Hildy
-
Posts
1,747 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Hildy
-
Failure to win promotion would underline the belief that many have that Rangers are not going to recover. It would make Berwick '67 seem like a non-story. It would be catastrophic. If Hearts with a team of youngsters pip a more elderly Rangers to the post, McCoist will be subjected to an unprecedented level of criticism. Rangers have to win promotion to avoid the calamity of further decline. If it doesn't happen, and the ownership question is still a running sore, not only will Celtic cruise to umpteen consecutive titles, the appeal of Rangers will diminish even further. We have ringside seats to watch a once great sporting institution resurrecting itself or gradually crumbling and falling. Regrettably, our fate is in the hands of the uninvited few and not the resident many, but even now, this is how most want it to be. We live in interesting times - extraordinarily interesting times.
-
When things were desperate in the recent past, the RST's SaveRangers looked like it could become a serious players in the game, but it was derailed by the RFFF, one of the biggest own goals we've ever scored and a complete waste of time and energy. We have a few who are searching for constructive solutions, but we still have a tendency to tug our forelocks to the man in the big house, and it holds us back dreadfully. There are three groups: Those who want fan ownership and democratisation of the club - like the RST: those who want another supreme commander to make all the decisions and carry all the responsibilities, which is the biggest group, and a small group intent on wrecking and badmouthing whatever comes along if it doesn't come from within the club itself. Effectively, they are: 1/ The democrats 2/ The deferential 3/ The wreckers The first one is growing, the second is reducing and the third is thankfully very small.
-
No, it's a reality that the Rangers support has to face. Only when we get off our knees will the future be properly exploited and fully enjoyed. Some have already risen up. The rest would do well to follow their example. Join the RST and become a part of BuyRangers.
-
For a support that is deferential, a single owner is the way forward. For a support that has no opinions, it is the way forward. For a support that believes in luck more than it believes in itself, it is the way forward. For a support that is weak, it is the way forward. For a support that is submissive, it is the way forward. For a support that ducks responsibility, it is the way forward. For an ambitious support that believes in democracy, responsibility and accountability, it is backward move to a dark, dark age.
-
I admire and love to watch Barcelona. They demand possession all the time and I like that attitude. I do not have any allegiance in football beyond Rangers, but unfortunately, and this has been the case for far too long, to find football that is genuinely worth watching, one has to look far beyond Ibrox because we still inhabit a dark age. It is refreshing then to see teams like Barcelona, Bayern and Real attempting to play football that is both compelling and appealing. Whether they have bought or bred success, and let's face it, buying success is very much the Rangers way - and Chelsea too - it is the end product that we evaluate. If I lived in Madrid, I'd be inclined to favour Real over Atletico. If I lived in London, I'd be me more likely to favour Arsenal or Spurs over Chelsea. As I live in Glasgow, I favour Rangers over Celtic, but this is purely for ancient tribal reasons. When I want to see entertaining football, I have to seek out a television set because it just doesn't happen in Glasgow any more.
-
The basic ethos of Real is to attack and entertain. They may have compromised from time to time but their adventurous reputation remains intact. Atletico don't camp perpetually in and around their own area. They snap at the opposition all over the pitch and aren't afraid to push players forward. They are exceptionally well-coached and have punched well above their weight this term. I love adventurous and creative play but I admire Atletico for being robust at the back, organised throughout and frequently threatening up front. They have made a formation based on sound defence acceptable and watchable, which is no mean feat.
-
I don't doubt that for a second, but it seems that they got a result, and it didn't reflect well on us. "The Scottish Charity Regulator ruled that the decision to allocate the sum to the club ‘constituted misconduct’ but decided not to take action against those involved."
-
Atletico can only be applauded. They play with a defensive emphasis but still retain goal threat. This isn't an anti-football team, it's an organised, well-drilled and disciplined football team that came within seconds of European glory, and they have the sympathy of many tonight. As for Real, this is what was said when Mourinho moved on: Real Madrid’s president Florentino Pérez hired José Mourinho in 2010 thinking he was the perfect candidate, a top icon who would re-establish Real Madrid as the best football club in the world. But that bubble has burst. Why*wasn’t the ‘special one’ that ‘special’ in the end? Mistake number one: Not understanding the philosophy of Real Madrid Jose Mourinho*behaved as if he was still working for a club such as Chelsea or Inter, teams that have been losers in football history but*where his high coaching profile would be a perfect fit. But that wasn’t the case for a historically winning club like Real Madrid. Mourinho did not realise Florentino’s expectations. "Three titles in three years and without the European Cup are not enough for a club like Real Madrid", says Lola Hernández, football correspondent for La Información.com. His style of play was based on a strong defence and a stunning counterattack, giving up possession of the ball. This coaching philosophy clashed with Real Madrid’s tradition of attacking football. Real are Spain’s biggest football club and they are always expected to play on the attack and be possession kings.
-
From the Scotsman: THE CHARITIES watchdog has criticised the Rangers Charity Foundation after it was revealed that cash collected from a fundraising football match went to the club instead. The game between Rangers Legends and the AC Milan Glorie was played after the Ibrox side entered administration, with a fundraising dinner included. However, complaints were lodged after it transpired that nearly £200,000 went directly to the club, and not the charity. The Scottish Charity Regulator ruled that the decision to allocate the sum to the club ‘constituted misconduct’ but decided not to take action against those involved. The report details the involvement of three trustees of the Foundation, all of whom were employed by, or held senior roles at Ibrox. One of the trustees told administrators Duff and Phelps of the club’s intention to provide support for the dinner and the match, and according to the report was conerned that the administrators would block the match from going ahead if it was not in the club’s creditors’ interest. The trustee agreed to hand over control of the match’s income to Duff and Phelps so that Rangers could recover costs. Prior to this decision, 60 per cent of the net profit along with a £25,000 management fee had been earmarked for the Rangers Charity Foundation, but the decision to hand control to the administrators led to the charity only receiving ten per cent of the profit - less than £40,000 - and the management fee. This meant over £191,000 that had been intended as charity donations went to Duff and Phelps. The regulator said in the ruling: “The charity’s decision-making process, which allowed important decisions to be made by one trustee acting alone, was in breach of trustees’ duties and constituted misconduct on the part of the charity trustees as a whole.” The regulator added that since the the charity had been set up, there had been an ‘inherent conflict of interest’ because of the link between trustees and the club. “In addition, the conflict of interest presented by the assignation was not managed appropriately and professional advice was not obtained as required by the charity’s trust deed. “Having looked carefully at the whole situation, the regulator has not found that the ongoing risks to charitable assets or to the reputation of the sector justify taking action against any of the trustees.” In a statement on the Rangers website, the charity foundation said that they would have lost over £12,000 ‘in pre-paid deposits and our ability to generously support worthy causes up and down the country would have undoubtedly suffered as a result’. The statement continues: “Extensive legal advice has been sought by the Foundation during the last year in order to enable new trustees to be appointed and new aspects of governance to be established. “These actions, which are now concluded, were an inevitable consequence of the situation faced by the Foundation following the changed circumstances of the Club - whether or not an investigation by OSCR had been opened. “Whilst it is regrettable that the Foundation was never party to the premise or nature of the original complaints made to OSCR ... the Foundation believes that supporters of the Foundation can be reassured that the Rangers Charity Foundation was and continues to be a force for good sustained in large part by the loyal support of the Rangers Family.”
-
Their tradition is offensive play and they were the more offensive team tonight. I believe they once let a manager go after winning the league because he didn't have the team playing in an adventurous and entertaining way. This club, perhaps more than any other, has a tradition of attacking play, and when they triumph, it is usually received well by neutrals who remember them dominating Europe in the early days of continental competition( before my time) by playing with style and panache. Compared to Italian clubs who tried to choke the life out of football, Madrid were a breath of fresh air and they won the hearts of many, including the Glasgow football public. Real Madrid now look down on everyone with ten European flags to their name - and a reputation that is still the envy of the rest.
-
Real Madrid. Ten times the champions of the greatest tournament in club football. Manager Ancelloti once commented: “In Real Madrid, it is not enough to win - you have to play well and in an offensive way". This is why Real Madrid are admired and respected. They want to play in a way that makes the game a spectacle; that provides entertainment, skill, adventure and risk. Royal Madrid have been a positive influence and force for good over many decades, and they deserve to be acknowledged as the greatest name in club football - the cream of the cream. Tonight, I applaud them and thank them for being an asset to the beautiful game, and a fine example for others to follow.
-
This is why the image has to be right. The press and media seem to be paying attention so it will reach fans who normally wouldn't hear about it.
-
Let's agree that the turnout was 600. Is this figure high or low? Depending on your point of view, it's both. If people don't want to believe that there's a genuine and popular protest from the support, it will be dismissed as a low number. If people do believe that the fans are unhappy, they will claim it is a healthy turnout. The art is in the spinning of the fact as much as it is in the fact itself. One point that might be worth making: leading figures in these protests should be sartorially impeccable. The Rangers support is obsessed with suits and collars and ties. Leaders or spokespeople really have to dress accordingly as their images are seen by more than just those who actually turn up. If the first impression isn't right, the message will be dismissed before it is even heard. It might seem like a small detail, but successful campaigns take care to get the small details right.
-
You're here. Good. You can keep everyone right!
-
As far as I know, this project isn't being organised by the RST. I believe it was an individual that came up with the idea and others have taken it on. They will certainly have spoken to the RST because profits go to the Trust to buy shares in Rangers, but I don't believe the RST is in charge of it. Plgsarmy will probably know the facts on this better than me.
-
The trick with these schemes is to keep everyone in the loop. If there's a delay - tell the customers. If there's an unexpected problem - tell the customers. People know this is a hastily arranged project and they will understand if there's a few hiccups - just as long as they are kept informed.
-
A future collector's item? Time will tell.
-
Indeed. We have owners who are largely unknown and a board whose members have allegiances to clubs other than Rangers. No wonder they need to have focus groups.
-
The failure to recognise that Rangers is damaged goods and beginning to have limited appeal is not just silly, it's negligent. Using terms like middle class is certainly simplistic, and although it probably antagonises folk who are sensitive about these things, it does get the point across. Our appeal is reducing. We can either pretend that it doesn't matter and attempt to define class until the club is history, or we can discuss these things in an effort to successfully address them.
-
Don't bank on it. The middle classes are increasingly reluctant to have their children following a club whose reputation is so poor. Rangers fans who have been 'inconvenienced' by their football allegiance start to wonder if they should encourage their children to take the same path - and neutrals generally see Rangers as a no-go area. Parents want their children to be advantaged in life; to attend good schools, to live in nice neighbourhoods, to have high standards, to behave well and to steer clear of areas that could be troublesome. These days, Rangers is not generally thought to be an enlightened place to be.
-
I don't agree with the direction of travel in society. I don't think a politically correct society is healthy and I certainly don't want people criminalised for being tasteless and uncouth, but we have to exist and flourish in society as it is - not as we wish it would be. Rangers is on the back foot in society, partly because of rogue ownership and incompetence, but also because it has lost influence within the sport; within government both locally and nationally, and because its large fanbase has minimum influence in high places - and when it takes centre stage for televised football, it tends not to present itself in a way that is attractive or endearing. When a football club sinks as low as we have, it really has to address negative issues constructively, because if it doesn't, a full recovery becomes harder to achieve. When the club is in disarray on and off the park to the extent that we are, it will lose people that it simply cannot afford to lose, and in my experience, this process is already well under way.
-
We are alienating our own. Society has changed and things that never used to raise an eyebrow now have people recoiling in horror. Whether we like it or not, the vocal presence of Rangers fans goes a long say to defining us, and when we hear, usually at away games, questionable songs and chants, a televised audience is listening as well as watching and wondering if Rangers really is the dinosaur that it is often portrayed to be. How many discerning parents want to bring their children up in an environment immersed in that? Sit and watch a televised Rangers game in the company of non-football people and justify the pride you have in your club in the face of the bilge coming from the terraces. Read forums where Rangers fans congregate and despair at the the lack of respect that people have for each other. This forum is not typical of the level of debate that can be found. There are some excellent contributors on busier forums, but I know a few who have become tired of the vitriol and monocultural tone, and now they no longer bother. I know people who are polite, well-mannered and articulate who have been banned for posting unpopular opinions on one of the busier forums - but not the busiest - and they have chucked it too. There is nothing worse than people who see themselves as 'real' Rangers fans sounding off about how staunch they are and decrying the rest. To be a big club, Rangers has to be a multilayered, multi-opinioned entity. Sadly, though, non-hardcore opinions don't fit in with the strident and often unthinking attitudes that some Rangers fans have, and if the debate can't cope with their opinions, and if they are banned from articulating them, we all suffer as the club begins to resemble the beast that our enemies constantly portray it to be. To be a big club, Rangers has to have an appeal across all classes in society. I'm not sure that it is doing that any more. I believe it is losing the middle class, and in doing so, it will diminish in status and pay a heavy and damaging price.
-
I broadly agree with this. I know it's a sensitive issue, but I suspect that Rangers is losing the middle class, and yes, I am aware that there is no definition of middle class which will satisfy everyone, but I'm sure you and others know what I mean. I see Rangers as the most proletariat fanbase in the country, not quite devoid of top professionals and business types, but with a very small number of them given the size of our support. I know terms like 'proletariat' can provoke and annoy, but they help to make the point and hopefully make people think about the issue. Celtic fans don't seem to give up on Celtic when they flourish in society. Indeed some Celtic fans become more Celtic-inclined as they mature and become financially and professionally successful. In my experience, Rangers fans sometimes grow out of the club they once loved when their careers advance. The reputation of Rangers is at an all-time low, and it will not easily recover - especially if the brightest in our community have either given up on the club or are content to keep it at a safe distance.
-
Some fans have been surprised and sickened - not at criticism from one to the other - but at the mindless abuse given out. It makes them wonder why they have an attachment to a club that has so many ill-mannered and uncouth fellow travellers. It makes them wonder if they belong any more. They begin to doubt their allegiance. Some will chuck it and they won't be back. When they have created productive and rewarding lives for themselves, they really don't need to be a part of a debate where abuse is the first option of the dumbed down and moronic.
-
The Assembly claims to represent 35,000 Rangers fans so many of those who thought they didn't belong to a supporter group actually did, but of course they didn't actively join it. As the Assembly has never been particularly visible or relevant, despite being funded by all of us, it is understandable that its 'members' didn't know that they were members. I don't think the Assembly has a bright future. I'd actually be surprised if it has a future at all. Re the 5% figure, if that comes from a recent dubious survey, it has no credibility. It could be more - or less.