maineflyer

It's a bugger, this black and white. It's not meant to be descriptive of course, in fact it's a hell of an uncomfortable way of looking at things. But it does allow at least some chance of looking past the clutter and bullshit, even if only for a moment. Amazing what you find sometimes.

So the parts where I say I agree with you are ignored? You put a thread up, one I agree with in the main. the first question was me trying to learn more about the club and the second was a perfectly legitamate question.

 

If you want to post your thoughts and never be questioned, perhaps you would be better suited to a blog than a messageboard? You can clearly articulate your own thoughts very well. You are equally clearly completely incapable of understanding points and questions put back to you. You have misinterpreted entirely what I wrote. Your response bears NO relation to the questions put to you. Get a blog and I will certainly subscribe because you clearly have intelligent thoughts and are capable of getting them down in print. You are not even nearly capable of entering adult debate, though.

Then I was right in my assumption that your intent was simply to undermine. I understood your questions as well as you understood I had no intention or interest in responding to them. That my response bore no relation to the questions was obvious and I'm content I made my point well enough. It might lend a little credence to your presence here if you just came out and said what's on your mind instead of dancing around it with this contrived analysis of other people's posts.

I think Johnson had already decided he won't continue under Murray's ownership and that he won't be allowed to continue under Whyte's ownership.

He needs to be sold.

I wouldnt disagree that the support ned to look at what we could and should have done. A couple of questions for you though MF.

 

1, Was the support at one time more united and purposeful? you say that there was a specific point where it became practice to allow the board to run the club and for the rest to be customers. When was this? being youngish all I know is the Rangers of my lifetime and what I have read. What I have read is basically that things now are as they ever were, with the internet being the only real difference (allowing those that want it a platform of enlightenment)

 

2, How can the trust have failed the support? They can fail what you yourself call a tiny membership, but if you are not part of it, they dont speak on your behalf and therefore cannot fail you. If you want representation then you cant sit and wait until something comes along that you feel comfortable with. Well, you can, but you could be in for a long long wait. I use 'you' to describe the wider support and I understand well enough that there are some who were in the trust who no longer are. I wouldnt begin to say that they were not people who were let down, clearly they were. I dont know if you fit into that group or not either.

With respect, I'm no one's teacher and I didn't post for the pleasure of answering a barrow load of questions. I speak only for myself and nothing I've mentioned is based upon secrets or mystery. It's all there for you to see as clearly as I believe I can. The issue is about what you choose to do with what your eyes and ears are telling you. You can close yourself to what's going on and choose to believe there are no problems, or you can do the other thing. If you're content that everything is rosy or that there's nothing to warrant alarm then that's a matter for your own conscience and judgement. As for the RST, let me put it this way, if it had never existed would anything be materially different today and did it aim to deliver change or the status quo - somewhere in there is the answer you're looking for?

Working hard on behalf of ....... Themselves.

I'm going to install a very simple one as well at some point - for those of us who wish to be a bit more subtle while at work...

That would be very much appreciated.

POLICE will issue the Old Firm with a list of banned songs as they begin their biggest crackdown on sectarianism.

 

Both Celtic and Rangers will be asked to distribute the list to fans and ask them to stop singing them.

 

The banned songs are thought to include The Famine Song, The Billy Boys and other tunes that glorify terror groups such as the IRA and UDA.

 

Senior Strathclyde police sources say officers are ready to wade into stands to arrest offenders.

 

A source said: "The police and the clubs need to work together and there has to be change in attitude by fans.

 

"Thousands sing these songs but we cannot turn a blind eye any longer.

 

"These songs have to become as socially unacceptable as drink-driving."

 

Persistent offenders will be warned inside grounds.

 

If they fail to stop, they will be arrested and could be taken to court and banned from attending matches.

 

Fury over sectarian singing has increased in a season which has already featured six highly-charged Old Firm matches.

 

The Catholic Church last month compained about singing coming from the Rangers end during the Co-operative Insurance Cup final, which Rangers won 2-1.

 

And Rangers fans have been prosecuted for singing The Famine Song, described as racist by High Court judge Lord Carloway.

 

It contains the words "the famine is over, why don't you go home" and has also been attacked by Celtic chairman Lord Reid.

 

Last month, the Sunday Mail revealed a Celtic fan had received a two-year banning order and a �£300 fine for a song which described Rangers manager Walter Smith as a "sad, Orange b*****d".

 

Lawyer David McKie last month successfully defended police officer Christopher Halaka who was accused of chanting pro-IRA slogans at a Perth taxi rank.

 

He was cleared of breach of the peace with religious aggravation at Perth Sheriff Court.

 

Mr McKie said: "Some songs about the IRA and UDA may be sectarian but singing them isn't necessarily breaking the law. The lyrics may be about history and politics and have nothing to do with religion."

 

Scottish historian Professor Tom Devine, of Edinburgh University, said: "There should be caution until we see how this works.

 

"But questions remain. How are those engaged in such singing to be identified? "Will they be charged with breach of the peace aggravated by sectarian intent? "And will the ban apply to all football matches and parks in Scotland?" Last night Celtic said they were unaware of the plans and couldn't comment on the new measures.

 

Rangers were also unable to comment.

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/04/03/police-chiefs-give-celtic-and-rangers-list-of-banned-songs-in-sectarian-crackdown-86908-23035258/

Blah blah blah, increase police funding, blah blah blah, give me a promotion, blah blah blah. I wonder if concocting crime statistics and openly lying about them to manipulate public opinion and deceive governments is also an offence? Respect for the role of the police, yes. Respect for the police itself, not a chance, devious bastards.

It's been my contention all along that the Rangers support, collectively, have failed to play their part in assuring the good governance of the club. From some distant corner the notion arose that it was the board's job to manage and our job to turn up and be served. This was music to the ears of a corrupt leadership, who were able to faff and fudge without scrutiny or accountability. The current shambles is at least as much our doing as Murray's. I can understand why this isn't a popular proposition but I'm damned if there's a decent case to be made against it.

Which is why, for many years, I've written so vehemently against the stupidity and cowardice of the failed RST, the one organization in a position to exert pressure and scrutiny on Murray's performance. Hiding behind the futile mantra of fan ownership, a fan on the board, the RST has badly failed it's own tiny membership, the wider support, and the very club whose name it carries. My criticism wasn't and isn't personal to individual RST board members but it would have helped if some of the more well-intentioned on the RST board had shown some guts while they were part if it, instead of pontificating and squabbling after leaving. For those still there I can offer only contempt.

Now I see other fans holding moronic banners at Ibrox yesterday, some of them not unconected with the failed RST, challenging the one man prepared to think about stepping in to help the club, while offering the same compliant silence towards David Murray who led us into the mess that now threatens our very existence. The utter, pathetic stupidity of the Rangers support seems to know no limit and offer no hope of better things to come. What the hell is wrong with us? Why is it that those with apparently little or no skill to create or implement worthwhile strategies are the ones who always promote themselves into positions of prominence? And, above all, why has the ordinary Rangers fan become so unwilling to be take personal responsibility for his/her club, become so apparently complicit in the problems besieging us?

Whatever fate awaits Rangers, if we don't change, if we don't start demanding change of ourselves, then there will be no improvement ahead. We must stop defending mediocrity and set our sights much higher ... and not just on fans' websites!

Just looking at the BBC website and there's a photo showing fans with a banner reading - Step up and Pay Mr Whyte - what's that all about? The same fans might have been better to have a banner complaining about the Fat Snake who's making it almost impossible to buy the club. Really perverse.

Losing Ibrox would be worse for me than losing a few league titles.l

Couldn't agree more with you. Funny when the reality starts to percolate through how the club emerges as far more important than the team. I'd willingly weather ten years in the wilderness if it meant survival and a Rangers for our grandchildren to watch.

God, administration huh?

 

Never really gave that a second thought until now. If we do go under and manage to re-invent ourselves, we'll be miles behind Celtic who will no doubt storm away to league after league.

 

Administration could be the best thing to happen ... or not. Anyway, I'm not talking about liquidation, winding up. Simply about dealing with this choking debt. You can bet your favourite Y-fronts that there are a few potential buyers who see administration as their preferred way into ownership.

If he buys the club next week, I'd suggest the least it will tell us about Craig Whyte is that he has no lack of desire, commitment and determination to lead Rangers.

He'll be buying the club in the face of enormous challenges and uncertainties. 'Fat Snake' Murray is still trying to strip the last cent out of us, unknown tax liabilities, and undoubtedly a host of other buyers (and he could have chosen to be one of them) waiting in the shadows for a post-administration bargain. To make his play at this time tells me a lot about how much he wants to be the man to take us forward.

I don't know if we'll have a new owner next week, right now I think it's unlikely. If we do then Whyte is a man with big balls. If not then you have to assume administration is the most likely, and possibly inevitable, end game. We shouldn't fear administration and ultimately it could be the moment of genuine re-birth for Rangers. Right now however, I'd rather avoid the vulture-fest that administration will bring and would prefer ownership by a man who shows the personal desire that I think Craig Whyte s showing us today.

MF, I respect your right to your opinion about Mr Murray, though I must question the language you use to describe him from time to time.

 

However, as fan who clearly has the best interests of the Club at heart would you not consider that it would be better to go to Ibrox to support the team both with your money and your voice than sit at home, particularly when I assume that you could afford to go along, which unfortunately many cannnot in these difficult times and the team need all the support they can get? (Sorry about the construction of that sentence but you'll get my drift, I'm sure).

BH if you're more concerned with the language than the intent behind it then that's disappointing. If calling Murray a Fat Snake doesn't suit you as a matter of descriptive preference then that's OK but if you're concerned because you still think he deserves to be respected then (in my opinion) you're very much part of the problem and I'm genuinely sorry to see it.

If you're saying that having the best interests of Rangers means buying a season ticket or going to games then I really feel sorry for you. Too many use the notion of loyalty as an excuse for sticking their head in the sand and hoping for the best. I can't do that and I consider myself as committed and loyal a Rangers supporter as any. I've long been convinced that we would end up in the very mire facing us today and, to me, the issue has been about saving Rangers, not whether we win or lose a league title.

It shouldn't take a huge intellectual effort to see that Rangers is more than just the name. This club has more tradition than most and (for me at least) it must actually stand for something. I'm happy that that 'something' will change and evolve over time but I cannot accept that we stand for the sort of deceit that has characterised the running of the club for many years. I won't support it either. The club means more than that to me - or perhaps more accurately, supporting the club means far too much to me.

Adopt whatever approach to supporting Rangers seems right for you but, please, don't question my commitment to Rangers. And don't expect anything but opposition from me if you're serious about defending David Murray's honour. Fat Snake doesn't really do it for me, I'm not sure any words could. I've watched Rangers being systematically disassembled by Murray for twenty years and I'm deeply committed to the notion that he is as much the enemy as any rabid Rangers-hater with green around his neck. Perhaps when we finally hear the truth about Murray's willful neglect and mismanagement even you will find some choice words to describe him too. Unfortunately, before that happens we might have a great deal more to worry about than what I call David Murray.

Get off your high horse and beyond the simplistic bollocks of what I choose to call the Fat Snake. You eventually got there with the failed RST, maybe you should think about taking less time to get there with RFC. I'd love to be walking into Ibrox this afternoon but I wouldn't dream of doing so while Murray remains in control. If and when he goes, I'll be delighted to 'support' the club again.

I honestly don't see Whyte taking on this tax liability, which almost certainly means the deal collapsing if he is asked to do so. After that, only administration awaits us and ultimately the destruction of 139 years of proud heritage. Some custodian you turned out to be Mr Murray.

They have known for a long time that Rangers are a shambles, with skeletons fighting for space in every cupboard. Now they're going to make us agonize over our mess, rub our noses in it. Here's our fiver, where your tenner now huns? Well it's our bed, we made it and now we bloody well deserve to lie in it.

I've said for a long time that the club is rotten to the core and is no longer the club I started supporting. That the Rangers support is weak and stupid is amplified by the way so many fawned over Murray for years, closing their eyes and locking away what simple common sense should have told every one of us about the Fat Snake running the club. It's shameful to see Rangers reduced to this, our dirty laundry hung out for the benefit of all those who hate our very existence. It's also shameful to see any Rangers supporter still willing to excuse David Murray.

I haven't been near Ibrox in over three years, said I'd never go back while Murray remains. It's made no difference to Murray but it has made a difference to me and I feel a whole lot cleaner for doing it.

Surprised that nobody has mentioned the fact that it's April fools day.... :devil:

Don't .

Now I'm starting to get excited.

I think the type of player we signed under Holmes demonstrated by Craig shows that later signings under Murray were not a novelty. If my memory serves me correctly, Holmes also balanced the books.

That's absolutely the point. the notion has emerged, based largely on Murray's own protestations, that the sucesses of the 1990's were only possible because of the debts racked up and that without Murray's largess none of those successes would have been possible. Rangers were already a successful, well-run company and team before David Murray showed up on our doorstep. The way in which Murray has drawn all credit to himself is nothing but typical of the man and fans are doing a huge disservice to a great man in David Holmes by buying into this myth. That's not to say everything Murray did was dreadful but his legacy is definitely one of leaving the club in a far worse condition than when he took over - and that is the measure of any leader.

Which players are you talking about because you've left it open to interpretation?

Now that IS being pedantic.

Maybe it's just me, but I think if we were on our arse we'd already have sold ALL of our key players, but that isn't the case and in fact, we've supposedly rejected bids for certain key players. 'On our arse' to me is a literal statement which says we're in deep, deep shit, but that is not the case at the moment.

We sold our key players, long ago. You just think some of the second rate players today are key by comparison with the third raters occupying the rest of the team.

1. The club isn't 'on it's arse'. There's a lot of problems, but it isn't 'on it's arse'.

2. We don't know that Murray is 'going out'.

 

I know that's a pedantic reply, but it's also a factual one in my opinion.

As I said it is my opinion. But if you want to be pedantic then you're right, I don't know Murray is going out but I do the club is on its arse - compared with the club he bought in 1998 when we had a generally united support, had the strongest squad in the country by a country mile, had the strongest finances in the country, were not regarded as pariahs by much of the community, and none of the media would have dared take on Ibrox. We're on our arses alright.

Well all this is well rehearsed and I know you will disgree strongly but I beg to put the opposite view.

 

Without Murray, I do not think we would have seen top quality players like Hately, Goram, Laudrup, Gascoigne, Klos and Ronald de Boer perform in light blue. We were a goal away from the CL Final in 93 and we had an outstanding team in Advocat's first two seasons with the likes of Numan, van Bronkhurst, Mols, Reyna and Albertz.

 

I totally accept that things started to go downhill with the purchase of Tore Andre Flo but I don't fault Murray for ambition and he recouped a large slice of that money with the spectacular purchase and sale of Boumsong. Yes it got out of hand but he did dip into his own pocket or the pockets of his companies to bring us back from ther brink. Yes he made a wrong choice with PLG but he brought Walter Smith back and Kaunas apart that has been a pretty successful, including the UEFA Cup Final.

 

Lastly, the current financial position to a great extent (at least �£10 million) is due to the ridicluous loss in Kaunas and Murray can't be blamed for that.

 

I have spoken to a great many fans on our travels and I haven't met one who does not think that overall SDM has not been a good thing for Rangers Football Club.

 

I share that view but confidently predict that I have given you and a great many others plenty of amunition with which to disagree!

With respect, you can have absolutley no idea what players we might have seen at Ibrox if David Murray hadn't bought Rangers. You can comment on what happened during his tenure but you cannot claim the good times would have been any worse without him. Rather than focussing on a few good players, wouldn't it be more relevant in terms of his success or failure to compare his entrance with his exit. In my opinion (and that's all it can be) he came in on a steep upslope and is going out with the club on its arse. That is the Murray legacy, that's the sum of his achievement and mentioning the odd good time or good player is by comparison meaningless.

He was once a great leader who did invest heavily in the club and great credit for our turnaround in the 80s must go to him, but now he really is well past his sell by date and his time is up.

 

Thing is he knows that more than anyone and wants out. I just don't think I believe the stuff about him wanting to sell us to reputable buyers who will take us forward. I think he just knows there are issues with our infrastructure which can scupper deals so he has the former excuse on standby when deals fall through.

Craig already said it but it needs emphasizing, when Murray arrived we stopped going forward and then stood still, eventually we started caressing downhill. He's neither a manager nor a leader and he has reduced us to the shadow we are today. You praise him if you like but don't kid yourself he's done anything for Rangers.

I'm with you, I just want him to get the fvck out and I wrote that post with more than a hint of irony, but I can't for the life of me figure out his thinking or his actions over the last however-many-years. He clearly loved the club at some point so you must think he still does care about its future, but if that's the case, how has he let it get to this stage? He must have surrounded himself with some very loyal people to be able to just disappear from the fans and for very little to come out about exactly what's gone on behind the scenes.

For loyal ... read dependant.