D'Artagnan
-
Posts
1,590 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Everything posted by D'Artagnan
-
Amen to that db.
-
I suspect BH its more political rather legalistic. Case law is Scotland has determined Police Officers themselves can be witnesses to provide corroboration of alarm/annoyance/distress.
-
CB I was in the 1st group of members and still have the special badge they had commissioned in respect of that. But Frankie is absolutely right - its not really about fan ownership, though I have nothing against it, its more about the the empowerment of fans representation. I'm in danger of revealing the content of an article I have written for someone else ! - just suffice to say I look on the whole situation somewhat differently. I think in view of all the things which have happened and transpired at our club that our supporters should be far more involved, far more empowered than they currently are.
-
Perhaps we should re-phrase that then - what you actually mean is you dont have any evidence whatsoever to substantiate the claims you are making, because in actual fact - that evidence doesn't exist. Have you ever considered the possibility that some fans want more for their club than the current board or the prospective requistioners ? Let me throw another one at you - is it just a change of board we need, will that really provide us fans with the clarity and information we require for the future ? Has the current model of ownership and operation served our club well over these last years ? Even supposing Dave King comes riding in at some point to save the day - what will happen when he eventually decides to call it day, or like SDM he is forced to sell due to business problems ? It appears to me the various parties are squabbling over a model of operation for our club which has been abject failure over the last 20 years or so - the fans, who are the only people now I would trust to put Rangers First, are squabbling for the scraps off the table of the money men.
-
I would say BH that the inference of the term "Orange" is quite clear - it has been used regularly by the Celtic support and not against Dutch opposition I may add. Furthermore there is nothing to stop Police officers at a football match arresting supporters for a Breach of the Peace - despite the new offensive behaviour Act being flavour of the day.
-
Nothing "philosopher" about it WBD - I am just a fan like anyone else. But everyone who writes has a reason for doing so - or would you care to disagree with that also ? I note you have not cited these writings you referred to - which you claimed ran contrary to my neutral position.
-
RST - Jim McColl and Paul Murray to meet three fan groups
D'Artagnan replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
Perhaps another reason plg why we should go down the Swansea route of all ST holders automatically becoming Trust Members. -
RST - Jim McColl and Paul Murray to meet three fan groups
D'Artagnan replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
I would ignore such forum criticisms plg. At least you are actually doing something rather than sniping from behind a keyboard. -
CB You raise a number of valid and interesting points which I will try to address and explain fully. They most certainly are but quite recently I was made aware of my responsibilities even with my opinion being expressed. I had written an article suggesting Rangers supporters should be no strangers to militant action in order to have their voice heard and some of the suggestions I had made to this effect generated considerable feedback. A recurring theme in that feedback was that as a “popular blogger” who was read by many, I should exercise greater responsibility before expressing an opinion which called for such action as it may be damaging even to the club. (The original suggestion I had made was that we delay season ticket renewal for a couple of weeks just to remind the board that the Rangers support were not to be paid merely lip service) I think it was fair criticism, particularly as many providing that feedback were regular readers of my blogs. On the issue of whether we actually influence the support Frankie and I approach this differently. Whilst every article has its own individual reason or motivation for being written I make no bones about it – the majority of my blogs are written with the intention of influencing not only our support but the outside world as well. My last one – The Lucifer Effect - was written to demonstrate that the prejudice and discrimination displayed towards our club and support could be placed into a recognised framework ie Allport's Scale of Prejudice. Every blogger has his/her own reasons for writing – mine are very much influenced by American Author Mary Pyper who wrote the book “Writing to change the world”. No matter whether my audience was 100 or 100,000 that motivation would not change.
-
I dont like to portray myself as "neutral" - I prefer to have a stance and argue it passionately. I have been particularly cautious on this one for 2 reasons in particular :- 1. Many many months ago I believed Craig Whyte was the real deal - and I wrote a series of blogs both extolling and defending him. I feel particularly guilty about that to this day and it has only served to heighten a sense of responsibility towards the Rangers support. I vowed I would never mislead the Rangers support again based on my personal instincts or a hunch about an individual. 2. The situation we find ourselves in is particularly complex - from what I can see there are more than 2 factions. For instance there are bears who want rid of the board yet dont want Paul Murray anywhere near our club whilst there are others who appear to support him and there are those who have not been convinced. I dont think any of the arguments from any of the parties are particularly compelling - something Frankie espoused recently on TRS - and while all sides seem to be capable of getting hits in against the other parties, no-one seems able to deliver a knockout blow. But I would be interested in how you arrive at this conclusion I think this is the first article I have written for quite some time regarding our boardroom shehanigans and you will note it is particularly scathing of all sides. My previous articles in the last few months have been The Lucifer Effect The Rangers support – Unfit for purpose ? BBC Scotland – A Corporation on Trial Bigotry in corduroy ? Chasing The Dragon – Update The Real Enemy Within Hearts & Minds Confessions of a fence sitting blogger A dinosaur rears it’s head The only one which touches on the boardroom struggles is confessions of a fence sitting blogger - which like the article which opened this thread, shows no favour to any of the competing factions.
-
Statement From RST, Association and Assembly
D'Artagnan replied to chilledbear's topic in Rangers Chat
I believe the problem occurs Zap because shareholders are entitled to confidentiality. Thats what I meant when I referred to radical and revolutionary change in the other thread. We really have to re-write the rules with regard to our club. -
My problem with that line of reasoning cal is what will his wage be then when we get back to the top division ?
-
I agree with that bit cal - if the payments had been made for his service to this club and the sole leadership he provided during admin - then you would have no qualms from me. But that kind of money for a Div 3 manager is just ridiculous.
-
Yes but he was happy enough to take that wage Bluedell knowing it was excessive and as Frankie has pointed out - agreed to the cut in the face of considerable fan pressure.
-
You are probably aware Frankie I have given John an article for the new WATP Magazine. I dont want to give away all its content so to speak but it calls for a radical and revolutionary change in how this club operates with regard to the support. I think an intrinsic part of the problem we face as a club and support has been how the support are disempowered from the systems, processes and critical information regarding our club. The suporters of this club have been "bit players" for far far too long.
-
The relevance for me at any rate Bluedell are based around the accusations that the "non Rangers men" (sorry about the term but it probably sums up things best) involved at our club are taking a salary or bonuses far in excess of their worth. That to me is not completely accurate as Ally's wages prove. I dont want to sound as if Im having a go at Ally - Im not - just the gravy train culture which appears to exist within our club of offering exorbitant wages and bonuses and which all seem to be riding.
-
If Im on honest plg I would put Walter's endorsement of Mather in a different category as those you have cited. He was departing rather than currently on the payroll therefore I would place far more credibility on them - but thats just my take on things. I was totally unaware having read the statement a number of times - that it referred to footballing matters - if thats the case perhaps that should have been made clearer at the time.
-
Im not suggesting Walter didnt back McColl GS but he firmly endorsed Mather (as did Ally) and yet some of our fans lobbied vigorously on forums and social media for his removal - do they know better whats going on at our club or are better judges of whats going on than trusted Rangers men within our club who have worked with Mather?
-
Ok allow me to elaborate a bit more... Lets start with Stockbridge and Malcolm Murray. I felt it was totally inappropriate and out of order for the former to film the latter in his drunken state at that function. It was deplorable that that footage was subsequently made public. That said MM's own conduct left much to be desired - I appreciate I am somewhat old fashioned in my outlook as are some of my standards and values, but I felt MM in that state - so drunk he was unable to walk unassisted - demeaned the office of Rangers chairman. Stockbridge's bonus payments were ridiculous and outrageous - but so too were Ally's wages. If we are to hold people accountable for the gravy train culture which appears to exist at Ibrox - then there should be no double standards or exemptions. Therefore I agree with the arguments that Stockbridge is being awarded bonus payments far in excess of his achievements - but Ally is receiving a wage far in excess of achievements. Then we have the situation with Mather who was part of the sacktheboard proposed cull. My problem with this is that both Ally and Walter have publicly backed Mather with Walter keen to endorse even if there were boardroom changes. Now lets stop all this nonsense about "Rangers Men" - both Walter & Ally are (and I say this as a term of endearment) true Rangers men and I trust their opinion implicitly. Am I to believe rumours without foundation and substance often by unknown people tweeting or writing on a forum or do I believe the opinion of 2 Rangers Legends. The latter of course have worked with Mather on an almost daily basis for several months whereas the former have not. I have concerns as can be seen for the foregoing - more so regarding the state of our finances but we seem to be running a lynch mob mentality based mainly of rumour, innuendo and scaremongering - and the juggernaut which has started seems to be rolling on out of control.
-
Well given the dearth of board members it doesnt really leave a lot does it ? I agree, I think Stockbridge's bonus for Div 3 was shocking - then again so were Ally's wages for a Div 3 manager. So who are Stockbridge's "pals" you refer to and just how are they bleeding us dry ?
-
Well convince me then Bearger - why should I protest against Easdale ?
-
Yes Im just waiting for someone to say "If you are not with us you are against us" !
-
I have no fear of pledging my allegiance CB - its just that none of the various factions, imo, have presented a conclusive argument.
-
I realised when I put that bit in it would ruffle a few feathers and considered whether to omit it. But it served to highlight a number of the points recurring through the article regarding making decisions based upon the information you have at the time - which is exactly as you have summarised in your response.
-
Id say none were innocent GS - I think all the various factions (because there are clearly more than 2) have engaged in unedifying behaviour.