Well done to SoS/RST/UoF and all of us who made it happen

[pete 2,499]

Ultimately, for some of the more vocal critics on RM and VB it came down to the involvement (perceived or otherwise) of Mark Dingwall and the people he's supposed to be controlling. Unfortunately, while these critics are few in number they're noisy and often help form opinions of the more weak-willed among us. That's what the PR companies took advantage of - along with any other uncertainty. McMurdo, Ahmad and 'Bawsburst' built the doubt then cemented the existing division. Many were all too eager to buy into the charade - a few deliberately, some because they were unwilling to see the danger.

 

Let me be clear - I'm not a fan of Mark and never will be - however, it would be ludicrous to put my personal feelings over one person above what is happening at the club we both love. The same goes for any other fan rep/group: of course we should question, criticise and hold to account but we've truly jumped the shark when we urge lynchings for them but defend the likes of Ahmad, Stockbridge and Easdale.

 

It's no coincidence the same people who defended them are comfortable with Llambias and Leach and/or against the likes of King and Murray. Such folk are completely discredited - even if they lack the self-awareness to see that themselves. No matter, the rest of us (>90%) will move on without them.

 

Unfortunately I disagree with that bit Frankie. They throw some smoke bombs and disappear into the crowd only to reappear with another cause, or they do what STB and McMurdo done. Walk with the crowd for the last few steps and say they were on the good side at the end up.

[Frankie 8,665]

Unfortunately I disagree with that bit Frankie. They throw some smoke bombs and disappear into the crowd only to reappear with another cause, or they do what STB and McMurdo done. Walk with the crowd for the last few steps and say they were on the good side at the end up.

 

You may be right but as this moment in time the majority are with King.

 

It's now up to King to show our faith in him was correct. He's not above reproach in that sense and criticism will be found quickly enough so we'll soon see how well he copes with the box-seat from tomorrow.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Frankie

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Ultimately, for some of the more vocal critics on RM and VB it came down to the involvement (perceived or otherwise) of Mark Dingwall and the people he's supposed to be controlling. Unfortunately, while these critics are few in number they're noisy and often help form opinions of the more weak-willed among us. That's what the PR companies took advantage of - along with any other uncertainty. McMurdo, Ahmad and 'Bawsburst' built the doubt then cemented the existing division. Many were all too eager to buy into the charade - a few deliberately, some because they were unwilling to see the danger.

 

Let me be clear - I'm not a fan of Mark and never will be - however, it would be ludicrous to put my personal feelings over one person above what is happening at the club we both love. The same goes for any other fan rep/group: of course we should question, criticise and hold to account but we've truly jumped the shark when we urge lynchings for them but defend the likes of Ahmad, Stockbridge and Easdale.

 

It's no coincidence the same people who defended them are comfortable with Llambias and Leach and/or against the likes of King and Murray. Such folk are completely discredited - even if they lack the self-awareness to see that themselves. No matter, the rest of us (>90%) will move on without them.

Is MD still part of the RST? I thought he was completely removed.

[BEARGER 1,830]

Is MD still part of the RST? I thought he was completely removed.

 

Member only just like me.

[Frankie 8,665]

Is MD still part of the RST? I thought he was completely removed.

 

Mark resigned from the RST board but clearly - via FF and other roles he's had/has - he's still one of the most influential fans around. Some refuse to accept that and while some criticism of Mark's methods are wholly valid, it's counter-productive for people to infer his thumb remains in every pie.

[Bluedell 5,679]

Member only just like me.

 

I'd imagine he's on the phone to the RST board members a lot more than you are though

[BEARGER 1,830]

I'd imagine he's on the phone to the RST board members a lot more than you are though

 

They phone me:)

[simplythebest 0]

Interesting point about the paid for MH plants. I don't recall any condemnation from STB et al. Quite a bizarre situation where you have people paid to act against our interests being favoured.

 

I've been critical of Imran Ahmad and Bill McMurdo plenty of times, I've also talked about how my family have met Jack Irvine in the past and backed up his toxic image.

 

So it goes to show some comments are remembered better than others.

[simplythebest 0]

You weren't the only person I was addressing - if I was I would've quoted you. Clearly the cap fits though...

 

First of all, we do have different rules on here and I'm very proud of them. A cursory look at other forums - especially the likes of RM - make me embarrassed to be a bear at times. I'm stunned they allow the type of regular abuse that helps no-one - abuse you seem happy to, not only tolerate, but take an active part in. Retracting is fine and I'm glad the penny has finally dropped but, quite frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

I think the credit given to the fan groups and the individual people you clearly detest has been largely fair. Yes, a few people may have went OTT with respect to the praise but it's interesting how you're prepared to talk about that but not of the personal threats and abuse handed to them which have been much more widespread and regular. Those that take part in such crap or indulge it are a disgrace. Balance indeed.

 

Of course this still doesn't make Graham or Houston or any other board critic better than anyone else. I don't see anyone suggesting as such - all I see is disappointment in that our fellow fans would rather turn on each other instead of focussing on those who have put out club's future under threat. Yes, we may not all have agreed with boycotts but when we see how folk were lied to - particularly when it comes to buying merchandise - then it's no wonder so many fans said enough is enough. And I'm glad they did as, make no mistake, if we hadn't then our money would still be going elsewhere rather than for the betterment of our club. Unfortunately, as long as these various onerous contracts remain in place, it may remain the case that most of our cash doesn't go to Rangers but Sports Direct. Is that fair? Is that positive? Is that worth backing Mike Ashley? Incredibly, we still have people suggesting it is more agreeable than putting a selection of Rangers fans in charge.

 

Moving on, you are right that ultimately the board have caused their own downfall and I wouldn't disagree with the selection of examples you highlighted in that respect. However, where your argument falls down is that before these examples there were many more and the spine of the boardroom - or at least the decision-making process - has remained the same since 2012 where early on people were questioning the intentions of Green who was brought in at the last minute via the back door. Throughout that three years of exposure by the same fans you're happy to abuse, it's become gradually clear to most people of intelligence (as you put it) that the intentions of a long line of people were not in the interests of the club. It may have taken you until January of this year to recognise that but the lack of trust has been present for a damn sight longer for those of us in receipt of the lawyers letters and threats. I'd argue that when directors are posting secretly on abusive forums, PR companies employing people to do the same including writing blogs filled with blatant propaganda while attempting to stifle open debate with the majority of fans then it's clear that we had a regime not interested in transparency or debate but merely spin and control. It was also clear that some fans - a small minority thankfully - preferred to concentrate on personal fall outs than what was staring them in the face for a very long time. Bizarrely, these people still exist - can we take them seriously again?

 

I could probably go on all day showing the various examples that should have had every Rangers fan sitting up instead of covering their eyes and ears and insulting each other. However, where you are right is in saying 'I told you so' won't get us anywhere fast. Indeed, I don't particularly care that some fans were late to the table just that they're at the table and now appreciate how dangerous the situation is. Thankfully - even including the minorities on the likes of RM and VB - a huge majority of bears now want change and as much as some fans want to underplay supporter influence we've never been in a better position to ensure our voice is heard. Like you, I remain sceptical of King and I'll be cynical about any future owner of the club. That may be fair or it may be daft but any true Rangers fan (or someone who is prepared to say they understand us) will recognise that the events of 2011 to 2015 will mean natural suspicion of any future custodian.

 

This should never have been about taking sides but for some fans - online at least - it was and that's been the tragedy of recent years. It's not about backing King 100% or criticising the incumbents 100% but having an open mind and examining every issue on it's own merits as well as general trends. If we're take anything out of this disastrous period, then it should be that. We've had enough lessons on the subject so we should all be experts now.

There's more than me that should be ashamed from themselves by holding to similar standards. The most I feel I've done is take part in name calling which isn't pleasant don't get me wrong and really it has to stop all round, but I've never once tried to intimidate or threaten anyone so I'm not the worst offender out there.

 

I've never defended personal threats and abuse, all I'd point out is that more than one 'side' can be accused of that.

 

You don't get me suggesting that, and I've been very clear that I don't want to have continued resentment of boycott vs no boycott. I never even have backed Mike Ashley, the most I did was wait and see for a bit because of his wealth, January was my final tipping point but I hadn't been giving the board anything like the backing I did when Green was in charge. I know I haven't been on here much but my views can be found elsewhere, it wasn't a jump the shark moment. Even going back to Green's period you'll find critical comments from me towards other individuals, Toxic Jack being one of them. Scepticism of the alternatives did make me wary and to an extent it still does but things have gotten so bad then it has to be a better option

 

Agreed, and moving forward is also why I'm attempting to make a more permanent return to Gersnet and to not hide from any questions.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

I've been critical of Imran Ahmad and Bill McMurdo plenty of times, I've also talked about how my family have met Jack Irvine in the past and backed up his toxic image.

 

So it goes to show some comments are remembered better than others.

If you say so . Just interesting that McMurdo got a free pass for a while and still has supporters yet if you go into a topic about SoS or RST all you get is widespread hatred.