Hildy
-
Posts
1,747 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Hildy
-
Set up a fund that is specifically designed to prevent the financial collapse of the Rangers fan who is being sued. The RFFF, if it backs this guy, will have effectively conned thousands of its contributors who would probably never have imagined that their cash could have been spent like this. Imagine if a separate fund is set up to help the SOS guy, and it spends a large amount of its money on something other than helping the very person that it exists to help. Wouldn't people be right to be angry that their money had been diverted from its original intention? When groups are set up to achieve good things, they should be properly and carefully organised. The RFFF doesn't even have a live website with a running total to let fans know how much is in the bank. The support will surely assist this guy if things get to a dangerous stage, but it should do so in the right manner. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
-
As far as I can see, the RFFF is an entity with a committee and no members. It has a fund of around half a millions from known and anonymous sources. It seems to have no elections, little or no accountability, a website that isn't working and an absence of a written constitution. It seems to be a half-baked, hastily-cobbled together, club-inspired hotch-potch that can basically spend this rather large sum of money in any way that it chooses whether this is in keeping with its original concept or totally alien to it. It is an example of everything a fan group should not be. If anyone can add to or amend the above, please feel free to do so. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
-
Davie Moyes? Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
-
The RFFF was set up to help the club and financially assisting a guy who is being sued is not in tune with its intent, but the RFFF seems to be a law unto itself. Who will hold it to account if it spends money on a cause inconsistent with its declared aim? If I remember correctly, it gave money to Dunfermline shortly after it was up and running and this was a voluntary payout that went against its stated aims. Perhaps others will remember the detail. I wouldn't want to see this chap ruined if the case goes the distance so a fund to help him is a good idea, but if the RFFF picks up the tab it is going to alienate a good number of fans who contributed to it and cause further division within the support. An independent fund is surely a better option because it can be supported by those who specifically wish to help and ignored by those who do not. The RFFF looks to have been caught between a rock and a hard place. Maybe that's why it has opted out of making a decision and passed the buck to a more general meeting - whatever that means.
-
I share the concerns of those who are worried that Ally McCoist will be in charge of spending around £30m in the next few years. King will be making a huge mistake if he pumps money into the club to have it spent by an unrated manager. It will be a waste of his money and cause an unnecessary delay in our recovery. If Dave King and friends spend £30-50m and Rangers don't win the league, the cupboard will be bare again when Ally is finally shown the door. A managerial change is essential before new money comes in. We simply cannot afford to have another pile of cash wasted.
-
There's only one way to find out.
-
Yes, we most certainly can. We need to leave this era where it belongs - in the past.
-
Once the current management team are shown the door, advertise the position and find out. I would expect there to be huge interest in taking on the Rangers job.
-
He may be a better manager than McCoist, but that doesn't mean we should be considering him if he is sacked by Forest. There seems to be a clique of fans who have wanted him at Rangers for quite some time. I get the impression that they'd want him no matter how poorly he performed elsewhere and that they'd defend him no matter how badly he did at Rangers. When McCoist leaves, we should be looking at better alternatives than Billy Davies.
-
Lennon has a hard task boosting his managerial credibility at Celtic. He's winning a league that can't be lost and under-achieving in the Cups. On the plus side, he has taken his team through the qualifiers to enter the CL and he even managed to advance from the group stage last season, but this isn't enough to tempt big-spending English clubs. While the Scottish media tends to view his associations with controversy kindly, perhaps this isn't a feeling that is shared south of the border. He will leave at some point of course, but he will never be sacked by Celtic. When he moves on, expect a glut of stories telling us that he has been driven out. When the parting eventually comes, not all Celtic fans will be disappointed. Some of them will be glad that a change is being made, and for those listening very carefully, they may even detect a sigh of relief that a new chapter at Celtic is about to begin.
-
What worries me is that Celtic have a coherent and influential input into the way football is run, and we don't. What worries me is that Celtic are influential in politics, and we aren't. What worries me is that Rangers has become a peripheral force in Scottish football and a complete non-entity in influential circles in society. What worries me is that the intelligence, intellect and even the will to address our problems is rarely in evidence. What worries me is that we do not seem to be equipped to deal with the many problems that threaten us.
-
I have no problem with Celtic fans publicly displaying their views and exposing their soul. It is a reminder to discerning people everywhere that they should keep a safe distance from this club. It's far healthier for all concerned that their views are publicly aired. Let the world see them for what they really are. Putting a gag on them is foolish and naive. It only drives their more sinister elements underground. Keep them in the light. Let everyone see and hear them - and then make their own judgement.
-
A welcome move. The binning of bad law should always be celebrated, but it's incredible that the Labour Party is now looking like the good guy in this farce. It was Labour's Jack McConnell who started the bandwagon rolling, and the SNP only jumped on reluctantly after an Old Firm flare-up. Initially, they were reluctant to legislate, but what was eventually put together was sinister and an affront to freedom and liberal democracy. What we are seeing though is not just a victory for commonsense and freedom, but also a triumph for Celtic. Its favoured party, the Labour Party, has fallen into line and a future Labour administration will tear up this vile piece of Holyrood junk. Let's not forget: Celtic rubbished this law publicly, and now, five minutes later, the Scottish Labour Party has committed itself to getting rid of it. The Rangers support could have opposed this law 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year until the next millennium and not a word would have been altered. And unlike Celtic, Rangers would never have dared to publicly oppose any law, no matter how repulsive it was. This is where we are at. Celtic FC is a credible and influential force in football and in Scottish society - and Rangers is a joke - and nothing is going to change any time soon.
-
This money will have to be spent responsibly, and it should not go anywhere near any of the other fan groups. To spend it carelessly would kill future fundraising stone dead. The last thing we need is money raised in good faith being given to a group or groups that haven't earned the right to receive it. The outcry if this happens would be considerable, and very, very damaging.
-
It shouldn't be up to individual fans to make contact. The fund is in place and in the care of a committee set up specifically to look after it. The very least the committee should do is to keep people up to date with the total and any decisions that it makes with regard to how the money is spent - even if there are no immediate plans to spend any of it.
-
When did the RFFF last do the smart thing and make an official statement about the size of the fund and its intentions for it? The rainy day scenario makes sense, but when was this ever made clear to the thousands of fans who paid into it? Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
-
There was no plan B? Oldco is currently being buried. So where does the money go now? Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
-
One has to wonder why the company controlling the club is borrowing money on commercial terms - which are not generally thought to be in Rangers' best interests - when a fund that was specifically set up to assist it financially is not contributing a penny piece. Did Rangers approach the RFFF for financial help? Did the RFFF refuse their request? Has the RFFF even discussed the matter? Maybe the RFFF has reservations about the current regime at Ibrox, which is fair enough, but when Rangers are borrowing money commercially while a fund that could contribute around a third of the money required is lying dormant, questions really have to be asked. If Rangers approached the RFFF, we should be told. If it didn't, we should ask why not. Fans must have raised around £600,000 for this fund. What exactly is it for?
-
I reckon the fund must have around half a million pounds in it. Surely contributors should know exactly how much is in it? Is there an up-to-date figure on this anywhere? Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
-
This is what the RFFF is for: 'Money raised through the 'Fighting Fund' will go to the club's running costs.' The OP is perfectly within his rights to be asking questions about this fund. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
-
For what it's worth, if a wealthy individual bought Rangers and opted to sell it to the Rangers support at no profit to himself, the dynamic around fan ownership would change overnight. Suddenly, it would be seen to be a tangible reality for the majority rather than a lofty ideal for the few, and it would be perfectly achievable. People who don't know one fan group from another would come on board because it would quickly be seen as the right path to follow. If it ever happens, I would hope that the rich individual concerned sells the club to the support rather than gifting it. I want the support to stump up an affordable amount. I don't want or expect charity from anyone, no matter how loaded they happen to be.
-
If people are going to make the case for ticket allocation based on average gates, they should be aware that it could disadvantage us in the future, and in the one game that we really don't want it to. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
-
If we want to see tickets being allocated on the basis of average home gates, and if our return to the top tier sees Ibrox and Parkhead being almost sold out every other week, are we prepared for an imbalance in ticket allocations for Old Firm cup finals and semi-finals? If Celtic average 58,000 and we attract 10,000 less, there will be no more 50/50 splits in Old Firm games. Celtic will get more.
-
I wasn't on here then, but what you say doesn't shock me.
-
'Club' and ''company' are indeed separate entities. I assume you have always made this distinction and not just since liquidation occurred. Traditionally, we have always spoken about the club having a view - "the club must speak out" - rather than the company, but as we are all now aware, they are not the same - which is a blessed relief. As for Dave King, if he threw in the towel tomorrow, I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep. We depend far too much on people like him saving the day. I'd be a lot happier if the faith we place in Dave King was placed in ourselves. And you and I could buy Rangers tomorrow and not have a single plan in place. Anyone who endorses a scenario where this can occur is surely not troubled by Dave King not laying out his plans. Any future owner of Rangers is not required to publish a blueprint for the future - and even if they were forced to do so, they could declare that they were going to sell Ibrox and we still couldn't stop them from doing it. We have watched the Rangers CEO tell us that the financial short to medium term was okay, and then take out a crisis loan a few months later - and it is a needlessly expensive loan. Why would anyone give this lot 120 days?