Jump to content

 

 

maineflyer

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,764

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by maineflyer

  1. maineflyer
    It's not .... but I do like to see what all sides are saying. I always saw VB as a good and commited Rangers site but it sounds like you see something wrong with it, what's the problem, what do you have agoinst the good folks on VB. Did you just forget to answer my question?
  2. maineflyer
    I'd be delighted to .... but I can't .... it's not my theory. Have a look over on Vanguardbears, where you'll find all the enlightenment you require. Since you seem like someone who knows what's going on, perhaps you might enlighten everyone else by clearing up who DID organise and pay for those banners.
  3. maineflyer
    Thanks BD ...... but dictating a general business plan isn't the same as dictating the detailed actions carried out as part of that plan. Anyway, I'm not arguing any point here, just genuinely lacking evidence to support one view or the other.
  4. maineflyer
    There is no shortage of TBO people who also share their time with FF. Who knows which hat they were wearing today? Edit: Whoever organised those banners, I think it was a very good idea and I hope it is only a slow start to something altogether more "radical".
  5. maineflyer
    Yes, I heard that, the theory being that he doesn't have sufficient spondoolahs to buy the club so he's become main sponsor of the RST instead. Strange times breed strange bedfellows.
  6. maineflyer
    I take it these banners are the work of the political wing of FF? TBO and UB seem to be distancing themselves and I didn't think there was an influential fans group in the Govan.
  7. maineflyer
    As RBR says above, the most important thing today is to take three points. However, I also hope this is the start at last of a long-overdue willingness of fans to engage in proactive protest. Given the lacklustre and confused performance of the RST and Assembly, no one is going to speak for us in these matters. The stands at ibrox will need to do their own talking if they ever want this club to listen.
  8. maineflyer
    I don't disagree with you. In the circumstances, the bank is right to ensure sound financial management but it cannot be the bank's job to dictate how acceptable expenditure is directed. Only the board can do that. If Lloyds is effectively running the club - and I don't know that to be the case - then several things follow. The first is that the current board should either resign en masse or sort it out to the benefit of the club. Secondly, if the directors do neither then they should be the first target of the fans' anger. Thirdly, whatever the actions of the directors, the fans should adopt whatever opportunity presents itself to directly attack Lloyds. It's probably just me being wrapped up in other matters at the moment but remind me, apart from keyboard rumours what actual evidence is there that the bank is indeed dictating who is sold/bought or what wages are paid at Rangers?
  9. maineflyer
    Agreed, the publicity in the press is worth a lot of banners draped at Ibrox. Here's a thing though - while I'm as concerned about the conduct of Lloyds as the next guy, there's a part of me that feels there's a profound need for someone to inject some realism and prudence into the Rangers management. Some of the spending decisions at Ibrox these last few years have been so wasteful that I don't think I'd trust the old regime either. I'd do exactly what Lloyds have done and get someone on to the board who would stop the absurd profligacy we've had to suffer in the past.
  10. maineflyer
    So, what I take from the OP is this.......... 1. There's whacking great problem and the club stands on the edge of a cliff 2. It's utter confusion and no one knows what's going on 3. You can't trust a thing you hear or read 4. The support is divided and rudderless, endlessly recycling the same old rumours 5. We're hoping for the best, fearing the worst, waiting for the end and trying to rationalise the chaos
  11. maineflyer
    Immediately breaking all promises ....... this is exactly why we need a functioning RST and why it's worth fighting to turn what we have at present into what we actually need. ..... and ..... sleep.
  12. maineflyer
    You're just a smooth-talking devil who knows just how to get what you want by charm alone. I'm thoroughly dis-armed, I've abandoned repetition and I'll be sending off my RST membership fee in the morning. Or I might change my mind again. Hard to say really. ...... and it's duty of care, :devil:
  13. maineflyer
    He's certainly not going to like downright abuse like that.
  14. maineflyer
    Sorry Frankie but no, that would not be appropriate, not until the RST board either take this into the public arena or stop deliberately massaging figures to infer something that clearly doesn't exist. It can certainly be put to bed but not by me, I'm not in that position. All I can do is try to persuade others to do so, either that or keep exposing the fundamental dishonesty of those who keep trying to claim representation where they don't actually have it. How exactly do we move on where the RST is concerned until or unless they address their shortcomings. The only reason these people still dominate the RST is because others continually prefer to put the debate to bed. How do we address more the important matters you allude to when at the hub of it is a pretence that the supporters views are somehow represented by a redundant and dysfunctional group of wannabees. Forty-eight Hours to Save Rangers, We Deserve Better, the Only Show in Town, Our Seventeen Plans, etc. Who exactly is it that's throwing around this chaff you refer to? All I've ever asked for from the RST is truth and clarity. That doesn't strike me as something that should deflect anyone from the important issues. Only the lack of these two things causes the repetitious nature of the questions but even I would spend less time on the subject if these RST propagandists wouldn't insist on this continual revisionism.
  15. maineflyer
    That count must have been a very long time ago then because they would walk on coals to be able to boast about 2000 members. You can almost hear the cringe every time you ask them about their membership because this, above all else, stands in judgement and condemnation of the RST performance over the years. The RST can send their envoys to whatever forums they like but the one thing their propaganda campaigns cannot argue with is the distinctly low regard in which that organisation is held by its own constituency. Is there any better reason for changing the old guard immediately? On that point though, it's laughable and entirely revealing that no such defence is ever mounted on Vanguardbears, where they seem to shrink from their task in a most obvious manner..... perhaps further revealing the underlying political agenda that has plagued the RST since its inception.
  16. maineflyer
    You'll be catching a fukking infarction if you're not careful.:box:
  17. maineflyer
    Very fond of the Bino's is Norris. I expect severe reprisals.
  18. maineflyer
    I'm glad it's in the Sun. I wouldn't want to think Boydy was seriously thinking of playing for that poisoned dwarf O'Neill.
  19. maineflyer
    He must be due a break anyway, poor old soul. Having served the odd ban myself, I'm confident he'll come storming back. The anniversary of my Gersnet rehabilitation having just passed on Saturday, I can't believe I haven't managed an "infraction" for a whole year. Frankie must have needed those tenners.
  20. maineflyer
    Lacked what Jock Wallace called "character". Such a shame to see this sort of player being brought to Ibrox.
  21. maineflyer
    While certain RST board members are clearly unfit to represent themselves, let alone anyone else, I'm not sure there is any widespread animosity towards individuals in that organisation. What is certainly evident is a profound and settled dissatisfaction at the lack of achievement from the RST, either to build credibility and strength through membership or to otherwise influence the club or other aspects of society in respect of Rangers. I do believe there is still considerable goodwill towards the idea of a Supporters Trust and that the widespread rejection of the RST is entirely down to the behaviour and performance of those running it. Most other executives that had been shunned to this extent by its constituency would have resigned long ago and the sheer intransigence of the current RST board is progressively alienating more and more members and potential members alike. There comes a time when everyone has to accept the judgement of their own track record and no amount of the peculiar defence seen elsewhere in this thread can obscure the paucity of those running the RST. That these people continue in office is little short of a disgrace. That they should come on forums such as this to deflect and deny by attacking their critics in such a petulant manner is only typical of the entire RST malaise. This unwillingness to address the shortcomings that everyone else can see but which they can only respond to with acrimony and blame. To any serious observer, the whole RST affair is little short of pathetic.
  22. maineflyer
    Surely a very different game at home. Close for an hour then a 4-1 win for the Teds.
  23. maineflyer
    The only good thing about Mendes is how little we've missed his midfield disappearing act. I'll be really disappointed if he's still a Rangers player come February.
  24. maineflyer
    Have you made a new rule here? I quoted that part of your post that I then went on to respond to. What is the problem with that? Are you starting to struggle here?
  25. maineflyer
    That's not an entirely inaccurate potted-history of the RST. We tried this and it didn't work. So we tried that but it still didn't work. Then we tried this and that but it rained in the morning and that was that. If things had been different we might have succeeded - but the weren't, so we didn't. But why should we be criticised just because it didn't work? We were doing the best we could and we're still here aren't we? As for your phone call, the difference was that I insisted on debate taking place in public so that it wasn't later deniable. Your RST colleagues insisted on only conducting discussion in private. That was an impasse but it doesn't alter or justify the RST offering to refund a life membership as a means of killing a debate. I should also point out here that for some considerable time I had given the RST ample opportunity to keep the matter private by asking questions by email via the RST website, and in private correspondence with certain RST board members. The only reply I ever received refused to divulge anything. So much for phone calls.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.