Jump to content

 

 

Hildy

  • Posts

    1,747
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hildy

  1. Hildy

    Derek McInnes

    That's how it should be with all of us. Sometimes well agree, sometimes not.
  2. Hildy

    Derek McInnes

    Unless Dave King comes in and hands Ally a wad of cash, it's likely that Rangers will be financially disadvantaged compared to our main rival when we return to the top tier. If this is so, it is important to have the most talented manager possible. Why would anyone take a chance on Ally when there are better candidates available? Very few people back Ally because they think he's any good. His fans tend to back him because he was a hero as a player. If people think that Rangers should have the best manager available, why would we retain a manager who clearly is not? Not doing everything possible to maximise our chances is not only unprofessional, it's negligence. We can make a change soon, and hopefully minimise the damage, or we can wait years and find ourselves in even deeper trouble. Ask yourself, if you had the financial resources to help Rangers out, would you hand over money for Ally to spend, or would you insist on a managerial change before writing the cheque?
  3. Hildy

    Derek McInnes

    I don't expect any managerial change for quite some time. I think we're stuck with Ally until the penny finally drops that he is not the answer to our problems. That will probably take two, three or maybe even four years. Is it true that his contract is up at the season's end? I thought he was on a rolling contract.
  4. Hildy

    Derek McInnes

    I'd advertise the position. I'd expect there to be no shortage of candidates. We need to move away from employing people like Ally who are defended no matter how they perform because of what they did a long time ago on the pitch. We also need to get away from playing in an unattractive style. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
  5. Indeed. BuyRangers is for everyone, no matter where they are in the world. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
  6. Hildy

    Derek McInnes

    I hope we go for someone who will have us playing in a style that is appealing and watchable. I'm not sure McInnes is that man. We need to move away from the negative football that has tarnished our reputation and turned folk away from the match-going habit. Ideally, we'll go for someone who has no previous association with the club.
  7. Real Madrid, I think we can agree, is a 'massive institution'. I remember reading somewhere that if it was based in Finland, it would be something like the 139th biggest company in the country - and yet it is arguably the biggest football club in the world. Rangers and Celtic are 'massive institutions', and so is Real Madrid, but in commercial terms, when placed in a league table that contains society's private companies, they seem much less so. I do not believe this diminishes their status as 'massive institutions'. A football club's impact on society can be far greater than businesses that earn more in commercial terms, but never really enter the public consciousness. To be honest, Gibbons must have been struggling to come up with a worthwhile topic to write about. His piece above is unremarkable and dull. Professional journalists need to be doing better than this.
  8. I liked them both, mate. I used your post to be a bit naughty, but my point was valid. I don't want lectures from players on subjects they don't really know enough about. I hope the night goes well. There is a market for this sort of thing. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
  9. Only if they genuinely believe in something enough to honestly recommend it to others. I wouldn't be impressed by a former player telling me that I should sign up for something that he needed to be pestered into joining. I think we should think for ourselves a bit more.
  10. I have no objection to them being paid for their time. I think we sometimes expect former players to turn up here, there and everywhere for a few drinks. If the pub makes money, the ex-players pocket a few bob and the punters have a good time, everyone wins.
  11. On the contrary, if they are going to charge people to join, it will be a priority to get it launched. Desperation for cash will be hurrying them along.
  12. He may not be a friend of Rangers, but if he genuinely believed that administration was a possibility, and if he found out that key people from Rangers were having meetings with possible administrators, would you rather he kept it to himself or posed the questions publicly? There is a hostile media out there, but when our club is in the hands of people that thousands of us don't trust, I don't get upset when serious questions are asked of them.
  13. What about starting a thread specifically aimed at putting ideas forward? A simple question - what should the RFFF money be spent on? Each idea can be discussed and evaluated, and after while, this forum could put the top three ideas forward directly to the RFFF committee.
  14. The fans currently own 12% of the company, so we keep hearing. What do the fans have for that 12%? If you or I had 12% we might be directors now, but because the fan 12% is spread across several thousand individuals, it has no real clout, and no director either. If an organised fan group had 12%, it would likely have a director already installed in the boardroom. Buying as a collective is hugely important.
  15. He actually posed a question rather than claiming that it would happen: "Rangers to go into Administration on Wednesday? At least one senior Glasgow accountant is saying so tonight."
  16. So was I, and I had a respectable amount of oldco shares, but I would much rather be part of BuyRangers than be an individual shareholder again. Several thousand Rangers fans, who mostly don't know each other, have invested in Rangers as one. In the oldco, there were about 26,000 shareholders at one point, but one of them had clout and the other 25,999 had none. We need people bonding together to make our way against hedge funds and the like. BuyRangers has shown the way. You can be part of it or remain as we both used to be in the oldco. The choice is yours. For me, there's no going back. I'm investing mob-handed from now on. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
  17. Don't forget, the legislation isn't liked or appreciated by fans outside the Old Firm, and the legal system isn't impressed by it either - and neither were the other mainstream political parties, if I remember correctly. It is a bad law, and the case to bin it won't be howled down if a future Labour administration decides to do so. And that would make Celtic heroes. Football fans all across Scotland would be thanking Celtic for standing up for them - as it would no doubt be portrayed in the media. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
  18. We should ask ourselves: will the Scottish league look the same in a hundred years as it does today? I think we mostly all believe that it won't. At what point then will major change occur? There will be gradual changes here and there of course, but although Rangers and/or Celtic moving elsewhere would be a cataclysmic event, I expect it to happen at some point. Will it happen in the next hundred years? I think we would probably agree that it will, but what about the next fifty years, or the next twenty or even in the next five? The important thing for Rangers is not just to be ready for it, but to be a main player in actually organising it. If Celtic are already talking to people about making a move a reality, and we're not, we could be left behind. Unfortunately, Celtic will be advancing their own case just now and we'll be an afterthought. Just imagine if they ended up in a better place, either south of the border or in Europe - and we didn't. To suggest that our future would be grim is an understatement. Rangers has to get its act together and be a part of whatever is going on. We simply can't afford not to.
  19. UEFA made it clear a few years ago that it wouldn't object to Rangers and Celtic playing in the English league system. I think we're moving closer to change but no-one can be sure what change will actually come about. At some point, a dramatic change will happen. It might be in five years or it could be in fifty, but it will happen. I expect Celtic to be proactive in pushing for a more lucrative alternative to playing in the Scottish league, but it remains to be seen if a change will mean a move for both Glasgow clubs or just the one. Rangers needs to be involved in this. It needs to know what is going in and be a part of it. It cannot sit idly by while its main rival seeks a promotion to a healthier environment. The idea of being marooned in Scotland while a rival enjoys the benefits of a move to a higher grade environment is extremely unappealing, and that's putting it mildly.
  20. That's very gracious of you, Brahim, but there's really no need to apologise for having an opinion. I may not like it very much, but as is often said in these situations, I absolutely defend your right to express it.
  21. Lawwell is steeped in Celtic. He is a professional and a fan. He understands the politics of the Old Firm because he was born into it and has lived it. Who at Rangers can match him? Celtic has managed to stay in the control of the Celtic-minded and is even at ease taking on the Scottish government these days. Lawwell knows that Rangers is Celtic's only real threat, but he really doesn't fear Rangers any more. Celtic has enough wealth and influence to be confident of being number one in Scotland for some time to come. And now, as he enjoys a new position in Europe to advance Celtic's cause, Rangers are having a stushie about a crisis loan. There is no light at the end of the dark tunnel we are presently in. Lawwell will be as worried about Wallace as Celtic are about throwing away the league.
  22. Ultimately, this is what people do worry about. What do parents argue about the most? Their children, the people they care about most in the whole world. They care passionately about their wellbeing but fall out over what is best for them. Because people genuinely care, they sometimes disagree. I care about what is best for Rangers, and that's why I fully support BuyRangers. Others who care equally for the club, though, may not, and that's why there is tension and heated discussion. When there are no passionate discussions and an absence of heated debate - that's when you should really be worried.
  23. I responded to what was written by someone who was present at the meeting. From what was said in the contentious post, he thought that someone else in the room felt as he did. You may not have heard it, or maybe he misheard it, but in the post in question, which provoked a direct response from me, it is startlingly clear: "In any event, as was suggested last night, the RST/BR will soon have to consider whether they shouldn't transfer their holdings to the CIC for the greater good." That contribution fully merited the response that it got. I'll leave it to you and others to decide what was and wasn't said, but this was how one person believed it to be, and when he posted his view here, it needed to be highlighted. And it has been. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
  24. I have made it clear that I invested in BuyRangers. I have also made it clear that this new scheme holds no appeal for me. The circumstances of its birth are troubling, but even if the RST had been running both schemes, I would have stayed with BuyRangers and steered clear of this new idea.
×
×
  • 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.