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

[gerbilly 7]

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...

Jesus wept!

He aint invested fook all, he has borrowed money which the banks now want back.

If I take a loan from Ocean Finance and buy a car, I aint investing money I am taking out credit, probably that I cannot afford just like Rangers.

[Frankie 505]

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.

A seat on the board would not have meant criticism of the club would have been strangled. If that was the case any offer would not have been accepted. If it happened subsequently the RST would have resigned it's position. Similarly if the 'ordinary' membership felt the initiative wasn't working.

Also, the RST board (past and existing) already withholds information from members because of legal stipulations. Indeed at the AGM/EGM last year the 'new' board made a request to be able to do this on a trust basis. Anyone with a reasonable interest in the situation would appreciate that is a necessary and unavoidable part of representation even if it may frustrate some.

As such that did not cause the split on the board.

[Bluedell 14]

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.

I don't see why a seat on board means that the RST couldn't criticise the club. I can't see why it would be a problem.

The RST representative may be privy to confidential information that he couldn't share with the other RST board members, but there would need to be a degree of trust involved. There may also be information that he gives to the RST board that is confidential and they would need to respect that as has been done in the past. Again, it shouldn't be an issue if you have the correct representative in place.

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

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...

Jesus wept!

He aint invested fook all, he has borrowed money which the banks now want back.

If I take a loan from Ocean Finance and buy a car, I aint investing money I am taking out credit, probably that I cannot afford just like Rangers.

Of course he has.....

[samNewton 0]

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.

This campaign had absolutely nothing to do with a 'Murray Out' banner. This slogan runs counter to what the RST is saying.

I still don't know how you define 'opposing the club'.

The RST Board has been critical of the current administration within Ibrox.

I contend that this very much amounts to supporting the club.

In an ideal world there would be total unity among the support, no communication problems, no disagreements and every statement would be met with approval.

But the world isn't ideal and people simply have to do what they think is the best thing in the given circumstances.

The bottom line is that the RST has kick started a debate which will undoubtedly lead to arguments with people taking different stances. This debate was most unlikely to have taken place otherwise.

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

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.

This campaign had absolutely nothing to do with a 'Murray Out' banner. This slogan runs counter to what the RST is saying.

I still don't know how you define 'opposing the club'.

The RST Board has been critical of the current administration within Ibrox.

I contend that this very much amounts to supporting the club.

In an ideal world there would be total unity among the support, no communication problems, no disagreements and every statement would be met with approval.

But the world isn't ideal and people simply have to do what they think is the best thing in the given circumstances.

The bottom line is that the RST has kick started a debate which will undoubtedly lead to arguments with people taking different stances. This debate was most unlikely to have taken place otherwise.

This debate has been going on for the last two years, i have read every single one of thoise copncerns over the last two years in various places. The status of our club has been under close scrutiny for months in the press., i don't think we can say it statrted yesterday and keep a straight face.

Criticising the board and inventing things about the chairman are two different things.

[J_RFC87 762]

I'm still not sure I agree with this campaign by the RST, even though I respect their actions as something needs to be done. The problem is the BBC have grabbed this with both hands and spun a lot of bad publicity out of it with the usual journalists and biasm. This will probably lead to more divide and negativity amongst the support due to the publicity it's recieved so far for one hand-painted banner.

5000 fans is fairly significant, but I'm one of those 5000 and I don't think my tally mark should be used since I'm not behind it fully. Have to be 4999 from now on

If Murray can't accept criticism then he's simply pulled wool over his eyes.

[samNewton 0]

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.

A seat on the board would not have meant criticism of the club would have been strangled. If that was the case any offer would not have been accepted. If it happened subsequently the RST would have resigned it's position. Similarly if the 'ordinary' membership felt the initiative wasn't working.

Also, the RST board (past and existing) already withholds information from members because of legal stipulations. Indeed at the AGM/EGM last year the 'new' board made a request to be able to do this on a trust basis. Anyone with a reasonable interest in the situation would appreciate that is a necessary and unavoidable part of representation even if it may frustrate some.

As such that did not cause the split on the board.

Again, just my view, but I think there are clearly situations when a Trust is implacably opposed to certain measures being implemented by the club that it could not tenably sit on the Board. The majority of the club Board would undoubtedly think likewise.

I think we are in one of those situations.

I also believe that SDM simply wanted to shut up his critics.

Just like McLelland did when he set up the RSA.

[Frankie 505]

This campaign had absolutely nothing to do with a 'Murray Out' banner. This slogan runs counter to what the RST is saying.

I still don't know how you define 'opposing the club'.

The RST Board has been critical of the current administration within Ibrox.

I contend that this very much amounts to supporting the club.

In an ideal world there would be total unity among the support, no communication problems, no disagreements and every statement would be met with approval.

But the world isn't ideal and people simply have to do what they think is the best thing in the given circumstances.

The bottom line is that the RST has kick started a debate which will undoubtedly lead to arguments with people taking different stances. This debate was most unlikely to have taken place otherwise.

So the RST Board don't want Murray to leave then?

If you don't think media statements about 'asset stripping' and other strong criticisms of the club, manager and players via a media campaign isn't opposition to the club - even if the intentions are honorable - then there must be a new definition of the word.

The world may not be ideal but we can strive towards it. Non-existent member communication, unfufilled board promises and the failure to work with any other groups (other than a selected couple after the fact) is definitely far from ideal.

I read and take part in daily debates on the running of the club online. Offline, less so, which is why I'd have preferred any campaign to have been much better organised.

Again, hopefully the RST will accept this criticism and look to maximise the effect of the statement.

[samNewton 0]

This debate has been going on for the last two years, i have read every single one of thoise copncerns over the last two years in various places. The status of our club has been under close scrutiny for months in the press., i don't think we can say it statrted yesterday and keep a straight face.

Criticising the board and inventing things about the chairman are two different things.

The debate about the Murray regime has not previously attracted such extensive and concentrated coverage.

It has largely been contained to fanzines and messageboards.

[J_RFC87 762]

But the world isn't ideal and people simply have to do what they think is the best thing in the given circumstances.

The bottom line is that the RST has kick started a debate which will undoubtedly lead to arguments with people taking different stances. This debate was most unlikely to have taken place otherwise.

The debate never needed kick started amongst fans groups on the internet anyway. How much power we have in comparison to a fans' organisation is is different of course, but it's a shame that personal agendas can be put forward before total unity (however unrealistic) is met.

Also, the 'people' referred to are the handful of guys who have built their name up to be respected - to a certain degree- and used their position to speak out. As you indirectly said, there's no true unity amongst all the fans so how can the RST use the terms so lightly in their campaign, when it's really down to the handful of guys' opinions?

We're suffering in the finance books, and these actions have kicked us while we're down. More bad publicity, all we needed!

Next it's the teams performances to go, which is the most important factor.

[J_RFC87 762]

This debate has been going on for the last two years, i have read every single one of thoise copncerns over the last two years in various places. The status of our club has been under close scrutiny for months in the press., i don't think we can say it statrted yesterday and keep a straight face.

Criticising the board and inventing things about the chairman are two different things.

The debate about the Murray regime has not previously attracted such extensive and concentrated coverage.

It has largely been contained to fanzines and messageboards.

I can remember a few well-organised demonstrations in the PLG days, and even then it was hardly a new thing.

The coverage doesn't make these actions good.

[samNewton 0]

This campaign had absolutely nothing to do with a 'Murray Out' banner. This slogan runs counter to what the RST is saying.

I still don't know how you define 'opposing the club'.

The RST Board has been critical of the current administration within Ibrox.

I contend that this very much amounts to supporting the club.

In an ideal world there would be total unity among the support, no communication problems, no disagreements and every statement would be met with approval.

But the world isn't ideal and people simply have to do what they think is the best thing in the given circumstances.

The bottom line is that the RST has kick started a debate which will undoubtedly lead to arguments with people taking different stances. This debate was most unlikely to have taken place otherwise.

So the RST Board don't want Murray to leave then?

If you don't think media statements about 'asset stripping' and other strong criticisms of the club, manager and players via a media campaign isn't opposition to the club - even if the intentions are honorable - then there must be a new definition of the word.

The world may not be ideal but we can strive towards it. Non-existent member communication, unfufilled board promises and the failure to work with any other groups (other than a selected couple after the fact) is definitely far from ideal.

I read and take part in daily debates on the running of the club online. Offline, less so, which is why I'd have preferred any campaign to have been much better organised.

Again, hopefully the RST will accept this criticism and look to maximise the effect of the statement.

Criticising the current administration does not equate to 'opposing the club'.

Rather, it is supporting the club and urging it to do better.

Does the tacit acceptance of being second amount to supporting the club?

I have already said that DE's words wre inadvisable, although I would also suggest that the move from Edmiston House to the temporary ticket office is not what Rangers FC should be doing.

[samNewton 0]

But the world isn't ideal and people simply have to do what they think is the best thing in the given circumstances.

The bottom line is that the RST has kick started a debate which will undoubtedly lead to arguments with people taking different stances. This debate was most unlikely to have taken place otherwise.

The debate never needed kick started amongst fans groups on the internet anyway. How much power we have in comparison to a fans' organisation is is different of course, but it's a shame that personal agendas can be put forward before total unity (however unrealistic) is met.

Also, the 'people' referred to are the handful of guys who have built their name up to be respected - to a certain degree- and used their position to speak out. As you indirectly said, there's no true unity amongst all the fans so how can the RST use the terms so lightly in their campaign, when it's really down to the handful of guys' opinions?

We're suffering in the finance books, and these actions have kicked us while we're down. More bad publicity, all we needed!

Next it's the teams performances to go, which is the most important factor.

Do you think telling players that they are for sale - each and every one, depending on price - is a good way to motivate a team?

[J_RFC87 762]

No, but I also don't think potential financial meltdown as a result of not telling them is a good option either.

The alternative would be; not tell the players/public/press, don't sell anybody and get into some extreme bother. At least they've been honest and open about it.

[Frankie 505]

Criticising the current administration does not equate to 'opposing the club'.

Rather, it is supporting the club and urging it to do better.

Does the tacit acceptance of being second amount to supporting the club?

I have already said that DE's words wre inadvisable, although I would also suggest that the move from Edmiston House to the temporary ticket office is not what Rangers FC should be doing.

Let's not get caught up in tedious semantics. The RST are criticising the club via the campaign. Their intentions are honorable enough but given the points made about the chairman, the CEO, the board, the coaches, the scouts, the manager and the players; then I think that covers more than the administration but the club's operations as whole. That is opposition to existing club practices - albeit constructive but opposition nonetheless.

The support should definitely not accept 2nd best - tacitly or otherwise - which is why I'm disappointed with the problems in the campaign set up and which is why I'm offering workable suggestions for improvement.

The people in this thread are not quibbling unnecessarily but making interesting points and adding to the debate. This should be welcomed and acted upon - not dismissed or ignored. Surely that's the point of the campaign?

What are the Trust doing to improve/finesse the campaign? What is the next stage?

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

This debate has been going on for the last two years, i have read every single one of thoise copncerns over the last two years in various places. The status of our club has been under close scrutiny for months in the press., i don't think we can say it statrted yesterday and keep a straight face.

Criticising the board and inventing things about the chairman are two different things.

The debate about the Murray regime has not previously attracted such extensive and concentrated coverage.

It has largely been contained to fanzines and messageboards.

Over the last two weeks, especially since the boyd transfer it has dominated all tabliods and radio stations......

[samNewton 0]

No, but I also don't think potential financial meltdown as a result of not telling them is a good option either.

The alternative would be; not tell the players/public/press, don't sell anybody and get into some extreme bother. At least they've been honest and open about it.

But it was the current administration that took the decisions which led to the need to transfer key players during this transfer window.

The credit crunch has not appeared as if by magic - it was known to be imminent during the summer transfer window.

Sir David Murray solemnly stated that never again would he mire the club in debt.

Just who is culpable in this situation?

[outlaw69uk 123]

This campaign had absolutely nothing to do with a 'Murray Out' banner. This slogan runs counter to what the RST is saying.

I still don't know how you define 'opposing the club'.

The RST Board has been critical of the current administration within Ibrox.

I contend that this very much amounts to supporting the club.

In an ideal world there would be total unity among the support, no communication problems, no disagreements and every statement would be met with approval.

But the world isn't ideal and people simply have to do what they think is the best thing in the given circumstances.

The bottom line is that the RST has kick started a debate which will undoubtedly lead to arguments with people taking different stances. This debate was most unlikely to have taken place otherwise.

So the RST Board don't want Murray to leave then?

If you don't think media statements about 'asset stripping' and other strong criticisms of the club, manager and players via a media campaign isn't opposition to the club - even if the intentions are honorable - then there must be a new definition of the word.

The world may not be ideal but we can strive towards it. Non-existent member communication, unfufilled board promises and the failure to work with any other groups (other than a selected couple after the fact) is definitely far from ideal.

I read and take part in daily debates on the running of the club online. Offline, less so, which is why I'd have preferred any campaign to have been much better organised.

Again, hopefully the RST will accept this criticism and look to maximise the effect of the statement.

Criticising the current administration does not equate to 'opposing the club'.

Rather, it is supporting the club and urging it to do better.

Does the tacit acceptance of being second amount to supporting the club?

I have already said that DE's words wre inadvisable, although I would also suggest that the move from Edmiston House to the temporary ticket office is not what Rangers FC should be doing.

It doesnt HAVE to equate to opposing the club, however, that is dependant on HOW the criticism is presented. How it has been presented, and, followed up by yourself and others on here is quite simple.

1 - We arent happy

2 - What are you going to do about it?

That isnt supporting the club and urging it to do better, it is simply criticising it.

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

No, but I also don't think potential financial meltdown as a result of not telling them is a good option either.

The alternative would be; not tell the players/public/press, don't sell anybody and get into some extreme bother. At least they've been honest and open about it.

But it was the current administration that took the decisions which led to the need to transfer key players during this transfer window.

The credit crunch has not appeared as if by magic - it was known to be imminent during the summer transfer window.

Sir David Murray solemnly stated that never again would he mire the club in debt.

Just who is culpable in this situation?

I remember the summer....

i seem to remember some trumpet blowing from people who said they forced the chairmans hand in spending the cuellar money as they publicly criticised him.....now who could that have been.......... :craphead2:

[samNewton 0]

Criticising the current administration does not equate to 'opposing the club'.

Rather, it is supporting the club and urging it to do better.

Does the tacit acceptance of being second amount to supporting the club?

I have already said that DE's words wre inadvisable, although I would also suggest that the move from Edmiston House to the temporary ticket office is not what Rangers FC should be doing.

Let's not get caught up in tedious semantics. The RST are criticising the club via the campaign. Their intentions are honorable enough but given the points made about the chairman, the CEO, the board, the coaches, the scouts, the manager and the players; then I think that covers more than the administration but the club's operations as whole. That is opposition to existing club practices - albeit constructive but opposition nonetheless.

The support should definitely not accept 2nd best - tacitly or otherwise - which is why I'm disappointed with the problems in the campaign set up and which is why I'm offering workable suggestions for improvement.

The people in this thread are not quibbling unnecessarily but making interesting points and adding to the debate. This should be welcomed and acted upon - not dismissed or ignored. Surely that's the point of the campaign?

What are the Trust doing to improve/finesse the campaign? What is the next stage?

I believe that the RST would certainly take on board constructive criticism.

There are some interesting points and my belief is that the RST fully recognises that it must improve communication with members. Its performance was undoubtedly hampered by the loss of Board members last summer.

Nevertheless, as I've said before and despite the criticism from certain people, I think the Trust was right to release its statement.

There are glaring problems with the way Rangers FC is operating and this may continue for years. It is not acceptable that these can be brushed off with the excuse that 'the club's for sale'.

[minstral 5,375]

No, but I also don't think potential financial meltdown as a result of not telling them is a good option either.

The alternative would be; not tell the players/public/press, don't sell anybody and get into some extreme bother. At least they've been honest and open about it.

But it was the current administration that took the decisions which led to the need to transfer key players during this transfer window.

The credit crunch has not appeared as if by magic - it was known to be imminent during the summer transfer window.

Sir David Murray solemnly stated that never again would he mire the club in debt.

Just who is culpable in this situation?

I remember the summer....

i seem to remember some trumpet blowing from people who said they forced the chairmans hand in spending the cuellar money as they publicly criticised him.....now who could that have been.......... :craphead2:

he did give money to spend but the problem is, that the person he gave the money to has wasted it.

[samNewton 0]

No, but I also don't think potential financial meltdown as a result of not telling them is a good option either.

The alternative would be; not tell the players/public/press, don't sell anybody and get into some extreme bother. At least they've been honest and open about it.

But it was the current administration that took the decisions which led to the need to transfer key players during this transfer window.

The credit crunch has not appeared as if by magic - it was known to be imminent during the summer transfer window.

Sir David Murray solemnly stated that never again would he mire the club in debt.

Just who is culpable in this situation?

I remember the summer....

i seem to remember some trumpet blowing from people who said they forced the chairmans hand in spending the cuellar money as they publicly criticised him.....now who could that have been.......... :craphead2:

It was the club which bought a series of attacking players yet quibbled about deals for Mendes and Davis and only bought them after the defeat by Kaunas. The midfield area surely was the priority, especially given the injury to Ferguson.

Can you explain the logic there?

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

Sorry my point was in the summer people connected to the RST were crowing they forced the chairmans hand as they attacked him publicly...i take it they regret this now (not that i believe for a second they did force his hand).......

[samNewton 0]

Sorry my point was in the summer people connected to the RST were crowing they forced the chairmans hand as they attacked him publicly...i take it they regret this now (not that i believe for a second they did force his hand).......

Is it possible for you to hold the club's administration up to scrutiny to anything like the same extent you identify the RST's failings?

Now, I'm not sure about 'crowing', but certain observers thought the timing of certain transfers last summer was bizarre in the extreme.

In light of SDM's comments last week regarding the club's finances, all the more so in hindsight.