Statement released by former RST Secretary

[*Manticore* 1,893]

I think the majority have now given up on the Trust

Mate it's usually a mistake to assume that people moaning on the internet reflects anything other than people moaning on the internet.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

Webcam........................................

Do they show people posting on message boards?

Fkn amazing, every day's a learning day.

[Jimenez 1]

The bitching and the infighting between the small percentage of supporters that care about the day to day running of the club would be comical if it wasn't so heartbreaking.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

So did the RST pay for legal advice for MD or not?

I doubt it very much, whoever asks for legal advice would normally pay for it.

So if the advice was for Mark he would pay for it, if it was for the RST they would pay for it.

I think.

[thebooler 4,509]

Mate it's usually a mistake to assume that people moaning on the internet reflects anything other than people moaning on the internet.

I've heard plenty about the RST away from the internet as well, especially when I enquired about joining up.

I think the very small percentage of our support who are actually members reflects the popularity of the RST - wouldn't you agree that if it was more popular, it would have more members?

I for one will never give any of my hard-earned to any group of people who have proven themselves to be incompetent.

And as I keep reminding everyone, I don't personally know any of these people so my views are based solely on what I read on here and what I'm told about.

It's very obvious that there's a few on here who have agendas and it shows up in some of their posts with their personal attacks on each other, and this is also sad to see.

[thebooler 4,509]

I hope you're right. However let's just say, I believe the Trust paid for the legal representation. I could be wrong for the umpteenth time of course, but time will tell. I'm sure someone will tell us soon.

Ask a member - it should be in the Accounts.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

I hope you're right. However let's just say, I believe the Trust paid for the legal representation. I could be wrong for the umpteenth time of course, but time will tell. I'm sure someone will tell us soon.

Legal representation?

Do you mean legal advice or has there been some sort of legal proceedings that I've missed?

[bluepeter 5,627]

2) I didn't really like the layout of posts on here with the big graphic footnotes and avatars (petty I know - but IMO spoils the read) However your new smartphone layout makes your forum much easier to read and contribute to.

You can turn the sigs (graphic footnotes) off in your control panel, I have them turned off and it makes RM a far nicer place

I'm sorry but I don't get where the 'RST funds were used for bean feasts' comes from.

It would appear that MD agreed to pay for these tables at a dinner and then took over two years to settle the invoice and bounced some cheques along the way.

Now I agree that the whole sorry mess has been inappropriate, handled badly and ultimately deceitful over the past two years but to suggest that funds went from the RST to MD in the first instance appears to be wide of the mark.

It would appear that it was never a loan, but in fact a debt that took much longer to settle than it should have.

It is these deliberately misleading statements that will make bridges harder to build.

This argument only makes sense to me if the outstanding money appears in the accounts and the members are fully aware of the fact. It was deliberately hidden from the members, along with a majority of the board. That is surely the main issue here.

The fact that the individual involved is widely believed (rightly or wrongly, I genuinely don't know) to hold the majority of control over the RST is relevant as well. Of course, the obvious defence to that is that he is only an ordinary board member and holds no overall power. I'm in no position to debate that as I have no direct knowledge of it.

Also, if this were an isolated incident it could be seen as such, mistakes will be made, etc. It's not the first time the competence and behaviour of the RST board, and one man in particular, has been called into question.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

And as I keep reminding everyone, I don't personally know any of these people so my views are based solely on what I read on here and what I'm told about.

I know somebody is likely to not like this, but RM seems to me to be in part an anti RST site these days.

I would not accept anything posted on here about the Trust save for one or two posters who I know are well informed on the issue.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

Ask a member - it should be in the Accounts.

Should it though?

I don't know, but any accounts I have seen for organisations don't seem to be in such detail.

[boss 1,941]

I know somebody is likely to not like this, but RM seems to me to be in part an anti RST site these days.

I would not accept anything posted on here about the Trust save for one or two posters who I know are well informed on the issue.

Just to be clear, and I'm sure you weren't suggesting otherwise, RM has no policy on the RST or any of the politics surrounding Rangers. All posts are the views of the authors alone.

Also, I don't think the majority of views on this issue expressed here differs materially from the likes of GN and VB. Perhaps it's not RM that's out of sync?

[Adoniram 1,919]

I know somebody is likely to not like this, but RM seems to me to be in part an anti RST site these days.

I would not accept anything posted on here about the Trust save for one or two posters who I know are well informed on the issue.

I think you are deliberately twisting that viewpoint.

I don't think this site or indeed any other site is anti RST...i would say they are anti certain individuals who have been guilty of bringing the RST in to disrepute lately.

The concept of the RST is still a very positive idea in the minds of many fans.

I would argue that if a poll was taken now to ask how many would join the RST as things stand then very few would.

If you asked would you join if certain people stood down and the Trust proved it was moving in the right direction then i think large numbers on here and elsewhere would join or rejoin.

[thebooler 4,509]

Should it though?

I don't know, but any accounts I have seen for organisations don't seem to be in such detail.

Of course it should - if money is owed to the RST by ANY individual, it should be on record.

Especially when the money belongs to the RST and NOT certain Board members of the RST ie it's the supporters' money.

For these reasons ALL money which is owed to the RST by whoever should show in the accounts.

What would hapen if someone owed the RST money, and it wasn't shown in the accounts, and the person/s who owed the money asked the RST for proof of this money owed?

Are you telling me these debtors could just walk away as there is no record of the money they owe?

Come on mate - these things just don't happen, and if they do, then the people who are found to be incompetent usually get removed from their positions on the Board/Committee.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

Just to be clear, and I'm sure you weren't suggesting otherwise, RM has no policy on the RST or any of the politics surrounding Rangers. All posts are the views of the authors alone.

Also, I don't think the majority of views on this issue expressed here differs materially from the likes of GN and VB. Perhaps it's not RM that's out of sync?

I didn't say it has any policy or that it is out of sync.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

I think you are deliberately twisting that viewpoint.

I don't think this site or indeed any other site is anti RST...i would say they are anti certain individuals who have been guilty of bringing the RST in to disrepute lately.

The concept of the RST is still a very positive idea in the minds of many fans.

I would argue that if a poll was taken now to ask how many would join the RST as things stand then very few would.

If you asked would you join if certain people stood down and the Trust proved it was moving in the right direction then i think large numbers on here and elsewhere would join or rejoin.

I'm hardly surprised that you don't see it the same way as me.

[Poetry_In_Blue 1,043]

I think you are deliberately twisting that viewpoint.

I don't think this site or indeed any other site is anti RST...i would say they are anti certain individuals who have been guilty of bringing the RST in to disrepute lately.

The concept of the RST is still a very positive idea in the minds of many fans.

I would argue that if a poll was taken now to ask how many would join the RST as things stand then very few would.

If you asked would you join if certain people stood down and the Trust proved it was moving in the right direction then i think large numbers on here and elsewhere would join or rejoin.

Spot on,

It's not anti RST far from it, run properly and with the right people in charge then it could become the force for the fans it should be, and bridge what seems to be a forever expanding gap with the club.

[Adoniram 1,919]

I'm hardly surprised that you don't see it the same way as me.

Personally i couldn't care less if our viewpoints differ and they do.

The only one that should not is our wish to see all aspects of our club,support and team doing well.

Still doesn't get away from the fact you are wrong in your assertion about sites being anti RST.

[thebooler 4,509]

I think you are deliberately twisting that viewpoint.

I don't think this site or indeed any other site is anti RST...i would say they are anti certain individuals who have been guilty of bringing the RST in to disrepute lately.

The concept of the RST is still a very positive idea in the minds of many fans.

I would argue that if a poll was taken now to ask how many would join the RST as things stand then very few would.

If you asked would you join if certain people stood down and the Trust proved it was moving in the right direction then i think large numbers on here and elsewhere would join or rejoin.

I can't find one thing wrong with this post - and hopefully the RST will go from strength to strength.

Will the incompetent members of the Board stand down though? Serious question as I don't know any of them, so it's impossible to judge what they are likely to do.

As I've said before, if they have Rangers FC and the support at heart, there's only one thing they can, and should do.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

Of course it should - if money is owed to the RST by ANY individual, it should be on record.

Especially when the money belongs to the RST and NOT certain Board members of the RST ie it's the supporters' money.

For these reasons ALL money which is owed to the RST by whoever should show in the accounts.

What would hapen if someone owed the RST money, and it wasn't shown in the accounts, and the person/s who owed the money asked the RST for proof of this money owed?

Are you telling me these debtors could just walk away as there is no record of the money they owe?

Come on mate - these things just don't happen, and if they do, then the people who are found to be incompetent usually get removed from their positions on the Board/Committee.

That's a rather silly response.

I just questioned whther that debt would feature in the accounts - I meant be identified separately, and I meant the published accounts.

Nothing I have said has even vaguely suggested that debts should not be recorded and pursued.

It's a technical question, hopefully somebody like Bluedell will be along later, he would know.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

Still doesn't get away from the fact you are wrong in your assertion about sites being anti RST.

No.

I am correct (see I can assert things to be facts as well).

[thebooler 4,509]

That's a rather silly response.

I just questioned whther that debt would feature in the accounts - I meant be identified separately, and I meant the published accounts.

Nothing I have said has even vaguely suggested that debts should not be recorded and pursued.

It's a technical question, hopefully somebody like Bluedell will be along later, he would know.

Whats so silly about my response?

ALL debts should feature in the accounts, and in detail.

It's the fans' money they're playing with here and every single penny should be accounted for.

Absolutely nothing silly at all with my response.

You seem to know a bit about the RST, obviously more than me, so maybe you can answer the questions I've asked twice in this thread, and I've not been able to get an answer as of yet?

What were the views of the CC Company when they were made aware that their PDQ machine was being used by a 3rd party?

Were they made aware of this?

And if not, why not?

Did the legal advisor not suggest that the RST should make the CC Company aware of this illegal practice? If only to show transparency, and that a mistake had been made?

[bluepeter 5,627]

I forget how many members the RST has, was it 1328? Something like that, anyway.

Consider the size of the "pro-RST" board, FF. It would be strange to suggest that FF isn't the place the RST has most support, publicity, etc. FF has 33,729 members. Even if all of the RST members come from FF, only 4% of the FF membership are members of the RST.

So, at least 96% of FF is also "anti-RST" (or at least not "pro-RST" enough to join).

Surely we can agree that "anti-" and "pro-" RST are tags that should be given to individuals, not internet forums? I would suggest that the more vocal on FF are "pro-RST," possibly the opposite is true here. Although I'd say the more vocal about the subject on here are only so because they are pro-RST and would love to see a well-run and successful RST.

Just my opinion.

[Frankie 505]

No.

I am correct (see I can assert things to be facts as well).

I think labelling people or forums as anti (or indeed pro) RST is an unfair generalisation....

Sure different issues and debates may provoke different stances but it is not always the case that people are in one specific camp all of the time.

In addition, even if people are anti-RST as you put it, that doesn't mean their opinion should be automatically written off which is what the RST are doing consistently. That's why the organisation is struggling and until they admit that obvious failing then they are doomed to failure.

No-one that I can see wants that despite the inference from people who should know better.

[Jimenez 1]

I forget how many members the RST has, was it 1328? Something like that, anyway.

Consider the size of the "pro-RST" board, FF. It would be strange to suggest that FF isn't the place the RST has most support, publicity, etc. FF has 33,729 members. Even if all of the RST members come from FF, only 4% of the FF membership are members of the RST.

So, at least 96% of FF is also "anti-RST" (or at least not "pro-RST" enough to join).

Surely we can agree that "anti-" and "pro-" RST are tags that should be given to individuals, not internet forums? I would suggest that the more vocal on FF are "pro-RST," possibly the opposite is true here. Although I'd say the more vocal about the subject on here are only so because they are pro-RST and would love to see a well-run and successful RST.

Just my opinion.

A vast majority of the support whatever site they use or if they don't use the web only care about going to the game, sharing a drink with their mates and seeing the rangers win the day.

tbh I don't blame them

If they were to take a look at the mud slinging that goes on between rival factions on the Rangers support they'd feel utterly ashamed and quite rightly deem them all mentalists.

[markybear 136]

Ive got a question for the guys on here that know alot about this subject...

A poster called 'oportunityknox' started a thread asking the rangers online and offline community's to unite against a common enemy (still yet to be confirmed who this is)

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=164232

My question is... Is his thread, who the hell is he talking about? and... can anyone explain how it all links into the current RST debacle (if it even does)

confused.com loyal