Hildy
-
Posts
1,747 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Hildy
-
Well done and congratulations to St Johnstone. They were worthy winners in what was actually a pretty good final. I enjoyed it. It's good to see Perth getting its first major trophy.
-
How many tickets have been sold for this?
-
The mood for change is growing, and I welcome that. The Rangers support has been too tolerant for too long. If those who normally pay no attention to internal affairs at Rangers are starting to ask questions, and demanding convincing answers, there may be hope for us yet.
-
That's a fabulous start.
-
As far as I am aware, the kit is Nike.
-
The fundamentalist element is never happy. Nothing the RST could do could please them. Absolutely not a surprise.
-
It's a sad day when the Scottish Cup Final almost slips under the radar. Scottish football could do with a good contest between these sides.
-
You are not alone. Many fans are sick of this whole saga. The only long-term solution though is for the support to own the club. You probably think this rules out a rich man pumping money in, but it doesn't. Presidential candidates might promise to bring money to the table if they are elected. No-one is stopping them, but when they are presidents and do a bad job, we can get rid of them. When we have owners who do a bad job, we can be stuck with them indefinitely.
-
Think about it. You don't trust your fellow supporters, so instead you support a system where the club can be taken over by the likes of Craig Whyte, Charles Green and a variety of hedge funds and goodness knows who or what else. This is an extraordinary madness. This is Rangers fans playing Russian Roulette with their much-loved club. I am sometimes disappointed with the way the support conducts itself, but I still have a great deal of faith in it. The potential for Rangers as a fan-owned club has no limit. The potential for us as a club owned by bad, defective, misguided and greedy ownership is not only limited, it could turn out to be disastrous and terminal.
-
The money raised, I imagine, will be spent on shares as and when it is deemed safe and prudent to do so, but there is always risk. Nothing can guarantee viability and never-ending success. Life isn't like that. We don't have fan ownership now and we can't compete with Celtic. Are you suggesting that we sit it out until a billionaire takes a fancy to Rangers? We could grow old and weary doing that, and maybe witness the club disappearing altogether. Barcelona, Real Madrid and most top German clubs are fan-owned. They seem to do alright.
-
It matters that the club is in the hands of people who properly care for it. All of our problems are because the club is owned by inadequate or inappropriate ownership. The only way to change that is for the support to take responsibility for club ownership itself. There are risks buying shares, of course, but there really is no alternative. Somehow, the Rangers support must take its club back from the hedge funds and institutional monstrosities that care for Rangers about as much as you care for Ally McCoist's managerial methods.
-
I believe profits will be used to buy shares in Rangers. This could mean buying into a new issue, if a new issue happens, or it could mean buying them in the market place in the normal way. The more shares that fans hold, and the less that hedge funds and the like own, the better it should be for our general health and wellbeing.
-
'Judas' might be a wee bit on the strong side, but yes, it would certainly make a nice present for him.
-
I'm not saying it's something we shouldn't do, but you are right - youngsters would grow up using the new name if we had the same sponsor over a long period. There's also a slight risk that we could have a sponsor not really appropriate for a club of our stature. I could name a few that wouldn't be welcome, but maybe this isn't the right place to do it. I'm sure we can all think of examples. As for using the correct names instead of the name of the sponsor, did you call it the Ramsden's Cup or the Challenge Cup? The name of the sponsor really can become the most readily used title.
-
What a good idea! A simple idea, but a good one, and someone has actually got it off the ground. Great stuff.
-
This fascinates me. I know you are not alone in speaking up for those who 'put up the money'. I've heard a number of people making the same point. It seems bizzare though that a loyalty is quickly formed towards people who put up the money even though their reasons for doing so are unclear or suspicious. Sometimes people put up the money because they have identified a way to multiply their investment many times over, and if the club, stadium, training ground and team are neglected in the process, they really don't care. There is no group of people on God's Earth more easily exploited than football fans. Business types worked that out a long time ago. They tell the fans what they want to hear and watch as they roll over submissively. Those who 'put up the money' are not always the heroes that they are made out to be.
-
I have no wish to attack or undermine Chris Graham or SOS, but I do think the UOF has to be able to answer questions like Brahim's convincingly. Chris has the respect of many Rangers fans for his media appearances, but while SOS has friends too, I know several very reasonable people who have no wish to be represented by it, and that's putting it mildly. It maybe has a role to play, but I'm not sure that it should be at the cutting edge where negotiations are concerned. The UOF needs to be seen to be as democratic as it can be at all times. We want an end to self-appointed people running the club. It's important then that we should keep what are sometimes perceived to be self-appointed unelected groups and individuals at a safe distance when sensitive discussions are taking place.
-
No-one. That's the problem - and two wrongs don't make a right. No-one is elected to run Rangers - they just buy their way to the top table. If we are against such a system, we surely have to make sure our own methods stand up to scrutiny. The question still stands. Who elected them?
-
He has a point. On what democratic basis do they get to represent fans? Fan groups have to work hard to earn and retain credibility. Those who negotiate on their behalf must have a legitimate democratic reason for being there. If unelected people are attending negotiations, folk have every right to ask why they are there.
-
I think King would be the likely buyer at this time if an opportunity came up to buy the club. Price? Anyone's guess. Circumstances and timing will play a role in determining the price.
-
Changes on the board will perhaps slow the ship down, but it will still likely remain on course to hit the iceberg. The penny is starting to drop in the broader Rangers community that the club is not in safe hands, and this is a bit of a milestone. An area which has been largely impenetrable up to now has finally seen the light and registered its concern that all is not well. Maybe this is the time to go the distance and play hardball, not just to secure assets, but to create the circumstances where the owners of Rangers will welcome the opportunity to sell up. It may not work, of course, but then again, it just might.
-
The problem for the UOF, if they agree a deal, is whether they can deliver their end of the bargain, and that means many thousands of ST renewals. I'm not sure there is a mood to compromise now. If an unsatisfactory deal is agreed, it isn't going to be enough for those who want rid of the present regime and sense that it is on the run. It reminds me of the Iraq/Kuwait situation back in the last century. Kuwait was liberated but the root of the problem wasn't dealt with until a later date. If Ibrox and Murray Park are given a limited form of protection, will this really be satisfactory if the nasty ogre remains in power? Between the garbage served up on the pitch and a growing militancy off it, it may be difficult for the UoF to agree to anything which is a less than a decisive victory. It really can't risk alienating its own side - not after so many people have shown a willingness to finally take a stand against the club being badly run.
-
Would this proposed agreement be worth the paper it was written on if Rangers went into administration or suffered another liquidation event? It might be 'legally binding' but would it be legally binding in every eventuality?
-
What is a fair price? One party's fair price is another party's exorbitant price. And is it a fact that less than a thousand have signed up to the King scheme?
-
The Rangers support knows what it doesn't want. It always knows that. Rarely though does it know what it does want, other than for a billionaire to arrive and spend countless millions on elite players.