Jump to content

 

 

Hildy

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,747

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Hildy

  1. Hildy
    I think you can understand why I have drawn attention to this. When I saw those words last night, it would be a massive understatement to say that I was merely disappointed.
  2. Hildy
    Remember what was said: "In any event, as was suggested last night, the RST/BR will soon have to consider whether they shouldn't transfer their holdings to the CIC for the greater good." This suggests that the writer has his own opinion, which he is of course entitled to, but that someone else present in the room holds the same view - 'as was suggested last night'. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
  3. Hildy
    I informed fellow Rangers fans who are friends of mine.
  4. Hildy
    My reply was direct and uncompromising but it did not reflect the feather-spitting rage that people felt when informed about what had been said. When I see a more compromising tone from people involved with this scheme, I may reply in kind, but the contentious opinion expressed last night merited exactly what it got.
  5. Hildy
    Believe me, Zappa, when I informed others of the words in question here, their replies, unlike my post, we're completely unprintable. His opinion, as far as I can see, still stands, and although it appears to be inconvenient for others who have bought into the scheme, it is a view that people will not easily forget or ignore, and nor should they. Mending fences and building bridges will not happen when perceptions such as this from one close to, and indeed part of, the scheme see the light of day. It may be the view of one person, but when that person is the one bringing updates on meetings to this website, it simply cannot be glossed over or ignored.
  6. Hildy
    This new scheme has been sold as a benign entity, an alternative means of striving for fan ownership, another model to try alongside BuyRangers, and then after a meeting of the main players, this assertion was boldly put: "In any event, as was suggested last night, the RST/BR will soon have to consider whether they shouldn't transfer their holdings to the CIC for the greater good." Take out "as was suggested last night" and you are left with the crux: In any event, the RST/BR will soon have to consider whether they shouldn't transfer their holdings to the CIC for the greater good. This is the future choice for BuyRangers then, stated by someone with an inside track into what is going on at Rangersfirst. Does it sound conciliatory? Does it imply cooperation? Or does it come across as empire building and threatening? My answer to those remarks was emphatic and entirely appropriate after reading such a provocative statement. The remarks shone a light into the dark recesses of the Rangersfirst scheme, and demonstrated that those who have serious doubts about it are absolutely right to be concerned.
  7. Hildy
    It is indeed your personal opinion, Brahim, and from reading your posts about this group, you seem to be one of its heavy hitters and probably more experienced in matters of this nature than some of the others. That's why your opinion is taken so seriously. You are on the inside looking out. You are a credible part of it.
  8. Hildy
    I am astonished at the following words which were posted earlier in the thread: "In any event, as was suggested last night, the RST/BR will soon have to consider whether they shouldn't transfer their holdings to the CIC for the greater good." Here it is for all to see; a less than diplomatic approach, an implication that the one true faith has been discovered, and a casual dismissal of the alternative. Unity? This is unity on Rangersfirst terms. Let's work together, they say, but what respectable organisation would work with a so-called partner grouping that is at ease displaying what some might perceive to be a rather high and mighty attitude? The illuminating words above have let the cat out the bag. They have given credence to Rangersfirst doubters and ammunition to Rangersfirst enemies. It's there in black and white - BuyRangers will have to consider whether to transfer its holding to this new group - for the greater good. Let me respond. It'll be a cold, cold day in hell before my share in BuyRangers comes within a million miles of Rangersfirst's clutching mittens.
  9. Hildy
    That's pretty much how I feel too. I'm also out. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
  10. Hildy
    Celtic, today, for their own one-eyed reasons, have done football fans, and the very worthy cause of freedom of expression, a large favour with their very public opposition to this law. There are no circumstances, none whatsoever, where Rangers would dare to take such a bold stand against the government, but Celtic, out of naked self-interest, have created a very interesting situation at a particularly interesting time. If the law holds, the SNP will have won itself a powerful enemy, and with the referendum approaching, they may not be keen to do so. If they bin this law, as they should, Celtic will emerge as a heroic football club to both its supporters and civil liberties groups, and also be seen as a force to be reckoned with throughout the land. Even if Celtic are denied, their stance will win them admirers for standing up to a law which has no place on the stature books of any country that genuinely believes itself to be a mature democracy. Whatever happens next, Celtic will be seen as a club that fights for its fans - and against oppressive laws that discriminate against them. We may not have heard the last of that famous line from twenty years ago - the rebels have won. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
  11. Hildy
    Today's interesting new development, and it's a very welcome one from Celtic Football Club: Celtic FC have set themselves on a collision course with the Scottish Government after an early review of controversial laws intended to stamp out religious sectarian abuse was rejected as "nonsensical". The club issued a sternly worded statement on Tuesday evening after MSP Roseanna Cunningham rejected suggestions at Holyrood that the review should be brought forward from the deadline, due in August 2015. The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act received Royal Assent in January 2012 and an agreement was made at the time to review the offences after two full football seasons but Celtic says the laws are "unhelpful" and should be reviewed now "as a matter of urgency". The club statement said: "Celtic have called for a review of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Grounds Act to be brought forward and have labelled it 'unhelpful and counter-productive'. "The Scottish Government introduced the legislation in 2012 and promised a review after two full football seasons of operation. However, Celtic believe that there is already sufficient evidence of the Act's 'unhelpfulness and negative impacts' to justify an immediate review with action to follow. "Celtic have all along opposed this legislation which has been used to create a general presumption that different laws should apply to football supporters as distinct from society as a whole. "This has inevitably led to a sense of discrimination across Scottish football and has brought the law into disrepute when tested in the criminal courts. It has also acted as a barrier to our own efforts to encourage supporters to behave in a way which is consistent with the club's proud history and reputation. "We believe the Scottish Government should review, as a matter of urgency, the way in which this unhelpful and counter-productive Act is operating." The club said they have always valued a positive relationship with the police and is concerned that they have been put in the position of enforcing legislation which is "provocative and does not command widespread respect". They say that the Act has brought the law into disrepute and to report back to Parliament one year later, but concerns have since been raised by fans about police tactics and the Act in general. Minister for community safety Roseanna Cunningham had earlier insisted that the review would not be moved from August 2015, when Stirling University researchers are due to publish findings. She told MSPs on Holyrood's Justice Committee: "Until August 2014, they haven't got all the information. It's at that point they start to be doing all the analysis of the two full years work. "We are now a good two years down the line from this being implemented and we're coming close to the end of that two-year review period the Act provided for. "I just don't really see any great need for that to be changed. I couldn't now step in and ask them to do something differently to what they've been instructed. "That process, because it's being done independently, because it's being done through Stirling University, is going to give a proper, comprehensive, quality-assured, evidence-based evaluation which will be — I hesitate to say incontrovertible, because nothing is ever incontrovertible — but it will be as solid a piece of work as you could possibly expect." Asked if anything could happen before the 2015 deadline, such as in interim report, she replied: "No, it would be nonsensical to do something while this review was ongoing when we know the review is going to be published — they're the independent researchers, they're the ones that will be able to tell us something needs to be tweaked or not." The legislation gives police and prosecutors new powers to tackle sectarian songs and abuse at and around football matches, as well as threats posted on the internet or through the mail. It created two distinct offences, punishable through a range of penalties up to a maximum five years in prison and an unlimited fine.
  12. Hildy
    A very good piece from the Rangers Standard. Should we condemn the board now or mull it over for 120 days?
  13. Hildy
    If Wallace had asked for 1,020 days, the message would have been the same - give him time. There are too many danger signs to do that. One minute our short to medium term existence is secure, and then two months later we're applying for a crisis loan. It is a complete nonsense to wait 120 days before asking hard questions.
  14. Hildy
    Sky News carried the story too.
  15. Hildy
    It's good that all the groups are working together. It's good too that Dave King has publicly declared the one person owner model to be undesirable. This makes it much easier to work with him now. He may not be endorsing fan ownership as it is generally recognised, but I think he's starting to move in that direction - maybe only a little bit - but every little bit helps. It would have been difficult to back him if he had ambitions to be the next SDM, but if he has finally come round to the realisation that this model should be banished forever, he may be a man we can do business with.
  16. Hildy
    John Lennon neglected to use this line, so I'll do it for him: imagine there's no Rangers. If Rangers had gone bust and disappeared altogether, or if we actually do self-destruct in the next few years, how will we be remembered as the years pass? In 50 years, how will history remember the extinct Rangers? Not well - and that's the diplomatic way of saying it. Do you think Scotland will look back fondly with sweet memories of Rangers, or will it be glad to have rid itself of a club that became a national embarrassment? I'll give you a clue - it won't be the former. Rangers will be portrayed as a club where sectarianism and intolerance were a way of life. Families with Rangers fans in their past will keep quiet about it. I don't pretend that this future Scotland is going to be an enlightened place, but I do promise you that Rangers will be remembered badly no matter how it turns out. Will this be justified? No, it won't, but just listen to our vocal support sometimes. Does its more uncouth repertoire make you proud - or make you cringe? Society has changed, and it has changed in a way that many of us do not approve of, but as it moves forward, Rangers seems to be getting dragged along behind it rather than playing an active and valuable part in it. In some quarters, we are viewed as a dinosaur. On the park, that might be true, but off it, we simply cannot afford to be a throwback that society would rather see the back of. I believe that fan ownership can transform us. Rather than fearing it, I believe that the responsibility that will go with it will make Rangers a better club, a more enlightened institution and a far greater asset to both Glasgow and Scotland. Under random and seriously flawed owners, we will never reform this club. Under our own steam, we just might. Fan ownership can, and I hope will, be our salvation.
  17. Hildy
    King has made discouraging noises in the past about fan ownership, so imagine my surprise when I read this bit: "I do not believe that Rangers should be under the control of one owner/benefactor. We have already seen the damage that has been caused at Rangers (and many other clubs) when the club becomes a hostage to the fluctuating whims and wealth of a single owner." He may not be advocating fan ownership in the strictest sense here, but he does appear to have realised, as we all should, that a random single owner is potentially ruinous and highly undesirable. I think he's moved his position, and in the right direction too. Finally, the King can see the benefits of the democratic way.
  18. Hildy
    "I do not believe that Rangers should be under the control of one owner/benefactor. We have already seen the damage that has been caused at Rangers (and many other clubs) when the club becomes a hostage to the fluctuating whims and wealth of a single owner." Dave King (from a statement just released)
  19. Hildy
    Fan ownership at Rangers can work the way it does at Barcelona, Real Madrid or at the many German clubs that are fan-owned. It's up to us to adopt a system that we think will work for us. We need it to give us stability of ownership and the ability to plan ahead. We also need it to make sure the right people are running the show. At the moment, the club could be sold overnight. It could become the property of people with dangerous intentions - indeed it already has. The days of the club changing hands as often as a suburban bungalow have to end. When it is firmly anchored to the support, we will have the opportunity to make Rangers something special, something better than before, something wonderful. Right now, we chat endlessly about every aspect of the club and those who are in charge do exactly what they want. They need to make money. When we own the club, it will function to suit us - not random buyers who have spotted a chance to make a quick buck.
  20. Hildy
    Just to clarify - I wrote it. It crossed my mind that it might not be welcome here, but I know there are people on this forum prepared to look at articles like this and dwell on the content rather than dismissing it out of hand. Make of it what you will.
  21. Hildy
    Stand back and survey the scene. The institution that once believed itself to be Scotland's premier football club; a national monument, an establishment-protected icon, a pillar of excellence and endeavour, is in disarray once again. The red brick Ibrox facade hides a multitude of sins and an array of secrets. The Old Lady is a bank of opportunity for hedge funds and a safe haven for overpaid, bonus-ridden, bean-counters. Its fading grandeur reflects the impoverishment of its host, and like a stately home with a leaky roof and a never-ending list of repairs, the old ground has an uncertain future. The Old Lady is a victim of the disease of avarice. As she struggles to hide the scars of neglect, a succession of carers has swanned off into the sunset with money-laden suitcases, and now a crisis loan is required to pay bills and keep third division players on top division wages. Rangers' problems have not gone away. Maybe they never will. As smaller football clubs receive public sympathy for their financial difficulties, Rangers, uniquely, stands accused of depriving schools and hospitals of income. As football minnows wallow in victim-status, Rangers is in the dock, roundly condemned by press comment and regularly vilified by public opinion. The world has changed: Scotland has changed: the political establishment has changed. Rangers has become a misfit. In modern Scotland, the club has few friends and even less powerful allies. The club has been so denigrated in recent decades that it taints reputations merely by association. As the club flounders and falters, there is an almost unspoken hope in polite society that its final act will be to disappear altogether. To Rangers fans, this is an unpalatable prospect, but there are people across Scotland - not just Celtic fans - whose most fervent wish is that Rangers goes away: permanently. To them, Rangers represents intolerance, sectarianism and bigotry, and in this hypersensitive and politically correct age, the club is perceived to be an anachronism that has outlived its usefulness. They want it to wither and die because only hardcore bigots and sectarian morons will mourn it. Decent people, in their eyes, will be glad to see the back of it. Beleaguered Rangers fans can attempt to deflect blame, point the finger elsewhere and proclaim innocence, but no-one is listening. The jury has already made its mind up. Rangers has lost the respect of a nation and edged towards the precipice. It has become the black sheep of Scottish football. Administration and liquidation didn't kill the club, but they highlighted something that should be deeply concerning to a support which aches for a leader to look up to and respect. Within the million-strong Rangers fanbase, there is a noticeable lack of people who have the means to rescue the club and the willingness to actually do so. When David Murray bought Rangers in the late nineteen-eighties, it seemed like a marriage made in heaven. Scotland's biggest club had been taken over by a young businessman who had the means, the cojones and the ambition to further the Rangers cause, and enhance his own reputation along the way. From being a well-known business figure, Murray quickly became a household name, and he relished the fame that was part and parcel of being owner of Scotland's establishment club. In time, he became Sir David Murray - a dream come true for a man whose ego matched his not inconsiderable bank balance. Would a thrusting young Scottish businessman buy Rangers today, or would he prefer to duck the opportunity and steer clear of the hassle that being custodian of Rangers brings? Given that there are no budding David Murrays knocking on the Ibrox front door, it would appear to be the latter. What respectable businessman or woman would want to take on an ailing institution that has incinerated millions of pounds at an alarming rate and now has to borrow to keep the wheels on the wagon? What entrepreneur needs his name associated with a club whose existence is played out while the spectre of sectarianism still haunts it? What hard-won reputation wants to take a chance on a club that habitually pays out too much money for too little reward? What business type would enjoy being the man or woman to sack the club's management team and bring in new blood more appropriate for the task ahead? Would the young David Murray be as quick to buy Rangers in 2014 as he was in 1988? Rangers Football Club is a bloody mess. The team plays dreadful football, the club spends exorbitant sums in the process, it makes the undeserving rich, it is owned by people whose God is greed; it has a reputation that will take years to repair, it can't afford to look after its stadium, and its fans excuse incompetence out of a misguided sense of loyalty. The Rangers support, for the most part, doesn't welcome soul-searching and reflection. It prefers to talk itself up and believe that a full recovery is not only possible, but likely, and this is a mistake. Rangers urgently needs to be re-born. In a relatively short time, the club has descended from being the centre of the Scottish football universe to become an outcast within the sport - and a much-ridiculed laughing stock within the country. The Rangers support has played a minor role in the club's downfall, but it will never fully recover until it plays a major part in its recovery. Fan ownership has to be the future for Rangers. Nothing else will return it to where most fans believe it should be. Only a revolution - a people revolution - will save this club now.
  22. Hildy

    Tapatalk ?

    Hildy replied to BEARGER's topic in Rangers Chat

    It works for me.
  23. Hildy
    I doubt it. The credibility gap is a chasm. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
  24. Hildy
    Good statement. Perhaps the fan groups should give regular updates on all communications with Rangers regarding this latest debacle. The pressure has to go on and stay on. We need a published time and date for a meeting with the CEO or other relevant party, and it needs to be soon.
  25. Hildy
    I make no attempt to undermine your intelligence, Andy. It's perfectly possible to be bright and easily swayed. When you can be won over by people simply because they happened to be good servants of the club, you should not be surprised when your opinions are undermined. It seems to me that your opinion today could change tomorrow if Walter or Ally were inclined to pass the time of day with you - not because they might present you with a winning case, but because your inclination towards hero worship makes you easy prey. Use your undoubted intelligence wisely, Andy. You surely don't need Smith or McCoist to decide what is best for Rangers. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.