Hildy
-
Posts
1,747 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Hildy
-
The important point here seems to be this: We all want to be loyal to the club, each and every one of us, but this means paying large sums of money to a company that owns and controls the club, and there is a growing and fairly widespread view that it is not fit for purpose. How then can people be loyal to the club when its controlling company isn't trusted? How can we look after the club when it belongs to faceless owners, and not us? As things stand under this regime, I foresee a future of mediocrity and disappointment. I believe that the Rangers castle has started to crumble and it will keep on crumbling until it finally disappears under a cloud of dust. The only way to arrest this situation is to interfere and bring matters to a head. Of course, there is no guarantee that this will launch us on a path to success and silverware, but the alternative, as I see it, is a lingering and painful finality. If Dave King steps up, he may turn out to be a disappointment, but I find it hard to believe that he would not be an improvement on our current owners. If he gains a controlling interest, I would want him to engage with fans to turn Rangers into a fan-owned entity, because if he does not, there will be another ownership crisis in the future - and Charles Green II could be waiting - or Craig Whyte II lurking. I'm prepared to take a risk now in the hope that Rangers can find a better way to go forward. The alternative, plodding on while professing undying loyalty, might give us a warm glow inside, but it will not stop our decline and eventual demise. We are in a high risk game and no-one is sure whether to stick or twist. For me, it's the latter, and we all know the risks attached. The alternative favours the banker - and he knows it. For Rangers to recover, change now is more agreeable than change later. Let the revolution commence.
-
I wonder if this is the beginning of the end of the season ticket 'culture' at Ibrox.
-
106 Beechwood Drive. Nice neighbourhood.
-
If I had put £20m into Rangers in the past, and it was well known, and if had stated publicly that I was prepared to put another £50m towards the club in the right circumstances, I would not be impressed by calls urging me to place such a large sum in an escrow account. My response would probably not be appropriate for a respectable forum like this one. I am not one of King's followers, but I believe he has the money and a willingness to spend it, but only when he believes the circumstances are right, which is fair enough and perfectly reasonable. We have certainly been too trusting in the past, but King has shown by past deeds that he will put money into Rangers. Expecting him to put £50m in an escrow account is unrealistic and bordering on insulting - especially as many see him as the last credible hope for our floundering club.
-
They will have Celtic fans and others 'joining' this scheme in an attempt to mess things up. They will doubtless have some kind of mechanism to identify a rogue element, but they will still have to take great care before coming out publicly with a total. They will probably be hoping to go public when the figure achieved is respectable or impressive. I don't blame them for taking their time over it.
-
Was there a particular reason that Gough didn't get involved? He refused to be a supporter of the one decent initiative that we've had but has now opted to back an idea that is more of a publicity stunt than a credible plan? Maybe it's just as well that ex-players keep a safe distance when the chips are down. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
-
The mighty Rangers has been cast adrift on a sea of uncertainty. It might never again find a safe haven. The idea that such a thing could happen has shocked young and old alike. We were supposed to be the establishment club, robust and indestructible, and yet it is all falling apart. Our fathers and grandfathers thought this was unimaginable, but they could not have been more wrong. Finally, some of us are asking pertinent questions, but even now, with us all at sea, the meek acceptance of the masses has paralysed the support and made it a cash cow for the unscrupulous. At what point do we stop trusting folk who turn up, overpay themselves, milk the club for as much as they can get and care for it with only a fraction of the feeling you have for it? Rangers needs a revolution, but it won't happen until we abandon the deferential and start taking full responsibility for a club that will never properly flourish again until we do.
-
I think there is an automatic loyalty from some in the Rangers support towards anyone who 'steps up and pays'. It seems that a fat wallet buys not only the ownership of the club, but the loyalty of many of those who follow it. Paying the asking price instantly makes a person the rightful custodian of the club in the eyes of some and it takes a lot to shift them from this point of view. All manner of shortcomings are overlooked because they 'stepped up when no-one else did'. In other words, a new owner arrives as a hero and it takes quite an effort to convince folk that he might not be. They just don't want to hear it. The very act of buying Rangers makes a person or company a legitimate and respected leader of a million Rangers fans. Is it any wonder we got into all this bother?
-
Would you trust McCoist with £50m of your money? A good manager could get as much value with significantly less. In our position, it is vital that we have a good manager. It is completely irresponsible to hand over a generous budget to an ordinary or poor manager.
-
The people who own and run the club have made this mess all by themselves. Thousands no longer trust the club when it speaks out and this is a sorry state of affairs. Adopting a diplomatic and conciliatory approach might win people back, but implying that seats will be lost when the stadium will have plenty of vacant space is the politics of the bloody-minded. People don't want to do business with this regime. I don't blame them.
-
The board can say what it likes, but if its utterances are perceived to be in bad taste, or threatening, or foolish, it will pay a price for being indelicate. King has the luxury of being an outsider. The club is the club and it should be able to articulate its viewpoint in a way that does not antagonise people who are contemplating abandoning it.
-
The tactics of the King camp don't come into it. The club is behaving inappropriately towards people that it needs to be onside. If it wants to alienate them, it is going the right way about it. King is not the club. He can afford to be provocative and direct. The club should have standards of behaviour that are impeccable. If it cannot make a point without resorting to what many see as blackmail, it is falling well below the standards expected of it.
-
This is undoubtedly true. We are most definitely losing support because the football is rotten. Add in boardroom troubles though, and the situation gets worse. If a new regime does materialise any time soon, it will have to address the managerial situation as one of its first priorities. Keeping McCoist in the job is no longer an option.
-
No matter what happens with the King scheme, ST numbers are likely to be down next season although they could pick up as the campaign progresses. Those who put off renewing, or change their minds about it, are likely to be able to pick and choose from the thousands of seats available. If they lose their old seat they will still be able to find plenty of seats together to enable them to be with friends and/or family. When the club implies that ST holders could lose their existing seats, it sinks even lower in the minds of those fans who already have suspicions about the way it is going about its business. The club has already enraged the Facebook community by its thoughtless actions, and now it is trying to blackmail people into renewing by suggesting that they could lose their seats. This is bad form and could backfire. If people decide to renew after the deadline and are denied their old seat, some will choose to pay on a game by game basis instead, and once they do that, they will not become ST holders again in a hurry.
-
To a lot of people, it probably is new. This King initiative is receiving blanket coverage in the papers. It will be reaching places that football forums rarely do. If it does nothing else but put people on their guard about the way the club is run, it will have achieved something.
-
Little leaves while Hegarty and Perry told to find new clubs
Hildy replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
Arveladze was a class act. From his first goal for us it was apparent that we had unearthed a gem. He should never have been out the team. -
Re-arranged possible title decider of the u20 under way
Hildy replied to der Berliner's topic in Rangers Chat
Football is filled with cliches and I've yet to see one which rings true. For youngsters, competing and winning is important, but so is technique, fitness, development and attitude. For us at Rangers, the only trophies that matter should be major national and international ones. Youth cups and lower division titles are barely worthy of mention. I'd rather have a reserve or youth team that delivered one quality player to the top team every year than one which piled up trophies and never produced a Rangers-class adult player. -
Maybe that's why you can accept Rangers as it is - because you accept whatever regime comes along like you accept whatever government is elected. Britain is a civilised and mostly enlightened country, and democracy has played a significant role in making it what it is. Rangers is an unenlightened club that thinks it's a business when really it's a social and sporting gathering. It is about as enlightened as a rotten borough. It is in urgent need of reform.
-
I can't think what it is. I want the right to have a say. I am glad that this right has been won for me, and for everyone. I always use it. It would be unthinkable not to.
-
The game has to be played out, Andy. When elections come around, politicians make statements to win hearts and minds. This isn't an election, but it is a battle to win enough hearts and minds to make a decisive difference, and it is being conducted in a relatively civilised manner. I have no problem with statement and counter-statement being made. The UOF might not be starting a revolution, but what they are doing is surely better than nothing at all. Somehow, Rangers needs to change. I have no faith in the club as things stand. It is a shadow of what it should be - could be. If the King company fails in its objective, but accelerates regime change along the way, it won't have been a waste of time.
-
Could he become a director in the King/Gough company?
-
If it attracts 10,000, it will have made a point. If it can get to 15,000, it can no longer be dismissed as a troublesome minority. If it gets more than 15,000, it will be a very credible entity.
-
I broadly agree with that, but I wonder what the board reaction will be if renewals are well down and the King company attracts a number that is hard to ignore. We can only speculate about the figures for now, but while I don't think we'll see security being handed over, I wonder if a point will be reached where a compromise of sorts will be thrashed out.
-
It wasn't generally believed that Murray held fans in contempt. For most of Murray's tenure, he was overwhelmingly popular. This regime is probably less popular than Murray ever was - even towards the end. People genuinely thought that he'd make sure the club was handed over to an appropriate new custodian, blissfully unaware of bank pressure on Murray to unload Rangers on to the first genuine buyer who came along.
-
I like Kenny Miller. He comes across as an intelligent fellow who knows what he wants and how to get it. A third stint at Ibrox must put him into a very exclusive club and I don't blame him for returning. I wish him every success for his next two years in a blue jersey - if this rumour is true. Viewed from a management perspective though, this type of signing is not to be applauded. Will we see moves in a year or two for Steve Davies, Steven Whittaker, Bougherra, Naismith, Charlie Adam and other assorted former players - and this is no criticism of any of them? I wouldn't rule it out. It seems to be the easy option for a management trio that doesn't seem to know the market as well as it should.