D'Artagnan
-
Posts
1,590 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Everything posted by D'Artagnan
-
Letham gives Rangers extra time to repay £1million loan
D'Artagnan replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
And how do they rationalise being pro-board GS in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary ? -
Letham gives Rangers extra time to repay £1million loan
D'Artagnan replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
I havent met a bear who was pro board, or even neutral, either Barca. The problem is the mechanism, or lack of it, for removal without causing significant harm to the club we love in the process. There can be little doubt after what has transpired in the last few years that our fan ownership models should have made serious inroads into our fanbase. The fact that they have failed to so should warrant a serious and honest reflection to analyse just what the problem is. -
Letham gives Rangers extra time to repay £1million loan
D'Artagnan replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
DB I dont really understand where you are coming from on this one. The guy has stepped in to offer our club a loan at a better rate than what was originally proposed by others. Having done so, the chaos engine, which is our board have failed to repay it withing the allotted timescale and the guy has generously agreed to allow them more time to do so. If anything Mr Letham should be thanked rather than criticised. -
A cracker of an article and you wont find a better advert/case for fan ownership.
-
I know Ive ticked the thanks/agree boxes but that is not enough. Thats is one of the most outstanding summations I have ever seen Barca.
-
its certainly a valid point Zap - who actually (if anyone) determines the identity of a football club ?
-
He is certainly an Aberdeen fan and alludes to that right at the start.
-
In fairness to Gail Richardson Hildy - she doesn't deny it - but argues that it is very much part of our past. My point in raising it, along with unionism & the monarchy was to counter her assertion that these values & beliefs have been projected onto the club by the fans themselves, which I certainly dont agree with. I also struggle with her assertion that we are not a Unionist club, particularly given the symbolism on display which others have mentioned in this thread.
-
I think it is helpful to have alternative views, I think to espouse them in a book which will be predominantly read by Rangers supporters is particularly brave. But like yourself I do think some of them warrant challenge.
-
Id respectfully suggest you are fully cut - read that paragraph again ! ;-))
-
I would imagine his quotations sum up the feelings of a considerable number within out support.
-
Born Under a Union Flag: Rangers, Britain and Scottish Independence (Luath Press) will be an interesting read for those yet to open its cover, and I would strongly suggest you do. It allows the reader access at times, to the mindset of the authors of the various chapters, some of which will challenge you, some may even alarm you, but having drawn me in, it was one of those books I had to read from start to finish without interruption. It may seem strange for an avid Unionist to highlight a chapter written by a pro-independence author, Gail Richardson, but I do so for 2 reasons : (1) Gail asks questions relating to the motto of a group of which I am a member – Vanguard Bears (2) Of all the pro-independence chapters within the book, Gail’s was unique in that it offered a cohesive, rational and positive argument for independence which was free from negative subjective experience often cited by her peers, nor did it seek to demonise Britain as a justification for exercising a yes vote, in short it offered vision rather than vilification. I use the word “demonise” deliberately. When Alan Bissett argues that Britain is responsible for, amongst other things, “the mass slaughter of World War 1” you can perhaps begin to understand why I suggested in the opening paragraph that you may be challenged, even alarmed by its contents. Gail opens her chapter with a question : Do the Loving Cup ceremony or the portraits of Her Majesty the Queen hanging in the home dressing room at Ibrox not qualify as traditions ? Both are long standing practices at our club, with club historian David Mason, opening this year’s Loving Cup toast describing it as “A very important tradition in the history of Rangers Football Club since 1937”. Furthermore are they merely traditions or, additionally, a powerful statement of identity i.e. this is a club which values the traditions of monarchy ? The foregoing example serves as welcome introduction for another area of such debate which is often overlooked by many. Gail asserts : It is madness. But what about the flip side of that coin ? What about the instances where the beliefs and values come from within the club itself ? Are they in themselves not statements of identity ? If the historical commentators such as Graham Walker and Bill Murray are to be believed, and there is no good reason not to, then Protestant identity evolved due to a number of factors, primarily though that the Protestant indigenous Scot sought a football club which reflected their faith and culture in the same way that the newly formed club, Celtic, reflected the faith and culture of the Irish immigrant population. If Gail is guilty of overlooking symbolisms and traditions which emanate from within the club, perhaps because they don’t quite fit with her assertions and beliefs, I confess, I could be equally as guilty of reading something into symbolisms from within the club because they do happen to fit with my particular assertions and beliefs. I have difficulty accepting however that Church and Boys Brigade Parades, the holding of the Orange Order Annual Divine Service at Ibrox, our refusal to play football on the Sabbath, the welcoming of Kings at Ibrox, Armed Forces Days, amongst other things, are not statements of identity. Furthermore these take no account of the erroneous, which again have their formation from within the club itself. Gail makes reference to Rangers signing policy, I would add to that the comments of Rangers vice chairman Matt Taylor in 1967 when he stated in interview relating to it, “part of our tradition....we were formed in 1873 as a Protestant boys club. To change now would lose us considerable support.” However mis-guided, however ham-fisted, however opposed to true Protestant ideals and values the foregoing examples are, I would suggest they are a clear attempt to attach a Protestant identity to our club from within the club itself. I cite these examples not to usurp Gail’s questioning of their relevance today in an increasingly secular Scotland, but to demonstrate that the club itself over the years has actively encouraged an identity with which it is often associated, therefore to suggest that it’s our supporters who have projected their beliefs onto the club and asked them to uphold them is incorrect. When Gail states : “I’ve said that I don’t believe Rangers Football Club is a Protestant club or a Unionist club.” how does such a statement equate to a football club who have just released their 3rd strip which has as its centrepiece, the flag of the Union itself ? Particularly in view of the current political climate in Scotland. Strangely, the answer to Gail’s original question comes from an unlikely source, in chapter 3 of the book. Harry Reid, an Aberdeen supporter speaking of the demise of Rangers identity under Sir David Murray: And later in the chapter : Harry continues: Later in the chapter Harry emphasises the importance of any football club seeking to expand its aspirations, remaining true to its core fan base. There is really not a lot I can add to Harry’s quotes. The values, traditions and people Harry alludes to are very much at the core of what we at Vanguard Bears, seek to defend. I hope this article not only answers Gail’s questions, but also challenges her to examine her own vision of our club, as much as her chapter from the book caused me to examine my own.
-
(Tom English – The Scotsman 25.11.2012) (Tom English - Twitter 21.08.2014) Its good to know that Tom English has found some sort of journalistic morality of late, however it may present a conflict of interests with his new employer, BBC Scotland. Or does the morality of source over story only apply in certain circumstances ? After all, Tom is now working for an employer who were happy to utilise not just stolen property, but stolen evidence from the Rangers Tax Tribunal, if Lord Nimmo Smith's conclusions are correct. But in his new found morality Tom has excluded himself from the knowledge that Vanguard Bears appear to have successfully cultivated a mole, perhaps within the SFA itself, as previous revelations, including documentary evidence, suggest. And could this latest expose, while perhaps lacking in documentary evidence, be a clear signpost to of a course of unedifying, unprofessional and negligent conduct involving our footballs higher echelons of administration ? Especially when viewed in the context of previous disclosed e-mails and agreements. Nope of course not – nothing to see here – move along please. But should we really be surprised ? After all there seems little excitement in journalistic circles that those in charge of Scottish Football were prepared to find Rangers guilty prior to trial as well as inflict draconian type punishments on a club which had yet to be found guilty. Morality ? Perhaps some of those journalists, and there have been many of late, who remind us of the impoverished state of our game via their daily columns, care to consider if perhaps they have a role to play. After all if the head of our game is more worried about being on time for a dinner date rather than what was probably one of the most critical meetings in the history of our game, is there not something fundamentally wrong ? What is particularly alarming in this whole episode are those gleefully re tweeting Tom English's original tweet. It does not matter that journalists will ignore story over source, it does not matter that it contains allegations of incompetence, of lack of prioritisation, of utter disdain for the game of football in Scotland (ironically affecting their own clubs) – so long as Rangers or Rangers fans get it in the neck - then that makes it okay. But let's not be too harsh on Stewart Regan – I’m told there is a certain restaurant in Leeds which does a succulent lamb to die for. It looks like football in Scotland will be the sacrificial lamb.
-
It is when it pertains to the most critical meeting ever to have taken place in Scottish football FS.
-
Official Manager Discussion Thread
D'Artagnan replied to Ser Barristan Selmy's topic in Rangers Chat
I suppose in some ways it depends what you want to believe - Ive even seen some on forums saying "I knew Ally would get it to click eventually", suggesting we have turned a corner. Or of course the impoverished opposition meant we flattered to deceive. Given the woeful performances against Hearts & Falkirk - I know which one I tend to go with. -
Utterly dreadful news. Thoughts & prayers with family.
-
Is it just me or is the fact the current board cannot attract further investment from existing investors not of considerable concern ? Either they have no interest in the club or no confidence in the current board.
-
Did this not come up a while ago with another club Rab ? - cant remember exactly whom - but Im sure the rule being quoted was that an individual is not allowed to have a controlling interest in more than one club.
-
To be honest Frankie think it is symptomatic of the general malaise ShoredBear spoke of in another thread, from top to bottom. We have a board of whom it is alleged, and not without reasonable cause, clearly are having issues raising the required revenue streams to finance the club. They highlight previously that there is a priority need for greater engagement with the fans, and then promptly charge those with whom they would seek to engage, a sum for doing so. Go figure.
-
No problem Zap Ive already explained it on RM & Rangers Chat why I would not consider standing a while ago so its no secret. FIrstly I think as a blogger, being on such a board would compromise my neutrality/impartiality if I felt I had to write about it in the future. Secondly throughout the years I have received considerable support & information from VB who as you know, were completely unsatisfied by the board, on a range of topics, despite the board being given considerable opportunity to clarify matters. I think it would be disrespectful to VB to apply for a position set up by a board which cannot answer the most fundamental questions regarding the future of the club. Finally I think there are far better people qualified for such a position - I am fairly one dimensional even in my blogs - the majority are about defending the club & support. I think the position requires persons with a wider range of vision and knowledge of subjects which I am am not only lacking in - but do not have the appetite for.
-
Nope most certainly not - for a number of reasons bud.
-
Do you have knowledge of him (Merlin) standing for it Zap ?
-
Yes Im perhaps being slightly pessimistic speaking about Admin2 but there is considerable cause for concern. Looking at the accounts from last year our outgoings are clearly outstripping our income, with some revenues even down on last year eg season ticket sales. The board's plan to raise revenue has clearly hit the skids in some respects - how do you think the shortfall will be met ? Loans ?
-
Thats my fear as well Frankie - while Admin 2 would be disasterous and heart breaking for guys like us perhaps entrepreneurs like King would see it as an opportunity, perhaps its even his end game ? But if that article is true and King has been working away feverishly behind the scenes then his intent is genuine and we should take heart from that, though his methods may not be our preferred option.
-
There is no doubt about that Rab - if you read Lord Nimmo Smith's Report in Section 98 he refers to the BBc Documentary as "This event appears to have been the trigger for more activity in response to the SPL’s request." Its quite clear the decision to refuse us entry was based on a premeditated presumption of guilt based upon BTC and EBT's as you allude to.