buster.

Spain and corruption is like bacon and eggs. It's embedded in the DNA of the country.

For me there are two different issues here that merge. 1. You have any legitimate questions/concerns for the fans groups, any teething problems for club1872, RF internal matters............. which have to be resolved between members/group. 2. You have a co-ordinated campaign against certain individuals that coincides/compliments what appears to be a co-ordinated move to destabilize the ongoing process regards club1872. 3. Two is riding on the coat-tails of One. With regard to 'style', CH isn't everyone's cup of tea. Like most of us he is an imperfect person. He tends to call a spade a spade, on occasion he's taken legal risk's and spoken out about what's been going-on amongst sp1vs, he swears at sp1vs coming out of court, he's emotions are invested in what became a struggle for survival at Rangers, in those dark days he invested more than most in terms of time and sacrifice. However even during those dark days there were a small section of our support were angrily and at times abusivly opposed to his efforts. They tended to be of a certain political persuasion when viewing Rangers politics and very generally were against DK, PM, RST, UoF and for those who stood against them. Fine, everyone is free to hold their own opinion and in the rough and tumble of social media this can get abusive, not nice but it's going to happen. So, CH and others like him have to develop a thick skin, it comes with the territory. However, when this develops into a co-orinated camapiagn that includes anonymous blogs accusing you of all sorts popping up at the sametime that a general push seems to be being made by those who want to destabilize fans groups (that isn't to say there aren't issues to reslove and questions that to answer/ there seems to be quite a lot to sort out). It must get to a point where taking a pop at those who have been opposed to you from the get go is like having a go at Celtic supporters. So, CH may not have been best advised to say what he did but you have to take into account what else is happening in the background, ie. the CH reaction is an angry retort and not his finest moment but the campaign that is looking to press buttons and take advanatge is underhand and dishonest.

Of course you are

I didn't say anything about an opinion. I pointed towards the obvious co-ordinated campaign against certain individuals that is riding on the coat-tails of the complaints directed towards fans groups.

CH was a brave man who put his head above the parapet and did a great deal of good in the interests of Rangers during challenging times and in a sometimes dangerous enviroment. Despite this, there were those who saw him and others beside him as a negative force who were doing our club damage and only thinking about self-interest. Most of those people have never changed their views and not only take every opportunity to throw abuse and slander his way but some seem to co-ordinate campaigns to discredit him (also applies to other selected individuals). Two or three days ago I saw an anonymous blog spring up from no-where and make serious unsubstantiated allegations against some of these individuals. The timing is no accident. This is a co-ordinated campaign and at the root of it is an unhealthy ongoing hatred. Yes, there will be teething problems with the new fans group and there may well be issues that need resolved but there is also something very unpleasent that is riding the wave.

There may well be teething problems regards fans groups and they will have to deal with issues raised. However what I am seeing beyond that is a familar pattern and it does those who take part in it no credit whatsoever.

Your post is more suited to other sites where there is a history in sustained efforts to discredit individuals.

Cue 40% of Spain saying ...."well he would say that, wouldn't he........" I agree with Cruyff and I don't think it that difficult to understand for the majority of objective observers.

Don't know the lass but to me that suggests she has done the right thing and is better off out of it.

All signings are gambles, to varying degrees. I'd suggest that the mgmt team try to minimise the gamble in many of the signings by part of the 'due diligence' involved being based on up close personal experience. eg. McParland has past direct experience of Barton and Rossiter. MW has the same of Hodson, Mariappa (was target). MW took the time and trouble to travel to New York to have a face to face with Kranjcar.

'Bale v Ronaldo' is a cheap and obvious media slant that pays homage to the galactico. Portugal have reached the semi-final despite of Ronaldo more than because of him. Bale has played a major part in the Welsh effort but it's the collective (including mgmt.) that has been the biggest plus.

When you seem to be more interested in the amount of horse power in your garage, than the amount of goals you score on the pitch then you are on the downward slope.

On the IN and OUT list You also have players like Hardie, Walsh and McCrorie (defender) coming back who on the face of it may be peripheral figures but so was Barrie McKay at this stage last summer.

But many seem to want to see headlines about us spending millions and give less importance to getting the right players in. They automatically assume, despite all the negative experience, that if you spend XM then he'll do a better job. It's a debating issue because there are so many ways of looking at it and angles to come from but I think it's neatly summed up by elfideldo regards the here and now and those directly involved.

Would some be happier if we had paid 5M for the 8 players that have arrived ?

You could have asked for 50K to sell Bell but you aren't going to get it in the real world. It's more likely that we'll have had to pay-up part of his contract. We will be looking to squeeze every penny out of deals but you can't get blood out of a stone or money out of provincial clubs in Scotland in 95% of dealings, especially when the player involved isn't wanted and has a contract that pays appreciably more than he'll get elsewhere.

Integrity: to be used or forgotten dependent on circumstances

I'd vote no #self-interest #sporting integrity of the competition edit 3 games left

We could have done with McKay signing a longer contract but I guess at least we got him to sign for an extra year or we'd have been looking at him being free to speak to other clubs in January. If he keeps developing and improving, we won't be able to compete regards a further extension and we may have to cash in next summer. This time last year I dismissed McKay as a Rangers player. Now, you're looking at a player who if he keeps working hard and improving, COULD go on and play at a high level. We need to make this kind of player development a regular occurance.

You have to develop players, add value and manage their contracts well before you can hope to get transfer fees for them. It was hardly likely to happen in the short-term given the squad inherited and that we'd like those who have developed last season to stay. Expecting a club to pay a fee for Cammy Bell is extreme optimism.

I'm not in a position to know anything regarding your post. It's the groups that have to respond to real questions, if and when they can.

Those are questions for the groups concerned.

That's the one ! Too much info out there is confusing me

Every individual can make up their own minds regards questions, how to respond to them, elections, choices and whatever else involved. Thereafter, democratic organisations run themselves and develop accordingly, subject to the ongoing expressed will and choices of the members who also choose to be members or not.

You seem to have been able to make your points thusfar rbr, so no alternative suggestions then. I might well be wrong but IIRC there were two different votes asking members questions. The second lot following on from the first. The second lot contained 'pending detail' with the questions. correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know enough about it to go into too much detail (including names) other than recalling the COI issue that was brought up by some. But I don't understand what you are getting at wrt the questions being some devious ploy.