Statement From RST Resigned Board Members

[agr9 0]

My question is in regard to Gersave.Given the apparent fall out between the present RST board,and Malcolm McNiven,is the said gentleman still offering reduced dealing rates to the RST Gersave transactions, and if not,is it still a viable option?

[Jimenez 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.

So at the first hint of the Trust taking a direction you feel uncomfortable with you bail out? Even though the Trust has maintained the fact that their policies will remain in place. Can I ask why you joined in the 1st place giving your pathalogical hatred of MD and the obvious fact that he was an important member of the Trust from the outset?

Whatever the truth may be regarding the split I can't help but feel it has giving you the perfect opportunity to go on the offensive regarding a certain site and its owner. Your language in this post is diplomatic but the tone used previously on other threads was hostile to say the least.

[cooperonthewing 0]

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.

Strange that MD would put his thoughts on his own website - haven't you done that?

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.

It wasn't debated properly as none of you turned up.

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.

So your resignations and posting your statement on a public forum did further the cause of the Rangers support then. News of the resignations and the statement was on every Timmy website, making the RST a laughng stock.

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.

If you mean things like 'I met with Martin Bain and Jim Templeton last night and everything is fine, the Club will announce the Directorship in January, no wait March, no wait they will put an offer in writing then we can debate it' type of e-mails then yes these were received. However I refer you to SM's e-mail of 21st April entitled 'Can we bring the next meeting foward - Important information'. I won't go into detail but it suggested that all was not well and the scheduled meeting was brought forward to 6th May.

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.

6 alternative days the following week? Do you mean the week in which we were playing our first European final in 36 years?

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.

He said he felt that he didn't have the backing and support of the Board - the very Board that voted him unanimously as our candidate fot the RFC Director's position. Whether or not that was how he felt, it wasn't true.

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.

Minutes of meetings don't always accurately reflect every single thing that was said. Terms of reference may have been discussed but nothing was decided. As you weren't present at the meeting you can't possibly know everything that was said. Can you also confirm that this item was on the agenda prior to MM trying the cancel the meeting and yourself and others pulling out the meeting? Your allegations of a 'coup' are somewhat misleading given it was already on the agenda when it was thought that everyone was attending.

‘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.

Really? I'd hate to see what you would do if you were trying to 'trash' the Trust and besmirch other Board members. Maybe you should have named names, then the rest of us would not be under a cloud of suspicion. You're right, it gave your side, none of which has been proved.

“ 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.

Are you denying that two 'business' people were being groomed for Board positions? Are you denying that these two people did some work for nothing and only just joined the Trust to get on the Board? Are you aware that the Trust now has a hefty invoice to pay because these two were pals of those who resigned? Are you denying that comments were being made about others 'uselessness' behind their backs in an attempt to get them off the Board?

“ 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.

More than obvious to whom? That is what's called democracy. We debated and voted. We could only do that with the people in attendance. If you look at the minutes there was a unanimous vote to ask MM and SM for a written report on what was happening re the Director's position and stadium redevelopment. 11-0 is pretty convincing I would suggest. The Special Tasks Committee vote was 9-2 (not 8-2 as given in your statement and if you can't get that right what else was wrong in it?) So what was '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.

So how were your characters being denigrated prior to the resignations if this was one of the reasons? Examples please.

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.

In the absence of any proof, I'll give you that. To an outsider though it may have looked 'suspicious'

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.

How arrogant are you? Where have any of my posts been inaccurate? Do you really expect people to read lies about themselves and ignore it? As stated before you didn't even come to the SGM to argue your case. I've asked you for proof of this 'faction', 'more militant approach', 'negative political briefings' and 'disagreements on strategy' and you can't give any proof whatsoever.

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'.

If the members are not happy they can bring it up via our usual channels. I would issue contents of e-mails if it was my only method of proving what I was saying was correct.

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.

Once you answer by questions (in here and in my other post) I will move on.

[cooperonthewing 0]

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.

So at the first hint of the Trust taking a direction you feel uncomfortable with you bail out? Even though the Trust has maintained the fact that their policies will remain in place. Can I ask why you joined in the 1st place giving your pathalogical hatred of MD and the obvious fact that he was an important member of the Trust from the outset?

Whatever the truth may be regarding the split I can't help but feel it has giving you the perfect opportunity to go on the offensive regarding a certain site and its owner. Your language in this post is diplomatic but the tone used previously on other threads was hostile to say the least.

People have this peception that MD is somehow running the Trust and that the rest of us are his 'puppets'. Nothing is further from the truth. He is one Board member out of twenty and is not an official Office Bearer.

[cooperonthewing 0]

My question is in regard to Gersave.Given the apparent fall out between the present RST board,and Malcolm McNiven,is the said gentleman still offering reduced dealing rates to the RST Gersave transactions, and if not,is it still a viable option?

Gersave will operate as usual. The said person has resigned his position with the company we deal with.

[Jimenez 1]

People have this peception that MD is somehow running the Trust and that the rest of us are his 'puppets'. Nothing is further from the truth. He is one Board member out of twenty and is not an official Office Bearer.

Cheers. I have no problem with him personally.

I hope those who do, take time to digest that statement and desist from lumping the Trust and MD as the one entity.

[ScotBear 144]

People have this peception that MD is somehow running the Trust and that the rest of us are his 'puppets'. Nothing is further from the truth. He is one Board member out of twenty and is not an official Office Bearer.

I don't think anyone believes that he is 'running the Trust'. However, I think there is a suspicion that he is very influential in where the Trust is now going, moreso than perhaps one man should be.

MD will be very aware of the fact that he has a poor reputation amongst a lot of Rangers fans, and the wider football community in Scotland. It would be a poor PR move on behalf of the trust for him to be given the limelight. This doesn't stop people from believing that he is much more influential than his official title/role within the Trust suggests.

It certainly seems to be the case that a lot of the board members that have left appear to be wary of MD. A lot of the board members that remain appear to be very much on the same wavelength as him.

As I've suggested, I'd be very surprised if MD is now given a much more public role with regards to the trust. It would be PR suicide. This won't reduce fears with regards to his influence behind the scenes though.

[Jimenez 1]

People have this peception that MD is somehow running the Trust and that the rest of us are his 'puppets'. Nothing is further from the truth. He is one Board member out of twenty and is not an official Office Bearer.

I don't think anyone believes that he is 'running the Trust'. However, I think there is a suspicion that he is very influential in where the Trust is now going, moreso than perhaps one man should be.

MD will be very aware of the fact that he has a poor reputation amongst a lot of Rangers fans, and the wider football community in Scotland. It would be a poor PR move on behalf of the trust for him to be given the limelight. This doesn't stop people from believing that he is much more influential than his official title/role within the Trust suggests.

It certainly seems to be the case that a lot of the board members that have left appear to be wary of MD. A lot of the board members that remain appear to be very much on the same wavelength as him.

As I've suggested, I'd be very surprised if MD is now given a much more public role with regards to the trust. It would be PR suicide. This won't reduce fears with regards to his influence behind the scenes though.

The Trust isn't veering off in any direction. Their policies remain in place and things can hopefully get back on track. Indeed even the more 'militant' approach I'd favour appears to be a myth.

MD's reputation or the one you suggest amongst the Rangers support doesn't mirror what I hear from fellow bears in public. As for how he stands in the wider football community in Scotland. If it isn't clear to you already that we are widely despised by said community for simply being Rangers then you are deluding yourself. Who cares what they think?

Or it could appear to be the case that those who left did so as they lost a vote. They may believe that MD was behind it but if that's the case then they'd be undermining the intelligence and integrity of the other board members IMO

Edgar and Smith have handled that aspect of the Trust with absolute professionalism so why would the Trust change it?

[babyblueger 0]

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.

As Mark has been on the board since the RST's inception, therefore having been on it longer than all but 2 of the 7 who resigned, wouldn't this have happened before now?

You are entitled to your opinion, but I have to say apart from a 'feeling' you have no evidence for it. And you make the classic mistake of confusing the RST with FF. Mark Dingwall may well like to run the RST, he may well like to run it like FF - but he doesn't so he can't.

I really can't believe how much some over-rate the influence of Dingwall - he wishes he has this power!

[Guest Andypendek]

Frankie, can I ask if you know who Cooperonthewing and Babyblueger are? It seems a bit unfair if you are debating with anonymous figures.

[JR 1,480]

Frankie, can I ask if you know who Cooperonthewing and Babyblueger are? It seems a bit unfair if you are debating with anonymous figures.

I would wager frankie would know to whom he is in debate with given that they have both declared openly their positions within the Trust. Their anonymity is theirs unless they wish to divulge differently.

Personally, I don't think it makes a jot of difference to the debate - a view I would imagine shared by those in the debate because they are still debating!

[Jimenez 1]

Frankie, can I ask if you know who Cooperonthewing and Babyblueger are? It seems a bit unfair if you are debating with anonymous figures.

I would wager frankie would know to whom he is in debate with given that they have both declared openly their positions within the Trust. Their anonymity is theirs unless they wish to divulge.

Personally, I don't think it makes a jot of difference to the debate - a view I would imagine shared by those in the debate because they are still debating!

I'm convinced Frankie knows exactly who they are

[Guest Andypendek]

I wouldn't know, to be honest. It seems a little 'off' that we all know one person's name but not the others. I'm not looking for names, and they would mean nothing to me anyway to be honest.

[Jimenez 1]

I wouldn't know, to be honest. It seems a little 'off' that we all know one person's name but not the others. I'm not looking for names, and they would mean nothing to me anyway to be honest.

Frankie has been a poster here for many moons.

I think we need to respect their right to anonymity with regards to this thread.

[Guest Andypendek]

They can be as anonymous as they like. I'm asking Frankie whether he knows who he is arguing with. How did your namesake get on at Loch Lomond, btw?

[JR 1,480]

I wouldn't know, to be honest. It seems a little 'off' that we all know one person's name but not the others. I'm not looking for names, and they would mean nothing to me anyway to be honest.

As you have said, it makes no difference to us what their names are. Their position and associated knowledge are important as they show they are involved in the whole process and can therefore back up their arguements.

[JR 1,480]

They can be as anonymous as they like. I'm asking Frankie whether he knows who he is arguing with. How did your namesake get on at Loch Lomond, btw?

Perhaps a PM would be a better option

[Jimenez 1]

They can be as anonymous as they like. I'm asking Frankie whether he knows who he is arguing with. How did your namesake get on at Loch Lomond, btw?

Don't know

Forgot all about the golf lately.

Who cares? He has ginger hair and a cool name

[Guest Andypendek]

And about $25m in the bank....jammy get.

[cooperonthewing 0]

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.

Firstly , I regret that you are an ex-Trust member. One of the problems we have had is retention of membership. People join up for various reasons and then don't renew. We need to address this. Some might sign up initially as a result of hearing David Edgar on the radio (many have done so). However, if you are anything like me when renewal notices come in it's put to the side, I'll do that later. I think we need to look at an incentive scheme to get members to take out standing orders. Hopefully this will be addressed.

The RST was born out of FF, nobody can deny that. There will always be a relationship there. In addition MD is on our Board. How that website operates is nothing to do with the RST. We are currently examing options where we can improve our website and allow it to be a forum for our members rather than FF (if anyone with expertise in this area can help please PM me).

Please do not think for a minute that the RST will be run in any way except by it's constitution and it's democratic principles. We are accountable to our members. We can't ban them and we can't silence them if they say something we don't agree with.

I'd urge anyone reading this to consider their position. Don't give up on the Trust because of a link to FF. Look at the bigger issues. Is it healthy for the club we love to have one man owning 91% of the shares? Most punters would rather debate the Kenny Miller signing and that's fair enough. However, if SDM was to sell to 'an individual' we could be in a Romanov (sp?) situation. Signing up to Gersave as a means of saving but also reducing SDM % shareholding to under 90%. This is critical to the RST and we need to get more people involed. Another ask for the new Board. Whilst one individual controls over 90% of the club we are extremely vulnerable in any takeover situation.

The RST will be run according to the wishes of it's members.

[cooperonthewing 0]

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.

Strange that MD would put his thoughts on his own website - haven't you done that?

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.

It wasn't debated properly as none of you turned up.

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.

So your resignations and posting your statement on a public forum did further the cause of the Rangers support then. News of the resignations and the statement was on every Timmy website, making the RST a laughng stock.

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.

If you mean things like 'I met with Martin Bain and Jim Templeton last night and everything is fine, the Club will announce the Directorship in January, no wait March, no wait they will put an offer in writing then we can debate it' type of e-mails then yes these were received. However I refer you to SM's e-mail of 21st April entitled 'Can we bring the next meeting foward - Important information'. I won't go into detail but it suggested that all was not well and the scheduled meeting was brought forward to 6th May.

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.

6 alternative days the following week? Do you mean the week in which we were playing our first European final in 36 years?

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.

He said he felt that he didn't have the backing and support of the Board - the very Board that voted him unanimously as our candidate fot the RFC Director's position. Whether or not that was how he felt, it wasn't true.

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.

Minutes of meetings don't always accurately reflect every single thing that was said. Terms of reference may have been discussed but nothing was decided. As you weren't present at the meeting you can't possibly know everything that was said. Can you also confirm that this item was on the agenda prior to MM trying the cancel the meeting and yourself and others pulling out the meeting? Your allegations of a 'coup' are somewhat misleading given it was already on the agenda when it was thought that everyone was attending.

‘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.

Really? I'd hate to see what you would do if you were trying to 'trash' the Trust and besmirch other Board members. Maybe you should have named names, then the rest of us would not be under a cloud of suspicion. You're right, it gave your side, none of which has been proved.

“ 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.

Are you denying that two 'business' people were being groomed for Board positions? Are you denying that these two people did some work for nothing and only just joined the Trust to get on the Board? Are you aware that the Trust now has a hefty invoice to pay because these two were pals of those who resigned? Are you denying that comments were being made about others 'uselessness' behind their backs in an attempt to get them off the Board?

“ 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.

More than obvious to whom? That is what's called democracy. We debated and voted. We could only do that with the people in attendance. If you look at the minutes there was a unanimous vote to ask MM and SM for a written report on what was happening re the Director's position and stadium redevelopment. 11-0 is pretty convincing I would suggest. The Special Tasks Committee vote was 9-2 (not 8-2 as given in your statement and if you can't get that right what else was wrong in it?) So what was '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.

So how were your characters being denigrated prior to the resignations if this was one of the reasons? Examples please.

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.

In the absence of any proof, I'll give you that. To an outsider though it may have looked 'suspicious'

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.

How arrogant are you? Where have any of my posts been inaccurate? Do you really expect people to read lies about themselves and ignore it? As stated before you didn't even come to the SGM to argue your case. I've asked you for proof of this 'faction', 'more militant approach', 'negative political briefings' and 'disagreements on strategy' and you can't give any proof whatsoever.

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'.

If the members are not happy they can bring it up via our usual channels. I would issue contents of e-mails if it was my only method of proving what I was saying was correct.

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.

Once you answer by questions (in here and in my other post) I will move on.

This is where I have a problem. There have been no responses to my questions on this or the previous questions I have asked. At least three of the people who resigned have been viewing this thread and yet nobody can come up with any evidence to support their statement. Now it appears they want us to 'move on'. Something I wish to do but, if they had the guts, they would come on and admit they had no real evidence to back up their statement. Most of it was based on 'this happened so let's all resign' rather than any factual information. I hope that the majority of RST members on here will see through their actions (I'm encouraged by the support of the PMs I've received). I'm sure they felt very smug issuing their statement when they did but it seems it has backfired on them.Did they really think that nobody would question their allegations?

[CanadianGer 1]

This is where I have a problem. There have been no responses to my questions on this or the previous questions I have asked. At least three of the people who resigned have been viewing this thread and yet nobody can come up with any evidence to support their statement. Now it appears they want us to 'move on'. Something I wish to do but, if they had the guts, they would come on and admit they had no real evidence to back up their statement. Most of it was based on 'this happened so let's all resign' rather than any factual information. I hope that the majority of RST members on here will see through their actions (I'm encouraged by the support of the PMs I've received). I'm sure they felt very smug issuing their statement when they did but it seems it has backfired on them.Did they really think that nobody would question their allegations?

By the time the post gets this long, I thinks its either time to drop it or for the matter to be referred to Admin for a decision. Although the RST is something lots of guys here have backed, its probably not worthwhile having posts that are several thousand words in length. Best left for personal correspondence, IMO.

Welcome to the board, COTW, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

[Saudibear 0]

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.

Firstly , I regret that you are an ex-Trust member. One of the problems we have had is retention of membership. People join up for various reasons and then don't renew. We need to address this. Some might sign up initially as a result of hearing David Edgar on the radio (many have done so). However, if you are anything like me when renewal notices come in it's put to the side, I'll do that later. I think we need to look at an incentive scheme to get members to take out standing orders. Hopefully this will be addressed.

The RST was born out of FF, nobody can deny that. There will always be a relationship there. In addition MD is on our Board. How that website operates is nothing to do with the RST. We are currently examing options where we can improve our website and allow it to be a forum for our members rather than FF (if anyone with expertise in this area can help please PM me).

Please do not think for a minute that the RST will be run in any way except by it's constitution and it's democratic principles. We are accountable to our members. We can't ban them and we can't silence them if they say something we don't agree with.

I'd urge anyone reading this to consider their position. Don't give up on the Trust because of a link to FF. Look at the bigger issues. Is it healthy for the club we love to have one man owning 91% of the shares? Most punters would rather debate the Kenny Miller signing and that's fair enough. However, if SDM was to sell to 'an individual' we could be in a Romanov (sp?) situation. Signing up to Gersave as a means of saving but also reducing SDM % shareholding to under 90%. This is critical to the RST and we need to get more people involed. Another ask for the new Board. Whilst one individual controls over 90% of the club we are extremely vulnerable in any takeover situation.

The RST will be run according to the wishes of it's members.

Firstly, you don't have to worry about my membership as I took out a life membership (although I now have reservations about that). The only person on the board that I know personally is JG. My biggest gripe about the RST is the lack of information given out to RST members especially for people like myself who live overseas. This very debate on here shows just how poor the RST website is.

I find out much more about the RST on here and on FF than anywhere else. I think it is fair to say that this debate is more about the likes and dislikes of MD than the RST as a whole. On here the majority are opposed/frightened of the perceived power that he has. On FF he has the backing of his inner circle and is more or less untouchable. It can't be a good thing that 1 man, not even an office bearer, can have such a bearing with people outside of the RST, yet about the RST. Certainly not good for recruitment of new members.

The statement from the seven rightly or wrongly at least came from the seven of them. The only reply I have seen did not come from the new board but from MD. This is surely a mistake also and leads people to believe he is speaking for the board. I am only sorry that I have to bring up my misgivings on here and not on an RST board.

[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.

Firstly , I regret that you are an ex-Trust member. One of the problems we have had is retention of membership. People join up for various reasons and then don't renew. We need to address this. Some might sign up initially as a result of hearing David Edgar on the radio (many have done so). However, if you are anything like me when renewal notices come in it's put to the side, I'll do that later. I think we need to look at an incentive scheme to get members to take out standing orders. Hopefully this will be addressed.

The RST was born out of FF, nobody can deny that. There will always be a relationship there. In addition MD is on our Board. How that website operates is nothing to do with the RST. We are currently examing options where we can improve our website and allow it to be a forum for our members rather than FF (if anyone with expertise in this area can help please PM me).

Please do not think for a minute that the RST will be run in any way except by it's constitution and it's democratic principles. We are accountable to our members. We can't ban them and we can't silence them if they say something we don't agree with.

I'd urge anyone reading this to consider their position. Don't give up on the Trust because of a link to FF. Look at the bigger issues. Is it healthy for the club we love to have one man owning 91% of the shares? Most punters would rather debate the Kenny Miller signing and that's fair enough. However, if SDM was to sell to 'an individual' we could be in a Romanov (sp?) situation. Signing up to Gersave as a means of saving but also reducing SDM % shareholding to under 90%. This is critical to the RST and we need to get more people involed. Another ask for the new Board. Whilst one individual controls over 90% of the club we are extremely vulnerable in any takeover situation.

The RST will be run according to the wishes of it's members.

Firstly, you don't have to worry about my membership as I took out a life membership (although I now have reservations about that). The only person on the board that I know personally is JG. My biggest gripe about the RST is the lack of information given out to RST members especially for people like myself who live overseas. This very debate on here shows just how poor the RST website is.

I find out much more about the RST on here and on FF than anywhere else. I think it is fair to say that this debate is more about the likes and dislikes of MD than the RST as a whole. On here the majority are opposed/frightened of the perceived power that he has. On FF he has the backing of his inner circle and is more or less untouchable. It can't be a good thing that 1 man, not even an office bearer, can have such a bearing with people outside of the RST, yet about the RST. Certainly not good for recruitment of new members.

The statement from the seven rightly or wrongly at least came from the seven of them. The only reply I have seen did not come from the new board but from MD. This is surely a mistake also and leads people to believe he is speaking for the board. I am only sorry that I have to bring up my misgivings on here and not on an RST board.

This whole thread is getting messy and is not doing anyone any favours. Trust business should be posted on a Trust forum,something that is sadly lackng.

To carry on this manner, attacking an ex board member, will lose more than just me to the Trust.

The Trust has lost credibility through this episode, carry on like this and it will never recover.

[Coopermania 1]

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.

I second what JR says here. I fully understand that feelings are high regarding the RST situation and how it can be easy, maybe understandable how hackles can get raised.

At the same time, we on Rangersmedia try to run a site that allows both light-hearted banter and serious discussion/debate without fear of recrimination or over-reactionary modding.

Above all, we support Rangers and all the supporters who follow the Club.