bmck

^ agree 100%

Not being one to wince at a wee riot, I say give them out at reduced price to those proven drunk

too soon?

Block votes would lead to inevitable conflict but, there's a chance of that under OMOV anyway...

It's essentially how the parliamentary system works. We all have one vote, but there are benefits in pursuing your interests via a 'party' or block.

One thing mentioned above than makes my blood run coold is the idea of block votes - if that becomes a reality we had better find something better to occupy our attention and not waste time on Rangers.

Not that it's making your blood running cold isn't proof enough, but why exactly? I dunno if it's a good idea or not - seemed to me like a good idea, but I've not thought it through. What makes it bad?

Just to throw an idea out that seems to run contrary to the current OMOV thinking. I think there perhaps should be a one-fixed-sum-one-vote system. This directly corrolates investment to responsibility. This needn't be thought of, however, as a shortcut for high net worth individuals to positions of prominence if you have an important caveat. Namely, that groups can block vote, and elect a representative who represents their concerns and intuitions. For example, you only need to look at the difference between maineflyer's and, say, calscot's perspectives. These tensions are always going to exist within the support. With the block voting system high net worth supporters aren't put off from investing the substantial capital we need by an attendent lack of return; similarly, small net worth voters wont feel impotent provided they find themselves having concerns which align themselves with sufficient numbers of other people. In this sort of system high net worth investors' motivations to maintain their own power will naturally align themselves with the majority opinions so as to stay the possibility of large block voting against them. High net worth investors will have the carrot of large support and the stick of severe undermining to always act in the club and majority's best interest. There are loads of flaws with this idea, but provided a decent constitution is drawn, with proper checks and balances and weighing of votes it could work.

You could essentially model it on Classical period Athens; with board positions have fixed one year terms.

Cracking result for Brum and i hope they cheating chumps finish outside the top 4.

thought you would be way more raging dude. tis an excellent result nonetheless.

cheers for that johnny. im for fan ownership, i think - roughly speaking. but i dont trust the rst to lead it.

this is the crux of it for me. either our sensibilities are too fragile for offensive singing or they aren't. no middle ground, or some strands of offense being worse than others.

im not sure where this stuff about british nationalism comes from. its certainly not in scotland, despite the hordes of evil rangers nazis that abound in the mind of journos, that we have elected bnp members as meps. most rangers fans i know are centre left, when you get down to it - or, like most britons, uninterested at all in politics.

i agree with craig. i'm not sure anyone's even saying we've got a 17 year old midfielder who can replace him. football isn't analogous to other jobs. if you play crap, you get stuck on the bench till you get your chance again and prove yourself.

isn't davis still only like 23 or something though? he might get more consistent as he gets a bit older.

someone should probably also tell her that trailing and dragging arent the same thing. just to keep her from looking stupid.

how long to go?

everything she writes is undermined because you know when she saw the trouble her little heart swelled at the thought of getting to put on her denouncing-evil hat. she works for the mirror; if she wants to fight the great evil of the age....

it worked then

not only an excellent and measured account, but a pretty evocative read! thanks.

Haha that is amazing!

 

I am officially buying a hamburg top first chance i get.

me too! :spl:

That's why we pay MediaHouse a �£700K per annum retainer...

heh. i think gersnet should take over RFC media interaction for a fraction of the price (say, 9/10ths ).

even looking at newsnow as a sample set.

first we can divide them into those affected by bain's statement and those unaffected, going only by the headline - not even the content of the thing.

Fans blame police for Rangers crowd trouble - unaffected

Fans criticised after unrest at Gers clash - unaffected

Rangers shamed by small group of louts: The David McCarthy verdict - unaffected

Rangers chief demands UEFA probe as fans involved in half-time riot with Romanian stewards - affected

Rangers look into fan reports - affected

Rangers fans sprayed with CS gas - affected

Gers complaint over crowd trouble BBC Sport - affected

Rangers to complain over crowd trouble - affected

Rangers boss: police response to crowd trouble "totally unacceptable" - affected

Rangers to complain to UEFA after crowd trouble - affected

Soccer-Rangers to complain to UEFA after crowd trouble - affected

Unruly fans add to Rangers’ woes in Europe - unaffected

Gers chief exec condemns "unacceptable" violence - affected

'gers Chief Condemns Fan Trouble Sporting Life - affected

the majority are affected. of those a significant portion focus on the complaint rather than the violence, which is a win. i imagine of those affected which still place the trouble in the most prominent position in the title, offer some balance within the article itself because of the rest of bain's statement. no matter how you look at it, the statement has tempered the harshness of the news, and so it's worked out well in relative terms.

this shouldn't be applauded because it's atypically ballsy. it should be applauded because it's clever. getting to the effectual truth of things, as machiavelli would say, you can control the news story to some extent by taking the lead. journalists don't care about truth, as we all know, but about stories. when you don't give them a story, they fill in the blanks with whatever nonsense comes into their head. but once you give them an angle, once the dust inevitably settles on their "thugs in europe" caper they'll look to rangers for a statement. then they'll see bain's statement about the complaint and turnstyles and tear gas and they'll be a brand new story. some journalists will say it's deflection but they don't have the freedom to ignore it, which gives the impetus back to us. they'll have something else to fill their papers with. the news about rangers can be managed so much better if it's approached in a more clever manner. this is a good first step.

we get some photo of an elderly person in the crowd looking oppressed and/or vulnerable and the negative aspect of the story is functionally dead.

No chance we're getting beat 6-1 tonight though! *touches wooden desk*

naw, we will win tonight!

You'd probably get about 500-1 at the bookies for that prediction.

 

If that happens you're getting the blame btw!! :devil:

at least if i stick on a few grand i will be getting the blame as part of the new consortium!

BD, i heard that murray moved all his investment out of steel production and into property. dont know when it happened or if its true, but it seems like if it were true and the vast majority of his investments were in property, is the immediacy of all this now a direct consequence of the recession and its impact on the housing market? if so, wont everything just be merry and as it was when it eventually picks up, if indeed it does?

im going for a 6-1 Urinea win with a Wilson hatrick of own goals :box::devil:

everyone remembers celtics financial woes, and we all had quite a good laugh then im sure. and though things are really pretty hard, one small consolation is that we are going through all this in our rightful place as champions. near financial ruin and still the best scotland has to offer :spl: