Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 McGeady as doing well and got linked with Seria A clubs but things fell apart and he got benched. He moved to Everton and doesn't get a game. Gets less game time than Naismith. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 McGeady as doing well and got linked with Seria A clubs but things fell apart and he got benched. He moved to Everton and doesn't get a game. Gets less game time than Naismith. Okay thanks as I said I only follow Rangers and forgot to mention Dutch football. It was indeed McGeady I meant. As a Question who is the highest playing Scot? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I'm presuming you mean which Scot is doing the best atm? I'd be inclined to say Ross McCormack, 23 goals in the championship with not much more than half the season gone. The guy we made no profit on. McCarthy is a regular for Everton as well. I've not watched much of them this season so can't really comment but he I don't think he has had any assists or goals. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 The more democracy has spread in society, the better it has become. It might not be perfect, but empowering the masses hasn't weakened countries. Instead, it has civilised them. What have we to fear from ourselves as Rangers fans? A fan-owned club will allow members to vote for an overseeing committee and a president, but the club will still be run by professionals - accountable to us. Look how upset fans become when the manager doesn't wear a suit. We understand the importance of image, and we know too that images of flags across the seats would be a step too far. I want my opinion to matter, but I can live with being outvoted - as long as every member has just one vote. If we have a hundred thousand members, tiny factions within the support won't matter. If countries can get by with every citizen having an expressed opinion on who should govern, why can't Rangers? He's got you there Andy - You can't argue with any of that. If we get fan control and then allow ourselves to be lead by 1690 knuckledraggers, then hell mend us - we deserve no better than oblivion. However, to be honest, of all the Rangers fans you know, how many really fall into that category? I think, we'd be quite safe entrusting the fate of the club to, well, people like you find on this board. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Can't argue? Ha! <John Wayne voice> That'll be the day. The more democracy has spread in society, the better it has become. It might not be perfect, but empowering the masses hasn't weakened countries. Instead, it has civilised them. We're not talking about democracy, though. We're talking about a form of ownership of a product which you have to pay to be a part of. Although this may, in Spencian theory, amount to democracy, it ain't. Widening the ownership base = democracy is a fallacy. I do see the point which is being made but the language is wrong; ergo the comparison is on shaky ground. What have we to fear from ourselves as Rangers fans? A fan-owned club will allow members to vote for an overseeing committee and a president, but the club will still be run by professionals - accountable to us. True, but I see no reason why such a board cannot also be put in place under the single owner model. It was, after all, in operation for most of our history. But to re-iterate, my objection isn't against the principle so much as the outcome, which I see as a bit small-time. Look how upset fans become when the manager doesn't wear a suit. We understand the importance of image, and we know too that images of flags across the seats would be a step too far. I think this is phenomenally optimistic. We have fans who would rather see the club banned from European football than give up their right to behave in a certain way; the idea that they would now take into consideration concerns over image hasn't been borne out by much evidence I've seen. I want my opinion to matter, but I can live with being outvoted - as long as every member has just one vote. If we have a hundred thousand members, tiny factions within the support won't matter. See above. If countries can get by with every citizen having an expressed opinion on who should govern, why can't Rangers? No doubt Rangers could, although I think the analogy is flawed, but my worry is that it would be hampered by the splits, schism and factionalism which repeatedly happens whenever more than about a dozen people get together. If idealism like 'we would know where to draw the line over image' is a tad optimistic, idealism like 'factions wouldn't matter' is Utopian! This is all just my opinion & I'm not trying to persuade anyone else about anything - the only thing that irks me is when posters get all holier than thou should anyone fail to join them upon the barricades. It's not, as I see it, a straight choice between single owner with a God complex or John MacLean style public ownership...there's a lot of ground in between. I'm not sure how much of the above I really believe but the challenge 'can't argue' was too much. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 As a support, we believed that there was a long line of successful Rangers-minded business people to buy in and mind the club. We expected our board to consist of leading lights in Scottish society - people that could be looked up to and admired - and trusted. Those days are over. It is futile to cling to this belief when Rangers has moved from being a feared and respected entity to an unforeseen low where it is detested and loathed, and where its enemies are actively trying to kill it. The idea that random ownership can protect Rangers in this climate is about as far removed from reality as it is possible to get. Badmouthing Rangers is a national sport. Undermining the club is a press obsession. Humiliating Rangers is a frequent occurrence. We have become a laughing stock in our own country, and while we wait endlessly on White Knights turning up. we endure yet more black days. The case for having a sole owner at Rangers died and went to heaven. If a huge fanbase like ours needs another man from the big hoose to look after it, the future is going to be a very grim place. Let's put our belief where it should always have been: in ourselves. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,744 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 The case for having a sole owner at Rangers died and went to heaven. Ask Dave King whether he's become desinterested. Badmouthing Rangers is a national sport. Undermining the club is a press obsession. Humiliating Rangers is a frequent occurrence. Within Scotland that looked/-s to be the case. The world does not take notice of the maggots that try to feed of our fate and have a go at us though. We are still there, we won't get away and the day will come when we are back where we belong and the maggots will still be maggots. We have become a laughing stock in our own country, ... That stretches it a bit. Who exactly is laughing at us bar some deluded Yahoos and the support of other - failed - clubs, which is to be expected? Take a step back and look at the bigger picture. The world does not revolve about Rangers, nor does it revolve around Scotland. You attempts at promoting fan-ownership are commendable. It is by far not the only option though, nor one that safeguards the club's future on and off the field. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 As a support, we believed that there was a long line of successful Rangers-minded business people to buy in and mind the club. We expected our board to consist of leading lights in Scottish society - people that could be looked up to and admired - and trusted. Those days are over. It is futile to cling to this belief when Rangers has moved from being a feared and respected entity to an unforeseen low where it is detested and loathed, and where its enemies are actively trying to kill it. The idea that random ownership can protect Rangers in this climate is about as far removed from reality as it is possible to get. Badmouthing Rangers is a national sport. Undermining the club is a press obsession. Humiliating Rangers is a frequent occurrence. We have become a laughing stock in our own country, and while we wait endlessly on White Knights turning up. we endure yet more black days. The case for having a sole owner at Rangers died and went to heaven. If a huge fanbase like ours needs another man from the big hoose to look after it, the future is going to be a very grim place. Let's put our belief where it should always have been: in ourselves. Well, I didn't make any of the arguments you dismiss there, so I'll stay out of it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gribz 850 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 McGeady as doing well and got linked with Seria A clubs but things fell apart and he got benched. He moved to Everton and doesn't get a game. Gets less game time than Naismith. David Pleat on TV now Co-commentating Spurs v Everton just said "Naismith is doing well, one of the few Scots who has come down to England and done well, he is a former Hibernian player". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 David Pleat on TV now Co-commentating Spurs v Everton just said "Naismith is doing well, one of the few Scots who has come down to England and done well, he is a former Hibernian player". probably scared to mention his association with us again. They did in a game recently and referred to him as a favourite. the presenter's face when he later indicated towards messages he'd got correcting that idea spoke volumes for their quantity and content! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.