Jump to content

 

 

ranger_syntax

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    11,221

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ranger_syntax

  1. ranger_syntax
    Yes, it would be much easier. It would also be much easier if both organisations had exactly the same aims but I can't be sure that is the case. Given that we have a range of opinions* among the support the status quo works well enough. When the various schemes have common ground cooperation can happen. When this is not the case each scheme is free to do as it pleases. * perhaps good to remember that the Vanguard Bears also have something on the go at the moment. Should we ask them to merge too or cooperate when willing and able?
  2. ranger_syntax
    I disagree. Both are making good progress demonstrated by the recent increase in contributions and memberships.
  3. ranger_syntax
    I would not be surprised if both schemes held 5% between them, in 12 months, with the current setup still in place.
  4. ranger_syntax
    I think that merging is a silly idea. It is quite depressing to see it repeated constantly. Having two schemes gives people a choice about how to participate. There are a number of reasons to prefer one and not be interested in the other. As a result more people do participate.
  5. ranger_syntax
    Did I see the word 'discretion' in there? If the SPFL is not free to use discretion then we must wonder if there are not two other people that Dave King could trust to fill these roles.
  6. ranger_syntax
    Given what Ashley and Easdale are up to I find it hard to believe that anyone is debating Murray and King.
  7. ranger_syntax
    I'm starting to love this nonsense. Very kind of Jack to assuage those of us concerned that Sandy and James would react indignantly and depart.
  8. ranger_syntax
    Anybody else think that this is the only bit worth reading?
  9. ranger_syntax
    There is nothing wrong with what you are saying apart from the fact that it is complete and utter garbage. Irvine's words were disingenuous at best. That sort of thing should be challenged in the manner that King has.
  10. ranger_syntax
    Why would one not be hostile to such people?
  11. ranger_syntax
    Good point. I suppose it would be nice if someone would start a thread about how poor the football is.
  12. ranger_syntax
    Great, more noise.
  13. ranger_syntax
    I don't know where fear comes into it. My only concern is that what you are saying is really just a load of rubbish. You started by claiming that ownership open to all is necessary despite the fact that Rangers is operated by a PLC. That is to say ownership is already open to all. When questioned about this you cite familiar example of members clubs and then admit you have no idea if these examples are helpful analogues for us to look at. I hope I'm not being unfair in this summation. I'm a member of the RST community share scheme and completely in favour of fan ownership. Every time someone mentions something about a big man coming along and buying the club and then selling it back to fans or scrapping the PLC structure to sell fans memberships I have to laugh. Although it would certainly be nice I think that these ideas make fan ownership more difficult to achieve. This recent trade should make it clear to fans that power can only come through share ownership. Fans should focus on buying shares and we can do so as individuals or as part of, I think, 3 different groups. That is the signal and the rest is noise.
  14. ranger_syntax
    The players listed above are unlikely to go anywhere until the summer. I would believe all are getting better deals than available elsewhere. I would be surprised to learn that anybody wants to sign these players during an existing contract. You can relax.
  15. ranger_syntax
    Nobody else fears this 'exodus'. I would welcome it.
  16. ranger_syntax
    Can you link to an example of where this has happened before?
  17. ranger_syntax
    But did I describe what you are talking about?
  18. ranger_syntax
    Let me see if I understand what you are saying. You are saying that someone will gain enough control to alter the structure of the company in a way such that nobody can buy shares. Whoever controls the company will then sell memberships which will entitle people to vote on something. Is that right?
  19. ranger_syntax
    Hope I'm not being too pedantic after this good news but I'm not sure what you imagine will happen. Fans can already buy shares but, so far, many have only shown an interest in making excuses.
  20. ranger_syntax
    What do you mean?
  21. ranger_syntax
    The original post is entirely correct. The current playing squad has more ability than it has shown. While it will never match our ambitions I think that it can still gain promotion through the play-offs. It can only do so if managed correctly. It is obvious that Kenny McDowall is not the right man for this job. Apart from the result itself his pre and post match interviews confirm that he isn't comfortable or confident in this post. If he continues then we will decline further. There are managers who can come in to struggling teams and get more out of a group of players than the previous manager. Two familiar examples are Alex McLeish and Walter Smith. We need to find a manager who can get these players to perform closer to potential. I'm pessimistic but the board need to do this or we really will be staying in this division. We will also need to endure more results like this and perhaps some that are even worse.
  22. ranger_syntax
    You are not surprised by this though, right?
  23. ranger_syntax
    Why so cavalier? :dm::mz: :rf::ib::sf::jig::ss: We all know that Faure can play in midfield.
  24. ranger_syntax
    I wonder what he has in mind.
  25. ranger_syntax
    What? We all know why. He wants to profit.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.