andy steel
-
Posts
4,054 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by andy steel
-
Some guy is doing the rounds today, proudly explaining why he's not going to an official function as a RSEA rep because Alex Salmond invited him. Fan ownership of our clubs is fraught with potential pitfalls. -
Dr Waiton on Rangers, Free Speech and Sectarianism
andy steel replied to ThatsWhyWeirChamps's topic in Rangers Chat
If only! While I wouldn't go so far as to describe football fans as 'knuckle-draggers' - I rarely shit on my own doorstep, after all - pretending that of all the mass participation/attended pursuits in Scotland, football fans are not and have not been the most embarrassing, anti-social and loutish groups is just self-delusion. Rangers, Celtic, Scotland, Aberdeen, you name it: it's only a difference in scale, rather than ignorance. Manchester was the final straw for me - a mass demonstration of why Scottish people shouldn't be allowed out on their own. I didn't see any rioting, the media coverage was a joke but as I carefully picked my way through great torrents of pish I did wonder why people put up with such behaviour...well, times have changed, they now don't and while people can convince themselves all they like that it is liberal elites and snobs and an 19th century fear of the mob, I grew up at the top of a damp tenement and feel the same way. -
Admin II would certainly be dismaying, but for more important reasons than the knocking back of any progress the CIC model may have made. That would be the least of our worries, I reckon. One thing I took from the presentation was that if we got about a 5-10% holding, and continued to take contributions, we could thereafter decide whether to increase the shareholding, or to fund specific projects within the club: pay for scouting, for example. That way, any money invested would be certain to yield some kind of a return, even allowing for admin events. Of course the club would have to accept such donations and sign up to the legal safeguards, which might be an issue, but the idea only flies if there's a sizeable enough holding in the first place: otherwise the club just gives us the rubber ear. In order to get the club to be 'transparent and accountable', in the short term we need to speak the language of the plc, alas. Which involves an element of risk, it's true enough. I share Bluedell's suspicions, but I'm willing to give this a bash.
-
That can't be real! 'Secondery'!?!?
-
Would it make the scheme any more attractive to doubters if it were considered as part-fan ownership rather than outright fan ownership? If we had enough of a stake to put off the wider of the cowboys who have ridden into town, say, the power to deal with such types via legal measures at AGMs or EGMs rather than vague threats of boycott or a withdrawing of financial support?
-
Tomorrow's Record - King predicts financial meltdown again?
andy steel replied to Zappa's topic in Rangers Chat
Well, we'll find out soon enough. -
Hugh Keevins: Celtic and Rangers are conning fans......
andy steel replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
RS has nailed it already afaic, but on a slightly different tack I think Hugh's piece smacks of a certain, and for him typical, resentment at Rangers displaying anything other than grovelling contrition. He often told us, when he was starting out in Edinburgh, how the establishment in the city considered Tynecastle to have a better class of customer; your institutionalised bigotry, if you like. Hearts' financial woes have been reported with the utmost sympathy, though: how on earth did this bastion of discrimination become a cuddly toy? Probably a mix of society moving on, the issue not being that serious in the first place, and, crucially, a chance to move away from their past and develop a slightly different identity. At no time have we ever been allowed that space: the same people who bang on the loudest about how we missed 'a chance to change' are the ones who insist the world remember and denounce our very existence. Hugh's piece plays into this attitude: down and almost out, Rangers have no right to celebrate anything, neither a win over Dunfermline nor a haul of trophies. No, there'll be no happiness allowed, only grovelling apologies, an ongoing apologia for some socio-political baggage which was passe in the late 90's and is now more or less the preserve of obsessives of whatever stripe, and a continual self-flagellation for the fate which has befallen us since the advent of HMRC & Craig Whyte. In the final analysis, though, the breath taking nerve of Hugh Keevins criticising other people for insulting the intelligence means the reader struggles to accord this piece any credibility at all. -
Sorry BH, been enjoying the unseasonally fine weather and only just back in.
-
Pfffft. If there was as much money to be made out of Hearts as there is out of Rangers, they too would be in the clutches of your capitalist parasite types.
-
@Zappa: I do agree with and share your concerns about making this fly without the backing of the biggest online board. SoS showed, however, that a campaign which goes about its business in a slightly old fashioned way - and specifically, by engaging with fans in and around actual matches - can achieve results. Although it's an electronic age it is possible - if very very difficult - to get up to about 5k names behind this purely from leafleting, addressing Supporters' Clubs and media coverage. And what seems to be the absolute necessity for these kind of campaigns is to get some initial momentum behind them. 20k might be hopelessly optimistic, but I can't believe that we couldn't organise 5k fans. Don't forget too, that even the haters at BBC Scotland will be obliged to choke back their distaste and cover this positively, lest they look even more hypocritical than usual. A big ask certainly, and one made harder if there is negative coverage from FF, but not impossible even then.
-
I suspect the man we really need to front it up has been (a) burned by his stint as chairman and (b) is politically not in tune with the idea anyway.
-
Oh please! Tell me I was dreaming....we have to aiming higher than that level, surely!
-
I didn't vote, since I'll take whatever is decided.
-
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
-
I also think Timothy's failure to respond shows it in an extremely poor light. End of the day I think this will have done FAC a whole heap of damage. But the media coverage has been shocking.
-
I don't really have a problem with it being unbanned - it's a free country and the freedom to display what an arse you are is part of that. But as for the rest, I don't think so, to be honest: even amongst tims this is a minority of twats, otherwise it'd rocket to No.1. Just the usual cretinous parasites which show our town in such a terrible light. I hope so, anyway!
-
This is a real issue, I agree. Due to the length of the meeting, I refrained from raising a few negative issues I had; some are 'devil's advocate' but they should be examined, just the same. But we were there for nigh on 3 and a half hours and time was up! There's a two sided coin in terms of what SDS consider negativity, their response is to ignore it and plough on. That's a little difficult for us, since the people who are likely to be most hostile wield an unfortunate amount of influence. Ignoring them might allow the ball to start rolling and build momentum, or it might burst said ba' before we even get to the park. It's a hard circle to square. I did ask Richard from SDS to provide something concrete which we could present as proving, indisputably, that SDS were clean, on the level, etc. but didn't get much beyond a personal assurance and the legal guarantees on their website which, sadly, won't be enough for some as we all know. Richard did look a little like a cross between Craig Whyte and Kessler from Secret Army so perhaps a glance at his forbidding visage, and equally forbidding waistcoat, may be enough. I'm afraid there is going to have to be a level of trust for this to work which is not just lacking but completely absent in our fanbase. Also, I wonder whether this will be practical in getting the club to the level we want it at, ie competing in Europe. The mechanism whereby HNWI can contribute helps on that front, but I am still slightly doubtful that it would accrue the cash we would need, and I wonder whether fan ownership might not forever peg the club at the level of say a Dundee Utd or a Kilmarnock. Not good enough, we'd all agree. In the end the first thing we need is a level of maturity no-one has seen for as long. If it doesn't work after that (and you can see I have my doubts) at least we tried and we will have a single body without faction to show for it. That alone makes me throw my ample poundage behind the plan. If someone has a personal issue with someone else, too bad. If someone is holding things back, they either need to acknowledge it or be politely but firmly told. The time for adolescent squabbling between grown ups is not only past now it was past about five years ago - easier said than done? Only if we make it so. I've no doubt at all that most everyone has stuff in their personal life going on which makes fighting about the football look like small beer indeed: despite how important Rangers is to us all it shouldn't be beyond us to take informed decisions in an adult fashion. Those who don't will be seen for what they are, and hopefully accorded about as much attention as my 15 year old stomping his way back up the stairs to his PC Kingdom in the bedroom.
-
There was a definite - an absolutely rock solid - feeling at the meeting that bygones had to be bygones and moving forward was the only answer. Anyone who wants to remain outside the tent can do so, of course. But really, it's very childish. If Brahim is on the working party, he has no more say than anyone else who signs up. None at all, only the ability to maybe frame some proposals the membership put forward in legally sound terms; which he can do, given his background. And he only gets elevated if people vote for him, which is your actual basic democracy. So where's the problem? I might point out that BH got a resounding round of applause when he made a plea for unity and progressive thinking. The history may be complex but that's where it has to remain, in the past. A perfect solution will never be found - look at the hassle trying to organise a dinner! But bitching about the past before the thing is even started is utterly futile.
-
On the other hand, the higher up the charts this goes the more onus there is on people to comment. If it gets to No.1 there's really no way people can avoid passing comment and, whether they like it or not, judgement.
-
Ah, fair enough. Whatever gets your Friday night going, I suppose!
-
Negatives To Positives (Andrew Dickson writes about Super Ally)
andy steel replied to Zappa's topic in Rangers Chat
As much as writing for the club would be the ultimate dream job for me, by crikey we're a hard bunch to please. What is it you lot would have preferred to read on this hideous anniversary? Another gut-wrenching recapitulation of stuff we all know by (broken) heart already? More hagiographic praise for the Politburo? Hidden away in that piece is the gem which rather puts our CE on the spot; if all goes well, no problem, if we do run into bother he stands revealed as bullshitting the manager. Employees of the club have great access to the players, but they can hardly wade in and throw around accusations. The writer of this piece has done a nifty bit of dancing on eggshells, I reckon. -
Well, I confess I'm amazed and very disappointed to hear that. As much as I disagree with just about every word you've posted on here I would certainly back you up should anyone threaten that sort of nonsense.
-
BH is writing up a report for your delectation but has been delayed by unreasonable romantic demands...tbf, he was at a Rangers meeting this morning, then was being filmed by a Rangers documentary crew this afternoon; respect is due. Some highly unscientific thoughts from one who was entirely cynical but is now a little more amenable to the concept: presentation was very good if heavily weighted on the 'best case scenario' side of the bed; hardly surprising. The details are fairly well known but broadly if a CIC comes about the 'plusses' would be: the thing is set up by a solicitor, and initially only the solicitor & the SDS rep would have any legal powers at all. This changes when fans are elected in future by popular vote, say for talking's sake when 5,000 fans vote, most likely from the working party but could be anyone who stands and persuades enough people to vote for them. This ought to reduce internecine squabbling and allow a moving on from the past, since there'll be no worries about certain personalities pushing themselves forward undemocratically, the CIC vehicle allows high net worth investors to contribute, alongside us paupers, but still retains that element of OMOV. Brahim will post his own thoughts on this as I believe he may not be quite 100% convinced. I, too, wonder whether HNWI's would be willing to throw money away without a quid pro quo but time will tell. Clubs in eg Germany seem to manage it well enough. I remain uncertain as to whether complete fan ownership can generate enough investment to get us to the level we need to get to; time will tell. this vehicle, should it gain enough popular support, can be used as an arm twisting lever when dealing with boards. For instance, money can be given direct to the club for specific purposes and be ring fenced thusly; also, it would lent at 0% interest thus saving the club getting loans from Wonga type people. there's not much more detail, the general thinking seemed to be that if this could be a vehicle which allowed previous disputes to be forgotten, and become a bus which we can all jump onto, then it would be well worth swallowing any things we don't like in order to finally get a Rangers fan body which might achieve something. Now, it may be that in the rush to get unity we are missing potential pitfalls but overall it seems like a price worth paying to finally move on. Rangers fan ownership is not like other clubs: we have to deal with a fanatically hostile media and lunatic fans of other clubs who would, I have no doubts, buy into any scheme in order to sabotage it. They're that nuts! Nothing is ever easy for us, and this would be no exception. Still and all, I'd say there was a good bit of merit to this idea. Finally, highlight of the day for me, this day and pretty much any day of the last 20 years - I spent 3 hours sitting next to, and discussing Rangers, with Colin Jackson...nothing anyone said about CIC's could top that. I said to the great man on leaving that it was an honour to chat with him and I meant it. If this scheme is going to work, I think it will need legends who pulled on the Blue Shirt to front it up: if Colin Jackson said go for it, I probably would; likewise Walter Smith, say, or Sandy Jardine. No matter what age we are we still idolise our heroes...maybe we need to call on them to do yet more service in the cause.
-
Amoruso's cross in the 6-1 game v Dunfermline - for the third goal, it turns out - was phenomenal, all the more so for being by a centre back. [video=youtube;Gg-6aAVn0oo]
-
No chance of that at all. If it so much as looked like happening, I and most everyone else would stop it. For heaven's sake, I have a 10 year record of handwringing and fear nothing at meet-ups...what do think we are, tims?