amms

This in no way helps the greater good. Scottish football is bankrupt, financially and morally; this would only help perpetuate that for a bit longer. Our sport has been run into the ground for a couple of decades now, nobody looks out for the 'greater good', only self-interest, the people responsible for that are still in control, this simply helps them hold their positions. Aberdeen, Dundee Utd, Kilmarnock, ICT and Hearts are carrying debt they simply cannot afford, is it in the greater good to continue this? Dundee (twice), Motherwell, Hibs, Livingston have all suffered administration in the past and Dunfermline are in it just now. Scottish football has been badly run for years. Our agreeing to this would be the opposite of what is good for Scottish football. Clubs cannot operate with the debt they carry, it needs to be shed one way or another. The game in this country needs re-thought, fans are routinely ignored, the standard of football is dire and our national team has literally become a joke. The best thing we could do for Scottish football is to say no, we want no part of this. Football should be a meritocracy first and formost, it shouldn't be about gate size or TV revenue generation or the fact people who have proved themselves unable to run our sport need us to help them preserve their jobs. Scottish football needs a bit more pain before it comes to its senses it seems, we'd be doing everyone a favour if we ensured we helped administer that. This isn't about revenge, it's about helping fix something that's broken.

I know this is all conjecture still but I think if this did come to pass I'd be finished with game up here. I've become more and more disillusioned over the last 18 months but I've clung to the fact that throughout all the lies, double standards, cheating and thieving we, Rangers, behaved with integrity. We took our 'punishment' and got on with it, we're working our way back and accepting the pain and indignity that comes with that. But if we're shown to be as shallow and greedy as the rest, if we'd really drop the SFL sides who have largely welcomed us this season then I think that would be the last straw for me. Dignity is something you choose, we should know that better than anyone. I truly hope there is no substance to this.

What do you mean by alien? If I remember correctly you've some experience with this, or am I mixing you up with someone else? If so your views would be interesting.

My issue with the current 'regime' is that they want to make money from the club. I don't believe it can be done in Scottish football as it currently exists. The only way for them to make money is to take it from the supporters as no other significant revenue streams exist. Had they all left after the share offer I'd have probably accepted that as their payment for rescuing the club, whatever anyone thinks of that process. That they are still around is my main problem. I've little doubt that run efficiently the old/current model of ownership could see us back on top in Scotland but the basic flaws of being reliant on one man or company for stability have been demonstrated so many times in recent years that I'm surprised we all don't find it anathema now. Gretna, Dunfermline, Hearts and us have all discovered the cost of putting all of our eggs in the one basket.

I'm always baffled at the reaction to this topic when it gets debated by 'Gers fans. Up until this season, since 1872 we've always had 'fan ownership' if you accept that Craig Whyte and SDM were fans in their own way. What we're really debating is whether it is better for us to be owned by a large number of supporters, no one of who has more say than any other, or owned by a large number of people, most if not all supporters but where a small number, possibly only one, have a much greater say because they 'own' much more of us. We've tried the latter for the last 20 or so years. Whilst it brought success it ultimately brought disaster. There were no checks and balances in place, one man could make decisions without fear of reprimand or censor, whilst the going was good few questioned it, by the time it got bad it was too late to do anything about it. Do we really want to return to that? The success it brought wasn't so significantly better than we'd enjoyed at other points in our history to make it worth the pain it eventually brought. People speak about our support being fractured like this is somehow unusual. Do you think all the Dortmund/Hamburg/Barcelona supporters agree on everything. Really? Don't you think they have factions in their support? Do you think having liberals and hardliners, traditionalists and modernisers, progressives and regressives is peculiar to us? C'mon, even Clyde who are fan owned in the sense most on here are meaning it can't agree on everything. But it isn't about agreeing on everything, it's about making sure the club, our club, is run with us in mind. It isn't about 'us' running it, it's about 'us' owning it and holding those responsible for running it to account. Ultimately the 'owners' would need to devolve the day-to-day running of the club to people qualified to do it. Frankly writing a blog about football doesn't make you qualified to do anything except write a blog, this fear some have that perhaps some of the more prominent members of the online Rangers supporting community would suddenly find themselves running the club is ludicrous. The last thing Rangers need is another 'sugar-daddy' type owner. The club is big enough to stand on its own two feet and win it's battles without the largesse of some industrialist. To suggest this could "finish us off" is perplexing, not taking a say in how our club is run will finish us off far quicker. We very nearly died last year because far too many of us became apathetic over the last couple of decades, me included. We expected someone else to to fix our problems, we looked to an owner to fund players we couldn't afford, we just wanted to turn up at the weekend for 90 minutes and be entertained. Did we learn nothing in the last 18 months? Like most things football evolves, things change. Rangers place in European football will continue to diminish for the foreseeable future. Even when we are able to qualify the gap between the English, Spanish, German and Italian leagues and ours is so chasmic it is unbridgeable now. This looks like it won't change anytime soon. It's vital we get involved with our club, if we want a voice at the table we need to be prepared to do a bit more than simply turn up every second week. There is no money to be made in Scottish football, none, it's practically impossible currently. Anyone looking to make money from a Scottish football club does not have that club's interest at heart because the only way to make money from us is to take money out of the club that we, the fans, are putting in. We don't have many other sources of income, sponsorship isn't great, prize money non existant and TV money a joke. Rangers should have a purpose, a stated aim and it should be a simple one. It should be to bring glory through our football and to make our support proud. Nothing else matters, it's all any of us want, I don't need a poll to know that everyone wants that from our club. That's the starting point, every decision we then make should be designed to achieve those two aims.

The thing that swung it for Green was McCoist's backing. The support were deeply sceptical of him before that and season ticket sales were almost non-existant. Once McCoist came on board Green should have got all his skeletons out. Whatever happens next a significant percentage of the support no longer trust him or want him, I can see no way back for him now. So whatever way you view this, even with the power of hindsight, it was an enormous error of judgement lying to us and that alone casts serious doubts on his judgement.

You've taken me a little to literally, I didn't think you were actually being controlled by someone, it was just a figure of speech. I disagree on your guess, I doubt the majority see him as the devil but I'd say the majority would rather he left. It's all anecdotal of course. I think you completely misunderstand the issue most people have with Green over Whyte. It's not that he had to deal with Whyte it's that he lied about it. Had he been open about it at the start he'd have taken some flack but he could have then been judged on what he did next. By lying about it his credibility is shot and you find yourself questioning everything else he said and did, at least those who have a problem with being lied to do.

Aha! Thanks.

Cheers. I used to visit RM a lot but I started finding it hard going and hadn't been on for ages. Then last night funnily enough I saw a link on Twitter to that thread abusing the woman who wrote the piece for the RST. To be honest that alone will keep me away from it for a good while now, that was an appalling thread. But I did wonder if there was a place where people less hostile to Green were fortifying each other before sending you back out to get abuse from the rest of the support. I think you're dead wrong about Green, but I'm starting to grudgingly admire your resilience on it. Although it does remind me a little of those Vanguard Bears guys (are they still about, don't hear much about them these days) defending Whyte's honour against all comers even after we were in administration just because they'd dug themselves into a position they couldn't face getting back out of. Anyway, I hope you are right and we're all wrong and it turns out Green's done nothing wrong and everything is fine with the club.

Other than SimplyTheBest are there other 'Gers fans who still hold a candle for Green? Is it a messageboard thing or something because I don't know any Bears who still trust Green. Should I be widening my web browsing perhaps?

I'm not sure what this proves. That everyone in power bought Whyte's act right up to the point of no return isn't really news. He's like trying to grab smoke, just when he seems to be pinned down he adjusts and appears just out of your grasp.

Yeah, the post 8 mention baffled me, that makes much more sense. Cheers!!

So how do you feel about this now Chilled Bear? Do you think he deserves the benefit of the doubt now or not?

Yeah, fair enough, I asked for that.

Can I just say what a brilliant title this thread has. <applause>

Whose, yours? Winston Churchill had whisky for breakfast, if you'd had your way we'd be speaking German. Fine, don't, but expect to get pulled up when you display views more akin to a Mormon Tabernacle then.

The Leggo article? I'm lost now. You keep saying it's 'my choice' like that somehow excuses having to explain why getting drunk once should bar you from being the Rangers Chairman.

It's not 'my choice' it's a statement of fact. This in no way proves he can't carry out his job(s).

This doesn't prove he has a drink problem, it proves he got drunk once. Getting drunk is a fairly normal pastime for a great many people, if we removed everyone who got drunk from a 'position of trust' the country would grind to a halt. I've known and worked with loads of heavy drinkers, I much preferred them to the tea-totalers as well. It's not like he's leaving a board meeting and it gives absolutely no indication as to his ability to carry out his job.

No, what then? I find the fact we're even discussing this ludicrous.

What mistake has he made?

Speaking for myself I'm struggling to believe Murray is now, or ever has been, in cahoots with Whyte. Barely a day goes by where someone doesn't try to blacken his name further, associating him with Whyte feels like the last roll of the dice. We'll see what substance it has.

Are we really suggesting Murray should be fired because he got drunk? Bloody hell we're a puritanical bunch. If he's got a drink problem then we should be trying to help him not fire him, not that any of this proves he does have a drink problem. I could understand the outcry if he was our centre forward, but a board member, c'mon, with the year we've just had no wonder he drinks. More power to your elbow Malky.

I think Daly is potentially a great signing. We've been lacking leadership in the squad and by bringing in the captain of Dundee Utd we will help to address that. On top of that I think he's a vastly under-rated player. His influence and style of play has helped Utd develop both Russell and MacKay Steven, Daly can hold the ball up, lead the line and deal with the robust nature of the game up here. I think he's the perfect foil for Little and possibly Barrie McKay and David Templeton too. Yes, he's unlikely to have a sell-on value but as he cost us no transfer fee I'm not sure that's a big problem. I'm baffled by criticism of this signing.

Yeah, well if English finds a horse's head in his bed tomorrow we'll know they found them disrespectful too.