The RST, we deserve better

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

Do you think there Is there a fear of being found out.

No I don't.

But I'm quite content for the Trust not to feed an anti RST troll.

And I am satisfied with the position regarding membership numbers.

But you feel free to spout uninformed pish, I'm sure anybody reading will make up their minds.

Therein lies the problem. I am actively seeking information to put me in an informed position but there is a lack of answers. I am sure when presented with the facts people will judge if the RST have been rumbled. Given the suggestion above, it would be sheer hypocrisy if a lying, bleeding, near terminal, organisation was questioning a highly respectable chairman on his stewardship. Are the RST not allowed to be put in the same spotlight they are puting Rangers in. Is it one rule for them and another for the rest of us. Edgar is quick to demand answers from SDM but it appears he is reluctant to answer questions on him and his organisation.

This is where you are wrong...he did answer.... and he lied........

[minstral 5,375]

i am not a member of the trust but at least edgar will stick up for the fans, and not like the our owner who makes me want to vomit everytime he opens his mouth.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

Do you think there Is there a fear of being found out.

No I don't.

But I'm quite content for the Trust not to feed an anti RST troll.

And I am satisfied with the position regarding membership numbers.

But you feel free to spout uninformed pish, I'm sure anybody reading will make up their minds.

Therein lies the problem. I am actively seeking information And you know how to get it

I am sure when presented with the facts people will judge if the RST have been rumbled. I was presented with them yesterday, and they have not been rumbled. I'm sure any member would be given the same full explanation as me.

Given the suggestion above, it would be sheer hypocrisy if a lying, bleeding, near terminal, organisation was questioning a highly respectable chairman on his stewardship. Lovely, at least you don't hide your agenda.

Are the RST not allowed to be put in the same spotlight they are puting Rangers in. There is simply no logic in the suggestion that a supporters' group should be treated in the same way as The Club, that's just silly.

Is it one rule for them and another for the rest of us. I haven't the slightest idea what you mean by that.

Edgar is quick to demand answers from SDM but it appears he is reluctant to answer questions on him and his organisation. In fact he answers a lot of questions about his organisation, but he is not accountable to you in any way.

Right, that's the last time I give you the attention that you want.

You're a one trick pony, an anti RST Troll.

[Orangeclement 582]

Do you think there Is there a fear of being found out.

No I don't.

But I'm quite content for the Trust not to feed an anti RST troll.

And I am satisfied with the position regarding membership numbers.

But you feel free to spout uninformed pish, I'm sure anybody reading will make up their minds.

Therein lies the problem. I am actively seeking information And you know how to get it

I am sure when presented with the facts people will judge if the RST have been rumbled. I was presented with them yesterday, and they have not been rumbled. I'm sure any member would be given the same full explanation as me.

Given the suggestion above, it would be sheer hypocrisy if a lying, bleeding, near terminal, organisation was questioning a highly respectable chairman on his stewardship. Lovely, at least you don't hide your agenda.

Are the RST not allowed to be put in the same spotlight they are puting Rangers in. There is simply no logic in the suggestion that a supporters' group should be treated in the same way as The Club, that's just silly.

Is it one rule for them and another for the rest of us. I haven't the slightest idea what you mean by that.

Edgar is quick to demand answers from SDM but it appears he is reluctant to answer questions on him and his organisation. In fact he answers a lot of questions about his organisation, but he is not accountable to you in any way.

Right, that's the last time I give you the attention that you want.

You're a one trick pony, an anti RST Troll.

interesting, so you do have to be a member to find out the total number

[BigSpliff 0]

David Edgar

"He says the Trust is an extremely small band of people. 5,000 members isn't a full Ibrox, but I'd counter it's a fair representation of support - certainly a big enough customer base to avoid insulting and ignoring."

The challenge is set to the vocal few members of the RST or indeed David himself. Back this statement up by telling us all here what your real active membership is.

Surely to christ, an organisation who have complained about SDM lying to the fans wouldnt commit the same cardinal sin, would they ?

Hi mate.

Why are you re-opening this today? Why is it so important to you?

I've no idea what the numbers are, but I see they're popularly believed to be <1,000 on here so why are you still pushing it?

Genuine questions.

quite simply i feel that if there main guy is comfortable lying to fellow fans then he is not fit for purpose. I simply want an RST member to confirm the numbers and whilst i appreciate the input of the guy above, i want to hear it from the horses mouth. Once we have that number, we can put to sleep any fanciful notion they represent anyone and as Mant says, people can make up their own mind about the hypocrisy and previous accusations laid at murrays door by this group.

Thanks.

So your underlying objection is that the RST presents itself as representitive of the support, but you believe that the true membership numbers don't bear this out - and you think that their misrepresenting of their scale should be exposed/acknowledged so that people can judge whether or not they are hypocritical. I understand.

Assuming you have written-off the RST (just a wild guess ), may I ask if you agree with the concept of fan-ownership and if so, who should take up this mantle (and how) now and in the future?

Also would you follow a different strategy to the RST and what would it be?

Again, genuine questions.

Cheers.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

interesting, so you do have to be a member to find out the total number

Really? I didn't know that.

All I know is that I asked and was given a full answer.

[Orangeclement 582]

interesting, so you do have to be a member to find out the total number

Really? I didn't know that.

All I know is that I asked and was given a full answer.

you wrote it manti not me,

your own words

I'm sure any member would be given the same full explanation as me

[*Manticore* 1,893]

interesting, so you do have to be a member to find out the total number

Really? I didn't know that.

All I know is that I asked and was given a full answer.

you wrote it manti not me,

your own words

I'm sure any member would be given the same full explanation as me

Exactly.

I did not say 'you do have to be a member to find out the total number'.

[Orangeclement 582]

interesting, so you do have to be a member to find out the total number

Really? I didn't know that.

All I know is that I asked and was given a full answer.

you wrote it manti not me,

your own words

I'm sure any member would be given the same full explanation as me

Exactly.

I did not say 'you do have to be a member to find out the total number'.

are you a politician manti because if not you should be

[*Manticore* 1,893]

are you a politician manti because if not you should be

No I'm not.

I am just not prepared to make the leap from:

'I'm sure any member would be given the same full explanation as me'

to:

'you have to be a member to find out'.

Some of us are careful about our choice of words. Surely that is not a bad thing?

[Orangeclement 582]

are you a politician manti because if not you should be

No I'm not.

I am just not prepared to make the leap from:

'I'm sure any member would be given the same full explanation as me'

to:

'you have to be a member to find out'.

Some of us are careful about our choice of words. Surely that is not a bad thing?

i saw the answer coming

i suppose its better to be safe than sorry.

[nvager 498]

If anyone wants to know the answer - just ask them directly - they must have a web page with contact info - no?

[Youllneverwinaway 0]

Thanks.

So your underlying objection is that the RST presents itself as representitive of the support, but you believe that the true membership numbers don't bear this out - and you think that their misrepresenting of their scale should be exposed/acknowledged so that people can judge whether or not they are hypocritical. I understand.

Assuming you have written-off the RST (just a wild guess ), may I ask if you agree with the concept of fan-ownership and if so, who should take up this mantle (and how) now and in the future?

Also would you follow a different strategy to the RST and what would it be?

Again, genuine questions.

Cheers.

I do not think that fan ownership in Scotland is feasible and therefor in principle, the trusts existance is one of false hope from the outset. I am not adverse to the suggestion of a fans representative on the board, however how you arrive at who and where this person comes from is not something i have the answer to. As for having a different strategy. Yes i would. I believe the Trust leadership need to distance themselves from Follow Follow and make membership more appealing to fans who dont allign themselves to that line of thinking. I believe that alone would give me greater access to the chairman of the club which ultimately is one of the goals of a trust membership. Unfortunately for the trust, its association with FF probably means it is letting down its membership and may mean it is contravening its own obligations. I would also ensure the basics such as communication and getting membership details out were first and foremost a priority before attempting wasting energy on real radio and 17 point plans. Sorry for the non use of paragraphs. I am on mobile.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

The point of this thread is?

The point of this thread is that the RST, and im looking at DavidRST in particular here, have came on this forum and lied to our members.

Why then would the RST expect any of us to believe their true agenda when they fail on one very simple principle of telling the truth.

As i said, as Rangers fans, surely we deserve better from a group proclaiming to represent us.

I would never give my support to anyone who had lied to the Rangers support - hence why I believe both PLG and BF should both have left our club.

But YN if you are going to apply that criteria....should we also apply it to our current chairman who has lied to the Rangers support ?

[BigSpliff 0]

Thanks.

So your underlying objection is that the RST presents itself as representitive of the support, but you believe that the true membership numbers don't bear this out - and you think that their misrepresenting of their scale should be exposed/acknowledged so that people can judge whether or not they are hypocritical. I understand.

Assuming you have written-off the RST (just a wild guess ), may I ask if you agree with the concept of fan-ownership and if so, who should take up this mantle (and how) now and in the future?

Also would you follow a different strategy to the RST and what would it be?

Again, genuine questions.

Cheers.

I do not think that fan ownership in Scotland is feasible and therefor in principle, the trusts existance is one of false hope from the outset. I am not adverse to the suggestion of a fans representative on the board, however how you arrive at who and where this person comes from is not something i have the answer to. As for having a different strategy. Yes i would. I believe the Trust leadership need to distance themselves from Follow Follow and make membership more appealing to fans who dont allign themselves to that line of thinking. I believe that alone would give me greater access to the chairman of the club which ultimately is one of the goals of a trust membership. Unfortunately for the trust, its association with FF probably means it is letting down its membership and may mean it is contravening its own obligations. I would also ensure the basics such as communication and getting membership details out were first and foremost a priority before attempting wasting energy on real radio and 17 point plans. Sorry for the non use of paragraphs. I am on mobile.

Thanks v. much for explaining (esp typing that on a mobile!). If you get time sometime, I'd also be interested to hear why fan ownership wouldn't be possible in Scotland. Reason I'm asking btw is that I do believe in it but I'm always keen to hear about what people think, including weaknesses/faults etc.

[AMMS 27]

Fan ownership is available now, get enough 'fans' together' raise enough money and you can buy the club, it's for sale. Whatever your views on Murray he is a fan, as have been every 'owner' we've ever had. Pre-murray the board was entirely made up of fans, just they were fans with shares.

it is in Rangers interests that the board and ultimate owners are fans but it is as important that they can run a multi-million pound business, deal with sums of money most of us can't imagine, have contacts in business, politics, culture and of course sport and are able to invest the time and money that running an organisation like Rangers requires. They have to be able to deal with the media, millionaire players and some of the most demanding 'customers' any business will ever have. they cannot allow themselves to get caught up in the minutia of supporting Rangers, the petty squabbles, name calling and back slapping that so many football directors enjoy and they can't let the power go to their heads. At all times they need to have a clear vision, the leadership capabilities to deliver it and the business acumen to provide the infrastructure to make it all possible.

I'm far from convinced any premier Scottish club could be run by basically a large committee which is the model I see most fans groups espousing. That may work for Queens Park or Pollock Juniors but at Rangers someone has to take responsibility and call the shots.

[bluesnaw 0]

i am not a member of the trust but at least edgar will stick up for the fans, and not like the our owner who makes me want to vomit everytime he opens his mouth.

He doesn't stick up for, or talk for me. I'm big enough and ugly enough to make my own mind up, and vote with my feet and my wallet if I have to!

As yet, I don't see the need to.

[minstral 5,375]

i am not a member of the trust but at least edgar will stick up for the fans, and not like the our owner who makes me want to vomit everytime he opens his mouth.

He doesn't stick up for, or talk for me. I'm big enough and ugly enough to make my own mind up, and vote with my feet and my wallet if I have to!

As yet, I don't see the need to.

i am sure you can speak for yourself, but i suppose even if we dont win the title this season you will still see nothing wrong.

[mac444 6]

After recent events I certainly wont be renewing my membership of the RST. As people have said all I have heard from them is them sending me my card.

To me basically thats says thanks for the money, but we don't give a shit what you think we're going to push our own agendas.

just like the club.

Not quite, the club don't say they are representing the majority of fans, they say they are doing whats best for the club, whether the fans feel the same way or not. The RST say they are representing the fans and their members, yet as I said I've never once been consulted about anything the RST are doing, not even a mass email!

[bluesnaw 0]

i am not a member of the trust but at least edgar will stick up for the fans, and not like the our owner who makes me want to vomit everytime he opens his mouth.

He doesn't stick up for, or talk for me. I'm big enough and ugly enough to make my own mind up, and vote with my feet and my wallet if I have to!

As yet, I don't see the need to.

i am sure you can speak for yourself, but i suppose even if we dont win the title this season you will still see nothing wrong.

You suppose wrong! I have never accepted second best for my team, but I also know that that's how football goes sometimes.

I'm not Walter Smith's biggest fan, and I do have some sympathy for the Chairman... but I also understand that he's responsible for what happens at the club, and responsible for sorting things out. It’s a job nobody on here would relish, that’s for sure.

People are living under the delusion that up until ten years ago everything was great, and we had nothing better to do than crush all that came before us. Not so! There has always been times of unrest at Ibrox, and there will be again, no doubt.

[minstral 5,375]

i am not a member of the trust but at least edgar will stick up for the fans, and not like the our owner who makes me want to vomit everytime he opens his mouth.

He doesn't stick up for, or talk for me. I'm big enough and ugly enough to make my own mind up, and vote with my feet and my wallet if I have to!

As yet, I don't see the need to.

i am sure you can speak for yourself, but i suppose even if we dont win the title this season you will still see nothing wrong.

You suppose wrong! I have never accepted second best for my team, but I also know that that's how football goes sometimes.

I'm not Walter Smith's biggest fan, and I do have some sympathy for the Chairman... but I also understand that he's responsible for what happens at the club, and responsible for sorting things out. It’s a job nobody on here would relish, that’s for sure.

People are living under the delusion that up until ten years ago everything was great, and we had nothing better to do than crush all that came before us. Not so! There has always been times of unrest at Ibrox, and there will be again, no doubt.

no everything was not great, having gone through celtics 9 in a row its not a nice feeling. but i dont want to go through another period like that, and if we dont get our act together thats what could happen.

[BigSpliff 0]

Fan ownership is available now, get enough 'fans' together' raise enough money and you can buy the club, it's for sale. Whatever your views on Murray he is a fan, as have been every 'owner' we've ever had. Pre-murray the board was entirely made up of fans, just they were fans with shares.

it is in Rangers interests that the board and ultimate owners are fans but it is as important that they can run a multi-million pound business, deal with sums of money most of us can't imagine, have contacts in business, politics, culture and of course sport and are able to invest the time and money that running an organisation like Rangers requires. They have to be able to deal with the media, millionaire players and some of the most demanding 'customers' any business will ever have. they cannot allow themselves to get caught up in the minutia of supporting Rangers, the petty squabbles, name calling and back slapping that so many football directors enjoy and they can't let the power go to their heads. At all times they need to have a clear vision, the leadership capabilities to deliver it and the business acumen to provide the infrastructure to make it all possible.

I'm far from convinced any premier Scottish club could be run by basically a large committee which is the model I see most fans groups espousing. That may work for Queens Park or Pollock Juniors but at Rangers someone has to take responsibility and call the shots.

thanks mate, good post.

[Sapphire 0]

A look at last years RST accounts will tell approximately how many members there are. No?

Undoubtedly there will be some life members but the vast majority will be made up of £10 annual subscribers - so I'd be surprised in the extreme if there was £40k in the income from the new membership and membership renewals section.

I'd imagine that there will have been a few more enrolled following the 'We Deserve Better' statement - again I'd be surprised, nay, feckin' stunned if there were 5,000 paid up members.

Realistically I'd put the figure at around the 1,000 mark - and out of that you'd be hard pushed to find 200 who were what could be considered 'active'. To emphasise my point, any AGM's that I attended when a member have been very poorly supported with barely 50 in attendance.

If anyone's got a copy of last years accounts could they check the income out?

[Youllneverwinaway 0]

Thanks.

So your underlying objection is that the RST presents itself as representitive of the support, but you believe that the true membership numbers don't bear this out - and you think that their misrepresenting of their scale should be exposed/acknowledged so that people can judge whether or not they are hypocritical. I understand.

Assuming you have written-off the RST (just a wild guess ), may I ask if you agree with the concept of fan-ownership and if so, who should take up this mantle (and how) now and in the future?

Also would you follow a different strategy to the RST and what would it be?

A

Again, genuine questions.

Cheers.

I do not think that fan ownership in Scotland is feasible and therefor in principle, the trusts existance is one of false hope from the outset. I am not adverse to the suggestion of a fans representative on the board, however how you arrive at who and where this person comes from is not something i have the answer to. As for having a different strategy. Yes i would. I believe the Trust leadership need to distance themselves from Follow Follow and make membership more appealing to fans who dont allign themselves to that line of thinking. I believe that alone would give me greater access to the chairman of the club which ultimately is one of the goals of a trust membership. Unfortunately for the trust, its association with FF probably means it is letting down its membership and may mean it is contravening its own obligations. I would also ensure the basics such as communication and getting membership details out were first and foremost a priority before attempting wasting energy on real radio and 17 point plans. Sorry for the non use of paragraphs. I am on mobile.

Thanks v. much for explaining (esp typing that on a mobile!). If you get time sometime, I'd also be interested to hear why fan ownership wouldn't be possible in Scotland. Reason I'm asking btw is that I do believe in it but I'm always keen to hear about what people think, including weaknesses/faults etc.

The reason i believe its not possible in Scotland is the level of income we generate. Someone suggested a while back that 50,000 bears could put in £1000 each and buy the club for £50 million which although unlikely, is entirely possible, but then what happens ?

Who assumes the £30 million debt? Who puts the £10 million+ into the kitty to help fund the manager? Who when we fail in Europe makes the decisions to ensure we dont hit £40 million debt?

This is when it all gets messy under a "Fan Ownership". People will always hold up Barcelona in this scenario as the ultimate example of fan ownership, however Barcelona generate in excess of £200 million turnover each year(4 or 5 times more than us), meaning there is less reliance on the fans digging deeper and deeper.

Celtic and Rangers will always require a figurehead, majority shareholder IMHO. I dont even think the banks would allow it to be any different.