aweebluesoandso 290 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) That's a sensible outlook but, unfortunately, we've struggled to compromise in the last ten years or so - be it club to fan, fan to club and fan to fan. That's why we have the ridiculous situation of so many groups. I don't envy those negotiating and it's going to be fascinating to see what arises - particularly after the fact and further down the line. It's not just about leaving their ego's at the door Frankie, everyone must leave their partisan feelings too. What loyalty they had to their particular fans group, Association, Assembly, Buy Rangers or Rangers First must be dropped for the greater good of this new concept. It's to important for supporters representation and the welfare of the club, to get it wrong. Edited January 25, 2016 by aweebluesoandso 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 6,589 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 we don't need any more 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,367 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 we don't need any more This group is to essentially replace the rest of the existing ones mate. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 we don't need any more If done properly it would actually be LESS, not more. An amalgamation of all groups into a single entity. Would be great for us and hopefully they can accomplish it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,974 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 It takes for people to check their ego at the door and see that the major benefactor in all of this will be the Club. United under one umbrella with a common goal should see us far stringer both as a support and as a Club. Whilst I have my doubts about some being able to leave their ego behind for the greater good I certainly hope that I am proven wrong as it will only be for the best. Ego's may well have been a part of the wider problems during the last few years but I tend to think histoically there has been much more than that to blame for the divisory evolution and that like much connected with Rangers it has been complex and at times 'dark'. It would seem as Sir Duped alongside Toxic Jack recognised a need to divide the support when organised and relevant dissent was being shown towards the running of the club (RST/'We Deserve Better'). Without going through subsequent events piecemeal, the dark arts seemed to encourage, feed, maximise, sow seeds, discredit, or do whatever where neccessary to help along any natural problems, controversies and differences that would arise. The obvious goals were to 'control' and limit fans (groups) influence. The extent to which this had developed by 2010/11 would have probably been an important aspect or selling point to consider for any potential buyer given what may lay ahead. This then developed to another level altogether through subsequent years, with a certain Toxic PR company never too far away. The jist of what I'm on about being that what has evolved isn't altogether natural and has involved 'dark arts'/politics. Hence, why I contend that the litmus test for going forward should be looking at objectives from the top down,..... ie. (the base broad interest is surely to enjoy and take part within a resurgent and successful football club). I appreciate that may be far too simplistic and uninformed view. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 4,013 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 The name should describe what it is. Not sure what help a committee of bystanders will be. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waltersgotstyle 297 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) The Peoples Front of Judea Edit: I see GS beat me to it. Edited January 25, 2016 by Waltersgotstyle 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plgsarmy 111 Posted January 25, 2016 Author Share Posted January 25, 2016 As much as a good name may be agreeable for branding/recognition purposes, it's more important to sort out the raison d'être and make this clear to all members - existing or potential. To an outsider there still appears to be conflict between the organisations - e.g. RF and the RST whilst I'm not convinced the Association, Assembly and Fans Board committees will stand by with a smile and a wave as their positions/groups become defunct. Are we really to believe that is the case? With that in mind what exactly is trying to be achieved here? Is it a genuine amalgamation of all existing groups into one cohesive unit or is it just another umbrella - i.e. a new Assembly/Fans Board whereby the original groups remain active and thus separate? I think the former is arguably the best strategy but some may feel we still need an independent fan group external to any club organised/controlled one. If it's the latter umbrella option then aren't you just wasting your time if we already have two similar groups which have struggled to capture the imagination of fans? To end on a positive note, I think most fans want some sort of unified body speaking as one - whether that's formally part of the club or independent of it. However, there's still some debate as to how best this will work and exactly how far this merger will go. I've not really seen this question answered properly yet. Finally, if it is to be one name to bind and rule us all, then I'd opt for the Rangers Supporters Association as a first choice as there's history there we could/should be looking to save. If a new name is considered more agreeable then the Rangers Supporters Union may be self-explanatory. It can't be an umbrella group Frankie, that just wouldn't work. In addition it will be completely independent from the club although it will have a relationship with it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,367 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 It can't be an umbrella group Frankie, that just wouldn't work. In addition it will be completely independent from the club although it will have a relationship with it. I'm glad to hear it and am very interested in how the amalgamation proposal will work. Good luck! 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.