Statement From RST Resigned Board Members

[TheFlyingPig 0]

Heard the stuff about the new Trust Board member being too pissed to attend but still getting voted in. There was much pub ridicule on that one.

Also heard that two of the now resigned Board members refused to inform the rest of the Board about what was discussed at meetings with SDM.

If both of these are true the Trust had and has some serious issues which need to be straightened out before they are taken seriously by the ordinary fan.

From what I gather it was joke. The guy in question was attending church with his family, though I may be wrong on that.

On the latter point, that's why their was proposal to set up A committee for Special Tasks. They point blank deny that a Purposes Disciplinary Committee was anything to do with it.

Joanne who attended this meeting where the committee was proposed and someone I respect says it simply wasn't the case.

We have two different factions chucking mud at each other and the RST's members are left to form an opinion from recriminations on both sides. It's a total mess IMO

Mud sticks.

I agree with your opinion.

Nothing to encourage me to renew my membership so far.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

just the same as our owner.

We have no current alternative, Minstral.

I simply do not understand why there is no viable purchaser given Murray's oft-stated will to sell. We know the scale and importance of Rangers, we know the potential, but not a single, credible individual or consortium has come forward with an acceptable offer for one of the worlds truly great clubs?

Murray's lack of ambition and - probably more importantly - failure to exploit the potential of the club means we are treading water in so many ways when we should be moving on. For example, Ajax have just spent some £12m on Sulejmani - a club McCoist says we should emulate. He also said that days of such spending are over for Rangers. That's a statement intent on downgrading ambition for our club that I find completely unacceptable.

Murray's time is over, he knows it as well as we do - so why the hell can't we find a buyer?

Would you do business with Murray?

Murray operates a very successful business group - and many have and do conduct business with him and his companies. I have no personal distaste for the man, but feel frustrated by the impasse in progress The Rangers have arrived at towards the end of his tenure.

Anyway, someone will have to do business with him or he will not leave!

[TannochsideBear 355]

From what I gather it was joke. The guy in question was attending church with his family, though I may be wrong on that.

On the latter point, that's why their was proposal to set up A committee for Special Tasks. They point blank deny that a Purposes Disciplinary Committee was anything to do with it.

Joanne who attended this meeting where the committee was proposed and someone I respect says it simply wasn't the case.

We have two different factions chucking mud at each other and the RST's members are left to form an opinion from recriminations on both sides. It's a total mess IMO

If that was intended to be a joke when it was the very serious issue of questions being raised as to why members who seeked election were not there in person, or had put in their CV to be read in their absence, than the timing of it could not have been worse. The "joke" excuse is merely papering over the fact that the reason given to the members in attendance was a very unsatisfactory one. The whole tone of the meeting at that time had the board rather embarressed by the fact that out of 9 people up for election, only 4 or 5 were there, and the others had not put in their CV.

On the committee thing, if John G said it was his idea to ask for this to be set up, because they were not getting responses from the 2 who were having meetings, then that is fair enough to me. John is a thoroughly professional and honourable man IMO, and I respect his opinion.

[Frankie 505]

On the committee thing, if John G said it was his idea to ask for this to be set up, because they were not getting responses from the 2 who were having meetings, then that is fair enough to me. John is a thoroughly professional and honourable man IMO, and I respect his opinion.

John G did not propose or second this committee.

[BelgaBear 0]

Does anyone know the actual number of Trust members? I keep hearing figures of 3000, 4000 being talked about but my understanding is that it is much lower than this and the Trust won't reveal the true number of members. I know of quite a few people (myself included) who didn't renew after the initial year or so.

[Frankie 505]

Does anyone know the actual number of Trust members? I keep hearing figures of 3000, 4000 being talked about but my understanding is that it is much lower than this and the Trust won't reveal the true number of members. I know of quite a few people (myself included) who didn't renew after the initial year or so.

The total membership is somewhere around 3500. This includes former members who are no longer paid up.

My understanding is the true number of paid up members is around 1000 (probably less) and falling. That's why a rebranding was attempted as well as improvements to the RST communications led by the resigned board members earlier this year.

[BelgaBear 0]

Does anyone know the actual number of Trust members? I keep hearing figures of 3000, 4000 being talked about but my understanding is that it is much lower than this and the Trust won't reveal the true number of members. I know of quite a few people (myself included) who didn't renew after the initial year or so.

The total membership is somewhere around 3500. This includes former members who are no longer paid up.

My understanding is the true number of paid up members is around 1000 (probably less) and falling. That's why a rebranding was attempted as well as improvements to the RST communications led by the resigned board members earlier this year.

So I'm still counted as a member even though I jacked it in ages ago?

[Frankie 505]

So I'm still counted as a member even though I jacked it in ages ago?

It appears so.

[Frankie 505]

I dont think the minutes are going to tell you anything to be honest. I didn't see the sec writing too many quotes down or who said what kind of thing. I am sure you already have a couple of full verbal accounts of what was said together with the message boards punters who were there like myself. Malcolm and Scott took a verbal battering, and made to look like they were not keeping the rest of the board informed of the discussions taking place at Ibrox, and making it clear that they did not trust the rest of the board to maintain the confidentiality agreements, but to them that just looked suspicious that they two had crossed too far over the line from representing the RST board, and acting for themselves in the bid to be elected to the RFC board.

It appears Mark Dingwall has posted a lengthy riposte against our statement on FF. I guess that will cover much of what was said at the SGM.

At first glance, I have to say much of what he says in the post is untrue and 'tendentious'. As such, I'll take some time to consider what he has written and decide whether or not to respond.

It is very disappointing that while our statement did not contain personal slights or insults, his does.

[Guest therabbitt]

I dont think the minutes are going to tell you anything to be honest. I didn't see the sec writing too many quotes down or who said what kind of thing. I am sure you already have a couple of full verbal accounts of what was said together with the message boards punters who were there like myself. Malcolm and Scott took a verbal battering, and made to look like they were not keeping the rest of the board informed of the discussions taking place at Ibrox, and making it clear that they did not trust the rest of the board to maintain the confidentiality agreements, but to them that just looked suspicious that they two had crossed too far over the line from representing the RST board, and acting for themselves in the bid to be elected to the RFC board.

It appears Mark Dingwall has posted a lengthy riposte against our statement on FF. I guess that will cover much of what was said at the SGM.

At first glance, I have to say much of what he says in the post is untrue and 'tendentious'. As such, I'll take some time to consider what he has written and decide whether or not to respond.

It is very disappointing that while our statement did not contain personal slights or insults, his does.

Following this debate and circumstance with intrigue Frankie, could you possibly post Mr Dingwalls riposte on here?

[*Manticore* 1,893]

Following this debate and circumstance with intrigue Frankie, could you possibly post Mr Dingwalls riposte on here?

Here it is:

Some reflections on the Rangers Supporters Trust

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I’ve been very disappointed that the seven members who left the RST chose to issue the statement they did on Saturday night.

Two months after Malcolm McNiven’s resignation to release such a tendentious document at 10pm the night before the Trust SGM was very peculiar. They chose to resign, they could have chosen to say any of what is in the statement weeks ago, it is now fair that they allow the RST to move on.

Anyone serious about the well-being of the Trust should surely have attended Special General Meeting to put forward their case in a forum where they could have cross-examined past and current members of the Board. And been cross-examined. Instead, the seven resigned members chose to issue a statement at 10pm the night before the meeting and in my eyes this behaviour is somewhat strange.

Disappointingly none of the seven attended the SGM today and explain themselves in person to the membership.

1/ In March three meetings were held between two Trust Board members and Rangers FC. As of now other Board members do not know what happened as no worthwhile minute of those meetings was produced.

2/ The Chairman and Vice-Chairman were then asked to set a date suitable to them for the next Board meeting where they could report back. Tuesday May 6th was chosen.

3/ At 2.39pm that day Malcolm McNiven attempted to cancel the meeting. Despite this - and 14 other emails he sent that afternoon in a somewhat unusual burst of energy - the other Board members held a properly constituted and quorate meeting with 11 present. For the record - the previous five Board meetings had been attended by 14,14, 13, 14 and 13.

4/ At 5.47pm that evening - the Board meeting was scheduled to start at 6pm - Malcolm forwarded an email he had sent to the club at 9.49am that morning asking for clarification on the matter of fans directorships as “I have no doubt that I will personally come under some flak tonight on this topic so any information would be useful.”

The club couldn’t provide any update to him.

5/ At the Board meeting the first item of business was the relationship with the club:-

“There was general dissatisfaction at late cancellations and frustrations that, of a Board of 19, only two people knew what was happening, the Directorship issue seemed to be being dragging on and that we needed to address the issue of communication as a Board. JG proposed that MM and SMcM be asked to provide a full report on the exact position re the Directorship and redevelopment. This was seconded by SL and passed unanimously.”

6/ Malcolm resigned the next morning.

7/ Formation of a Special Tasks Committee. A committee for Special Tasks - supervising the Trust's relations with outside bodies was proposed - the vote was 9-2 in favour, but as not all members were present it was decided to discuss the terms of reference and membership at a later meeting. Running the organisation’s affairs in accordance with our constitution and practises normally operated by other bodies rather than ‘making it up as we go along’ is, in my view, a perfectly healthy idea.

8/ Malcolm contacted Stephen Smith last Wednesday to ask if he could issue a statement to members at the Special General Meeting - he was asked by Stephen to submit a copy but did not do so until finally sending an email after 9pm on Saturday night and having it released onto the net less than an hour later. This despite two phone and three text messages to Malcolm and a conversation with Scott McMillan asking that Malcolm respond.

9/ ‘Unsuitability of date of the SGM’ and similar self-serving innuendo. The meeting was called timeously and according to the constitution. The mechanism for calling a meeting has previously been explained here - www.rangersmedia.com/showpo...&postcount=366

Not one of the seven resigned members raised an objection upon receipt of the Notice of Meeting 14 days earlier so why do so at 10pm the night before?

10/ “ We had been aware of a recent lack of support from certain sections of the board but felt this could be properly addressed during the close season.” So, was a “purge” of other Board members being planned by all or any of the seven who resigned this summer?

11/ “ We lament that our efforts now appear to have been in vain due to the premature, overly aggressive, and controlling actions of a small faction.” A “small faction” which wins votes unanamously? A small faction which they couldn’t deal with by means of a vote on the issues? Or a majority of Board members committed to ensuring that all who represent our membership play by the rules?

12/ Timing of resignations. Twist and turn as some may do, there remains the fact that the timing of resignations by some of those who have gone look suspiciously like the actions of a co-ordinated group designed to tease out the bad publicity engendered by the resignations as long as possible in order to maximise the harm to the Trust.

Today at the Special General Meeting eight new members of the Trust Board were elected by the membership.

The Trust is now back on track to promote our aims, objects and principles in the proper manner according to the constitution.

The members are now back in control of the organisation.

[cooperonthewing 0]

It appears Mark Dingwall has posted a lengthy riposte against our statement on FF. I guess that will cover much of what was said at the SGM.

At first glance, I have to say much of what he says in the post is untrue and 'tendentious'. As such, I'll take some time to consider what he has written and decide whether or not to respond.

It is very disappointing that while our statement did not contain personal slights or insults, his does.

What parts of it are untrue?

[Frankie 505]

Following this debate and circumstance with intrigue Frankie, could you possibly post Mr Dingwalls riposte on here?

No problem:

I’ve been very disappointed that the seven members who left the RST chose to issue the statement they did on Saturday night.

Two months after Malcolm McNiven’s resignation to release such a tendentious document at 10pm the night before the Trust SGM was very peculiar. They chose to resign, they could have chosen to say any of what is in the statement weeks ago, it is now fair that they allow the RST to move on.

Anyone serious about the well-being of the Trust should surely have attended Special General Meeting to put forward their case in a forum where they could have cross-examined past and current members of the Board. And been cross-examined. Instead, the seven resigned members chose to issue a statement at 10pm the night before the meeting and in my eyes this behaviour is somewhat strange.

Disappointingly none of the seven attended the SGM today and explain themselves in person to the membership.

1/ In March three meetings were held between two Trust Board members and Rangers FC. As of now other Board members do not know what happened as no worthwhile minute of those meetings was produced.

2/ The Chairman and Vice-Chairman were then asked to set a date suitable to them for the next Board meeting where they could report back. Tuesday May 6th was chosen.

3/ At 2.39pm that day Malcolm McNiven attempted to cancel the meeting. Despite this - and 14 other emails he sent that afternoon in a somewhat unusual burst of energy - the other Board members held a properly constituted and quorate meeting with 11 present. For the record - the previous five Board meetings had been attended by 14,14, 13, 14 and 13.

4/ At 5.47pm that evening - the Board meeting was scheduled to start at 6pm - Malcolm forwarded an email he had sent to the club at 9.49am that morning asking for clarification on the matter of fans directorships as “I have no doubt that I will personally come under some flak tonight on this topic so any information would be useful.”

The club couldn’t provide any update to him.

5/ At the Board meeting the first item of business was the relationship with the club:-

“There was general dissatisfaction at late cancellations and frustrations that, of a Board of 19, only two people knew what was happening, the Directorship issue seemed to be being dragging on and that we needed to address the issue of communication as a Board. JG proposed that MM and SMcM be asked to provide a full report on the exact position re the Directorship and redevelopment. This was seconded by SL and passed unanimously.”

6/ Malcolm resigned the next morning.

7/ Formation of a Special Tasks Committee. A committee for Special Tasks - supervising the Trust's relations with outside bodies was proposed - the vote was 9-2 in favour, but as not all members were present it was decided to discuss the terms of reference and membership at a later meeting. Running the organisation’s affairs in accordance with our constitution and practises normally operated by other bodies rather than ‘making it up as we go along’ is, in my view, a perfectly healthy idea.

8/ Malcolm contacted Stephen Smith last Wednesday to ask if he could issue a statement to members at the Special General Meeting - he was asked by Stephen to submit a copy but did not do so until finally sending an email after 9pm on Saturday night and having it released onto the net less than an hour later. This despite two phone and three text messages to Malcolm and a conversation with Scott McMillan asking that Malcolm respond.

9/ ‘Unsuitability of date of the SGM’ and similar self-serving innuendo. The meeting was called timeously and according to the constitution. The mechanism for calling a meeting has previously been explained here - www.rangersmedia.com/showpo...&postcount=366

Not one of the seven resigned members raised an objection upon receipt of the Notice of Meeting 14 days earlier so why do so at 10pm the night before?

10/ “ We had been aware of a recent lack of support from certain sections of the board but felt this could be properly addressed during the close season.” So, was a “purge” of other Board members being planned by all or any of the seven who resigned this summer?

11/ “ We lament that our efforts now appear to have been in vain due to the premature, overly aggressive, and controlling actions of a small faction.” A “small faction” which wins votes unanamously? A small faction which they couldn’t deal with by means of a vote on the issues? Or a majority of Board members committed to ensuring that all who represent our membership play by the rules?

12/ Timing of resignations. Twist and turn as some may do, there remains the fact that the timing of resignations by some of those who have gone look suspiciously like the actions of a co-ordinated group designed to tease out the bad publicity engendered by the resignations as long as possible in order to maximise the harm to the Trust.

Today at the Special General Meeting eight new members of the Trust Board were elected by the membership.

The Trust is now back on track to promote our aims, objects and principles in the proper manner according to the constitution.

The members are now back in control of the organisation.

Like I say, a lot of unsubstantiated counter-allegations, personal slights and his own version of events. But little in the way of actually answering the serious issues detailed in our statement.

I'm extremely busy at work at the moment so I'll try and post a reply in the next 24-48 hours.

[Frankie 505]

What parts of it are untrue?

I'm extremely busy at work at the moment so I'll try and post a reply to his comments in the next 24-48 hours.

[TannochsideBear 355]

On the committee thing, if John G said it was his idea to ask for this to be set up, because they were not getting responses from the 2 who were having meetings, then that is fair enough to me. John is a thoroughly professional and honourable man IMO, and I respect his opinion.

John G did not propose or second this committee.

It says in the official minutes of the meeting, and was confirmed by John himself at the SGM yesterday, that it was his idea. He went further to explain that it was idea in the first year of the trust when it was being discussed about meetings with the club that more than one person should be in attendance at meetings with RFC in order to prevent the very scenario from happening that has been claimed happened with MMcN and SMcM. If you were at the meeting as part of the 11 who turned up for it, can you then confirm that it was not John who proposed the setting up of the task committee to get info from the chair and vice-chair about their meetings with RFC?

This is my last post for now as I am away on holiday for the next week or so, but I hope those who resigned are able to get your points across now, even if yesterday would have been better, because I still believe they are important points that need to be aired. It appears the gloves are now off, lets get both sides of the story please for us members that feel it is important to get proper closure before moving on.

[babyblueger 0]

Does anyone know the actual number of Trust members? I keep hearing figures of 3000, 4000 being talked about but my understanding is that it is much lower than this and the Trust won't reveal the true number of members. I know of quite a few people (myself included) who didn't renew after the initial year or so.

The total membership is somewhere around 3500. This includes former members who are no longer paid up.

My understanding is the true number of paid up members is around 1000 (probably less) and falling. That's why a rebranding was attempted as well as improvements to the RST communications led by the resigned board members earlier this year.

If true how does that sit with the line in your statement about the 'steadily increasing membership.'?

If true would you accept the awful re-branding was a total failure?

You've already been proven on this thread to be fast and loose with the facts with your denial that John Gilligan did not propose the Committee, as anyone attending the SGM would have heard Mr. G, a fine and upstanding member of the Rangers family, say he most certainly did?

[rbr 364]

If as you say the number of actual members has fallen to as little as 1000 , what chance have we of Murray taking any of this whole charade seriously , I posted on ff that the gang of 8 should be ashamed of their actions but was qulckly set upon by the usual suspects .

Also no wonder the gerssave has been such a poor effort

[BelgaBear 0]

If as you say the number of actual members has fallen to as little as 1000 , what chance have we of Murray taking any of this whole charade seriously , I posted on ff that the gang of 8 should be ashamed of their actions but was qulckly set upon by the usual suspects .

Also no wonder the gerssave has been such a poor effort

I'm astonished that the RST continues to claim to have between 3000 and 4000 members when the number of paid-up members is actually less than 1000! How can they possibly claim to represent our fanbase?

I'm all for supporters representation on the board of RFC but there is no way Murray should have anything to do with this "clique" of Dingwall and his Follow Follow buddies.

Personally I'd love to see the 7 resignees set up a new organisation which would represent the TRUE Rangers fans.

[babyblueger 0]

If as you say the number of actual members has fallen to as little as 1000 , what chance have we of Murray taking any of this whole charade seriously , I posted on ff that the gang of 8 should be ashamed of their actions but was qulckly set upon by the usual suspects .

Also no wonder the gerssave has been such a poor effort

I'm astonished that the RST continues to claim to have between 3000 and 4000 members when the number of paid-up members is actually less than 1000! How can they possibly claim to represent our fanbase?

I'm all for supporters representation on the board of RFC but there is no way Murray should have anything to do with this "clique" of Dingwall and his Follow Follow buddies.

Personally I'd love to see the 7 resignees set up a new organisation which would represent the TRUE Rangers fans.

Not half as much as Murray would, I'll bet.

[Guest Andypendek]

The number of actual members as revealed earlier kind of makes all the shouting a bit irrelevant doesn't it?

And a warm welcome to the FF squad who are here to trash Frankie.

[babyblueger 0]

The number of actual members as revealed earlier kind of makes all the shouting a bit irrelevant doesn't it?

And a warm welcome to the FF squad who are here to trash Frankie.

Absolutely.

I think what it proves is that new blood and direction was certainly needed, eh? After all, the membership figure - if true - seems to point to few people having much faith in the previous RST regime.

[Guest Andypendek]

I'd say it points to the all too usual apathy to actually doing ANYTHING that we see around us in all walks of life, be it politics, charity work, or football. It proves nothing at all regarding who was there before or who is there now.

You do seem very keen on proving things on the thinnest of evidence.

[babyblueger 0]

I'd say it points to the all too usual apathy to actually doing ANYTHING that we see around us in all walks of life, be it politics, charity work, or football. It proves nothing at all regarding who was there before or who is there now.

You do seem very keen on proving things on the thinnest of evidence.

Just call me Joe Beltrami Junior. And all for just pointing out that Frankie boasts of a 'steadily growing membership' and then says it sits at under a thousand. So what is it to be?

Do we take the statement at face value and disregard his post or vice-versa?

[Guest Andypendek]

You've already been proven on this thread to be fast and loose with the facts with your denial that John Gilligan did not propose the Committee, as anyone attending the SGM would have heard Mr. G, a fine and upstanding member of the Rangers family, say he most certainly did?

An interesting take, but since I know nothing of any of these people I am inclined not to take your word for it. If Frankie is mistaken I have no doubt he will post a retraction, as he has always done since he joined this site. An excellent poster and, in virtual terms since I dunno the man in 'real life,' an honourable one. Someone, furthermore, who has tried his best to advance the cause of Rangers and their supporters. In relation to which:

From your later post:

I think what it proves is that new blood and direction was certainly needed, eh? After all, the membership figure - if true - seems to point to few people having much faith in the previous RST regime.

Again, the certainty of the convinced. The implosion of the RST is to be deplored, it is an opportunity lost. Anyone who was either neutral or an observer to the goings-on will see them with sadness and regret. Point scoring and accusations of being 'fast and loose' merely make you look like yet another FF lurker who is here to, as I said, trash Frankie.

[Frankie 505]

On the committee thing, if John G said it was his idea to ask for this to be set up, because they were not getting responses from the 2 who were having meetings, then that is fair enough to me. John is a thoroughly professional and honourable man IMO, and I respect his opinion.

John G did not propose or second this committee.

It says in the official minutes of the meeting, and was confirmed by John himself at the SGM yesterday, that it was his idea. He went further to explain that it was idea in the first year of the trust when it was being discussed about meetings with the club that more than one person should be in attendance at meetings with RFC in order to prevent the very scenario from happening that has been claimed happened with MMcN and SMcM. If you were at the meeting as part of the 11 who turned up for it, can you then confirm that it was not John who proposed the setting up of the task committee to get info from the chair and vice-chair about their meetings with RFC?

This is my last post for now as I am away on holiday for the next week or so, but I hope those who resigned are able to get your points across now, even if yesterday would have been better, because I still believe they are important points that need to be aired. It appears the gloves are now off, lets get both sides of the story please for us members that feel it is important to get proper closure before moving on.

TB:

I received a copy of the official minute of the meeting and also obviously spoke to the people who were there. Both the minute and the people who were there say Mark Dingwall proposed the committee.

The rules regarding meeting with the club have always been set in stone and followed - I don't know of anyone who has met the club alone.