Deserted seats show reality of angry Rangers fans voting with their feet

[forlanssister 3,114]

Of those whom on our bus did not renew this season the overwhelming reason by far and away is those who currently inhabit the Boardroom and if the Boardroom were to change for the better then they all say they'd renew.

[Frankie 8,562]

I'm sure the board are fully aware of the poor performance on the playing side. They are wrongly afraid to change it though for fear of a backlash from the usual suspects IMO.

 

They can't afford to change the manager - simple as that.

 

Similarly, they can't afford to implement an improved (or at least amended as per their own Review) football operation in general (i.e. scouting, youth and/or DoF).

 

Nothing to do with being afraid of anyone. Where has fear influenced their decisions previously?

[Frankie 8,562]

Of those whom on our bus did not renew this season the overwhelming reason by far and away is those who currently inhabit the Boardroom and if the Boardroom were to change for the better then they all say they'd renew.

 

The football at Rangers has been poor for years. The idea that 12,000 fans have suddenly realised this so stop going but want to give another reason instead of bluntly stating this is a convoluted deflection at best.

 

It really puzzles me that people won't see the wood for the trees here. I'm not saying everyone should be carrying placards or throwing eggs but just be a bit more open to the idea the club is struggling and having a crap board (new or old) is one of the main reasons why folk are saying enough is enough; including almost all the main fan groups (flawed or not).

 

But, hey, let's talk about what's happening at St Mirren instead...

[buster. 5,185]

The football at Rangers has been poor for years. The idea that 12,000 fans have suddenly realised this so stop going but want to give another reason instead of bluntly stating this is a convoluted deflection at best.

 

It really puzzles me that people won't see the wood for the trees here. I'm not saying everyone should be carrying placards or throwing eggs but just be a bit more open to the idea the club is struggling and having a crap board (new or old) is one of the main reasons why folk are saying enough is enough; including almost all the main fan groups (flawed or not).

 

But, hey, let's talk about what's happening at St Mirren instead...

 

You tend to see it's the same people and IMO that points to one of two things.

 

- Not very bright.

 

- An agenda of sorts (encompasses various possible angles)

 

 

A spade is a spade and sometimes it needs called as such.

[Frankie 8,562]

You tend to see it's the same people and IMO that points to one of two things.

 

- Not very bright.

 

- An agenda of sorts (encompasses various possible angles)

 

 

A spade is a spade

 

Sometimes people just want to try and move past negativity which is generally an agreeable trait to have. However, I'd say there's a difference between trying to be optimistic and refusing to acknowledge what's actually happening.

 

Sure, none of us can say with any great authority that we know (all) the facts but in the absence of that we can only rely on what has been said. With that in mind, Deloitte were clear five months ago and the board's inability to address that (as it stands anyway) should be questioned every day until they do. That may well be tedious; it may well be negative but it's a lesson hard learned during this decade.

[Hildy 0]

They can't afford to change the manager - simple as that.

 

Similarly, they can't afford to implement an improved (or at least amended as per their own Review) football operation in general (i.e. scouting, youth and/or DoF).

 

Nothing to do with being afraid of anyone. Where has fear influenced their decisions previously?

So it would seem, but Rangers could sack McCoist and offer him nothing. McCoist would then have to chase Rangers using the legal route, which I'm sure he would do, but it would be messy and probably more revealing than he would like.

 

Our board wouldn't be too keen on certain details becoming public either so it is unlikely to happen - unless of course the complexion of the board changes and is at ease with the previous occupants being publicly criticised.

 

McCoist would win, of course, but his day in court would likely be an unpleasant experience.

[Frankie 8,562]

So it would seem, but Rangers could sack McCoist and offer him nothing. McCoist would then have to chase Rangers using the legal route, which I'm sure he would do, but it would be messy and probably more revealing than he would like.

 

Our board wouldn't be too keen on certain details becoming public either so it is unlikely to happen - unless of course the complexion of the board changes and is at ease with the previous occupants being publicly criticised.

 

McCoist would win, of course, but his day in court would likely be an unpleasant experience.

 

The idea that a manager who has very cleverly worked various issues for his own end (sometimes understandably, sometimes not) would leave the board such a strategy doesn't really stack up IMO.

 

As much as I don't rate McCoist, I also don't rate our chances of getting someone better under the current administration. It shouldn't be a difficult task but given they seemingly can't find/afford a scout and/or DoF, it does suggest such head-hunting within acceptable time-scales is beyond them.

[Rangersitis 0]

So it would seem, but Rangers could sack McCoist and offer him nothing. McCoist would then have to chase Rangers using the legal route, which I'm sure he would do, but it would be messy and probably more revealing than he would like.

 

Our board wouldn't be too keen on certain details becoming public either so it is unlikely to happen - unless of course the complexion of the board changes and is at ease with the previous occupants being publicly criticised.

 

McCoist would win, of course, but his day in court would likely be an unpleasant experience.

 

That doesn't appear to be feasible as that would surely lead to frozen accounts. There is little likelihood of them being as lucky as they were with the Ahmad ruling.

[buster. 5,185]

Sometimes people just want to try and move past negativity which is generally an agreeable trait to have. However, I'd say there's a difference between trying to be optimistic and refusing to acknowledge what's actually happening.

 

Sure, none of us can say with any great authority that we know (all) the facts but in the absence of that we can only rely on what has been said. With that in mind, Deloitte were clear five months ago and the board's inability to address that (as it stands anyway) should be questioned every day until they do. That may well be tedious; it may well be negative but it's a lesson hard learned during this decade.

 

IMO, the trait you mention comes under "not very bright".

In situations such as ours you deal in realism or you might aswell give your bank details to the sp.ivs.

Surely we should have learnt our lessons by now.

[Rangersitis 0]

The idea that a manager who has very cleverly worked various issues for his own end (sometimes understandably, sometimes not) would leave the board such a strategy doesn't really stack up IMO.

 

As much as I don't rate McCoist, I also don't rate our chances of getting someone better under the current administration. It shouldn't be a difficult task but given they seemingly can't find/afford a scout and/or DoF, it does suggest such head-hunting within acceptable time-scales is beyond them.

 

I'm with you on this. McCoist's name is well down the page on the 'getting rid of' priority list.