'Setting The Standard' Project Moves Forward

[Big Spliff 0]

I'm afraid I just don't get it. Why is the club so unwilling to get involved in such matters? What is it that they see as a threat if they get involved. They must believe there is a conflict of interests but I can't see what it could possibly be.

 

If they are prepared to offer clandestine support for a supporter-led campaign against elements of the media, do they honestly think this would remain a secret for long?

 

The only conclusion I can reach is that the interests of the club and those of the people running it are not aligned.

 

I agree with that, and I'm hoping for a change under AJ. Only last week for example he was quoted as saying that SDM had to consider MIH in many ways as Chairman of Rangers and that he wouldn't have the same constraints. That's not an exact quote but that's what he meant. Whether he was talking about dealing with the media or not I don't know, but it's certainly an example of something which has scope for adjustment if the club wants. Again, my interpretation was the club would not offer any support as such, but would privately be glad if the fans stood up and did something because they agree with a lot of the anger and resentment many of us feel.

 

I wrote on here in January that perhaps Murray's silence in terms of defending the club was perhaps a quid-pro-quo for being, shall we say, left alone in terms of MIH. I still beleive that's been part of the picture.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Big Spliff

[maineflyer 0]

I agree with that, and I'm hoping for a change under AJ. Only last week for example he was quoted as saying that SDM had to consider MIH in many ways as Chairman of Rangers and that he wouldn't have the same constraints. That's not an exact quote but that's what he meant. Whether he was talking about dealing with the media or not I don't know, but it's certainly an example of something which has scope for adjustment if the club wants.

 

I wrote on here in January that perhaps Murray's silence in terms of defending the club was perhaps a quid-pro-quo for being, shall we say, left alone in terms of MIH. I still beleive that's been part of the picture.

 

Undoubtedly correct, although I think Murray also had an obvious interest in securing his K and maintaining a positive personal image. I don't want to get back to slagging Murray but when his actions (or inactions in this case) don't appear to favour the club or the fans, it's hard to be anything other than critical.

[Big Spliff 0]

Undoubtedly correct, although I think Murray also had an obvious interest in securing his K and maintaining a positive personal image. I don't want to get back to slagging Murray but when his actions (or inactions in this case) don't appear to favour the club or the fans, it's hard to be anything other than critical.

 

Indeed. When you think about it, it's not rocket science to conclude that Murray had a conflict of interests in terms of Rangers and his personal status etc. That's why, in itself, there are positives to be had simply by him resigning as chairman and director.

 

Being devil's advocate for a moment though, he's still the major shareholder and it's also fair to say that if the club starts to stand up to things, that he cannot be completely distanced from murky waters. He can still be attacked in the media by association if the media so wishes.

 

That's why he needs to get out of town, for everyone's sake, including his own.

[maineflyer 0]

If Alistair Johnston came out and criticised the Scottish media, either specifically or generally, it would electrify the entire Rangers community and create a cohesion between club and supporters overnight. The reaction of the local hacks would be predictable but ultimately no Scottish newspaper can afford to be excluded from Ibrox.

 

Well, you can always dream I suppose.

[Norris Cole 0]

If Alistair Johnston came out and criticised the Scottish media, either specifically or generally, it would electrify the entire Rangers community and create a cohesion between club and supporters overnight. The reaction of the local hacks would be predictable but ultimately no Scottish newspaper can afford to be excluded from Ibrox.

 

Well, you can always dream I suppose.

 

I've said before that the current situation with the mhedia could be changed overnight.

[maineflyer 0]

I've said before that the current situation with the mhedia could be changed overnight.

 

All we ever needed was a Rangers man running the club and we certainly have one now. Unfortunately, his responsibility is to the shareholders and we all know who that is. Everything I've heard or read says that AJ is his own man however and I do expect a different approach in respect of the media.

 

Can you imagine what it would be like to be congratulating a Rangers chairman instead of despising him? I very much look forward to it.

[Tannochsidebear 2,405]

I understand where you got that from BS, and perhaps I was reading too much into it, but it seemed to me to be the same reaction and same sort of deal that was made between the club and the RSC's in April 2007, that if we managed to get our members to stop singing TBB, they would come out and back us in the media.

 

What followed was that it was agreed by the 60+ RSC's in attendance to attempt to educate their membership as to the serious consequences to the continuation of TBB, and to agree to sing over the top of it should it be attempted. Almost overnight, it disappeared, and the fans were roundly congratulated on more than one occassion between then and the end of the season by Murray and Bain to hold up their end of the bargain.

 

It happened again after the Inverness game at the start of the following season, and to be fair to them they again came out and praised the fans at the next games for eradicating TBB from the songlist.

 

I am far from being a fan of Murray and Bain, but on that occassion if the fans were seen to take the initiative, they would, in their own unique way, support as best as they seen fit.

 

When Jim Hannah said something similar during the media discussion at the meeting, I was taking that to mean a similar show of support as what happened in 2007.

 

It is far from ideal, but it was a million miles away from the guy who said the club would refuse to co-operate if fans were willing to put in the work to pressurise certain outlets, and that is why I think Jim interrupted him to correct him.

[Big Spliff 0]

I understand where you got that from BS, and perhaps I was reading too much into it, but it seemed to me to be the same reaction and same sort of deal that was made between the club and the RSC's in April 2007, that if we managed to get our members to stop singing TBB, they would come out and back us in the media.

 

What followed was that it was agreed by the 60+ RSC's in attendance to attempt to educate their membership as to the serious consequences to the continuation of TBB, and to agree to sing over the top of it should it be attempted. Almost overnight, it disappeared, and the fans were roundly congratulated on more than one occassion between then and the end of the season by Murray and Bain to hold up their end of the bargain.

 

It happened again after the Inverness game at the start of the following season, and to be fair to them they again came out and praised the fans at the next games for eradicating TBB from the songlist.

 

I am far from being a fan of Murray and Bain, but on that occassion if the fans were seen to take the initiative, they would, in their own unique way, support as best as they seen fit.

 

When Jim Hannah said something similar during the media discussion at the meeting, I was taking that to mean a similar show of support as what happened in 2007.

 

It is far from ideal, but it was a million miles away from the guy who said the club would refuse to co-operate if fans were willing to put in the work to pressurise certain outlets, and that is why I think Jim interrupted him to correct him.

 

I take your points TB, maybe I didn't interpret it quite right (and I wasn't at any previous meetings so maybe didn't see the parallels). Let's see what happens eh?

[Tannochsidebear 2,405]

Indeed mate, but of course in any event the change of Chairman probably supercedes anything intimated from Jim anyway, given that the new man may have other ideas in this area (we hope!!)

[maineflyer 0]

I understand where you got that from BS, and perhaps I was reading too much into it, but it seemed to me to be the same reaction and same sort of deal that was made between the club and the RSC's in April 2007, that if we managed to get our members to stop singing TBB, they would come out and back us in the media.

 

What followed was that it was agreed by the 60+ RSC's in attendance to attempt to educate their membership as to the serious consequences to the continuation of TBB, and to agree to sing over the top of it should it be attempted. Almost overnight, it disappeared, and the fans were roundly congratulated on more than one occassion between then and the end of the season by Murray and Bain to hold up their end of the bargain.

 

It happened again after the Inverness game at the start of the following season, and to be fair to them they again came out and praised the fans at the next games for eradicating TBB from the songlist.

 

I am far from being a fan of Murray and Bain, but on that occassion if the fans were seen to take the initiative, they would, in their own unique way, support as best as they seen fit.

 

When Jim Hannah said something similar during the media discussion at the meeting, I was taking that to mean a similar show of support as what happened in 2007.

 

It is far from ideal, but it was a million miles away from the guy who said the club would refuse to co-operate if fans were willing to put in the work to pressurise certain outlets, and that is why I think Jim interrupted him to correct him.

 

Interesting post TB. What would you say the bears actually got in return for abandoning The Billy Boys? Are you sure this was the deal because I always understood the club announced that TBB had been banned by UEFA and that they (Murray) had no option but to ask the supporters not to sing it. I didn't know the club had hung out a quid pro quo relating to addressing the anti-Rangers media - and to be frank, I've yet to see anyone at Rangers ever come out and actually take on the media bias against Rangers. In which case it wasn't really much of a deal at all. The so-called UEFA position on The Billy Boys has never been clearly and unambiguously confirmed and there remain deep suspicions that the club deliberately manipulated the situation (invented the UEFA banning) for the sole purpose of meeting Murray's personal aspiration to kill off what he perceived as a sectarian anthem.

 

I'd love to know the truth of it all but that's a commodity in scarce supply these last few years. I felt the role of the RST via it's FF mouthpiece was particularly regretable in pushing the club's message rather than seeking proper confirmation before falling so obediently in line ...... in return for what look like empty promises.