Rangers fans groups - less is best

[thebooler 4,509]

100% saturated. Why? Because neither the Assembly or Association do enough for the whole support. So you get the spin offs, in the Working Group, RST.

Assembly, Association, RST and Working Group, all merge to become - Rangers *something* Group.

Simples.

Surely we could find a better name than that?

[boss 1,941]

On the other hand, I would argue the existing ones don't do a great job. As a season ticket holder, a share-holder (lapsed RST member) and a non-RSC member, I certainly don't feel represented by any despite the Assembly claiming they act on my behalf.

Minor point of order. Do they claim that, though? If you are not in an RSC and not in the RST, I'm not sure that you fall into any membership category of the Assembly.

[Frankie 505]

Minor point of order. Do they claim that, though? If you are not in an RSC and not in the RST, I'm not sure that you fall into any membership category of the Assembly.

Mr Gunslinger certainly claims they have 50,000 members and their own FB page says:

"The aim of the organisation is to be autonomous and to maintain a single consolidated body to represent all Rangers Fans."

[DarcheVinny 1,003]

Surely we could find a better name than that?

The Booler Group?

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

All of these groups could do wonders for the support if they could reform as a single representative body and allow members of said body to vote - perhaps bi-annually - for the person most suited to the job.

[thebooler 4,509]

The Booler Group?

The British Rangers Supporters sounds better.

[boss 1,941]

Mr Gunslinger certainly claims they have 50,000 members and their own FB page says:

"The aim of the organisation is to be autonomous and to maintain a single consolidated body to represent all Rangers Fans."

Which is of course bunkum.

Their constitution includes:

MEMBERSHIP/STRUCTURE: The Assembly will comprise of the following Fans groups: The Rangers Worldwide Alliance, The Rangers Trust, The Rangers Blind Party, The Rangers Disabled Supporters Club and The Corporate Client Group. Other organisations may, from time to time, be invited to join the Assembly.

It does not include season ticket holders. It does not include shareholders. It does not include 'all Rangers fans'.

Obviously their constitution is a crap document coddled together by McClelland on the back of a fag packet to try to head off the RST.

So in conclusion, despite their claims otherwise, you aren't represented by the Assembly.

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Mr Gunslinger certainly claims they have 50,000 members and their own FB page says:

"The aim of the organisation is to be autonomous and to maintain a single consolidated body to represent all Rangers Fans."

When as you are aware, the rst was formed the hope and the feel good factor was at it's height. Alas it hasn't worked out that way and the 50k membership they allude to is made up with people who joined and for the share to help get a fan say on board.

So 50k at £10 generated 500k in money, from what i have read on here a £1 share was purchased(10 x 10p share) plus costs of said purchase.

So accepting say £3 went to attain the share inclusive of charges. that leaves 350k for running costs! that seems a helluva lost of running costs, although I am lead to believe 150k is sitting in a bank account.

We have all heard the phrase 'creative accountancy' could the 50k be as a result of ' creative membership' to get others to join thinking this is the place to be.

Again the above is my view on various posters making various post as to rst.

[Frankie 505]

So in conclusion, despite their claims otherwise, you aren't represented by the Assembly.

Indeed, which is why any buyer should be looking into improving that bizarre situation.

[thebooler 4,509]

Which is of course bunkum.

Their constitution includes:

MEMBERSHIP/STRUCTURE: The Assembly will comprise of the following Fans groups: The Rangers Worldwide Alliance, The Rangers Trust, The Rangers Blind Party, The Rangers Disabled Supporters Club and The Corporate Client Group. Other organisations may, from time to time, be invited to join the Assembly.

It does not include season ticket holders. It does not include shareholders. It does not include 'all Rangers fans'.

Obviously their constitution is a crap document coddled together by McClelland on the back of a fag packet to try to head off the RST.

So in conclusion, despite their claims otherwise, you aren't represented by the Assembly.

I actually find that quite incredible. As you say, crap (and very unprofessionally put together) document.

[Frankie 505]

When as you are aware, the rst was formed the hope and the feel good factor was at it's height. Alas it hasn't worked out that way and the 50k membership they allude to is made up with people who joined and for the share to help get a fan say on board.

So 50k at £10 generated 500k in money, from what i have read on here a £1 share was purchased(10 x 10p share) plus costs of said purchase.

So accepting say £3 went to attain the share inclusive of charges. that leaves 350k for running costs! that seems a helluva lost of running costs, although I am lead to believe 150k is sitting in a bank account.

We have all heard the phrase 'creative accountancy' could the 50k be as a result of ' creative membership' to get others to join thinking this is the place to be.

Again the above is my view on various posters making various post as to rst.

The 50,000 members claim was made in relation to the Assembly - not the RST. Sorry if my post wasn't clear there.

I doubt there'll have been more than 5-10K 'unique' members of the Trust since 2003.

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

The British Rangers Supporters sounds better.

What about .............The One and Only Rangers Supporters Group of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth and all Dominions and the World.

Just think of the extra money you could make per letter on that T shirt

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

The 50,000 members claim was made in relation to the Assembly - not the RST. Sorry if my post wasn't clear there.

I doubt there'll have been more than 5-10K 'unique' members of the Trust since 2003.

Point taken, would have been interesting if a survey had been taken in Manchester in 08 as to what group if any people belonged to.

Would have made interesting reading.

[TannochsideBear 355]

There are a lot of groups but as a member of all of them there are very clear differences between them.

The Association only really deals with getting away tickets for its member RSC's. It is on the board of the Assembly and the RFWG committee but as a single identity doesnt get involved in any issues other than tickets.

The Working Group deals primarily with fan behaviour and tryign to ensure a level playing field from the authorities in the way we are treated. As a committee member of this group, I actually agree that it shouldnt have been required at all, but there was too little action from the existing groups on this subject that some felt it was too important an issue to not try to do something. The RFWG does not get involved in other issues. It is important to point out that the RFWG is made up of reps from the main Rangers fans groups and is the only one that recognises forums and has reps from RM and TBO etc on it.

Rangers unite is a new body recently appeared and as yet anonymous. Apart from a mission statement there is nothing there. Nobody represents them publically despite calls for them to declare who they are. Again however, they seem to have a single policy agenda of fan ownership.

This leaves you with the two most well known bodies, The RST and the Assembly. Most will know what these groups are about and what they stand for and who they represent. They are not single issue groups and deal with anything Rangers. On most of the big issues, and certainly in the last year or so, they have really been speaking as one and are pretty much on the same wavelength. The major difference between them is of course that the Assembly is linked, funded and associated with the club itself, while the RST is completely independant, both in funding and thought.

I really dont see what the problem is as long as people know the above facts.

[Frankie 505]

Point taken, would have been interesting if a survey had been taken in Manchester in 08 as to what group if any people belonged to.

Would have made interesting reading.

Out of a conservative 150,000 bears, I doubt a tenth of those would have known what you were talking about. And of those that did, only a further tenth would have been genuinely interested.

Apathy has always been a bigger problem for the Rangers support than any exaggerated divisions between a few individuals.

[thebooler 4,509]

Point taken, would have been interesting if a survey had been taken in Manchester in 08 as to what group if any people belonged to.

Would have made interesting reading.

It woulda made more interesting reading if ye'd asked half o them when wiz the last game they attended before Manchester.

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Out of a conservative 150,000 bears, I doubt a tenth of those would have known what you were talking about. And of those that did, only a further tenth would have been genuinely interested.

Apathy has always been a bigger problem for the Rangers support than any exaggerated divisions between a few individuals.

We are on the whole very attached to our club, but as you say that does not attach itself to getting together and righting a perceived wrong

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

It woulda made more interesting reading if ye'd asked half o them when wiz the last game they attended before Manchester.

Point taken , but for some that was a once in a lifetime thing. I am luck in that I have been to 3 out of the four finals.

Also Ibrox could not hold everyone.

[iconicman 8]

We are on the whole very attached to our club, but as you say that does not attach itself to getting together and righting a perceived wrong

Which I believe it the correct behaviour. We all support the one club, and leave it at football on the pitch. It's the others that take it beyond the pitch that are the problem.

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Which I believe it the correct behaviour. We all support the one club, and leave it at football on the pitch. It's the others that take it beyond the pitch that are the problem.

Fair point.

[superkai 54]

Are we in danger of splintering the support further with new 'fans' groups appearing every other week?

The RST, The RSA, The Association, savetherangers, RFFF, RFWG and now Rangers Unite, etc and so on.

Is it any wonder the majority are confused?

Yes, yes we are.

[TannochsideBear 355]

Indeed, which is why any buyer should be looking into improving that bizarre situation.

I fail to see how that can happen without the creation of yet another new group, or the amendment of the Assmebly constitution to include reps from other, as yet, unrepresented groups.

However I dont accept that any Rangers ST holder has no vehicle to put their point across to the club. As most will know the club has a fans liaison office in Jim Hannah whose job it is to look after fans concerns. I am pretty sure any ST holder who contacted Jim regarding a problem or a suggestion would receive a worthy reply. In most cases he would probably discuss it with the Assembly reps.

I dont see any possible scenario where concerned ST holders who are not "represented" by any official existing group just go unheard and frustrated.

The only thing I know of that has come up in which it was claimed the ST holders were unfairly treated was in the discussion of a new split between ST holders and RSC's for future seasons away allocations. The club and TO staff defended the rights of the ST holders to the split of tickets in spite of RSC's asking for a bigger allocation, so there viewpoint was not only heard but actually won through.

[Bluedell 14]

The only thing I know of that has come up in which it was claimed the ST holders were unfairly treated was in the discussion of a new split between ST holders and RSC's for future seasons away allocations. The club and TO staff defended the rights of the ST holders to the split of tickets in spite of RSC's asking for a bigger allocation, so there viewpoint was not only heard but actually won through.

So there was not a fans' organisation to defend the rights of the season ticket holders and it was left to the club to do so? Not very satisfactory.

[Frankie 505]

I fail to see how that can happen without the creation of yet another new group, or the amendment of the Assmebly constitution to include reps from other, as yet, unrepresented groups.

However I dont accept that any Rangers ST holder has no vehicle to put their point across to the club. As most will know the club has a fans liaison office in Jim Hannah whose job it is to look after fans concerns. I am pretty sure any ST holder who contacted Jim regarding a problem or a suggestion would receive a worthy reply. In most cases he would probably discuss it with the Assembly reps.

I dont see any possible scenario where concerned ST holders who are not "represented" by any official existing group just go unheard and frustrated.

The only thing I know of that has come up in which it was claimed the ST holders were unfairly treated was in the discussion of a new split between ST holders and RSC's for future seasons away allocations. The club and TO staff defended the rights of the ST holders to the split of tickets in spite of RSC's asking for a bigger allocation, so there viewpoint was not only heard but actually won through.

Jim Hannah is a club employee so while your example shows that can work for season ticket holders there will be other issues where his 'official' position may be compromised.

Like you say, pro-active season ticket holders may get suitable replies to their concerns on a range of subjects - be it from the Assembly or Jim but what about the majority that don't know about such avenues? Are they regularly contacted for their opinions?

For example, we're told the Assembly 'back' the TBK bid for ownership of the club. How can they possibly have the remit to do this for all fans - right bid or not?

[boss 1,941]

Anyone defending the status quo for supporters' representation is miles off the mark IMO.

There are two many groups, for all intents and purposes unelected by the supporters, unaccountable to the masses, non transparent, self serving and, as has been demonstrated during our crisis of recent years, unable to provide a strong, coherent voice for the fans.

We deserve better.