Hildy
-
Posts
1,747 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Hildy
-
Thanks. I'm off to bed now but I'll look in again tomorrow.
-
They have tried, and are trying, to find a way to maximise their potential. They know, as we do, that life in Scottish football has certain advantages but also serious disadvantages. The consequences of Celtic getting out would affect Rangers badly. We've seen how miserable one-team divisions are and that's what we'd be left with if Celtic got out and we didn't. Celtic being a vile club is your opinion and it isn't necessarily shared in England or in Europe. The sooner we put personal animosity on this issue to one side the sooner we'll be able to contemplate this issue seriously. People say that there are no exits from Scottish football, but the same kind of people said that Rangers would never go bust. Do you think Celtic will be playing in Scottish football in a hundred years? At some point, with or without us, there will be change. Maybe it will take fifty years, but it could be twenty or ten or five. Celtic are preparing the ground and pulling as many strings as they can to find a more lucrative football environment in which to compete. At some point, a door will open for them, and when it does, if the option to move is an attractive one, they will be gone. We could be left high and very, very dry. Let's not get fooled again into thinking that seemingly unlikely scenarios will never ever happen.
-
Another three or four years of this could see the damage done being permanent. I think we need a solution much sooner.
-
Don't think of it as negativity. Think of it as a grim reality that we are somehow going to have to address if and when the club is repaired.
-
You believe expectations should be lowered. I may be pessimistic about the current outlook but I will never contemplate a lowering of expectations. This is your position and I sincerely hope that very few of us share it.
-
There is a gulf. Rangers can only partner Celtic on potential with regard to moving to another set-up because it is now Glasgow's second club and all the indications are that it will remain as the poor relation within the Old Firm indefinitely. This does not mean however that it should steer clear of efforts to get itself out of the environment which limits its potential to move to one that will more handsomely reward it. Rangers and Celtic need to talk. If Celtic were to be admitted to the second tier in England, for example, and Rangers were left behind, life would soon become for Rangers the way it is just now for Celtic - dull, unattractive and austere. Of course, while the strife at Ibrox continues, hopes for any kind of meaningful future are very low indeed.
-
You think that the lowering of expectations is a good thing?
-
As I understand it, Celtic are keen to find a way into another environment. Whether it turns out to be England, Europe or having the door closed to all options, I cannot say, but I believe they have recognised that a future within Scotland automatically limits their ambitions and prevents them performing at a higher level and attracting greater crowds. If Rangers was a well-run club, it should be talking to Celtic on a regular basis about how to proceed from what has become a European backwater to a more competitive and rewarding league set-up. Within Scotland, Rangers and Celtic can only ever be big fish in a small pond, but the pond is getting smaller and the big fish will inevitably shrink to fit. Anyone in charge at Rangers or Celtic is not doing his job if they do not address this.
-
If Hearts win, it will quickly become the fixture of the day.
-
The club continues despite all that has happened, but it doesn't always feel like the same club. Are you optimistic or pessimistic with regard to Rangers, and, especially if it is the former, could you outline exactly why? Are our best days in the past, and in the past, will they remain?
-
Updates are important. Those who have paid their money for these shirts will be pleased that they are being kept informed. Well done.
-
Many Rangers fans have stopped going to Ibrox. Their reasons are many, but defective ownership and rotten football feature prominently in why a trip to Ibrox is no longer desirable. Instead of arguing about who is giving money to the club and who isn't, the argument should be how our increasingly desperate situation is to be resolved. Those whose loyalty demands that they buy merchandise and/or attend games are well-intentioned and sincere, but they are no better or worse than those who have stopped funding a club that has a professional standard that is both shameful and inexcusable. Those who keep paying money to the club are not at fault, but neither are those who have chosen not to. Forget about fan oneupmanship. Think instead about constructive solutions. We have a million opinions but very few offer anything other than to mark time until we are either rescued or condemned.
-
The soap opera continues, our reputation diminishes, and the club continues to be the biggest laughing stock in British football. People think that fan ownership is undesirable because we don't have total agreement on every issue. This ongoing farce is the alternative. It is the price we have to pay for leaving the fate of Rangers in the hands of fast-buck merchants, over-salaried bonus-ridden non-entities, and people who care for it about as much as we care for Celtic. If you do nothing else today, sign up to the RST or BuyRangers as a sign that you have had enough of living the nightmare. Fan ownership has to be our future or there will be no worthwhile future at all.
-
If the going rate is 50p a share, and if the support was in a position to pay it, would you want them to do it to end this debacle, or would you rather hostilities continued indefinitely until an unpredictable conclusion is reached? Paying over the odds now might be the price that we have to pay for being disorganised and misguided in the past, both recent and distant. Obviously, an attempt would be made to negotiate a lower price, but if 50p a share was the price to conclude this saga, would you be prepared to pay it, or have someone else pay it?
-
I would not rule Hampden out as a venue if circumstances become intolerable with regard to Ibrox. Given where we are, I would keep all options open - even the most unlikely of them. We don't want to lose Ibrox, but we should never be locked in to a situation where we refuse to contemplate other options. The Rangers support is Rangers. Ibrox, much as we like it, is not.
-
There is no easy answer, but opposing this regime is a start. Undermining it helps but it isn't a straightforward fight. We risk damaging ourselves as we attempt to stop the rot, but it's a risk that we must run because a slow and painful decline looks inevitable if the club remains in inappropriate hands. I'm happy to back the RST to achieve fan ownership, but it would be useful if Dave King could be persuaded to help speed things along by using his wealth to buy the club and then sell it to the support. I would ask people not be cynical about this - it could be done. And it really isn't that important if the current ownership makes a few quid. What is vitally important is getting Rangers back into safe and trusted hands. This should be the priority. The UoF, if they have King's attention, should find out if he is prepared to spend money on buying the club rather than participating in a long and damaging campaign that, in the end, could have no winners. The ultimate answer, the only credible answer if Rangers is to have secure ownership, is for the fans to own it - all of it. That's why I joined the RST years ago and why I am still a member today. In the meantime, handing over a large sum of money to this regime - in advance of the season getting underway - is about as appealing as having teeth drawn. I'm ready for a peaceful confrontation to get this regime removed. I am not prepared to ignore this issue and hope for the best because the best Rangers will ever do with the wrong people in charge will be a long way short of what we have grown used to and expect. The rot has set in. We really need to see this through now.
-
Rangers is diseased. We need a cure rather than crutches, bandages and elastoplasts. We are a club that has lost its way and persisting with dubious ownership is never going to see Rangers recovering to a satisfactory level. We are perhaps too close to really see it but there is a school of thought that Rangers is done as a football club and institution, and while I don't think we are a lost cause yet, I believe we will be if the club isn't cleansed of mediocrity and incompetence, and that means fighting to take it back rather than tolerating the inadequacy that has overtaken us. You worry about the risk of taking this to the brink - the real risk was in letting uninvited and hostile strangers own Rangers. As risks go, nothing compares to this - it is madness writ large, and it is why we are where we are.
-
Finally, the ordinary supporter has thought about renewing instead of doing so automatically. This is good news, but it's also risky. Some of those who haven't renewed will pay as they go instead, but with the football fare being notoriously grim, some will get into the habit of picking and choosing. Eventually, they may be glad that they didn't renew as their appetite to attend games wanes. When the choice is to watch an internet stream or live television coverage at home or travel and pay a tidy sum to actually be there, the option not to go begins to look attractive. Without exception, every former ST holder I know has become a casual fan or chucked it altogether. Some fans retain their season ticket because it keeps them in the habit even though they have mostly lost interest. The social aspect keeps them attending as much as any loyalty they have towards the club, and this is worrying. I fully support those who will no longer buy a season ticket because they are tired of being exploited by the club's ownership, but we really have to be aware that some will not be tempted back. There is no easy way to sort this mess out though so bringing the matter to a head is the only way fans can be meaningfully influential for change in the short term. It does not, however, mean that Rangers will recover to become the club we think we are. Every day this saga drags on, we die a little. This is why a solution is required sooner rather than later. Not bringing this episode to a head, for many, is no longer an agreeable option - and I don't blame them. If we have to go to the brink now - so be it.
-
If King spends big on Rangers when he really doesn't need to, he really is spending part of his children's inheritance. In some households, this would not be received well but it would appear that King's family have no issue with him investing in Rangers if this is what he chooses to do. He would obviously prefer not to have to do it, but his allegiance is strong and his wallet is large, and in the right circumstances, I believe he is prepared to part with serious cash, perhaps with an understandable reluctance, but not enough to stop him doing it. If I was in King's shoes, I wouldn't be reluctant to spend up to £50m on Rangers - I would rule out the possibility completely.
-
If I say that Rangers are going out of business on Friday, people will want to know why I am saying it. If I tell them it's just an opinion, I will be deservedly ridiculed. If I say that King's wealth is not what it is alleged to be, I will be challenged on that too, and again, if it's another clumsy expression of opinion, I will be ridiculed. A poster has made a statement that he either can't or won't back up. I can assure you, I'm no defender of King, but when I see it stated clearly that his wealth is not what it is alleged to be, I want to know the reason why. And I'm not getting an answer.
-
I'm entirely in favour of questions being asked of King, but when someone says that "he does not have the wealth he is alleged to have", they have wandered into dangerous territory. The person who made this statement should either back it up or retract it. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
-
He said this: "I do not believe King has any intention of investing because he does not have the wealth he is alleged to have." This bit - "he does not have the wealth he is alleged to have" - looks much more like a statement of fact than an opinion. I want to know why anyone would say this. Is it true? If it is, how will it impact on Rangers? If it's not true, then why say it? It is his opinion that King has no intention of investing, which is fine, but stating that he does not have the wealth that he is supposed to have is a naive thing to put on a public forum unless it can be properly backed up.
-
We are shopping in the bargain basement even though we could shop at M&S if the main priority was the wellbeing of the club, but that is not the priority of this regime.
-
I'm interested in why someone is dismissing King as having less wealth than is generally believed. Do they know something that the rest of us don't or is it just a hunch? I can understand the cynicism that exists within us because we have plenty of experience of people being economical with the truth, but when King said in March this year . . . "I have lost £20m in Rangers already and I’m happy to lose another £30m because I love the team. I don’t want to be arrogant but it might be easier for me to lose £30m than it is for some fans to afford season tickets" . . . I want to know why people are prepared to state openly on a public forum that they don't believe this to be true. If they have facts which cast doubt on King's statement, then let them share them, but if they know no more than the rest of us and are merely speculating, they should make their position clear.
-
What is your belief based on?