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

[der Berliner 3,440]

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...

 

Why need for that flippant remark when you just a wee bit further up explain things much smarter? No-one's looking at St. Mirren et al to know what is causing our STs figures drop. We know exactly why that is the case, as you pointed out too.

[Frankie 8,261]

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.

 

I don't think it's fair to say people aren't very bright just because they want to be positive or may disagree just how 'bad' some issues are. I'd certainly question their outlook but everyone sees issues differently. It would be a boring place if we all agreed.

[Frankie 8,261]

Why need for that flippant remark when you just a wee bit further up explain things much smarter? No-one's looking at St. Mirren et al to know what is causing our STs figures drop. We know exactly why that is the case, as you pointed out too.

 

It's just a light-hearted jibe at those who want to deflect from the issues at hand. No offence intended - relax!

 

Now we've (largely) acknowledged the reasons for the sales fall, what do 'we' do about it?

 

Sacking the manager isn't going to happen so how else do we entice people back while safe-guarding the future of the club and its assets? Why do the club's board struggle to answer this? Why has their been next to no effort made to address it?

[Tannochsidebear 2,345]

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.

 

Exactly the same on our bus FS, and on many other buses whose reps we have spoken to this season. As an example, we restrict our membership to around 50 members, always have done. For about 20 years we have had around 90% ST holders on our bus. This season we have under 50% ST holders. Out of those who did not renew, all have been present at our home games this season on a match by match basis. We have had two-three members not renew membership this season as they were stopping going to matches for a combination of financial and geographical reasons, not footballing or boardroom reasons. These members have been replaced by new members who have been going for years but not with us.

 

The argument that our crowds are down due to footballing reasons doesn't compute with the findings from our albeit small poll of fans. If you read FF you will see a lot of bears not going for boardroom reasons. On every forum you have perhaps 1 or 2 not going for football reasons. There is an argument that until we starve the board out by not going to the games nothing will change. It is not one I subscribe to but I can sympathise with fellow fans who feel this way, and have made a tough decision for what they feel is the right reason.

[buster. 4,956]

I don't think it's fair to say people aren't very bright just because they want to be positive or may disagree just how 'bad' some issues are. I'd certainly question their outlook but everyone sees issues differently. It would be a boring place if we all agreed.

 

The problem within our situation is that 'optimisim' is exploited and you tend to get 'ripped off'.

I could better understand it or see the case you make if our club hadn't suffered the way it has over the past few seasons.

 

' Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me'

 

 

Blind Loyalty + Spin = (or can produce) False Optimism that is Exploited

[Hildy 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 not sure that there is a great deal of confidence that McCoist would be replaced with the kind of manager we'd like, but I've been surprised recently to see people who have previously stuck by him now wanting change.

 

It's a separate issue of course, but identifying the right manager is a difficult thing to do - for any club. Manchester United have recently demonstrated this and almost everyone at Rangers agreed that PLG was a good move by SDM.

 

Celtic have opted for an unusual choice, which annoys their fans because he's not a big name and far from being Celtic-minded, but even after a bad start, it could still work out.

 

In football, there are probably only a handful of genuinely good managers, which often turns them into legends because they consistently outperform the rest, however, even the great Brian Clough had a torrid time at Leeds so every new managerial appointment is a risk.

 

For Rangers, when McCoist moves on, I would hope that we appoint a manager who is successful at having his teams playing a watchable brand of winning football, however, I would insist on the nine in a row gang and their like being wholly excluded from consideration.

 

Rangers has to consign the Smith era and its grim negativity to the history books and move into a more enlightened new era.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I must have missed this announcement. When did it take place?

 

The figure is accurate, my source is impeccable.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

With all due respect, I don't think it's fair to second guess anyone's intentions.

 

While I'm pretty sure there will be a combination of on and off-field frustrations leading to the very large number of non-renewals, suggesting fans are using the latter as an excuse not to attend because of the former seems a rather spurious and very subjective argument.

 

The fact is attendances and ticket renewals are already well down on last year. I've said all along 25,000 renewals will be the likely figure and that seems possible depending on what happens between now and January. However, that still leaves us 11,000 short of last season and with only around 31,000 present on Saturday that's 12,000 down on similar fixtures against the bottom two teams in late August early September last season (42,870 v East Fife and 43,562 v Arbroath).

 

Now, when we examine the loans from last year (still needed despite much higher ticket sales last term) and a board only visible when it comes to ice bucket challenges or other local businesses struggling then I'd suggest while the quality of football on show is a concern to us all, the financial situation is equally or more pressing.

 

That's the 'emphasis of matter' we should be talking about. I'm sure Deloitte will be in a few weeks.

 

It is indeed a subjective opinion based on conversations with various folk.

 

The financial situation is indeed pressing, all the more reason to support the Club.

[Hildy 0]

Exactly the same on our bus FS, and on many other buses whose reps we have spoken to this season. As an example, we restrict our membership to around 50 members, always have done. For about 20 years we have had around 90% ST holders on our bus. This season we have under 50% ST holders. Out of those who did not renew, all have been present at our home games this season on a match by match basis. We have had two-three members not renew membership this season as they were stopping going to matches for a combination of financial and geographical reasons, not footballing or boardroom reasons. These members have been replaced by new members who have been going for years but not with us.

 

The argument that our crowds are down due to footballing reasons doesn't compute with the findings from our albeit small poll of fans. If you read FF you will see a lot of bears not going for boardroom reasons. On every forum you have perhaps 1 or 2 not going for football reasons. There is an argument that until we starve the board out by not going to the games nothing will change. It is not one I subscribe to but I can sympathise with fellow fans who feel this way, and have made a tough decision for what they feel is the right reason.

The King / Gough campaign has been successful, if that's the right word, in seeing ST sales plummet. It was unsuccessful in its stated aim, but it made Rangers fans think about the club's governance, and having done so, many decided not to back this current regime.

 

It has to be said, though, the ghastly fare on the park made a decision not to renew much easier, so while the boardroom and ownership issues are the root of our problems, the McCoist issue is a factor in the equation too.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

A valid point. We reached various European Finals in the earlier stages of the competition, but lost out. Only very few take a brighter look at cup runs as such, most prefer to go ballistic should we drop out somewhere along the way or indeed lose the final, not least to "weaker sides". Irrespective of whether the team played bad or went down to bad luck or whatnot. In the cup, success counts, the rest is irrelevant. IMHO, had we beaten Raith last season by converting a few of those 22 shots on goal, no-one would look on how "bad" we played in that game.

 

On a sidenote, while our minds solely revolve about Rangers, has anyone actually checked how good or bad the support of other teams is? Have their attendance figures dropped too? If only for the sake of the argument.

 

Indeed we have won but one European Cup Final in 4 attempts; but would anyone say that in reaching those Finals we were not successful? Also I'd say we had a successful run to the Quarter Final of the CL v Villarreal for example; the fact that didn't win then competition doesn't make that run or the Manager unsuccessful.

 

Obviously domestic cups are different in terms of the strength of the opposition; but the same principle applies.