Statement From RST Resigned Board Members

[cooperonthewing 0]

For someone who has no loyalty to Mr. Dingwall you have seemed quite impatient and persistent in acquiring answers off Frankie throughout this whole thread regarding the gentleman.

He's eager for a reply. I can fully understand why.

Frankie's posted a lot in this thread, although why the topic regarding Mr. Dingwall's only and especially?

I can understand anyones interest but his eagerness seems a little exaggerated more so than anyone elses.

Because Frankie said most of it was untrue. I've asked him what was untrue and he has failed to respond except to tell us how busy he is. He has however found the time to respond to the people who praise him.

[Toni 2]

It appears two posters are after Frankie. Well knowing Frankie he will make a good response when his time allows. I think these two posters should just be patient. I am sure Frankie will respond at his earliest convenience.

Question to babyblueger and cooperonthewing: Are any of you on the current board of the RST or connected to Mr. Dinwall in any way. Can you be open about that?

This site has always been generally pro RST.

I think babyblueger said on an earlier post that he was close to a Board member. I will be open. I am a current Board member who is enraged at this 'Statement'. I have no particular loyalty to Mark Dingwall or indeed any fellow Board member. My loyalty is to the RST and it's members (my first loyalty is to RFC like all of us). I am not 'after' Frankie. He's a thoroughly decent bloke but he has been fed these stories about 'negative, political, behind-the-scenes briefings' and 'factions' by people he trusts. There is no evidence that any such meetings took place, there is no evidence that some Board members want a more militant approach (we couldn't do that anyway without a mandate from our members) and basically the whole statement has damaged the RST's reputation.

For someone who has no loyalty to Mr. Dingwall you have seemed quite impatient and persistent in acquiring answers off Frankie throughout this whole thread regarding the gentleman.

I am sorry if I come across as impatient. Frankie agreed to answer my question within 24-48 hours, I gave him that. It's now about 64 hours and I am still willing to wait. I have offered a comprimise whereby he cuts and pastes MD's post and highlights the sections that are untrue. I hope he takes that opportunity.

I don't think you've really seen my point. I'm not calling your actions inappropriate, I understand completely that certain people will be impatient for answers regarding MD's post. I just don't find it truthful you have nothing to do with him. I also find it doubtful he won't have signed up to see or dispute these accusations for himself.

[Jimenez 1]

I don't think you've really seen my point. I'm not calling your actions inappropriate, I understand completely that certain people will be impatient for answers regarding MD's post. I just don't find it truthful you have nothing to do with him. I also find it doubtful he won't have signed up to see or dispute these accusations for himself.

What is it you are unclear about?

He has already said he is a board member of the Trust. Frankie said parts of Dingwall's statement were untrue. That statement was not only a response from him personally, but on behalf of the existing board. So as a board member he is seeking Frankie's answers on where the board are misleading its members so he can argue their case. Frankie quite rightly is held in high regard on here so when he makes such claims then it is going to be believed by a good proportion of this site. Surely the RST has a right to defend itself?

[cooperonthewing 0]

It appears two posters are after Frankie. Well knowing Frankie he will make a good response when his time allows. I think these two posters should just be patient. I am sure Frankie will respond at his earliest convenience.

Question to babyblueger and cooperonthewing: Are any of you on the current board of the RST or connected to Mr. Dinwall in any way. Can you be open about that?

This site has always been generally pro RST.

I think babyblueger said on an earlier post that he was close to a Board member. I will be open. I am a current Board member who is enraged at this 'Statement'. I have no particular loyalty to Mark Dingwall or indeed any fellow Board member. My loyalty is to the RST and it's members (my first loyalty is to RFC like all of us). I am not 'after' Frankie. He's a thoroughly decent bloke but he has been fed these stories about 'negative, political, behind-the-scenes briefings' and 'factions' by people he trusts. There is no evidence that any such meetings took place, there is no evidence that some Board members want a more militant approach (we couldn't do that anyway without a mandate from our members) and basically the whole statement has damaged the RST's reputation.

For someone who has no loyalty to Mr. Dingwall you have seemed quite impatient and persistent in acquiring answers off Frankie throughout this whole thread regarding the gentleman.

I am sorry if I come across as impatient. Frankie agreed to answer my question within 24-48 hours, I gave him that. It's now about 64 hours and I am still willing to wait. I have offered a comprimise whereby he cuts and pastes MD's post and highlights the sections that are untrue. I hope he takes that opportunity.

I don't think you've really seen my point. I'm not calling your actions inappropriate, I understand completely that certain people will be impatient for answers regarding MD's post. I just don't find it truthful you have nothing to do with him. I also find it doubtful he won't have signed up to see or dispute these accusations for himself.

I didn't say I had nothing do do with him. He is a fellow RST Board member so obviously I have contact with him in that respect. What I am saying is that I have no particular loyalty to any individuals on the RST Board. My loyalty is to the RST and it's members which is why I find the statement from the former Board members so offensive.

[Coopermania 1]

I don't think you've really seen my point. I'm not calling your actions inappropriate, I understand completely that certain people will be impatient for answers regarding MD's post. I just don't find it truthful you have nothing to do with him. I also find it doubtful he won't have signed up to see or dispute these accusations for himself.

What is it you are unclear about?

He has already said he is a board member of the Trust. Frankie said parts of Dingwall's statement were untrue. That statement was not only a response from him personally, but on behalf of the existing board. So as a board member he is seeking Frankie's answers on where the board are misleading its members so he can argue their case. Frankie quite rightly is held in high regard on here so when he makes such claims then it is going to be believed by a good proportion of this site. Surely the RST has a right to defend itself?

The RST as it is now does have a right to defend itself, agreed. We welcome decent discussion on RM and through this hopefully make some kind of progress.

Frankie has always taken time to address questions, which he has answered, sometimes against aggresive questioning.

Lets keep the discussion open and above all, civil.

[cooperonthewing 0]

I don't think you've really seen my point. I'm not calling your actions inappropriate, I understand completely that certain people will be impatient for answers regarding MD's post. I just don't find it truthful you have nothing to do with him. I also find it doubtful he won't have signed up to see or dispute these accusations for himself.

What is it you are unclear about?

He has already said he is a board member of the Trust. Frankie said parts of Dingwall's statement were untrue. That statement was not only a response from him personally, but on behalf of the existing board. So as a board member he is seeking Frankie's answers on where the board are misleading its members so he can argue their case. Frankie quite rightly is held in high regard on here so when he makes such claims then it is going to be believed by a good proportion of this site. Surely the RST has a right to defend itself?

Jimenez, you are correct. The fact that the majority of MD's post was based on fact (and I will make e-mails available to you if required) means that porkies are being told. I wonder why. The reason I am offering this to you is that I know you are really confused by what is happening.

[Jimenez 1]

I don't think you've really seen my point. I'm not calling your actions inappropriate, I understand completely that certain people will be impatient for answers regarding MD's post. I just don't find it truthful you have nothing to do with him. I also find it doubtful he won't have signed up to see or dispute these accusations for himself.

What is it you are unclear about?

He has already said he is a board member of the Trust. Frankie said parts of Dingwall's statement were untrue. That statement was not only a response from him personally, but on behalf of the existing board. So as a board member he is seeking Frankie's answers on where the board are misleading its members so he can argue their case. Frankie quite rightly is held in high regard on here so when he makes such claims then it is going to be believed by a good proportion of this site. Surely the RST has a right to defend itself?

The RST as it is now does have a right to defend itself, agreed. We welcome decent discussion on RM and through this hopefully make some kind of progress.

Frankie has always taken time to address questions, which he has answered, sometimes against aggresive questioning.

Lets keep the discussion open and above all, civil.

I don't see anyone being uncivilized Coops.

[cooperonthewing 0]

I don't think you've really seen my point. I'm not calling your actions inappropriate, I understand completely that certain people will be impatient for answers regarding MD's post. I just don't find it truthful you have nothing to do with him. I also find it doubtful he won't have signed up to see or dispute these accusations for himself.

What is it you are unclear about?

He has already said he is a board member of the Trust. Frankie said parts of Dingwall's statement were untrue. That statement was not only a response from him personally, but on behalf of the existing board. So as a board member he is seeking Frankie's answers on where the board are misleading its members so he can argue their case. Frankie quite rightly is held in high regard on here so when he makes such claims then it is going to be believed by a good proportion of this site. Surely the RST has a right to defend itself?

The RST as it is now does have a right to defend itself, agreed. We welcome decent discussion on RM and through this hopefully make some kind of progress.

Frankie has always taken time to address questions, which he has answered, sometimes against aggresive questioning.

Lets keep the discussion open and above all, civil.

I agree with open and civil disussion. I await answers to my (reasonable) questions.

[Coopermania 1]

I don't think you've really seen my point. I'm not calling your actions inappropriate, I understand completely that certain people will be impatient for answers regarding MD's post. I just don't find it truthful you have nothing to do with him. I also find it doubtful he won't have signed up to see or dispute these accusations for himself.

What is it you are unclear about?

He has already said he is a board member of the Trust. Frankie said parts of Dingwall's statement were untrue. That statement was not only a response from him personally, but on behalf of the existing board. So as a board member he is seeking Frankie's answers on where the board are misleading its members so he can argue their case. Frankie quite rightly is held in high regard on here so when he makes such claims then it is going to be believed by a good proportion of this site. Surely the RST has a right to defend itself?

The RST as it is now does have a right to defend itself, agreed. We welcome decent discussion on RM and through this hopefully make some kind of progress.

Frankie has always taken time to address questions, which he has answered, sometimes against aggresive questioning.

Lets keep the discussion open and above all, civil.

I don't see anyone being uncivilized Coops.

I agree Jim, I worded the post poorly.

Its an open discussion and hopefully will shed some light on matters and let us all move forward in a positive way.

[Jimenez 1]

I agree with open and civil disussion. I await answers to my (reasonable) questions.

At 2:18 am FFS

Fuck taken you on in a stareout competition

[Coopermania 1]

I don't think you've really seen my point. I'm not calling your actions inappropriate, I understand completely that certain people will be impatient for answers regarding MD's post. I just don't find it truthful you have nothing to do with him. I also find it doubtful he won't have signed up to see or dispute these accusations for himself.

What is it you are unclear about?

He has already said he is a board member of the Trust. Frankie said parts of Dingwall's statement were untrue. That statement was not only a response from him personally, but on behalf of the existing board. So as a board member he is seeking Frankie's answers on where the board are misleading its members so he can argue their case. Frankie quite rightly is held in high regard on here so when he makes such claims then it is going to be believed by a good proportion of this site. Surely the RST has a right to defend itself?

The RST as it is now does have a right to defend itself, agreed. We welcome decent discussion on RM and through this hopefully make some kind of progress.

Frankie has always taken time to address questions, which he has answered, sometimes against aggresive questioning.

Lets keep the discussion open and above all, civil.

I agree with open and civil disussion. I await answers to my (reasonable) questions.

I agree coop, questions are fair and should be addressed.

[Jimenez 1]

I agree Jim, I worded the post poorly.

Its an open discussion and hopefully will shed some light on matters and let us all move forward in a positive way.

Cool mate. I'm hoping it's resolved one way or the other sooner rather than later.

Cooperonthewing, while you wait could you perhaps fill us in on what the 'special committee' was proposed for exactly. Were their suspicions that certain board members weren't complying with the rules i.e. in reporting back from meetings with our custodian.

I don't have a clue on how many times the RST met with him, but I'm snookered if I can remember hearing anything other than 'we had open and honest discussions, talks went well etc'

[cooperonthewing 0]

I don't think you've really seen my point. I'm not calling your actions inappropriate, I understand completely that certain people will be impatient for answers regarding MD's post. I just don't find it truthful you have nothing to do with him. I also find it doubtful he won't have signed up to see or dispute these accusations for himself.

What is it you are unclear about?

He has already said he is a board member of the Trust. Frankie said parts of Dingwall's statement were untrue. That statement was not only a response from him personally, but on behalf of the existing board. So as a board member he is seeking Frankie's answers on where the board are misleading its members so he can argue their case. Frankie quite rightly is held in high regard on here so when he makes such claims then it is going to be believed by a good proportion of this site. Surely the RST has a right to defend itself?

The RST as it is now does have a right to defend itself, agreed. We welcome decent discussion on RM and through this hopefully make some kind of progress.

Frankie has always taken time to address questions, which he has answered, sometimes against aggresive questioning.

Lets keep the discussion open and above all, civil.

I agree with open and civil disussion. I await answers to my (reasonable) questions.

I agree coop, questions are fair and should be addressed.

I hope they will be.

[cooperonthewing 0]

I agree Jim, I worded the post poorly.

Its an open discussion and hopefully will shed some light on matters and let us all move forward in a positive way.

Cool mate. I'm hoping it's resolved one way or the other sooner rather than later.

Cooperonthewing, while you wait could you perhaps fill us in on what the 'special committee' was proposed for exactly. Were their suspicions that certain board members weren't complying with the rules i.e. in reporting back from meetings with our custodian.

I don't have a clue on how many times the RST met with him, but I'm snookered if I can remember hearing anything other than 'we had open and honest discussion, talks went well etc'

J,

I don't think the Special Tasks Committee was to do with 'suspicions'. It was merely to ensure thay we were abiding by the rules that our members expected.

[nvager 498]

Many thanks Jiminez for posting once again MD's statement. My apologies - I missed Manticore's posting of it earlier. I guess I skipped a page there.

This is all good stuff. We have one statement by the former RST Board members and a response from Mr. Dingwall.

Also cooperonthewing, a current RST board member, is asking why Frankie believes the statement issued by M Dingwall is somewhat in error.

There is no harm in any of this and it does RM good that such a civilized debate is taking place.

Frankie has said that he is very busy at work and will reply as soon as he can. I believe that and would say that a reply is very likely in a short time. We just need to be patient for now.

Like all concerned I too look forward to Frankie's reply with much interest.

Then we shall have another debate, but eventually we will learn a lot more about the goings on at the RST. This is important as a lot of are/were members of the RST.

Perhaps at the end of the day all the various factions and forums may come together and the vast Rangers support will move on in a more unified fashion. That is my wish.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

I don't think the Special Tasks Committee was to do with 'suspicions'. It was merely to ensure thay we were abiding by the rules that our members expected.

Merely you say?

Why would you need a Special Tasks Committee to ensure rule compliance if there was no suspicion that rules were being ignored/broken?

[Frankie 505]

As promised, I'll shed a little light on why I feel MD's post (strangely on the FF website but not on the RST website - or other forums) could be described as 'tendentious' as well as outline the parts I feel are untrue or misleading.

I've also tried my best to refrain from posting private RST board emails given open forums are hardly the place for such items. I think it's disappointing that others have already done so latterly, given the issue was supposed to have been debated in full at the SGM.

In addition, I've tried to keep my response as short as possible as I believe there are some issues that don't further the cause of the Rangers support to have on forums. I myself still have a few questions but I'd prefer to keep them for a more suitable time and place.

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.

Indeed no minutes were produced per se. However, all board members were aware of the meetings and received a general report back via email and debate at the next board meeting. Indeed, there were several positive email debates between the board regarding the reports. I was certainly aware of what was happening and extremely comfortable that MM/SM were acting in good faith and with the express backing of the board in their dialogue with the club. Other board members - including MD - have also attended meetings with the Assembly, club, other committees etc and not provided full minutes other than email/meeting reports.

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.

I feel these related parts of the post are rather misleading. While the email content is accurate, the inference that MM was withholding information is completely wrong. MM had no choice but to ask for a postponement of the meeting due to unavoidable and unforeseen work issues. However, he immediately offered 6 alternative days the following week to rearrange (which would have accommodated others who couldn't make it also). He also contacted the club immediately when asked which left the status quo of requiring a board meeting to debate the matter.

The inference that he resigned because he was asked to provide a report is mischief-making - his reasons are very clear in his resignation email to the board. As the board member above knows, MM (and SM) also met with JG to give an update later that month. MM had nothing to hide and always dealt openly and with the backing of the board.

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.

Here the reasons for the Special Tasks Committee appear different from the minutes of the meeting where it was proposed. Neither do the minutes suggest he delayed the ‘terms of reference’ until the next meeting because other board members weren’t present. The 'terms of reference' were included in the minute and appear extremely wide-ranging, restrictive and controlling. I'm still unsure why such a committee is required when the main board itself can decide any matter.

‘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.

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?

I think we've already made our reasons very clear why we couldn't attend. We them sent out a statement, not to 'trash' the Trust, besmirch other board members or because we were bitter but because the membership had a right to know our side of the story. You'll note this statement refrained from naming people outright or going into specifics. It merely gave our side of the story and our opinions.

“ 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?

MD's leap from our statement of looking to address the problems outlined in the statement to a ‘purge’ of board members being planned is completely unsubstantiated. It is obvious to anyone problems existed with aspects of the RST board. It was merely our intention to address those openly via full board debate.

“ 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 unanimously? 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?

The ‘faction’ may well have won votes but it’s more than obvious their actions (majority or otherwise) were premature and aggressive given the information outlined above. Given 7 board members resigned over the issue suggests the inference that any decisions were ‘unanimous’ is certainly well wide of the mark.

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.

Again, MD makes unwarranted and highly disrespectful allegations regarding the intentions of the people in the statement. Such denigrations of our character are another example of exactly why these resignations occurred.

To be clear, every board member endeavoured to ensure their resignation was carried out professionally and their obligations passed on suitably. MM/SM met with JG to pass on information about the status with the club; I made contact with the new webmaster regarding instruction for all web-related issues (and helped out recently when problems arose); DH dealt with all his duties extremely professionally before leaving; CR ensured the accounts were complete and in order; AM completed the accounts of his marketing work and passed on everything professionally; and DT did the same once he took the time to think things over while being on holiday also.

Such hand-overs obviously take time so I'd imagine that's why any resignations were spaced out. We left as individuals but shared the concerns in our statement afterwards. At no point were the resignations co-ordinated and if we wanted to maximise harm to the Trust, I doubt we'd have acted so professionally in our individual hand-overs.

Furthermore, if anyone is 'teasing out the bad publicity engendered by the resignations as long as possible in order to maximise the harm to the Trust', it is people who write inaccurate posts after the issue was supposedly dealt with at the SGM, make inaccurate allegations within such posts and people like yourself to try and slur the intentions of the resignees afterwards - while inferring people should move on at the same time on other forums.

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.

The members have always been in control of the organisation. Why would anyone suggest they were not before the SGM or resignations? I do though wonder if the members are happy that MD is releasing private emails and board minutes via non-RST channels though. You also threaten to do the same. Not sure where that fits in with 'promoting the aims etc in the proper manner according to the constitution'.

To conclude, I hope the above post addresses why I find parts of MD's post untrue and 'tendentious'. Nevertheless, it's obvious both sides of the argument have their own opinions and I doubt we'll ever agree on who is right and who is wrong.

As such, I think if the person above really wants to move on, then he/she should accept my retort in the faith it was intended and do so.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

This site has always been generally pro RST.

I think that's true, but there have always been a few posters who are fanatically anti RST for whatever reason (mental illness in one case judging from his PMs).

Anti RST feeling is currently being enmeshed with the anti Mark Dingwall/ FF feeling which has also been around for a while among a few posters.

And what's emerging is a picture where the big bad bigots have chucked the nice guys out of the Trust.

[ScotBear 144]

This site has always been generally pro RST.

a few posters who are fanatically anti RST......

......anti Mark Dingwall/ FF feeling which has also been around for a while among a few posters.

'A few posters'

As you yourself say, it's a few posters. So what is the problem ? This site allows open debate on any issue, and that means allowing a wide range of opinion, and not just beliefs that admin want to promote. It's a crazy concept, but freedom of speech seems to work on here.

If anyone out there can't see that a 'few posters' does not in fact represent this forum as a whole...........then that is their own shortcoming, and not a problem that should be put at the door of 'RangersMedia'.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

This site has always been generally pro RST.

a few posters who are fanatically anti RST......

......anti Mark Dingwall/ FF feeling which has also been around for a while among a few posters.

'A few posters'

As you yourself say, it's a few posters. So what is the problem ? This site allows open debate on any issue, and that means allowing a wide range of opinion, and not just beliefs that admin want to promote. It's a crazy concept, but freedom of speech seems to work on here.

If anyone out there can't see that a 'few posters' does not in fact represent this forum as a whole...........then that is their own shortcoming, and not a problem that should be put at the door of 'RangersMedia'.

FFS! I was just trying to explain why somebody who hasn't been around long might think the site's anti RST.

Who said there is a problem?

Some folk could start a fight in an empty room.

[ScotBear 144]

It's not the first time you've shown concern for views that are negative with regards to FF or MD though......so it's obviously of some importance to you.

With regards to any newcomers it's up to them to come to their own conclusions. Those with criticism of FF and MD will continue to do so where they feel appropriate.

It wasn't so long ago that bringing up FF and MD in debate related to the Trust was met with despair, criticism and ridicule. 'Why bring them up ?' was asked. Now though, it's been shown to be very much relevant to the debate.

[Friedmarsbar 1]

This site has always been generally pro RST.

I think that's true, but there have always been a few posters who are fanatically anti RST for whatever reason (mental illness in one case judging from his PMs).

Anti RST feeling is currently being enmeshed with the anti Mark Dingwall/ FF feeling which has also been around for a while among a few posters.

And what's emerging is a picture where the big bad bigots have chucked the nice guys out of the Trust.

Can I make my own feelings clear

1. I am now an ex Trust Member

2. I think we should drop references to FF/RST, it is a huge site and we cannot lump every poster on FF, every Rangers supporter, into this militant camp reference. Let me say I like FF, I read it most days, I love the content and I am fearful that a lot of people see it as an FF/Media split, this would be wrong as what someone else has said, we are all Rangers supporters.

3. Where I do have worries is that the very dictatorial line followed by the FF Administrators where anyone not toeing the party line has his post terminated and then his account suspended, while their well known posters are allowed to say what they like, condemn people in the most abusive terms, are allowed to carry on regardless.

4. This site is run by Mark Dingwall, do not know the man personally, but have had dealings with him on a number of issues through the years, and I am perturbed that a man that runs his website in this way will have a prominent position in the Rangers Trust, that is why I am leaving the Trust, as I feel

that the infiltration of the Trust by his followers will be unstoppable, and has probably started, judging by reports.

5. A Trust run in this manner will result in it being marginalised and its influence reduced.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

It's not the first time you've shown concern for views that are negative with regards to FF or MD though......so it's obviously of some importance to you.

Tell you what mate, you decide what's important to you and I'll decide what's important to me

[JR 1,480]

I can see why some feel they have to point out the political persuaions (for want of a better expression) of Rangersmedia during this whole debate. However, it has been made as clear as we can exactly where this Site stands on more than one occaision.

Rangersmedia has, and will strive to continue, to be a vehicle for debate for all things Rangers FC. It has no political allegiances or agendas, nor will it attempt to acquire any.

Our sole aim is to provide an area where differing viewpoints can be aired without fear of recrimination, personal abuse or censorship.

Recently it has been alleged that the above aim has not been provided on Follow Follow.com - something which I am in no position to substantiate - but as a result some have felt the need to air their grievances here on RMedia. We (Rmedia) have no problem with that - that's why we're here.

It would be unfair for anyone to level any accusations of bias towards any side of any debate against Rangersmedia - soley because we provide the platform for the debate in question.

[minstral 5,375]

I can see why some feel they have to point out the political persuaions (for want of a better expression) of Rangersmedia during this whole debate. However, it has been made as clear as we can exactly where this Site stands on more than one occaision.

Rangersmedia has, and will strive to continue, to be a vehicle for debate for all things Rangers FC. It has no political allegiances or agendas, nor will it attempt to acquire any.

Our sole aim is to provide an area where differing viewpoints can be aired without fear of recrimination, personal abuse or censorship.

Recently it has been alleged that the above aim has not been provided on Follow Follow.com - something which I am in no position to substantiate - but as a result some have felt the need to air their grievances here on RMedia. We (Rmedia) have no problem with that - that's why we're here.

It would be unfair for anyone to level any accusations of bias towards any side of any debate against Rangersmedia - soley because we provide the platform for the debate in question.

good post jr.