"Trust" is the buzzword around the Rangers support these days.
It's either "Trust the board", or "Trust the Trust", or "Trust the UoF", or Don't trust any of the above.
This morning sees a statement from NARSA slating the decision of some RFFF Committee members to ask Rangers supporters to approve RFFF funds to be used to fund Craig Houston's legal costs against Sandy Easdale, and they quite rightly state that the funds should not be used for this purpose.
The suggestion for funds to be used in this manner is against the spirit of what people donated for.
Quite simply, the vast majority of donations were made in order to save the club during the dark summer of 2012. The story of how that balance came to be could be a story in itself, with the sacrifices people made being admirable and astonishing.
When we didn't know if we'd have a football club, as the Administrators struggled to find a buyer, with the footballing authorities doing everything in their power to put Rangers out of the game, we dipped our hands in our pockets and contributed, both directly and indirectly.
Some sacrificed more than others, but every penny counted, no matter where it came from.
Personally, I attended a couple of fundraisers and also donated directly to the fund. The pensioner who collected her pension every week and walked to Ibrox to hand it in, and friends of mine who donated precious memorabilia to raise funds are just some of the people whose contributions should not be trampled all over.
While it seems that vultures are circling over that money that came from Rangers fans from all persuasions across the planet, I think we can be certain that trying to ask each and every contributor for their opinion would not be possible.
How do you trace someone that bought a raffle ticket, or a football card, or bought a signed football in a pub? How would you allocate votes? By person? By value donated? How do you differentiate between the £20 that a pensioner puts in from her pension, the £200 donated by a normal fan, the £50k donated by NARSA, or guy who sold his most precious possessions to save the club?
Of course it is a very difficult decision what to do with that money, but I'd suggest that the time may not be right to make that call.
With the Upper Tier Tribunal ready to announce its decision on their latest appeal against the EBTs employed by David Murray, there may still be a requirement for funds to fight an inevitable onslaught on the club's history should the judgement be unfavourable.
My view is that the club will be uninterested in fighting, BDO won't be interested, and no one else is likely to step up either.
Others will disagree, but I don't think we should even be considering any other options until that risk is completely extinguished.
Asking all who contributed to allow the funds to be used to support Craig Houston against Sandy Easdale is an insult firstly to the spirit of the fund, and secondly to fans who play by the rules, and can challenge the current board of the club, by legal and fair means.
I actually have little issue with Houston challenging the board, if he can do it simply by asking difficult questions, or via the protests he is leading, if he can back up assertions about Easdale or any of the current board. I'd suggest that if he did, then no legal threat would have ensued. If Houston wishes to allow questionable assertions on his facebook page then he or his wealthy backers should be able to fund any legal challenge that ensues.
You see, while friends of Houston are asking that the RFFF be pilfered for his use, his wealthy backers skulk in the dark, knowing that their presence would kill the credibility of the "Dave King" bid for the club.
I see similarities to the McColl "bid" for the club to King's. The fact is, that in the background, those pushing for "change" are the same individuals, and Paul Murray is at the heart of it.
Several months after VB pointed out that Paul Murray had a secret email list including Mark Dingwall, Drew Roberton of the RSA, Andy Kerr, Craig Houston and Malcolm Murray, we have learned that four of that group recently shared dinner in a Glasgow city centre restaurant, with the two Murrays, and self-appointed 'fan reps' Chris Graham and Craig Houston in attendance.
Perhaps it was just a nice meal and the strategy to oust the Rangers board wasn't discussed.
What is also strange is that while the RFFF were issuing their call to arms on Wednesday 26th March, it has transpired that Craig Houston and Sandy Easdale resolved their differences the evening before (25th March). Why, then, did the committee see fit to make the announcement on Wednesday, then proceed to vote on whether to poll the support on whether the funds should be used for that purpose?
Are we to believe that Houston didn't speak to any of those in attendance, or speak to anyone that knew representatives due to attend? Really?
With Houston's dinner partner Graham tweeting on Wednesday night that he was "unsure" the funds would be used for such a purpose, then only Chris will know if it's a good guess, or if Houston told him.
https://twitter.com/ChrisGraham76/..1488
https://twitter.com/ChrisGraham76...7760
Frankly, if I'm being asked to trust any of this group to look after my season ticket money then I would expect the highest levels of honesty and transparency in order to convince me that they are more trustworthy than the club.
- If Houston knew and didn't tell them, then why not?
- If Houston knew and DID tell, then why did the RFFF proceed anyway?
It stinks, and actually distracts from the key issues that the Rangers board need to address, i.e. what their detailed plans for the future are.
The questions being asked by Paul Murray's 'go-to' journalist Keith Jackson in the Daily Record today should be easy to answer, so why not answer?
The point for me is, just because the people asking the questions are doing so out of self interest, or to push an agenda, it doesn't mean the club shouldn't answer.
Both "sides" have work to do, and it will be whoever can behave with more integrity and transparency that will win the day.
Who will rise to the challenge?