Union City Blue

the groan was for the multi-quote issue. On reflection, I'll take it back. Just a joke mate Done.

Before I work out how to even begin to respond, I can't believe you did all that knowing full-well that I don't know how to multi-quote! If I try to quote that it will send everyone's eyes into orbit ffs

Bloody forgot to do this AGAIN last week. Dont know if i can be arsed now I'm that far behind!

Frankie, no I don't feel undermined at all. Quite the opposite actually. As I say, there is no poilcy and I'm making my own choices so I feel absolutely fine. And thank you for your post below, which I'm 100% sure is not aimed at anyone in particluar!

Shroomz, you would have actually pished yourself if you'd see what I just saw when I hit "preview" So, taking your first point, I understand your hesitancy. Ultimately, it depends on many things including the quality, resources and talent of whichever supporters and their partners have control of the club. But the principal is that the supporters, but definition, want the best for the club and not to use it an a means to some other end. The club has been debt free in the past and could have been again in the recent past if it chose to, but I agree that it ideally needs to return there. I don't accept that all we can do is...well...nothing. If nobody every tried to change any status quo then everything would always be the same. When Rosa Lee Parks refused to get off her seat she didn't say 'well there's nothing I can do' - she said 'I can do something and even although I'm only one person, if enough people join me we can change things'. And she did. Not saying its the same, just making a point. Finally, to be fair I also didn't quote 99.999% of the SD website, so it's a wee bit unfair to say I missed a bit out Unfortunately I don't know the answer to your question, I've not checked tbh. Cheers

Points taken. Sorry if I misunderstood your different roles in RM/Gersnet.

Hi Frankie, thanks for your thoughts. To be perfectly honest (assuming the remark of FF was intended to fly in your direction), I don't know which of the two sites you are involved in was being referred to by BearwoodBear but I did see the discussion. Obviously it's a slightly tricky one for me this, but I'm working on the basis that there's no RST 'policy' about where its board members can or can't, should or shouldn't contribute - it's left to the discretion of the individual. If someone beleives that discussion has been vitriolic and wishes to opt out on the grounds of taste then in my opinion they have to be free to make that choice. My personal opinion is that, in principal, the entire on-line community should be embraced. I've always felt like that and I am serious about that. That's why I was here before I joined the Trust board, and why I'm still here. I suppose the tone and substance of future discussions will help determine if that remains the case, but we'll have to wait and see. In my experience Gersnet has never had a problem with quality of discussion and generally speaking has a low bam-to-poster ratio For me, it's only about the Rangers, and the Trust represents something worthy and relevant to Rangers. So that's what I'm saying mate, nothing else. Cheers.

Supporters Direct is funded in Scotland by the Scottish Government and in England by the Football Stadia Improvement Fund - the partner organisation of the Football Foundation. It is a publicly-funded organisation which enjoys all-party political support. One of its main objectives is to help ââ?¬Å?influence or change ownership structures so that the interests of Clubs, supporters and the club's communities are more purposefully alignedââ?¬Â. Here are a few facts from the ââ?¬Ë?Supporters Directââ?¬â?¢ Website; ââ?¬Â¢ Origins: Founded in the year 2000 as a result a recommendation from the Football Taskforce ââ?¬Â¢ Growth: Supportersââ?¬â?¢ trusts have now been established at over 150 clubs, UK-wide. ââ?¬Â¢ Membership: Over 120,000 people are members of supportersââ?¬â?¢ trusts. ââ?¬Â¢ Finance: Supportersââ?¬â?¢ trusts have now brought in well over Ã?£20 million of new finance into football and Rugby League. ââ?¬Â¢ Ownership: 15 clubs are in ownership or control by supporters trusts. ââ?¬Â¢ Partnership: Over 110 supportersââ?¬â?¢ trusts now have shareholdings in their clubs. ââ?¬Â¢ Boardroom: Over 45 supportersââ?¬â?¢ trust has directors at clubs. Over 50% of these are directly elected by the membership of the trust. ââ?¬Â¢ Reach: Supporters of nearly 70% of clubs in the top five divisions of football in England, and the top four divisions in Scotland have established supportersââ?¬â?¢ trusts. ââ?¬Â¢ Community: Reorienting clubs to deliver active community engagement. Well, for me, one thing is loud and clear; Rangers FC needs an effective and significantly-sized Supporters Trust now more than ever. And it needs your support. The more Rangers fans who join the Trust, the greater its voice and the greater the likelihood of Rangers FC ultimately being able to opt out of the ââ?¬Å?whoever the next rich guy isââ?¬Â cycle which has gripped football over the last 15-20 years. If that is not possible in the short/medium term, then at least we, the supporters, will be able to have a genuine independent voice in good times and in bad. Rangers supporters deserve an input into the stances our club takes on certain matters and to know what the plans for the future are. We have the right to speak up and shape the club in our image. We do not deserve to be ignored, patronised and marginalised, whether by accident or design. Since when was it genuinely OK for Rangers to be passed between rich people as an executive toy? Are the majority of Rangers fans really just sitting here waiting for the next multi-multi-millionaire to roll-up and buy our fantastic club - and hope he or she is will act with integrity and be tuned-into what it means to be the Rangers? If so, sit back, cross your fingers and take what you get. Whatever it is. phfftt..... http://www.supporters-direct.org/page.asp?p=1988 http://www.rangerssupporterstrust.co.uk/rstsite/

My mate said that afterwards, never a 4-1. Have to say I disagreed, but I'll have to watch it again to get a more objective position I suppose. Bad night anyway

For a CL game it was a bit odd tonight don't you think? Traffic/taxis/pubs not quite full-to-bursting. Huge arch-shaped crowd in the Broomloan - so 'small game-ish' it was surreal. Best singing/support we've had in ages outside of ra shellik games - bit mental seeing as we struggled to sell tickets and the popular belief that the Euro-Neds were going to be absent. The atmosphere (to me), sounded like a 'not-full Ibrox' at a 'big' game for the first time in a long time. Took me back to the 80's in fact. Songs starting in the Copland. WTF? Aside from the humping on the field, I thought it was a strange old night. Wonder what others think?

I cant stand people who leave when it goes tits up. And I cant stand people who complain when other people leave when it goes tits up. Tonight was rubbish IMHO and it was almost an 80's throwback. I stayed until 90+3. Big deal. Do what you want if we're 4-0 down at home with 15 minutes left.

The only thing I'd say is that if AJ is the big-hitter he appears to be, and Martin Bain is as out of his depth as some people believe he is, then it will become apparent very soon and I suspect changes will be made. In the circles AJ moves in, there's no time for sentiment when you get down to serious business. it's not like Bain's an ex-player where sentimentality could be (partly) excused or whatever, he's just the CEO.

tbh that was exactly the impression I got from the media conf yesterday so its not that unreasonable to run this story today IMHO. Ibrox must be a strange place to be right now with all the uncertainty from the boardroom to the coaches to the players and right throughout. Not usually a good thing.

Passed the ground on Sunday afternoon- even then the CL roadshow was in town to get the corporate/branding stuff all over the stadium, big trucks etc. Superb!

A fine point, expertly made. In my opinion I don't think it's that people don't care, I genuinely believe that there is something in the general psyche that leads people to believe that "Rangers are Rangers" and it'll all be fine. Nobody under 30 will actually remember that we played to very many sub-20,000 crowds in the early/mid 80's and very few will appreciate that very long-term cycles have peaks and troughs. That is why it is absolutely the time for fans to get off their laptops and get involved in whatever part(s) of the broad Rangers grass-roots movement they believe has the best chance of affecting change. Things are changing.

My initial reaction is that I am impressed with what he had to say there. He talks in very positive terms and obviously feels he has something different to offer, which is most welcome. If he can work out the future landscape he discussed then he will, in fact, be able to position the club in as attractive a way as possible for the next owner. Short of new ownership structure, this is exactly what we need so I welcome him aboard.

�£25m we've spent on Murray Park. It's hard to evaluate whether that's well spent or not. On the face of it, it seems questionable IMHO.

That's brilliant

Depends what you're used to

Kenny Miller in "guaranteed to score" shocker.

3-1 to the Teds.

Who are the decent ref's in the SPL? the ones not biased against Rangers?

Bit of a strange one tbh, he didn't really stand out apart from the goal did he? Cue howling It's good for the club to be associated with some kind of recognition even although it may attract interest. Will do his confidence the world of good, so hopefully he can use that to our advantage.

No problem. The article draws the Boyd situation to one's attention and discusses it. The movtive for penning said article is questionable.

The comment is fair. A lot of Rangers fans might agree actually. The issue is not over what was said, but the motive for it, who said it, when and where.