maineflyer

Totti, From what you've posted today alone, you sound like you're one of those who have swallowed the media's message hook, line and sinker. I'm always disappointed to see Rangers supporters who feel so acutely embarrassed to be Rangers supporters. Manchester was an orchestrated fudge from start to finish. Sufre there were some very dubious characters, most of whom seemed to appear on the streets in the late afternoon and early evening. But why not tell us how embarrassed or angry you were about the GMP thugs clubbing innocent fans from behind? Or have you come here to spread myths too.

To clarify, I wasn't comparing the two leagues. Just the opposite really. I was making the point that (1) we won't be joining the EPL in any case, and (2) we have more need to sort out our club and rebuild our internal structures and priorities than to chase income alone. If, by some miracle, we did find ourselves in the EPL, we would still be the same fukked up mess we are today, only with more money and better players. But we would be no more successful than we are today. Rangers priority shouldn't be to find income streams to compete with EPL finances..... it should be to create the best football club we can be in the financial environment we find ourselves in.... and to return to our institutional roots.

Saw this from the Manchester Evening News over on Vanguardbears website.....

Yeah right, Andy Goram never had a drink or ate a pie. Neither did Gazza, Jim Baxter, Colin Stein, Bud Johnston, or most of those in the Hall of Fame. Lord, protect me from the pious man.

Surely it's what you would have said anyway.

I hope I'm lucky enough never to hear about this EPL bollocks again.... or the mythical Atlantic League, the United League of Planets, or any other fictional nonsense. Why is it we can't just face up to what we are and where we are, and deal with it. It's nothing to do with what state the SPL is in, it's about facing simple facts about ourselves and dealing with them. For 137 years, Rangers have carved out their place in football by playing in Scotland and it's really not such a bad place we've made. Personally, I'd like to see us all stop looking over the fence in envy and rebuild our own house. Rangers are a bigger shambles than Scottish football right now and it's almost entirely of our own making. We need to sort out an abundance of problems at home before we even think about anything outwith the club's own doors. A well run Rangers should be helping to lift the Scottish game, not the other way round. If we are brutally honest, we've made a complete bodge of things these last 20 years or so. The most successful club in the country's history stopped producing it's own talent, it turned its back on huge areas of its heritage, it divided and alienated large chunks of its support, and ended up a debt-ridden mess delivering garbage on the park. Worst of all has been a virtual loss of what was once a clear and cherished identity. A definitive lesson in fact, in how to turn success into failure. Gazza, Laudrup nor NIAR make up for what has been done to Rangers. Trying to run away from our own mistakes is perhaps the best way to make sure we never turn round and address them. For me, moving to play in the EPL would put the last nail in the coffin of the club I grew up with. I want to see us accept we play in the Scottish leagues and get on with rebuilding Rangers before we worry about who we play each week or how much TV money we earn. If we're the best club in Scotland we will earn our CL money more often than not, we'll again attract and produce he best young talent in the country and, most importantly, we'll rediscover self-respect.

I reckon that's about the stretch of it.

Remember the Billy Boys fiasco.

The reason the criticism is strong is that, in my opinion, they continue to perform to entirely the wrong audience for all the wrong reasons..... that's the reason they continue to underachieve and is unacceptable. Saying nothing at all would be entirely a better course of action. The organisation is entitled to promote itself but I'd rather they found a way to do it without actively adding to the criticism of the club or supporters, much of which has been way over the top about the Bucharest affair. The RST has no need to add fuel to the flames. I'm sorry Frankie but calling Spiers a bitter little arsewipe seems entirely fair and factually accurate..

Agree with you there TB, it was a very good read. All of which makes it all the more cringeworthy that our own make-believe representatives of whatever flavour you choose cannot issue statements that are equally balanced and sensible. And it does make Spiers look like the bitter little arsewipe by comparison.

Leading Rangers fan my arse. Prostituting himself to the Rangers-hating Scottish media, giving them the words they want to hear - what the fukk is 'leading' about that. What is it about these self-promoters that prevents them talking for Rangers rather than trying to appear sage-like by issuing dire warning about the conduct of Rangers fans? I thought the RST at least pretended to represent us, to act in our best interests, but it looks like they're still mainly interested in how they themselves come across. Being Mr Reasonable isn't actually their job. What the fukk is Edgar doing claiming that UEFA were somehow lenient becasue Rangers have crippling debts. Will these performing arseholes never leave the stage? LEADING Rangers fans last night warned the Ibrox legions to stay clear of trouble - because UEFA will never again be so lenient. Rangers Supporters Trust spokesman David Edgar revealed his relief at yesterday's decision to only fine the club �£18,000 for last week's Battle of Bucharest plus the cost of any damages to the stadium. He reckons European football's governing body let them off so lightly because of Rangers' colossal debt. But Edgar doesn't believe they'll be so lucky next time. Being forced to close Ibrox or even getting chucked out of Europe altogether has already been mooted. The prospect terrifies Edgar. And now he has warned the supporters who will travel to Spain for the Champions League clash with Sevilla to turn the other cheek - no matter the goading. Edgar said: "From the supporters' point of view we are glad UEFA used common sense and took into account the club''s crippling debt. "But we can't keep doing this. There will be no second chance. "Now Rangers fans who travel abroad have to be above reproach. "If there is provocation of any kind then we must rise above it. There cannot be any more trouble. "Maybe it would be better if the Scottish police travelled with the support so there was no direct contact with a foreign police force. "Uefa don't really care about why an incident has happened or how it came to be. If there is any more trouble they will come for Rangers. "Our card is marked. If we come up in front of that disciplinary body again then we are going to get a heavy punishment. That is natural. "It is unfortunate that, in this case, there were extenuating circumstances, but from now on supporters must ignore any provocation because the outcome could be dire." Privately, the club feared far worse was going to hit them than a paltry fine after Gers fans had been involved in a rogues' gallery of shameful scenes. There was last year's Manchester mayhem at the UEFA Cup Final. And in 2007 the club was fined �£8000 on an improper conduct charge for fans' behaviour at an away UEFA Cup game against Osasuna. Before then supporters indulged in sickening chants at Villarreal as well as attacking the opponents' team bus. The club were penalised little more than �£20,000 for those 2006 incidents. Andy Kerr, president of the Rangers Supporters Assembly, claimed he knew his club were going to get let off the hook again. But like Edgar he has fired an apocalyptic warning over what might happen if the thug element rears its ugly head again. Kerr said:"The fine is in line with what we expected and possibly not as bad as it might have been. "However, this cannot happen again. We've been to the table several times and there have been occasions when fans have had justifiable complaints about stewarding and policing arrangements. "But we must ensure we're never back at the table again. If there is a feeling that one venue is going to be particularly dodgy, then let's plan better before we go there. "There has been a suggestion that a fan or fan representative even be involved in pre-match planning and that's an idea with merit. Let's also undertake our research when a game is taking place at the stadium we'll be visiting rather than a quiet Tuesday afternoon." Rangers fans' day began with the news the club was more than �£30million in debt. Edgar has called 2009 the club's Year Zero after they revealed the extend of their money woes. But the powerful RST hope their club can look forward with a lot more hope, even if the former chairman was not allowed to escape criticism. Edgar said: "The figures are slightly worse than we feared. We believed it was going to be �£30m. "Although it must be said this has come before the Champions League income of this season and the wage cuts in the summer, so it will improve. "But this is an indictment of the shoddy management of the previous regime. "I read a statement from Alastair Johnston praising the business acumen of Sir David Murray but considering we are �£31.3m in debt that is a false argument to say the least. "However, there is no point in continually lamenting the previous chairman, no matter how justified we believe we are in doing so. It's time to move on. We have to look at this asYear Zero. "This has to be as bad as it ever gets for Rangers."

Amazing how good some basic honesty feels after the stench of Murray.

I think the question is relevant mostly because there is no shortage of candidates. As for �£1000 per annum, there will be also be no shortage of people to take this up. Only in my opinion of course.

The fact is McCoist made his usual knee jerk response to premeditated questioning from the media. He swallowed their agenda hook, line and sinker - failing completely to take a balanced perspective and in the process allowed the media to substantiate their rush to condemn Rangers. Rightly criticising McCoist has nothing whatsoever to do with ignoring or denying the moronic element who cause trouble whatever the circumstances. It's about McCoist and an oversized mouth coupled to his undersized brain. Personally, I'm getting sick of his willingness to accommodate his media pals at our expense. Fast becoming an ex-legend.

For the club membership I guess ..... not for RST membership?

To be fair though, the RST membership probably had less to do with cost and more to do with infighting and a lack of tangible achievement. You can't blame people for rejecting something if it's no good. In the case we're discussing, the members wouldn't leave, they'd remove the executive. Which action might have saved the RST if it had been available.

He's dropped right off my Xmas card list.

But that's quite different from one individual or organisation having direct control over a block of votes. I'm all for persuasion but not the other thing.

I've just noticed that it would apparently make my blood run coold, which is probably really frukking cold. I admit I'm just exploring these ideas and reacting to what emerges.The thought about block votes was that this allows votes to coalesce, destroying the safeguards inherent in OMOV but, more worryingly, presenting the opportunity for political activity, with certain individuals trying to accrue votes and exercise control beyond the level of ordinary members. It's not so different from where we are today - the guy with the most money buys the most shares and controls the entire club - not on merit but simply on the basis of wealth. Start blocking votes and you concerntrate influence and simultaneously erode the sense of individual participation taht seems to me to be so important.

The thing is, as long as you hang out the carrot of reward or return, it will always be a loan or an investment. Only when you remove these things do you create a situation where people will make a contribution. In the end, the decision here is stark and brutal - does the club exist for the benefit of the supporters (would-be members) or for the benefit of a relatively small elite group of wealthy investors. That's not a politically motivated question btw, simply a dichotomy that needs to acknowledged and a position that needs to be taken at the outset. I'm very afraid that the majority of active supporters groups haven't yet made the step up from strategising under the Murray regime and what's required to build something more 'approprite'.

I'm not convinced that what we need most are more 'high net worth' investors and I'm even less sure that these should be seen as our principal need or that any new structure should be built around accommodating them. These people are often the worst people in the world to run the club but have by virtue of their wealth alone a means of doing so. Remember, we're not where we are today because we've not had money. We're actually in such perilous condition because we've made such a horrendous dogs breakfast of running the club. One thing mentioned above than makes my blood run coold is the idea of block votes - if that becomes a reality we had better find something better to occupy our attention and not waste time on Rangers.

I couldn't possibly comment ...... or argue.

Exactamundo Frankie. That's the important point at the very heart of the matter.

This question seem to be fundamental to the feasibility of any scheme. I don't know the answer but I believe any 'reward' would have to come in the form of privileges rather than monetary return or corporate control. Otherwise you are immediately back where we are today. The basic question is whether wealthy supporters would be willing to contribute rather than invest. Given the negligible return realised from football investments, I have a feeling they just might. One important aspect of this is that it leaves room for a great many more investors than previously, when investment has been constrained for both political and corporate reasons.

I thought that was a great post, raising some excellent points that made me think a little clearer about some developing ideas. For the sake of the debate only, I thought I'd throw some comments back at you. That's a fair point but we need to clearly differentiate between attending games and participating in the running and guidance of the club. These thing are neither mutually exclusive nor inclusive. There are very many people around the world who cannot ever attend games but who would want to pay for a voting membership. These 'exiles' currently have little or no tangible means of engaging in the club they nearly all feel passionately about. In my opinion, if you cannot afford to attend games and buy a membership then you simply have a choice to make. To me these are two separate matters and there's no natural presumption that you have to be both or either. This simply describes a method of payment. Pay in installment, pay it all up front - why not have many payment options. However, for obvious reasons, I'd have thought the sums involved have to be meaningful. I'm not sure I understand the reference to the trust. With open-to-all membership, each with one personal vote, I see no practical role for separate fans' organisations. Rather, everything should be integral to the club. I completely agree though that one member one vote is absolutely essential. The point has been made by others that this idea will only ever succeed if it is actively promoted by the club rather than pursued by supporters organisations in spite of the club ownership and I happen to agree with that fundamental principle. The idea of supporter representation on the Rangers board is an old and flawed pursuit. We need an executive and various operating committees that are ALL voted in by the membership.... what we do not want are a few supporters injected into the existing structure. That will never produce the level playing field and sense of unity that we have been so badly needing and which would only make the club more investible. I hope you'll forgive me for saying this but we need to move on from these old structures and ideas. One membership class, each with one non-transferrable vote. Not electing some supporters but electing all executives and officers. Not a place for some supporters but a hierarchy entirely placed by the members. I absolutely agree with you on the limited term principle however.