Hildy
-
Posts
1,747 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Hildy
-
In a room nearby to be called on as and when required.
-
If you were given the figures in confidence you are right to respect that confidence, but the question I would then ask is this: why should this information need to be kept secret? In an election of this type, the votes cast for all candidates should be published, including figures for turnout - and turnout as a percentage of total membership.
-
It's helpful to have club officials on hand, but they should not be present in the room.
-
Do you know how many votes were cast in the 'away fans' category?
-
I don't believe there should be any members of the club present for a fan group meeting. If the club insists on this, let the fans have someone sitting in on every board of directors meeting.
-
If FS knows the number of people who voted in his category, is it not reasonable to assume that other elected members will know the number who voted in their category, and if they don't, they will be able to find out?
-
You should just have read the title of this thread - "If we ever needed a new manager".
-
RST launch merchandise alternative Fleshers Haugh Limited
Hildy replied to the gunslinger's topic in Rangers Chat
I'm not ruling out the use of other colours, but red and black should be pursued for now to make the protest visible. I have no problem with orange being used, indeed it would have been my first choice if red and black hadn't already been established as protest colours, but many of society's bigots tend to respond to this choice and we have to be prepared to mount a stout defence if they do. I hope more and more fans will support this initiative because buying merchandise direct from Rangers feels like a waste of money now, and when I think how much I used to spend on Rangers goods, it is sad that it has come to this. -
RST launch merchandise alternative Fleshers Haugh Limited
Hildy replied to the gunslinger's topic in Rangers Chat
I have no problem with an orange or orange and blue shirt, but we know how this would be portrayed in our media. Red and black seem to be the protest colours of choice. In the meantime, the Trust would be best advised to avoid all other colours, including blue. In time, though, other colours could come into play. Right now, the visibility and acceptability of red and black makes them the best option. -
Davies has his own cheerleader section within the support and he seems to clash with his club's directors more often than is healthy. His teams aren't noted for being swashbuckling and entertaining either - another one to avoid.
-
Celtic have a manager that no-one suggested. It may work out or perhaps not, but they have at least tried to find someone in the game to fit what they want their team to be without limiting themselves to a handful of ex-players. I want Rangers to be an adventurous and entertaining team so I'd scour the country and beyond for someone who has a track record of being successful while playing in in a way that is attractive and pleasing. If I was a seasoned watcher of English and European football, I might offer a name or two, but as I'm not, I'm not going to chuck a name in the ring just for the sake of it. The club should be professional enough to have an awareness of managers at home and abroad who might fit the bill. They should certainly avoid McInnes, McCall and Davies. It would be the same old same old with these guys. Rangers needs a new approach and new blood.
-
You seriously don't think Rangers could get a manager better than Derek McInnes? Advertise - there will be bundles of applications from better managers. What is the matter with us that we limit ourselves to a handful of managers who have some kind of Rangers connection? We need to distance ourselves from the usual suspects and widen the field.
-
So, Derek McInnes - can we rule this guy out now as a potential replacement for Ally? I ruled him out some time ago but his name always seems to be included when this subject comes up.
-
It is inexcusable that things have been so bad for so long, but going public on the issue might have been a better approach - shame the club into action. Respected people endorsing a tainted plan is not a good idea, and by joining this fan board, you have given it a degree of credibility that it does not deserve. I wish you well in your desire to significantly improve the lot of the disabled fan, but this fan board is a sham that deserves to fail.
-
A good player, a physical player, a determined player, a fierce player and a competitive player, but perhaps his emphasis on the physical was more than it should have been.
-
To be fair to you, you may have your own motive for joining this board, and if that is to advance the position of disabled Rangers fans, it is certainly something worth striving for, but it should be done by other means. When the ownership of the club isn't properly trusted, when many believe that it is discredited, and when thousands have turned their back on it due to the seriousness of the ownership situation, participating in a boss's union when the boss has made such a mess of running the club will rightly be frowned on in certain quarters. Amongst the support, you have managed to retain some respect. While I applaud you for trying to hold the club to account before this fan board came along, I think you have made a big mistake becoming a part of it.
-
The exercise deserves to be a failure. It will not be bad news if it is swept away. It has been a sham from the off, a pretence at fan representation rather than anything meaningful or worthy. This fan board is like an old eastern European state that made a big deal about being democratic but never actually was. The club's ownership isn't trusted enough to create and run a genuine democratic structure. It had to default fans into it to attempt to give it a credibility that it could not earn. This fan group is probably the smallest fan group of them all with only a hundred or so active joiners, maybe less. It is a mere rump - official or not. It is the latest farce in the sad, sad story of a club that was once held in high regard. This fan board has actually disgraced itself by agreeing to come into existence.
-
Let's cut to the chase. The club, under widely perceived toxic ownership, wanted to be seen to play the democratic game, and why not? If it can have its own in-house forum it can begin to marginalise the more organic groups that already exist. In addition, it can manipulate an in-house forum in a way that it can't with an independent group. Of course, few people will join an official group when the club's ownership is so distrusted, so what to do? Give membership away free to every season ticket holder. Default everyone into the gang. Try to make it look credible even when it isn't. Already, it has been naive enough to raise the topic of access to the club for independent fan groups - and yet this official group may be the smallest fan group of all. It is had just one meeting and delusions of grandeur have set in with a vengeance. The club has tried to 'default' fans into a group before and it didn't work. It hasn't learned its lesson. It is at it again. The only groups that are credible are those where people actively join, and if the club can only attract a couple of hundred fans to pay to be a part of this, it has wasted time, energy - and fan money. Praise where it's due though - this fan board seems to be acting pretty much as our board of directors would want. Is it representative of the support? I don't think so. Is it obedient to the wishes of the club? It just might be.
-
Based on the limited information that is available, it seems reasonable to assume that less than 1,000 people voted out of a contrived electorate of around 23,000. It is also not unreasonable to assume that the number participating in these elections who actually made a conscious decision to join this scheme is less than a hundred, maybe even less than 50. This is the Assembly 2.0. The original claimed to speak for 35,000 and now its wee brother is claiming to speak for 23,000. The original was a farce and this is farce 2.0. Incredibly, at it first meeting, this self-styled 'democratic' group came up with a suggestion that certain other fan groups should be excluded from meeting the club. This fan board appears to have less people who actually joined it directly than the RST, RF and SOS. Perhaps the club should be meeting with those groups - but not the tiny rump that is this shambolic fan board.
-
Interesting. Tell me, how many members of this new fan group are there? How many joined independently and paid a fee? How many became part of it simply because they had a season ticket? How many voted in the elections for fan representatives? What percentage of the membership voted in the elections? The original Assembly came along and claimed to speak for 35,000 Rangers fans, but people didn't join it. They were 'defaulted' into it. How many were 'defaulted' into this new group? Can we have a complete breakdown of the voting numbers, please - both numbers of votes and percentages - for all candidates? Thanks.
-
An in-house fan group can be very useful to a club hierarchy. A body of this kind, effectively gerrymandered into existence, will be more likely to knuckle under to club wishes than an entity which is under no obligation to the club. If the club wants to remove an awkward member of the fan board, it will find a way to do it. If it identifies someone who hankers after influence, a bit of power and a club blazer, he or she will likely be easy to win over. Billy Connolly once said that anyone who wants to be a politician should automatically be disqualified from ever being one, and while this is a bit harsh, we can probably understand where he is coming from. The disastrous start made by this fan board has undermined it straight away. Mike Ashley will have no real interest in it unless he feels that he can exploit it, and of course, he may well do that. From his point of view, it's good for nothing else.
-
An official publication of a Scottish football club said that you support a club that no longer exists. Just ignore it?
-
In an age where there is growing disaffection with the 'Westminster elite', and not just from within Scotland, and when it is widely believed that a political disconnect is occurring throughout the country, Rangers, a club not noted for being enlightened in any way, shape or form, sets up its own forum, and with people being required to fit into particular categories before standing for election, and at its first meeting, what does it suggest? We are the people. We are the chosen ones. We are official. We are the centre of the Rangers fans' world. The tone from this boss's union stinks after just one meeting. It is sometimes said that the Rangers support is stuck in 1690, and while this is a tad unfair, this new forum certainly sounds as though it belongs to another era - an era of rotten boroughs.
-
I think so too. They won't be playing to lose, but if they fail to win, they won't hurt too much. They seem to have taken a decision to concentrate solely on the league. They'll shed no tears if Celtic take two or three off them.
-
When you have fans in a boss's union, which is effectively what this fan board is, they are more likely to be there for the blazer and the status. They will be more likely to be a pushover for a figure like McCoist. Fan reps should be strong characters who do not wilt when they meet club legends. Sycophant fans should never represent others on club boards. They are too easily swayed.