Match Thread [FT] Rangers 1 (Lundstram 90+1) - 1 Livingston

[CammyF 8,084]

10 minutes ago, forlanssister said:

Whilst it's incumbent that we keep an eye on the Boardroom I'm reluctant to compare what we have now to the Murray regime. For starters they're playing with their own money not the banks, there is no one with an overwhelming dominating shareholding, they are in the main Rangers fans and contrary to what people think they actually get it. They won't take us down the same road as Murray and we should at least thank them for that. I was way to late to start questioning Murray, it took the spunking of £12m (of someone else's money naturally) before I realised it was only going to end one way.

 

I totally get where you're coming from and don't dispute that concern is genuinely held. I myself have felt the wrath of the masses for not running with the herd, it can put you in a lonely place.

I probably didn't explain the comparison correctly. 

 

I knew Murrays reign would end in tears, he gambled and lost. 

 

The current board aren't gambling, which is correct (although the majority of the fanbase would like them to).

 

The comparison I was making is I fear for Rangers today as the current board aren't what we need to take us forward and their reign will end in tears or see us continually being 2nd best in a two horse race.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2022 by CammyF

[Scott7 6,004]

54 minutes ago, buster. said:

I'd raise you David Martindale as caretaker 😉

Nope. Threw away two points at Ibrox.

[Sutton_blows_goats 5,334]

2 minutes ago, Scott7 said:

Nope. Threw away two points at Ibrox.

But he has a good track record in pharmaceuticals. With our injury list..

 

😂

[CammyF 8,084]

2 minutes ago, Sutton_blows_goats said:

But he has a good track record in pharmaceuticals. With our injury list..

 

😂

Also has a decent home record against Celtic 

[MacK1950 2,376]

This is becoming more depressing by the minute,I know I have criticised the Board/Managerial team and players and players which is not something new for me, but doing so in forums is only over the last few years.

 

In the past I have criticised the Davy Cooper signing which turned out for the  good and thought signings like Alves to be great and look what happened.

 

The main constant for me is supporting Rangers since circa 1962/63, and been through the peaks and troughs since then,and will continue to do so whilst we have a club which we obviously nearly lost.

 

We are going through a turbulent as far as Management and players are concerned but please stay with the team as we will eventually find a solution.

 

WATP.

[buster. 5,186]

31 minutes ago, CammyF said:

I probably didn't explain the comparison correctly. 

 

I knew Murrays reign would end in tears, he gambled and lost. 

 

The current board aren't gambling, which is correct (although the majority of the fanbase would like them to).

 

The comparison I was making is I fear for Rangers today as the current board aren't what we need to take us forward and their reign will end in tears or see us continually being 2nd best in a two horse race.

 

 

 

To be a sustainable club is where over 90% of the fans woud have prioritised 10 years ago.

The cost of not doing that stared us in the face.

 

They should remember those priorities, because to look for or be happy with people who promise the world, will invaribly end in tears. We have repeatedly fell down the same hole and it wouldn't surprise me if we did it again.

 

Within the sustainable model, the only way I see us rising above a potential cieling that would bring needs three things to happen.

 

- an excellent manager 

- an excellent batch of youngsters coming through

- good recruitment with the scarce resources available

 

 

To gamble our future on an outside bet that is being placed by Charles Ponzi isn't a good idea.

 

[forlanssister 3,114]

49 minutes ago, CammyF said:

I probably didn't explain the comparison correctly. 

 

I knew Murrays reign would end in tears, he gambled and lost. 

 

The current board aren't gambling, which is correct (although the majority of the fanbase would like them to).

 

The comparison I was making is I fear for Rangers today as the current board aren't what we need to take us forward and their reign will end in tears or see us continually being 2nd best in a two horse race.

 

 

I get what you're saying I really do. However I view the current Board as just another stage of our recovery I don't view them as permanent fixtures, they like players should be viewed as organic constantly changing in a sort of evolution rather an endless revolutions.

 

Obviously the pandemic and it's consequences drastically altered what would have been the Boards plans (I concede the same applies to all clubs). I think part of the current anti Board sentiment can be laid at their own door as it was never fully explained just how big a mess the club was in every single department something that goes back to the days of our old friend Murray. That's not an excuse for the current Boards shortcomings however I think we can all agree compared to their predecessors they're relatively minor and certainly don't threaten the clubs very existance like the 3 previous regimes.

 

I'm inclined to lean towards better the devil you know for now, change will come in the Boardroom it's foolish to argue otherwise but surely we need to make sure the baton is passed on to the right people as we all know the consequences of what can unfold.

 

I share the same frustrations as everyone else at our regression under GvB which is undoubtedly rolling towards the inevitable conclussion. What I don't share is the clamour for return of King the notion of him wanting to invest more in Rangers is hilarious or the belief that there's a sugar daddy willing to pump £m's into a Scottish club or even that some consortium of investors led by Ms Fox will lead us to glory. I suspect you feel pretty much the same.

 

I honestly think that the covid crap not occured the Boardroom would indeed have a different complexion that it currently has but by the same token I'm grateful that they didn't all bugger off and try and get their money back and even of them stayed and dug deep just yo kerp us going.

 

I'm certain your wish for change will be fulfilled at what rate that change will arrive I honestly don't have a clue but it will.

[CammyF 8,084]

1 minute ago, forlanssister said:

I get what you're saying I really do. However I view the current Board as just another stage of our recovery I don't view them as permanent fixtures, they like players should be viewed as organic constantly changing in a sort of evolution rather an endless revolutions.

 

Obviously the pandemic and it's consequences drastically altered what would have been the Boards plans (I concede the same applies to all clubs). I think part of the current anti Board sentiment can be laid at their own door as it was never fully explained just how big a mess the club was in every single department something that goes back to the days of our old friend Murray. That's not an excuse for the current Boards shortcomings however I think we can all agree compared to their predecessors they're relatively minor and certainly don't threaten the clubs very existance like the 3 previous regimes.

 

I'm inclined to lean towards better the devil you know for now, change will come in the Boardroom it's foolish to argue otherwise but surely we need to make sure the baton is passed on to the right people as we all know the consequences of what can unfold.

 

I share the same frustrations as everyone else at our regression under GvB which is undoubtedly rolling towards the inevitable conclussion. What I don't share is the clamour for return of King the notion of him wanting to invest more in Rangers is hilarious or the belief that there's a sugar daddy willing to pump £m's into a Scottish club or even that some consortium of investors led by Ms Fox will lead us to glory. I suspect you feel pretty much the same.

 

I honestly think that the covid crap not occured the Boardroom would indeed have a different complexion that it currently has but by the same token I'm grateful that they didn't all bugger off and try and get their money back and even of them stayed and dug deep just yo kerp us going.

 

I'm certain your wish for change will be fulfilled at what rate that change will arrive I honestly don't have a clue but it will.

For what it's worth, I don't think King is the answer either, but as leader of our club he is head and shoulders above the likes of Park(s) and Robertson. 

 

I don't have the answers, but I know if we are to be "best in class" then we'll never reach that under the guidance of current board. 

 

The AGM will be interesting- wonder what hard-hitting questions will be allowed to be asked / answered. 

[forlanssister 3,114]

1 minute ago, CammyF said:

For what it's worth, I don't think King is the answer either, but as leader of our club he is head and shoulders above the likes of Park(s) and Robertson. 

 

I don't have the answers, but I know if we are to be "best in class" then we'll never reach that under the guidance of current board. 

 

The AGM will be interesting- wonder what hard-hitting questions will be allowed to be asked / answered. 

Whilst Kings public utterances are certainly more consumer friendly a look under under the bonnet may result in a different conclusion.

 

Personally I'd opt a strong well known high profile person from the business or peferably political spheres. As much as it grates the Fritzl doppelganger appointing Dr Death was an extremely astute piece of business.

 

Like you I'd love an open and frank AGM but such beasts don't appear to exist anywhere nowadays.

[BEARGER 1,830]

Should McGregor have done better at the goal?