wrote that pre-amble as it certainly seems confusing given the statement that followed it? Seems a silly thing to try and specify on what was a generic statement if it wasn't true. Can't imagine the editor of that site or the Trust board would have been too happy...

Will the Trust go their members regarding backing any new bid from King or other possible investors?

[samNewton 0]

So, who wrote that pre-amble as it certainly seems confusing given the statement that followed it? Seems a silly thing to try and specify on what was a generic statement if it wasn't true. Can't imagine the editor of that site or the Trust board would have been too happy...

Will the Trust go their members regarding backing any new bid from King or other possible investors?

I haven't a clue who wrote it but it is not reflective of the situation now.

Whether the Trust would 'back' a bid by a particular individual or a consortium would surely be related to how enthusiastic any bidder was to the idea of fan ownership/part-ownership.

With regard to RST members being asked for their views, there is clearly a practical problem concerning the time factor. In other words, as things stand there is surely a strong possibility that the support will be presented with a fait accomplis by Lloyd's Bank.

[maineflyer 2]

The history of Supporters Trusts in the UK suggests that there is a very strong correlation between the problems (or lack thereof) facing a club and membership of the associated Trust.

NUST is a case in point; it was only formed just over a year ago, but its real boost in popularity came following the club's relegation last season and the ongoing situation with Mike Ashley. In other words, these supporters are confronting a major problem and have been forced to act. Where were they before September 2008?

Other Supporters Trusts have had little success in attracting members. The Celtic ST has (I believe) only a few score.

I notice the OP uses the expression 'hijackers of the RST'. I wonder if he can justify the use of such emotive and misleading language.

He might also care to enlighten us as to his stance regarding whether the RST should have accepted a position on a David Murray-led Rangers board.

A situation not unlike our own, aside from the relegation.

They have recruited 3'500 members in 5 months, a figure which the RST had around at their most promient of times. The NUST has a clear strategy, visible to all and an established network of communicating with both members and non-members.

It is being run in such a way that if the RST adopted a similar strategy, they could attract many thousands of fans to become members. As i have said, the communication is an issue which has plagued the Trust right from the very beginning and has got steadily worse over the years. The question is, why isn't this being addressed? It is baffling.

That's a pretty huge 'aside' and one that tends to concentrate minds wonderfully.

Meanwhile Rangers won the League and Cup double while fans have only very recently read or heard reports indicating that the club has serious financial problems.

And you've been where exactly? Some of us have been debating our dire financial position for a decade. It's easy to feel good if you close your eyes and ears.

[BlueIsTheColour 35]

The history of Supporters Trusts in the UK suggests that there is a very strong correlation between the problems (or lack thereof) facing a club and membership of the associated Trust.

NUST is a case in point; it was only formed just over a year ago, but its real boost in popularity came following the club's relegation last season and the ongoing situation with Mike Ashley. In other words, these supporters are confronting a major problem and have been forced to act. Where were they before September 2008?

Other Supporters Trusts have had little success in attracting members. The Celtic ST has (I believe) only a few score.

I notice the OP uses the expression 'hijackers of the RST'. I wonder if he can justify the use of such emotive and misleading language.

He might also care to enlighten us as to his stance regarding whether the RST should have accepted a position on a David Murray-led Rangers board.

A situation not unlike our own, aside from the relegation.

They have recruited 3'500 members in 5 months, a figure which the RST had around at their most promient of times. The NUST has a clear strategy, visible to all and an established network of communicating with both members and non-members.

It is being run in such a way that if the RST adopted a similar strategy, they could attract many thousands of fans to become members. As i have said, the communication is an issue which has plagued the Trust right from the very beginning and has got steadily worse over the years. The question is, why isn't this being addressed? It is baffling.

That's a pretty huge 'aside' and one that tends to concentrate minds wonderfully.

Meanwhile Rangers won the League and Cup double while fans have only very recently read or heard reports indicating that the club has serious financial problems.

Interesting that you ignore the rest of my post and focus on one line.

What are your views on the communication issues within the Trust? And do you not find it extremely frustrating that no efforts have been made to improve this?

[samNewton 0]

And you've been where exactly? Some of us have been debating our dire financial position for a decade. It's easy to feel good if you close your eyes and ears.

Rangers' debt was down to something like 6 mill only 3 or 4 years ago. Therefore, the club has not permanently been in a dire financial position. However, the club's overall strategy, seemingly lurching between extremes, does raise concerns.

The RST issued the 'We Deserve Better' statement last January in an attempt to open up a debate on how well the club was being run.

The Trust has surely been at the forefront of bringing concerns about the club's financial performance into the public eye, much to the dissatisfaction of Sir David Murray.

[samNewton 0]

Interesting that you ignore the rest of my post and focus on one line.

What are your views on the communication issues within the Trust? And do you not find it extremely frustrating that no efforts have been made to improve this?

I didn't know there was a requirement to answer every single point made by a poster. I have certainly not come across it on this or any other forum before.

Suffice it to say that I have explained why I think the situations facing the NUST and the RST (and many other STs) are different - we won the Double, NU got relegated. Until very recently, much of our support hadn't a clue how serious our financial problems were - some still don't. Others - including quite a few on this forum - are seemingly in denial.

Communication between the Trust and its members will improve and steps are being taken in this direction.

[A Horse With No Name 27]

The Rangers Supporters Trust is far from perfect, but it is the main chance we have of exercising any control of our club! Also, if you're not happy with the way it's run then join and put your point of view across!

I get the feeling that those that criticise the RST are the ones who'll always sit back on their haunches and do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to bring fan power to Rangers FC. :pierre:

[BlueIsTheColour 35]

Interesting that you ignore the rest of my post and focus on one line.

What are your views on the communication issues within the Trust? And do you not find it extremely frustrating that no efforts have been made to improve this?

I didn't know there was a requirement to answer every single point made by a poster. I have certainly not come across it on this or any other forum before.

Suffice it to say that I have explained why I think the situations facing the NUST and the RST (and many other STs) are different - we won the Double, NU got relegated. Until very recently, much of our support hadn't a clue how serious our financial problems were - some still don't. Others - including quite a few on this forum - are seemingly in denial.

Communication between the Trust and its members will improve and steps are being taken in this direction.

With all due respect, you and others have been using this line for the past two years and yet the communication has got steadily worse.

What steps are being taken? Or is this yet another facet of the Trust that the members don't get told about?

I'm not having a go at the RST for the sake of it, i deperately want to see it's aims achieved. But there are many things which concern me about the current set-up.

[RFE 35]

However, had the RST accepted an 'associate directorship' or whatever else was suggested by SDM 18 months ago, it would have put itself in an extremely awkward and almost certainly untenable position with regard to representing its members - especially given the information we now know about the club's (and his) finances.

I have never believed Murray would have welcomed genuine fans' involvement on the Rangers board. I think he was only interested in 'divide and rule' tactics.

However, I never objected to the Trust or any other supporters' body having meetings over issues from which the club and support could benefit.

Does that mean the trust was offered an 'associate directorship!?

Given how good a job the RST is doing with the old "Divide and Rule' tactic it's a bit Pot and Kettle, whilst there is disharmony amongst Rangers fans a group in disarray is in pole position to lead a membership scheme or be the fans "voice on the board"is it not ?

Whether the Trust would 'back' a bid by a particular individual or a consortium would surely be related to how enthusiastic any bidder was to the idea of fan ownership/part-ownership.

With regard to RST members being asked for their views, there is clearly a practical problem concerning the time factor. In other words, as things stand there is surely a strong possibility that the support will be presented with a fait accomplis by Lloyd's Bank.

So the RST will only back a bid from someone who will have them on the board? Regardless if they were to be the best thing that happened to the club? It's not exactly seeing the bigger picture, surely the priority is to make sure Rangers are in safe hands away from the bank?

Is not also the case you've no interest in what the membership really think? The time factor excuse is a bit insulting considering you've had approx 5 years to gather the views of your membership.

Did you not discuss issues like this at your recent AGM? As good a time as any to gather views from the membership.