A few points in response to The Chairman's response to 'We Deserve Better'

[BlueIsTheColour 35]

I notice you highlighted one part of my reply and ignored the others.

I think what I said was perfectly reasonable and logical and will leave it to others to decide.

I am all in favour of fans working together and think there are far too many divisions in the support.

Although these are sometimes inevitable due to peoples' opinions, there is undoubtedly an element arising from jealousy and personal hostility. This is regrettable.

I highlighted the part of your post which i found very disagreeable. I don't see it as being reasonable or logical whatsoever, infact it is highly illogical in my mind.

Seeing as we are on the subject of lessons being learned at the moment, surely the recent past has taught us that encouraging fans to start their own supporters' groups only further divides the support on every subject. If we were all part of the same organisation and disagreed with the ideas of a prominent member or representative then at least as fellow membrs there exists the platform to objectively debate the issues.

Having smaller groups disagreeing with each other won't encourage debate it will just end in tribalism and bad blood which is very evident among our support right now. The BBC protest was a fine example of where the supporters groups could have united and made a real statement of intent. Instead, due to ill-feeling between certain groups it was but a ripple in the pond compared to the tidal wave it could have been.

[TannochsideBear 355]

What i am trying to explain is that there undoubtedly a communication breakdown between the Board and the membership which is damaging to the running of the RST and also it's credibility amongst the wider Rangers support. It is something which i would like to see sorted in order for the organisation to ensure the respect of current members (and to stop the declining renewals) and also to attract new members.

And on that point I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I was the one who raised this very point at both the EGM and the AGM last year and was told in no uncertain terms that steps were being put in place to ensure better communication with the membership.

6 months on and I do not feel there has been any improvement whatsoever in this regard and it is a point I shall be raising again at the next meeting. I feel at the very least a general meeting should be held a couple of times a season as well as the AGM where the membership can attend, hear the things that cant get posted on open forums, debate the issues at hand, and formulate policy. Only having to answer to the electorate at the AGM is not working for a lot of bears, although I do defend their right to work as a board without consultation for speed and I think they are to be congratulated for the way they have got more media savvy this time. The "We Deserve Better" campaign was picked up by all papers and radio stations, was a major story on Sky Sports News and is still the main talking point on the phone-ins.

[outlaw69uk 123]

Now back to the campaign itself, i take on board what you say regarding the launch statement. But i still feel that if alternative proposals were put forward along with each grievance then it would have looked alot more objective and less of a rant, so to speak. I think the media would have presented it as the Rangers support offering Mr Murray a 17-point plan to rectify what the RST believe are the major flaws withing the club. Instead, as i said earlier, Murray has just been allowed to sidestep the valid criticisms which have been put forward. He basically said that we, as supporters, can protest all we want but we don't know how to run a club.

Now, had we given suggestions on how the could improve in the areas the statement was critical of then Murray would not have had the chance to make such comments.

Like you have correctly stated, the man has told us countless times that he is annoyed at having to apolagise for every mistake he makes. But the fact that he still makes those same mistakes repeatedly tells us that his apolagies are meaningless. Either he doesn't recognise that he is making these mistakes, which i highly doubt, or he knows fine and well but is too stubborn and arrogant to adopt a new strategy or admit to failing.

These are very troubled times but we need a united support on this one. Starting this campaign was easy, getting the support of large oganisations such as the RSA along with fan groups like the Blue Order is what will be difficult. And to me it seems impossible as the RSA are refusing to back the campaign.

My view is that no matter what the RST came out with it would be criticised. Such is the nature of messageboard debate.

I think this is primarily nit-picking because the main objective has been achieved.

We have to accept that no campaign, initiative, statement or whatever is going to meet with universal approval. Everyone has their own preferences regarding what they'd want emphasised.

The RSA was set up by the club. It is a contrived umbrella organisation bought and paid for by the club.

Why should its views determine or influence what other supporters groups do?

Jim Templeton, its former head, was scathing about the club when he stepped down a few months ago.

I dont know about criticised for everything? Perhaps some will, but, that is just human nature. I think the trust, or, perhaps some representatives/members, take any criticism too personally, when, if consrtuctive, it could be taken on board, and used to improve the trust. More improvements, less critics.

You say the main objective has been achieved? What was that? I personally think that if it was publicity, then, perhaps it has, however, this is not a situation like, for example, a rock band, where, if they get bad publicity people want to see more from them. It runs the risk that, the next release may be dismissed regardless of content.

There is too much division between the support, and the club, and, different supporters groups. Someone also mentioned starting their own group, its running the risk of becoming like Monty Python, the popular peoples front of Judea! The RSA, as you mentioned disparagingly above, would need to be involved in a campaign like this, as would the Blue Order, and, ideally, EVERY RSC across the UK, and beyond. If, as Frankie mentioned before, we could also gain the public support of some ex-players etc, then even better. At that point, once the foundations are in place, THEN the initial statement could/should have been released, but, with the constructive aspects included.

Without going into details, essentially this would be reported as something along the lines of "Fans and legends come together to drive the club forward during difficult times". Now, how could ANYONE at the club not go along with that? Murray could not come out and say anything other than it was a good idea, as he would look so bad in doing so, and, we then would have a foundation to build on.

Does that not sound better to anyone?

[BlueIsTheColour 35]

Now back to the campaign itself, i take on board what you say regarding the launch statement. But i still feel that if alternative proposals were put forward along with each grievance then it would have looked alot more objective and less of a rant, so to speak. I think the media would have presented it as the Rangers support offering Mr Murray a 17-point plan to rectify what the RST believe are the major flaws withing the club. Instead, as i said earlier, Murray has just been allowed to sidestep the valid criticisms which have been put forward. He basically said that we, as supporters, can protest all we want but we don't know how to run a club.

Now, had we given suggestions on how the could improve in the areas the statement was critical of then Murray would not have had the chance to make such comments.

Like you have correctly stated, the man has told us countless times that he is annoyed at having to apolagise for every mistake he makes. But the fact that he still makes those same mistakes repeatedly tells us that his apolagies are meaningless. Either he doesn't recognise that he is making these mistakes, which i highly doubt, or he knows fine and well but is too stubborn and arrogant to adopt a new strategy or admit to failing.

These are very troubled times but we need a united support on this one. Starting this campaign was easy, getting the support of large oganisations such as the RSA along with fan groups like the Blue Order is what will be difficult. And to me it seems impossible as the RSA are refusing to back the campaign.

My view is that no matter what the RST came out with it would be criticised. Such is the nature of messageboard debate.

I think this is primarily nit-picking because the main objective has been achieved.

We have to accept that no campaign, initiative, statement or whatever is going to meet with universal approval. Everyone has their own preferences regarding what they'd want emphasised.

The RSA was set up by the club. It is a contrived umbrella organisation bought and paid for by the club.

Why should its views determine or influence what other supporters groups do?

Jim Templeton, its former head, was scathing about the club when he stepped down a few months ago.

I dont know about criticised for everything? Perhaps some will, but, that is just human nature. I think the trust, or, perhaps some representatives/members, take any criticism too personally, when, if consrtuctive, it could be taken on board, and used to improve the trust. More improvements, less critics.

You say the main objective has been achieved? What was that? I personally think that if it was publicity, then, perhaps it has, however, this is not a situation like, for example, a rock band, where, if they get bad publicity people want to see more from them. It runs the risk that, the next release may be dismissed regardless of content.

There is too much division between the support, and the club, and, different supporters groups. Someone also mentioned starting their own group, its running the risk of becoming like Monty Python, the popular peoples front of Judea! The RSA, as you mentioned disparagingly above, would need to be involved in a campaign like this, as would the Blue Order, and, ideally, EVERY RSC across the UK, and beyond. If, as Frankie mentioned before, we could also gain the public support of some ex-players etc, then even better. At that point, once the foundations are in place, THEN the initial statement could/should have been released, but, with the constructive aspects included.

Without going into details, essentially this would be reported as something along the lines of "Fans and legends come together to drive the club forward during difficult times". Now, how could ANYONE at the club not go along with that? Murray could not come out and say anything other than it was a good idea, as he would look so bad in doing so, and, we then would have a foundation to build on.

Does that not sound better to anyone?

That would be objective and logical. We can't have that in the Rangers support, don't talk such nonsense. :tongue:

In all serious though, i completely agree with what you are saying. The RST started this campaign with only themselves on board when really they should have tried to garner the support of other organisations first to increase credibility and show at least some form of unity. Having ex-players on board would have been extremely profitable for the campaign, both for it's publicity in the media and also the way in which Mr Murray would have had to handle the criticism.

Unfortunately mate, ideas like this has once again been brushed aside by the division amongst the support and the organisations which represent it.

[Saudibear 0]

As an RST member i can unequivocally say that i have not recieved one e-mail asking about my thoughts on ANY RST issue in the last year, nor have i recieved a copy of the Blue Spirit newsletter since the former Webmaster resigned. To me that is unacceptable. Any Board member you ask will tell you that the RST Board represent the views of their members, but how can they claim this if they have no idea what oppinions their membership holds?

In an ideal world they would be able to canvass all members on every issue. But with all of them having jobs and families to do as well as this, the time is just not there to do thes things all the time.

Have you attended the EGM/AGM's of the RST. The answers are all given out there at the meetings, where you can discuss it for as long as you want and propose any issue or idea or point you wish to raise. It then goes to a show of hands from all attending and either carried or rejected as a majority of members.

The RST (and I know because I asked and they told me) get an awful lot of correspondence in their inbox and mailbox from members asking direct questions and proposing ideas all the time. It is from these messages from their membership that they can see patterns of support for a particular course of action. If they get 100 emails asking them to support a particular course of action and only a couple saying they should not, it is clear that the majority of members who can be bothered to contact them feel a certain way.

If you cannot be bothered to contact the body of which you are a member to try to move policy in a specific direction, how can you possibly moan about that decision if it was taken after receiving numerous requests for that course of action to be taken?

And if you feel strongly enough about the whole issue and feel the current RST board is not doing things in the way you would wish them to on your behalf, you can go to the next meeting or AGM and vote them out. It is, if nothing else, democratic. I'll see you there. :biggrin:

The problem is it was not difficult to canvass the whole membership when wanting to sell ties etc but it is when launching a protest. As an overseas life member of the RST I would like to be kept better informed of what the board are doing in my name before I read about it in the press. It is not easy for everyone to attend meetings. I do support this agenda but feel the board of the RST sometimes treat the membership in much the same way as SDM treats the Rangers support as a whole.

[samNewton 0]

A group like the RST is only ever going to be as strong as the support wants it to be.

Criticism of the RST's perceived failings essentially amounts to criticism of the support as a whole.

If you think those involved at present aren't doing well enough or moving in the direction that you want, then is pefectly possible to put a motion forward at an AGM or stand for election yourself.

Or set up your own group.

Come on Sam...

The RST member above is offering some constructive criticism and worries about how the Trust is run and the best you can do is complain about that and tell him to set up his own group.

That sounds mightily similar to what someone in Charlotte Sq is currently doing; ie overly defensive and rather dismissive.

Regarding this very important strategy as a whole, I think the fact the Trust have obviously changed their policy on how they deal with the club (in the last year it has steadily gone from ongoing dialogue, to attempting to gain a seat on the board, to strong criticism in the media), I'm surprised they haven't consulted their membership on this change of tact.

TB makes a valid point about some incoming communication perhaps indicating member opinion to a degree but if the RST does have 5000 members (I doubt that) then it's only fair they are all consulted about such a markedly different change in strategy. The fact they haven't been and the extremely valid worries about a lack of communication generally despite renewed efforts before the resignations means the RST should be a bit more appreciative of members' opinions like BiTC above.

Not everything should be done at annual meetings and not everything can be changed via standing for election.

Are you in the RST mate? The reason I ask is because DavidRST has said similar to this and for me it is a rather petty statement. You are saying if you don't like I don't care and fuck off. I can visualise my 3 year old covering her ears while shouting ''nanananananananana' so she can't here me.

The board is put in place to make decisions and it is granted that their may be situations that the board may need to make a quick decision without consulting it members. It seems that all decisions are made by the board though and non by it's members. The RST are meant to be the shinning light in the Rangers support who are going to lead the way but frankly you treat your members with the same amount of disdain as Murray which we are furious about. Like Politicians you are elected to represent the people who put you in place not yourself but frankly you are acting more and more like politicians each time something like this comes up by not giving a fuck about the people who gave you power.

It appears that what I wrote above has been misinterpreted although I thought I made myself clear.

The RST Board has the right to take decisions on its membership's behalf.

It made its position vis a vis relations with the current regime abundantly clear at the AGM and the EGM.

My personal opinion was that previous RST Boards were being led up the garden path by SDM and that it was time to call a halt. His priority was never one of supporter participation, but rather dividing the support and silencing criticism.

I contend that the RST has taken many more controversial decisions in the past without a call for a 'canvass of opinion'.

Members have the right to propose changes to the Board's stance on any issue and, of course, put themselves forward for election.

If they find their views in direct opposition to those of the RST Board and that they cannot enforce a change in policy then I'd have thought that their only alternative was to set up their own group if they felt so strongly.

This, after all, is the basis on which political parties work.

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

In all serious though, i completely agree with what you are saying. The RST started this campaign with only themselves on board when really they should have tried to garner the support of other organisations first to increase credibility and show at least some form of unity. Having ex-players on board would have been extremely profitable for the campaign, both for it's publicity in the media and also the way in which Mr Murray would have had to handle the criticism.

Unfortunately mate, ideas like this has once again been brushed aside by the division amongst the support and the organisations which represent it.

To be honest it looks like they rushed in to cement themselves as "the only show in town" ( a phrase hammered into you whenever the RST is spoken about) for representing the fans.

Far more thought should have gone into this. If they were serious about sorting things out they shouldn't have attacked the chairman in such a childish manner of national radio and TV a few months ago.

[Bluedell 14]

As an RST member i can unequivocally say that i have not recieved one e-mail asking about my thoughts on ANY RST issue in the last year, nor have i recieved a copy of the Blue Spirit newsletter since the former Webmaster resigned. To me that is unacceptable. Any Board member you ask will tell you that the RST Board represent the views of their members, but how can they claim this if they have no idea what oppinions their membership holds?

In an ideal world they would be able to canvass all members on every issue. But with all of them having jobs and families to do as well as this, the time is just not there to do thes things all the time.

Have you attended the EGM/AGM's of the RST. The answers are all given out there at the meetings, where you can discuss it for as long as you want and propose any issue or idea or point you wish to raise. It then goes to a show of hands from all attending and either carried or rejected as a majority of members.

The RST (and I know because I asked and they told me) get an awful lot of correspondence in their inbox and mailbox from members asking direct questions and proposing ideas all the time. It is from these messages from their membership that they can see patterns of support for a particular course of action. If they get 100 emails asking them to support a particular course of action and only a couple saying they should not, it is clear that the majority of members who can be bothered to contact them feel a certain way.

If you cannot be bothered to contact the body of which you are a member to try to move policy in a specific direction, how can you possibly moan about that decision if it was taken after receiving numerous requests for that course of action to be taken?

And if you feel strongly enough about the whole issue and feel the current RST board is not doing things in the way you would wish them to on your behalf, you can go to the next meeting or AGM and vote them out. It is, if nothing else, democratic. I'll see you there. :biggrin:

Members of the RST should not have to wait until AGMs. There should be regular communication.

At the last AGM, I asked if the Blue Spirit would continue to be sent out and received an assurance that it would be. I don't believe I have received an email from them in the last 3 months and haven't seen a Blue Spirit in over 9 months.

Yes, they have jobs and families, but there are 20 of them. How difficult is it for them to send out an email once a month to say what they have been doing?

What's the point in having a 20 person board if it is up to the members to have initiate communication.

The RST had a party night in early December. They make mention of it on their website but it doesn't tell you even where it is. Again no email to RST members.

If we don't know what they are doing or looking at how can we give an opinion on it?

I'm not sure that i agree that specific campaigns like this can be balloted to members, but they should at least be asking us what we think of it, and where improvements can be made subsequent to the event.

So far they haven't achieved their promise of better communication.

[Frankie 505]

That would be objective and logical. We can't have that in the Rangers support, don't talk such nonsense. :tongue:

In all serious though, i completely agree with what you are saying. The RST started this campaign with only themselves on board when really they should have tried to garner the support of other organisations first to increase credibility and show at least some form of unity. Having ex-players on board would have been extremely profitable for the campaign, both for it's publicity in the media and also the way in which Mr Murray would have had to handle the criticism.

Unfortunately mate, ideas like this has once again been brushed aside by the division amongst the support and the organisations which represent it.

A similar strategy to the one outlined above would be much more agreeable.

I think most online fans would agree with the 'we deserve better' sentiment. However it's not these fans that need to be reached. Now, the Trust statement may well have increased publicity in an agreeable sense but doing so without the immediate reference to solutions (even generically), back up from high-net worth figures and ex-player/honorary member comments as well as not approaching other fan groups/forums/fanzines for support until after the statement decreases credibility and hardly shows leadership or fan unification skills.

Ergo, the non-online fan - as always fed by inane stuff from the chairman, ex-managers, existing players and ill-informed journalists - won't be as fully appraised as they should have been.

That puts the well-meaning campaign in jeopardy before it's even begun.

[samNewton 0]

As an RST member i can unequivocally say that i have not recieved one e-mail asking about my thoughts on ANY RST issue in the last year, nor have i recieved a copy of the Blue Spirit newsletter since the former Webmaster resigned. To me that is unacceptable. Any Board member you ask will tell you that the RST Board represent the views of their members, but how can they claim this if they have no idea what oppinions their membership holds?

In an ideal world they would be able to canvass all members on every issue. But with all of them having jobs and families to do as well as this, the time is just not there to do thes things all the time.

Have you attended the EGM/AGM's of the RST. The answers are all given out there at the meetings, where you can discuss it for as long as you want and propose any issue or idea or point you wish to raise. It then goes to a show of hands from all attending and either carried or rejected as a majority of members.

The RST (and I know because I asked and they told me) get an awful lot of correspondence in their inbox and mailbox from members asking direct questions and proposing ideas all the time. It is from these messages from their membership that they can see patterns of support for a particular course of action. If they get 100 emails asking them to support a particular course of action and only a couple saying they should not, it is clear that the majority of members who can be bothered to contact them feel a certain way.

If you cannot be bothered to contact the body of which you are a member to try to move policy in a specific direction, how can you possibly moan about that decision if it was taken after receiving numerous requests for that course of action to be taken?

And if you feel strongly enough about the whole issue and feel the current RST board is not doing things in the way you would wish them to on your behalf, you can go to the next meeting or AGM and vote them out. It is, if nothing else, democratic. I'll see you there. :biggrin:

Members of the RST should not have to wait until AGMs. There should be regular communication.

At the last AGM, I asked if the Blue Spirit would continue to be sent out and received an assurance that it would be. I don't believe I have received an email from them in the last 3 months and haven't seen a Blue Spirit in over 9 months.

Yes, they have jobs and families, but there are 20 of them. How difficult is it for them to send out an email once a month to say what they have been doing?

What's the point in having a 20 person board if it is up to the members to have initiate communication.

The RST had a party night in early December. They make mention of it on their website but it doesn't tell you even where it is. Again no email to RST members.

If we don't know what they are doing or looking at how can we give an opinion on it?

I'm not sure that i agree that specific campaigns like this can be balloted to members, but they should at least be asking us what we think of it, and where improvements can be made subsequent to the event.

So far they haven't achieved their promise of better communication.

I believe that the issue of communication with members is being addressed urgently.

I think we should remember that the RST is a voluntary organisation which involves people working in their spare time.

Should more volunteers put their names forward, I am sure there are many other areas which could be improved upon.

Once again, the RST is a collection of individual Rangers fans and can only be as strong as other individuals want it to be.

[Frankie 505]

It appears that what I wrote above has been misinterpreted although I thought I made myself clear.

The RST Board has the right to take decisions on its membership's behalf.

It made its position vis a vis relations with the current regime abundantly clear at the AGM and the EGM.

My personal opinion was that previous RST Boards were being led up the garden path by SDM and that it was time to call a halt. His priority was never one of supporter participation, but rather dividing the support and silencing criticism.

I contend that the RST has taken many more controversial decisions in the past without a call for a 'canvass of opinion'.

Members have the right to propose changes to the Board's stance on any issue and, of course, put themselves forward for election.

If they find their views in direct opposition to those of the RST Board and that they cannot enforce a change in policy then I'd have thought that their only alternative was to set up their own group if they felt so strongly.

This, after all, is the basis on which political parties work.

Of course the board has the right to take decisions. However, some decisions such as a clear change in strategy of the organisaton with regard to the club shoiuld be made in consultation with the membership.

You say this new position was made clear at the last EGM? It don't see this mentioned in the minutes? Only mention to strategy is still about achieving board representation and trusting the new board with confidential club dialogue. What I also see is the new vice-chair assuring the members that they would be involved in ongoing projects and that communication would be improved. That seems far from abuntantly clear?

Other controversial decisions have been taken in the past without consulation and I'd agree perhaps it would have been better to have consulted the membership first. Two arguable wrongs don't make a right thought.

To conclude, the campaign is about unity yet just because people are disagreeing with the RST's methods in this issue, we've to set up another 'politicial party'. Like I say, that is exactly absolving of responsibility excuse SDM is using and hardly suggests unity.

[outlaw69uk 123]

Now back to the campaign itself, i take on board what you say regarding the launch statement. But i still feel that if alternative proposals were put forward along with each grievance then it would have looked alot more objective and less of a rant, so to speak. I think the media would have presented it as the Rangers support offering Mr Murray a 17-point plan to rectify what the RST believe are the major flaws withing the club. Instead, as i said earlier, Murray has just been allowed to sidestep the valid criticisms which have been put forward. He basically said that we, as supporters, can protest all we want but we don't know how to run a club.

Now, had we given suggestions on how the could improve in the areas the statement was critical of then Murray would not have had the chance to make such comments.

Like you have correctly stated, the man has told us countless times that he is annoyed at having to apolagise for every mistake he makes. But the fact that he still makes those same mistakes repeatedly tells us that his apolagies are meaningless. Either he doesn't recognise that he is making these mistakes, which i highly doubt, or he knows fine and well but is too stubborn and arrogant to adopt a new strategy or admit to failing.

These are very troubled times but we need a united support on this one. Starting this campaign was easy, getting the support of large oganisations such as the RSA along with fan groups like the Blue Order is what will be difficult. And to me it seems impossible as the RSA are refusing to back the campaign.

My view is that no matter what the RST came out with it would be criticised. Such is the nature of messageboard debate.

I think this is primarily nit-picking because the main objective has been achieved.

We have to accept that no campaign, initiative, statement or whatever is going to meet with universal approval. Everyone has their own preferences regarding what they'd want emphasised.

The RSA was set up by the club. It is a contrived umbrella organisation bought and paid for by the club.

Why should its views determine or influence what other supporters groups do?

Jim Templeton, its former head, was scathing about the club when he stepped down a few months ago.

I dont know about criticised for everything? Perhaps some will, but, that is just human nature. I think the trust, or, perhaps some representatives/members, take any criticism too personally, when, if consrtuctive, it could be taken on board, and used to improve the trust. More improvements, less critics.

You say the main objective has been achieved? What was that? I personally think that if it was publicity, then, perhaps it has, however, this is not a situation like, for example, a rock band, where, if they get bad publicity people want to see more from them. It runs the risk that, the next release may be dismissed regardless of content.

There is too much division between the support, and the club, and, different supporters groups. Someone also mentioned starting their own group, its running the risk of becoming like Monty Python, the popular peoples front of Judea! The RSA, as you mentioned disparagingly above, would need to be involved in a campaign like this, as would the Blue Order, and, ideally, EVERY RSC across the UK, and beyond. If, as Frankie mentioned before, we could also gain the public support of some ex-players etc, then even better. At that point, once the foundations are in place, THEN the initial statement could/should have been released, but, with the constructive aspects included.

Without going into details, essentially this would be reported as something along the lines of "Fans and legends come together to drive the club forward during difficult times". Now, how could ANYONE at the club not go along with that? Murray could not come out and say anything other than it was a good idea, as he would look so bad in doing so, and, we then would have a foundation to build on.

Does that not sound better to anyone?

That would be objective and logical. We can't have that in the Rangers support, don't talk such nonsense. :tongue:

In all serious though, i completely agree with what you are saying. The RST started this campaign with only themselves on board when really they should have tried to garner the support of other organisations first to increase credibility and show at least some form of unity. Having ex-players on board would have been extremely profitable for the campaign, both for it's publicity in the media and also the way in which Mr Murray would have had to handle the criticism.

Unfortunately mate, ideas like this has once again been brushed aside by the division amongst the support and the organisations which represent it.

:tongue: Sorry, I will try to lay off being logical and objective :craphead2:

Its true though, I agree, and, most people should understand that you need to work together, as a cohesive unit to effect change.

One of the reasons I am not a member of any of these groups is simple, and has been displayed recently. They appear to have their own agenda, they may have the best of intentions, and, may also be attempting to do something which is good for all, however, they appear to want to achieve this by themselves, getting there own name in lights, essentially saying "look what we did". Scoring points over similar groups. It may not be intentional, but, it happens

[samNewton 0]

Of course the board has the right to take decisions. However, some decisions such as a clear change in strategy of the organisaton with regard to the club shoiuld be made in consultation with the membership.

You say this new position was made clear at the last AGM? It don't see this mentioned in the minutes? Only mention to strategy is still about achieving board representation and trusting the new board with confidential club dialogue. What I also see is the new vice-chair assuring the members that they would be involved in ongoing projects and that communication would be improved. That seems far from abuntantly clear?

Other controversial decisions have been taken in the past without consulation and I'd agree perhaps it would have been better to have consulted the membership first. Two arguable wrongs don't make a right thought.

To conclude, the campaign is about unity yet just because people are disagreeing with the RST's methods in this issue, we've to set up another 'politicial party'. Like I say, that is exactly absolving of responsibility excuse SDM is using and hardly suggests unity.

The RST's goal is ultimately about achieving board representation.

But not, surely, in any circumstances whatsoever?

And not in ones that would work against the interests of RST members and the support at large?

The situation was certainly clarified at the EGM - if it wasn't mentioned at the AGM then I was mistaken.

My view is that the RST's recent statement is not sufficiently different from past statements and public comments to warrant canvassing opinion among the membership at large.

I also believe that the time factor was of the essence and that it was important the statement was not leaked beforehand.

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

I also believe that the time factor was of the essence and that it was important the statement was not leaked beforehand.

:wacko:

To who ?

[outlaw69uk 123]

Of course the board has the right to take decisions. However, some decisions such as a clear change in strategy of the organisaton with regard to the club shoiuld be made in consultation with the membership.

You say this new position was made clear at the last AGM? It don't see this mentioned in the minutes? Only mention to strategy is still about achieving board representation and trusting the new board with confidential club dialogue. What I also see is the new vice-chair assuring the members that they would be involved in ongoing projects and that communication would be improved. That seems far from abuntantly clear?

Other controversial decisions have been taken in the past without consulation and I'd agree perhaps it would have been better to have consulted the membership first. Two arguable wrongs don't make a right thought.

To conclude, the campaign is about unity yet just because people are disagreeing with the RST's methods in this issue, we've to set up another 'politicial party'. Like I say, that is exactly absolving of responsibility excuse SDM is using and hardly suggests unity.

The RST's goal is ultimately about achieving board representation.

But not, surely, in any circumstances whatsoever?

And not in ones that would work against the interests of RST members and the support at large?

The situation was certainly clarified at the EGM - if it wasn't mentioned at the AGM then I was mistaken.

My view is that the RST's recent statement is not sufficiently different from past statements and public comments to warrant canvassing opinion among the membership at large.

I also believe that the time factor was of the essence and that it was important the statement was not leaked beforehand.

Why not? Remember what I said earlier about controlling the discussions? You put your points across in a manner that achieves your goals.

Calling Murray an Asset stripper really isnt going to help, even if its true. The latest statement, for me, I would imagine moves that goal of board representation further away, unless murray uses the tactic of "keeping his enemies closer".

I am troubled by one line there, hopefully the interests of the RST and support at large should be the same thing?

I am very interested in this thread, because, for a long time, I have been hugely disappointed by the lack of togetherness, its like the loss of the family feeling we once had

[Frankie 505]

The RST's goal is ultimately about achieving board representation.

But not, surely, in any circumstances whatsoever?

And not in ones that would work against the interests of RST members and the support at large?

The situation was certainly clarified at the EGM - if it wasn't mentioned at the AGM then I was mistaken.

My view is that the RST's recent statement is not sufficiently different from past statements and public comments to warrant canvassing opinion among the membership at large.

I also believe that the time factor was of the essence and that it was important the statement was not leaked beforehand.

Yes, a goal that needs important strategic decisions to help secure and of course it shouldn't mean any circumstances - I don't know any bear that would suggest that?

Again, this isn't your run of the mill RST media statement. It's the culmination of complete change of direction from working with the club to achieve the primary aims to actively opposing it. Such strategies shouldn't be released on a whim and the membership should certainly have been consulted - especially when the vice-chair assured members they would. This change of strategy has happened over the last 6 months so the time/logistics issue is not completely relevant.

IMO, despite the good intentions, the campaign is also flawed and your reaction to constructive criticism and analysis is most disappointing given the unity tag it has been given.

[Frankie 505]

I believe that the issue of communication with members is being addressed urgently.

I think we should remember that the RST is a voluntary organisation which involves people working in their spare time.

Should more volunteers put their names forward, I am sure there are many other areas which could be improved upon.

Once again, the RST is a collection of individual Rangers fans and can only be as strong as other individuals want it to be.

Over 9 months of poor performance in that area doesn't suggest urgency.

Before the resignations emails were sent on a reasonably regular basis via the site software and via the Yahoo list. This wasn't ideal but it worked pretty well and most members whose details were up to date were contacted this way. Only the Yahoo list has been used since - pretty rarely apparently.

Similarly, the Blue Spirit was revamped in 2007 and sent out to all members via a few days hard work in putting the issue together, organising printing and stuffing envelopes.

These methods of communication are imperfect of course but they did work and it's inaccurate to suggest time/logistics are a problem when we both know emails take a few mins to send and Blue Spirits only a few days teamwork.

I've no idea why these methods of communication have stopped but if I were still a member I'd be extremely disappointed with both that and the excuses given for it not happening.

[Bluedell 14]

I believe that the issue of communication with members is being addressed urgently.

I think we should remember that the RST is a voluntary organisation which involves people working in their spare time.

Should more volunteers put their names forward, I am sure there are many other areas which could be improved upon.

Once again, the RST is a collection of individual Rangers fans and can only be as strong as other individuals want it to be.

We got told that communication was being addressed 6 months ago. I think that there was a brief flurry of emails around October but that is it. Hopefully you are correct and we will see an improvment shortly.

You are correct that they are volunteers. However it would be interesting to know what the responsibilities of the new board members in particular are.

[Bluedell 14]

My view is that the RST's recent statement is not sufficiently different from past statements and public comments to warrant canvassing opinion among the membership at large.

I also believe that the time factor was of the essence and that it was important the statement was not leaked beforehand.

I'd agree with that.

[samNewton 0]

The RST's goal is ultimately about achieving board representation.

But not, surely, in any circumstances whatsoever?

And not in ones that would work against the interests of RST members and the support at large?

The situation was certainly clarified at the EGM - if it wasn't mentioned at the AGM then I was mistaken.

My view is that the RST's recent statement is not sufficiently different from past statements and public comments to warrant canvassing opinion among the membership at large.

I also believe that the time factor was of the essence and that it was important the statement was not leaked beforehand.

Yes, a goal that needs important strategic decisions to help secure and of course it shouldn't mean any circumstances - I don't know any bear that would suggest that?

Again, this isn't your run of the mill RST media statement. It's the culmination of complete change of direction from working with the club to achieve the primary aims to actively opposing it. Such strategies shouldn't be released on a whim and the membership should certainly have been consulted - especially when the vice-chair assured members they would. This change of strategy has happened over the last 6 months so the time/logistics issue is not completely relevant.

IMO, despite the good intentions, the campaign is also flawed and your reaction to constructive criticism and analysis is most disappointing given the unity tag it has been given.

Why is saying that 'we deserve better' actively opposing the club?

I believe that the ball is in the club's court concerning contact with the RST and not vice versa.

I also think it's time for the bigger picture in this thread.

I'd hate to look back in 2011, 2012 or whenever and read posts saying 'why did no-one do anything during the January transfer window in 2009?'

Or, 'what is the point of these supporters groups if no-one actually pointed out that the emperor had no clothes?'

Nothing that anyone says or posts or writes will meet with universal approval.

Whatever the quibbles, I believe that the RST was perfectly right to kick start a debate among the support. If anything, this action has come late in the day.

What is the alternative?

[Frankie 505]

Why is saying that 'we deserve better' actively opposing the club?

I believe that the ball is in the club's court concerning contact with the RST and not vice versa.

I also think it's time for the bigger picture in this thread.

I'd hate to look back in 2011, 2012 or whenever and read posts saying 'why did no-one do anything during the January transfer window in 2009?'

Or, 'what is the point of these supporters groups if no-one actually pointed out that the emperor had no clothes?'

Nothing that anyone says or posts or writes will meet with universal approval.

Whatever the quibbles, I believe that the RST was perfectly right to kick start a debate among the support. If anything, this action has come late in the day.

What is the alternative?

If you don't think the RST have actively been opposing the club recently - the extent can be debated - then you are simply being disingenuous. The campain - restricted by timing you claim - was started off the back of a 'Murray Out' banner and a worsening relationship between the club and the organisation over the last year.

The bigger picture is most certainly not being missed - not by me and not by most people I speak to. That is exactly why we'd have preferred a better approach to said campaign to maximise it's effect. Please don't confuse constructive criticism and suggestions with quibbles.

As for an alternative; well, as I've indicated previously, I'd have much preferred a more unified campaign organised effectively and inclusive of varied supporter opinion. That can still happen and if the RST are serious about this, then hopefully they'll be working harder to achieve it.

The same goes for Sir David Murray.

[WaltersGotStyle 160]

SDM is not the problem.... he has invested a lot of money in Rangers in the last few years however this has not been spent wisely by the current managerial team...

[outlaw69uk 123]

The RST's goal is ultimately about achieving board representation.

But not, surely, in any circumstances whatsoever?

And not in ones that would work against the interests of RST members and the support at large?

The situation was certainly clarified at the EGM - if it wasn't mentioned at the AGM then I was mistaken.

My view is that the RST's recent statement is not sufficiently different from past statements and public comments to warrant canvassing opinion among the membership at large.

I also believe that the time factor was of the essence and that it was important the statement was not leaked beforehand.

Yes, a goal that needs important strategic decisions to help secure and of course it shouldn't mean any circumstances - I don't know any bear that would suggest that?

Again, this isn't your run of the mill RST media statement. It's the culmination of complete change of direction from working with the club to achieve the primary aims to actively opposing it. Such strategies shouldn't be released on a whim and the membership should certainly have been consulted - especially when the vice-chair assured members they would. This change of strategy has happened over the last 6 months so the time/logistics issue is not completely relevant.

IMO, despite the good intentions, the campaign is also flawed and your reaction to constructive criticism and analysis is most disappointing given the unity tag it has been given.

Why is saying that 'we deserve better' actively opposing the club?

I believe that the ball is in the club's court concerning contact with the RST and not vice versa.

I also think it's time for the bigger picture in this thread.

I'd hate to look back in 2011, 2012 or whenever and read posts saying 'why did no-one do anything during the January transfer window in 2009?'

Or, 'what is the point of these supporters groups if no-one actually pointed out that the emperor had no clothes?'

Nothing that anyone says or posts or writes will meet with universal approval.

Whatever the quibbles, I believe that the RST was perfectly right to kick start a debate among the support. If anything, this action has come late in the day.

What is the alternative?

No offence, but, that is a fairly niaive attitude, and will result in the scenario above I highlighted as well.

In an ideal world, true, but, given the chairmans main goal is selling, why would he proactively engage in these activities, especially with the animosity between the club and RST at this time. Like it or not, the RST probably needs to begin to try and rebuild some bridges

[samNewton 0]

Of course the board has the right to take decisions. However, some decisions such as a clear change in strategy of the organisaton with regard to the club shoiuld be made in consultation with the membership.

You say this new position was made clear at the last AGM? It don't see this mentioned in the minutes? Only mention to strategy is still about achieving board representation and trusting the new board with confidential club dialogue. What I also see is the new vice-chair assuring the members that they would be involved in ongoing projects and that communication would be improved. That seems far from abuntantly clear?

Other controversial decisions have been taken in the past without consulation and I'd agree perhaps it would have been better to have consulted the membership first. Two arguable wrongs don't make a right thought.

To conclude, the campaign is about unity yet just because people are disagreeing with the RST's methods in this issue, we've to set up another 'politicial party'. Like I say, that is exactly absolving of responsibility excuse SDM is using and hardly suggests unity.

The RST's goal is ultimately about achieving board representation.

But not, surely, in any circumstances whatsoever?

And not in ones that would work against the interests of RST members and the support at large?

The situation was certainly clarified at the EGM - if it wasn't mentioned at the AGM then I was mistaken.

My view is that the RST's recent statement is not sufficiently different from past statements and public comments to warrant canvassing opinion among the membership at large.

I also believe that the time factor was of the essence and that it was important the statement was not leaked beforehand.

Why not? Remember what I said earlier about controlling the discussions? You put your points across in a manner that achieves your goals.

Calling Murray an Asset stripper really isnt going to help, even if its true. The latest statement, for me, I would imagine moves that goal of board representation further away, unless murray uses the tactic of "keeping his enemies closer".

I am troubled by one line there, hopefully the interests of the RST and support at large should be the same thing?

I am very interested in this thread, because, for a long time, I have been hugely disappointed by the lack of togetherness, its like the loss of the family feeling we once had

A seat on the Board at this time would mean that the RST could not criticise the Board in any significant way. It would also be privvy to information that would be strictly confidential. If this information was seen by the RST as having serious implications for its members and the Rangers support then the RST Board would be in an extremely awkward position. Should it - or even, could it legally - even tell its own members?

While this dilemma would always be present no matter who ran the club, it is of particular relevance in the current circumstances.

There is thus a trade-off between the advantages to be gained by sitting on a club Board and those in remaining outside.

Differing views on which course to choose essentially caused the split in the RST last year.

The interests of the RST should be the same as the support at large. There is no problem here.

I suspect that David Edgar regrets the phrase you refer to. Sometimes people say things that are unadvisable in the heat of the moment.

[samNewton 0]

The RST's goal is ultimately about achieving board representation.

But not, surely, in any circumstances whatsoever?

And not in ones that would work against the interests of RST members and the support at large?

The situation was certainly clarified at the EGM - if it wasn't mentioned at the AGM then I was mistaken.

My view is that the RST's recent statement is not sufficiently different from past statements and public comments to warrant canvassing opinion among the membership at large.

I also believe that the time factor was of the essence and that it was important the statement was not leaked beforehand.

Yes, a goal that needs important strategic decisions to help secure and of course it shouldn't mean any circumstances - I don't know any bear that would suggest that?

Again, this isn't your run of the mill RST media statement. It's the culmination of complete change of direction from working with the club to achieve the primary aims to actively opposing it. Such strategies shouldn't be released on a whim and the membership should certainly have been consulted - especially when the vice-chair assured members they would. This change of strategy has happened over the last 6 months so the time/logistics issue is not completely relevant.

IMO, despite the good intentions, the campaign is also flawed and your reaction to constructive criticism and analysis is most disappointing given the unity tag it has been given.

Why is saying that 'we deserve better' actively opposing the club?

I believe that the ball is in the club's court concerning contact with the RST and not vice versa.

I also think it's time for the bigger picture in this thread.

I'd hate to look back in 2011, 2012 or whenever and read posts saying 'why did no-one do anything during the January transfer window in 2009?'

Or, 'what is the point of these supporters groups if no-one actually pointed out that the emperor had no clothes?'

Nothing that anyone says or posts or writes will meet with universal approval.

Whatever the quibbles, I believe that the RST was perfectly right to kick start a debate among the support. If anything, this action has come late in the day.

What is the alternative?

No offence, but, that is a fairly niaive attitude, and will result in the scenario above I highlighted as well.

In an ideal world, true, but, given the chairmans main goal is selling, why would he proactively engage in these activities, especially with the animosity between the club and RST at this time. Like it or not, the RST probably needs to begin to try and rebuild some bridges

I think the 'naive attitude' would be in sitting back and waiting for the Scottish media to point out the failings of the Murray regime.

You have your opinion and the RST Board has its.