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

[simplythebest 0]

It really isn't. It's not a case that some are better than others but that some have contributed a lot more and put in a lot more effort than others.

 

I'm happy to acknowledge that there's many who have done a lot more than I have in bringing around this change and don't see what the problem with that is.

I just don't think it especially helps us going forward, everyone has done plenty in their own way even if they weren't always present at protests. I could conceivably say I did a lot more for the referendum than others because I campaigned, but in the end everyone who got out and voted No won it.

 

There's nothing wrong with praising people if you believe they deserve it and I'm not looking for any myself, but when I see things (not on Gersnet) about how we should be naming stands after Craig Houston and Chris Graham and giving them lifetime season tickets I wonder what planet I'm on.

 

 

It's been one disaster after another even before Wallace and Nash went. I think that you don't seem to see that is part of the issue.

I acknowledge it absolutely, Graham Wallace is where I'd say I was taken in, I thought he was a credible figure and while I still think he was he should clearly have been more honest about the conditions he had to work with and how others were working against him on the inside.

 

Also whatever I've said about Green in the past some of the people he had around him like Ahmad and Stockbridge were utter disasters. The bigger issue for me is always that I've never been convinced by Dave King and Paul Murray as alternatives yet they always seem to have been the only alternatives. Nevertheless things have got so bad that they have to be better options now.

 

 

But they hadn't previously so I'm not sure that they necessarily would have if the pressure hadn't been ramped up.

The regime previously had much better PR and seemed capable of a charm offensive even with fan group pressure. Even if they'd had the sense to fire McCoist much earlier and have us in a better situation on the park it might have helped them to an extent. There's been so little attempt the last few months to even try and win over the support I find it hard to believe how anyone wouldn't have reached the same conclusion.

 

 

 

Nothing wrong with healthy scepticism and it's up to them to earn trust.

Indeed, they have to be taken on their own merits and not always considered the right people simply because they aren't the previous guys.

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure about the effectiveness of the boycotts either but I'm in the same boat as your close family member.

The temptation is understandable, the football on the park doesn't exactly act as much of a push either. I'll never accept boycotts were right or that they helped the situation but it's not in the club's interests for there to be bitterness remaining amongst us so I hope everyone comes back whatever the reason they stayed away and that Ibrox is full from now on.

 

 

 

 

Agreed. It's important that we do move forward positively.

 

[the gunslinger 3,366]

The boycotts were vital and its a shame more didn't back them or we may have got rid if greenco sooner.

 

Those who boycotted have driven the share price down and the ****s out.

 

Well done to them.

[pete 2,499]

The boycotts were vital and its a shame more didn't back them or we may have got rid if greenco sooner.

 

Those who boycotted have driven the share price down and the ****s out.

 

Well done to them.

 

Agreed without the boycotts this board would have kept filling their pockets and just kept us ticking over to keep raping us.

[simplythebest 0]

The boycotts also created a situation where we needed so many of these large loans, hence Mike Ashley. So it could be argued they helped Llambias and Leach in the door.

 

If you listen to the Laxey guy's interview when they sold their shares he didn't say it was because of boycotts, it was because Ashley forced out Norman Crighton and basically they lost confidence in the board. I believe shareholders simply lost any faith in the board's competency.

 

But the end result is the right one so it's an inconsequential debate now.

Edited March 4, 2015 by simplythebest

[the gunslinger 3,366]

It was all the boycotts. All of it. Ashley got in because of the easdales/greenco.

 

If shareholders lost confidence in Ashley and the boycotts brought in Ashley it's all the boycotts. By your own logic.

 

Not that your right about that but either way.

[Thinker 887]

The boycotts also created a situation where we needed so many of these large loans, hence Mike Ashley. So it could be argued they helped Llambias and Leach in the door.

 

If you listen to the Laxey guy's interview when they sold their shares he didn't say it was because of boycotts, it was because Ashley forced out Norman Crighton and basically they lost confidence in the board. I believe shareholders simply lost any faith in the board's competency.

 

But the end result is the right one so it's an inconsequential debate now.

 

I'd say it's a pretty reasonable assumption that the boycotts only hastened the need for the loans.

 

Any additional money that may have come into the club, had there been no boycott, would simply have been siphoned off.

[simplythebest 0]

It was all the boycotts. All of it. Ashley got in because of the easdales/greenco.

 

If shareholders lost confidence in Ashley and the boycotts brought in Ashley it's all the boycotts. By your own logic.

 

Not that your right about that but either way.

Well I disagree, not that it matters now does it? I retract what I've said previously, I want everyone back at Ibrox regardless of why they stayed away

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Oh goody you don't want us banned now your precious greenco have lost.

 

I hope you would have been so magnanimous if you had won.

[craig 5,199]

Naming stands after Craig Houston & Chris Graham ? You must be joking, surely ?

 

There are only 4 stands and we already have the Bill Struth, Family Stand and Sandy Jardine Stand. We only have the Copland left to name - and much as though I admire and respect the work done by both Craig & Chris I would also be surprised if they weren't themselves personally a touch embarrassed by the suggestion of naming a stand after them.

 

Are those making such suggestions seriously of the belief that these two gents have done more for the Club than the likes of Walter, Greig et al ? There are many more people I would consider for renaming stands after before I would consider Craig & Chris - they have done an admirable job, lets not be kidded, but so have others. And we have had many, many people who have given their lives to Rangers - how about the "Tiny Stand" - that wee woman bleeds blue, as has her family for generations.

 

Anyway, I'm getting somewhat off topic - I would be surprised if those suggestions were made in earnest.

[simplythebest 0]

I'd say it's a pretty reasonable assumption that the boycotts only hastened the need for the loans.

 

Any additional money that may have come into the club, had there been no boycott, would simply have been siphoned off.

If the loans would have come about anyway then surely we'd have reached this point anyway as well? Laxey were pissed off at the power Ashley had and him forcing their man off the board. I don't think other shareholders could maintain a confidence in any board with such poor financial performance, King and his people talked them around which is what he should have tried sooner in my opinion.

 

It's just my opinion, nothing about this has been definitive.