Frankie

Really disgraceful treatment of a bear... BD: IIRC, corky would sometimes come on and be a bit over-aggressive in his posting (is it any wonder given the problems he had)... As such I think the FF admin eventually got fed up of that. I may be wrong though.

There's no doubt about that MF, in my opinion... That's why it's important people lead the way, shed some light and keep protest (no matter how direct or indirect) as positive and as constructive as possible. Doing so gives us credibility, increases momentum and opens peoples' eyes to things they may not have seen before. Out of small acorns...

Various rumours surrounding the usual names... Nothing concrete though. Next weekend will see it all come back again. The journos will be on holiday so then can work late next week...

Welcome to the forums mate!

The slanted coverage in the media and the disrespect shown by the club is one of the main reasons why we need to have a cogent report put together. People aren't unhappy just because we've lost a few games or that Kris Boyd is being sold. They're unhappy because of the ongoing trend of unfulfilling our potential. The haste at which these figures are ignoring this valid argument is most frustrating.

I'd like to make a few points: 1. Firstly I disagree with any overly aggressive/negative protest. Banners and folk gathering outside the front door is premature IMO but I can understand why some may find such a reaction suitable. 2. It could be said we're only 2 or 3 bad results away from that happening anyway. But by the same token we're only 2 or 3 good results away from such protests being laughed at. Hence the utmost care is required in any campaign for improvement. 3. As such, I'd prefer more constructive, positive protest as we're doing via the 'Setting the Standard' project. Sure, we arguably have plenty to complain about but, since we have no Fergus McCann, we need to be more constructive and clever in our approach. Looking forward to reading other people's opinions. Agree - say why and give examples in how direct protest can work and how it could be done. Disagree - say why and give evidence for your opinion.

Part 2 For Sir David Murray, it’s been a game of 2 very long and contrasting halves. The first half was 1988-1998. 10 championships out of 11; a famous 9 in a row. Great times, great players, great memories! As many a great leader will testify, sometimes it’s best to go out on top. Sir David should have done exactly that. In fact I’d bet he wishes he had as 1999-2008 has been a disaster. The final years of the last millennium were successful on the park but the cost was ridiculous - Ã?£74m of disclosed debt (rumoured to be as high as Ã?£86m) and we know what happened next. From 1998-2000, it was spend spend spend. From 2000-2006 it was cut cut cut. From 2006-2008 it was spend spend spend. From 2009 to god knows when, it’s going to be cut cut cut. We lurch from one extreme to the other and back again in the most bizarre fashion. And this from a club which said it learnt its lessons from past extravagance, and would never again operate beyond its means. Interesting to note is this; it took Celtic nearly 6 years from their darkest days in 1994 to get on top again. And most galling of all, the catalyst for their return was the repositioning of Rangers following the ridiculous escalation in our debt. We let them back in. If you believe Rangers are (or could be) in serious financial trouble then consider this; if things get any worse it could be a long, long, long road back. Sir David Murray’s model for running Rangers has failed. Not just once – it has failed for a second time. We don’t know how “bad” it really is, but the tell-tale signs are all there. This point is worth repeating; if it all blew up tomorrow could you honestly say that the signs weren’t there? If so, you’re not looking hard enough at what’s right in front of you. We simply can’t wait for the unthinkable to happen before we awaken from our malaise. Which is why the time for the Gers to change is now. Right Now! Sir David Murray is a proud man of considerable personal courage. He does not concede easily and is a sore loser. And brace yourself for something which might come across as ridiculous to many Rangers fans – I contend that he even has important sections of the media in his pocket – otherwise he would be castigated left, right and centre for the debacle that we find ourselves in. Perhaps his inaction on various other fronts is the quid pro quo for a silence within the ranks of the wee pet lambs in the press? The arguments that the supporters should do nothing are weak. They are arguments for more of the same – and as we’ve seen, more of the same clearly means more of the second half, not the first. We really need to put pressure on Sir David Murray, the self-styled Custodian of our great club. He might own the shop and nearly everything in it but that doesn’t mean he should have a free ride when the club’s underlying business has clearly failed yet again. Even if Boyd or someone else goes, the underlying issues do not just go away. This is Sir David Murray’s responsibility. Name him. He took all the plaudits when we achieved 9-in-a-row. He must now take the criticism. Keep it simple. State the facts. Be constructive. Be positive. Don’t make it personal – it’s not. Keep it free from abuse. Asking him respond now, after 20 years to many-pointed plans might be a nice tactic, but ultimately it’s futile. It’s like going to the hairdresser and asking if they’ll paint your head to cover your bald patch. The Chairman has failed. Twice. He needs to move on and if that means cutting his losses and accepting a vastly reduced offer then so be it. Yes, he has put in a pretty penny but he owes us the chance to get on with a new future. He needs to go not because he wants to – he needs to go because he needs to. It’s not about him – it’s about Rangers. Sir David Murray is only important to Sir David Murray, his family, his friends, and some of those he employs. Rangers FC is important to hundreds of thousands of people – maybe even a million or two - across the globe. We may suddenly be only 2 points behind a very weak Celtic team and still in the 2 domestic cups. But last week we were 7 points behind and the support was getting very frustrated. Next week we might be a point ahead and everyone will be getting very excited (me included). This piece is not about the last or the next 3 points. This is about the bigger, deeper, more fundamental, long-term issues surrounding the future of our club. We cannot afford to get sidetracked by the short-term dramas of the latest result or the form of an individual player. Either way, Sir David’s time is up. He knows it. He and his off-field management team have failed yet again. Regardless of which individuals have made which mistakes, we need to be asking ourselves now; what would be enough for our 5% to stand up and walk out (literally or metaphorically)? Do we wait and hope it’ll somehow all get better? Do we really need to wait until Celtic win 4-in-a-row? Or do we stand up and get involved now? Many of us can see that behind the facade, the club is already a shadow of its former self. A different future needs to start now, before the Rangers we love becomes a shadow of its current shadow, or quite literally, part of the past. Here at Gersnet we’ve been doing a lot of thinking. We’re putting together constructive proposals for discussion so that we may invite everyone with Rangers’ interests at heart to get their ideas out in the open too. We ask you to get thinking, talk to your friends, get together, write a blog, pen a letter, write an article, print a leaflet – get involved! In 1994 the aptly-named ‘Rebels’ won the future of their club. In 2009 the loyal Rangers fans need to rediscover how to ‘Protest’ for the future of ours. Hardly any Rangers fan disputes that 'We Deserve Better'. I’ll go one step further; “The time is now”.

For those who prefer to have the content on the forum as well: Part One Let’s assume for a moment that Rangers is for sale at, say, Ã?£50m. We have debts rumoured to be approaching Ã?£30m and we need to offload Ã?£3-4m of talent from a small group of our ‘top’ players before the end of a month we’re already more than half-way through. The reason? It has been suggested by the Chairman (“if we didn’t sell Boyd then things could have been “bad” – and this was before the deal fell through, as it has at the time of writing) that we cannot continue to function as a business past January due to our debt obligations. These obligations are thought to include a substantial transfer fee to Burnley for Kyle Lafferty but we have run out of cash at the same time as being confronted with a sobering and sudden inability to increase our borrowing. We intend to cut our wage bill by up to one-third. There is a global financial crisis, we are at the beginning of a deep recession, our biggest asset has been a victim of property price deflation and credit markets have dried up. Our Edinburgh-based bank has collapsed, was rescued by the government and is in the process of being taken over by an English-based rival. No more Moet on The Mound for the Chairman then. As we get into the full swing of 2009, Celtic have dominated the SPL for the past 8 years, winning 6 times and (on the basis that we fully intend to weaken our squad shortly) are looking at a very realistic/possible 4-in-a-row – an achievement they have managed only once since 1916/17 incidentally, nearly 100 years. They have only Ã?£3.5m of debts (maybe zero by now), 10,000 more season ticket holders than us and can strengthen their team significantly immediately if they choose. Were it not for us winning the league in the last 10 minutes of 2 different seasons by 1 point and 1 goal respectively, they would be looking at 9-in-a-row now - NOW! We have won 3 out of the last 10 domestic cup competitions (2 last season). We have been out of Europe for about 6 months. I won’t get into the quality of player we have, tactics, formations, players out of position, entertainment value etc as these are subjective issues and this piece makes an attempt to deal in facts as much as possible. As 1994 reached the end of its first quarter, those of us who can remember will easily recall the hilarity as we eagerly watched Celtic FC’s almost fatal implosion. If anybody ever WANTED to watch a car crash, then this was it! They had won the league only once in 8 years, Rangers were looking at 6-in-a-row. They had debts rumoured to be an eye-watering Ã?£7m and were busy trying to build a smokescreen by announcing fake plans to build a new Ã?£50m stadium in Cambuslang. Their attendances were regularly below 20,000. They had had a series of useless managers and an almost endless steam of equally useless players. Quite simply, their inept board had been running the club for their own self-interest for far too many years to be healthy. ‘Celts for Change’, an organisation made up of ordinary fans backed by a small band of unhappy but very wealthy supporters had been active for some time; agitating against what they saw as the corruption of the board of directors and their mismanagement of the club. Whilst Rangers were in a position where their clear dominance looked set to continue on the park, the Celts for Change group realised that the investment required and leadership Celtic needing to become a force again was simply not going to happen under the self-serving, closed-shop incumbent regime. It had all gone on too long and it was all going absolutely nowhere. They wanted change and they wanted it badly enough to organise meetings and protests, once of which was a staged walk-out after 60 minutes vs. Kilmarnock in March 1994. Only 300 fans (out of a Celtic support of only 8,000, but still nearly 5%) walked out, to jeers from their fellow fans. But they went anyway. They knew time was right for a change. They didn’t necessarily have all the details nor access to every movement behind the scenes, but they knew – they KNEW that things simply had to change .They truly were a shambles of a club. And how we laughed! The straw that broke the camel’s back was when the Bank of Scotland declined to write a cheque to Middlesbrough for an outstanding transfer fee, insisting Celtic had to deposit more funds. They didn’t because they couldn’t. They had run out of cash. The bank declared itself ready to call in the receivers. Waiting in the wings many thousands of miles away was Fergus McCann, a reasonably wealthy fan, working in concert with the local and vocal leaders of Celts for Change. Wee Fergus said he would provide Ã?£2m immediately – insisting a deal be done and the board deposed, which it duly was. Job done. And for our part, we laughed even more, and kept laughing for several years! Of course, one could write an entirely different version of that story (and there may be the odd fact which needs slight adjustment) and one could pick holes in the implied comparison. Nobody knows if Rangers are that close to the bank pulling the plug in 2009, maybe it’s doubtful. But to repeat the Chairman’s statement that things will be “bad” if we don’t pull in Ã?£3-4m in the next 2 weeks, the questions are clearly; what exactly could this mean?; how “bad” is “bad”?; what happens if we don’t sell anyone? are we really that close to the edge? Whether the situation is the same as Celtic’s was is probably a moot point, but interesting parallels are easy to find. Of those parallels which DO NOT remain, here are a few more points to consider. Celtic was a sleeping giant, playing to meagre crowds and embarrassingly scrimping on everything. There was plenty of unlocked potential, but it needed a fresh start, a new vision, a new strategy, energised leadership – a complete change. Rangers in 2009 is, by contrast, an ailing giant. We play to a near-packed Ibrox every week and have outsourced almost everything we possibly can, including merchandising and catering. We will probably never sell more tops, t-shirts and scarves than we did last year. Back in 1994, Celtic had value to unlock. It was worth Wee Fergus investing millions to get it. It could be turned into a profitable business, facilities could improve – replace their large, old rickety ground with a large, new rickety ground; build it and, and the people will come. Rangers in 2009, is a busted business. It frequently makes losses (sometimes very large losses) and it is laden with debt. We cannot increase our crowds by even 10% never mind by 250%. Nobody but nobody is going to buy our club for its book value. There is simply no point. Of course if a hotel or a leisure complex was involved then maybe that’s different but is there anybody left who believes in that anymore? All that doesn’t mean we have no potential to grow; quite the opposite. But the current regime at Rangers has clearly, very clearly taken us as far as they can. The talk is once again of downsizing, cut-backs and regression. It’s hard to see exactly which direction we are going in, but we’re most certainly not on the happy path. [CONTINUED]

Superb article from Big Spliff as part of the 'Setting the Standard' project. Lengthy read (make a brew and grab a biscuit) but well worth it. Might be better to read it via the following link as to avoid hurting your eyes on here... http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/323943426?-11344

Well said cotter... Smith is more than worthy of criticism but I thought he spoke well about the Fleck situation after the game.

I usually don't pay for the P&P...

And that's a fair point mate. Why not look to expand upon what you've already written and offer an article which disagrees with not only the RST statement but with my post that states the club has to do more....? It would be interesting to have an opposing viewpoint as part of the project.

Shroomz: You make some valid and some not so valid points above. I won't take the time to answer them now as they should be covered within each article. If not, please make the point again and we can have a proper discussion then.

Some excellent feedback so far. We have around 8 people writing articles so far... Now also have these further articles planned to debate: 6. Our transfer strategy and why it isn't working. How can this be addressed? 7. The importance of a major scouting system and how this could be implemented. 8. On the field tactics. Can Walter really take us forward? 9. Supporter Unity - Respect and solidarity are required for any campaign to work. Keep them coming folks..

Looking forward to hearing more about this...

We think we've got it bad with the lack of talent coming through. Celtic are even worse. Only the traitor can be considered a half-way decent player.

Aye, I remember it. Was an excellent Rangers site and one of the first I visited probably even before 2003 in fact. Run by a chap called Redmond perhaps?

Welcome to Gersnet mate!

To expand a bit on what we're planning to do: As it stands I have a few articles lined up from our writers which I intend to release one by one to debate each in turn. 1. An analysis of why the situation has got so bad and why protest may be our only way of obtaining real change. 2. A proposal for how the fans could be persuaded to by into a membership scheme to raise substantial funds. 3. An examination of Murray Park and some simple ideas on how to improve our youth system and extend our scouting reach. 4. How can our club's media/PR be improved? 5. Supporters' Represention - A complete overhaul of the Assembly. I've also got a few more people interested from other sites in contributing - basically addressing the concerns in the RST's 17 point statement and combining them where necessary. Anyone who is interested in writing an article on any of the issues that are not covered already above, please pm me.

True - will they ever be willing though? Hence the reason for analysing the debate and looking for ways of getting round that problem.

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/323733752?-11344 I’m sure we’ve all read with interest over the last week the debate about whether or not Rangers fans ‘deserve better’. I'm also sure not many fans would disagree with that sentiment even if the ‘campaign’ has so far been limited to media criticism without much constructive contributions thereafter. Nevertheless, over the last week since the campaign was launched by the RST, much debate has been had surrounding the principle and the reasons behind it. Indeed, a cursory look at their statement doesn’t show much one can argue about. Our club has under-achieved for the last 8 years and it appears the same financial mistakes have been made (to a smaller scale) than in the early part of this century. Therefore, the RST are quite right to suggest ‘we deserve better’. The reaction to this criticism has been most interesting. Everyone and their lapdogs have had their say on the subject – from wee Chick and big Mark to Walter Smith and Sir David Murray – even Davie Provan has had his say! The papers, phone-ins and forums have been full of talk about the issue and if the RST were attempting to garner publicity then they certainly have been most successful. But surely publicity wasn’t the sole aim of the campaign? After all, if one does want the club to improve then simply complaining isn’t likely to gain the immediate support of the kind of numbers the Trust requires to further their credibility. Further, there have been valid concerns about the arguably premature way the RST have launched the campaign. No consultation with their members, no backing from high-net worth investors and no comments of support from their honorary members – some of whom are ex-players who would have added much weight to their argument. Couple this with a failure to offer any workable alternatives or solutions then the campaign is easily (if erroneously) dismissed or ignored by the majority. I say erroneously because, again, their points of concern are valid. The club does need improvement, mistakes are being made and we are under-performing on and off the field. Therefore, it was most disappointing to read the reaction from key club figures such as the manager and chairman. Instead of accepting the criticism, taking it on the chin and admitting responsibility for the recent mistakes that have been made; more denial and deflection is the result. Deny the problems exist then deflect the issue onto ‘faceless’ internet supporters who are not real fans. Hardly a pro-active reaction when the evidence shows the club can do better. The ultimate result of all this is further division and not the unity the Trust are struggling to provide. Tens of thousands of loyal internet fans insulted and the club retreating further into its shell won’t address Ã?£30million of debt and a 3 year wait for the SPL title. How can we bridge this gap? Well, as leaders of the campaign, the Trust should have expected this result and planned for it. They profess unity but seem incapable of delivering that. They themselves struggle to accept criticism and lack the solutions to increase their small mainly online sourced membership to a level where the offline supporter can appreciate and back their point of view. Not to mention achieve the primary aims they state on their website which seem to have been shelved in favour of a more militant strategy. As such they must go back to the drawing board and provide up-to-date solutions and suggestions for club improvement. References to a 2 year old 15 point plan are all well and good but how relevant is that plan in today’s climate? To pressure the club to improve, they themselves must do better – as must the other supporters’ organisations who are failing their members with under-performance. Meanwhile the club must also take their hands off their eyes/ears and, just once, see where many fans are coming from. Acknowledge the mistakes, take responsibility and provide the improvement requested. Not all of that need take humble climb-downs, apologies or finance we can’t afford. It just takes hard work, imagination and ambition. And don’t forget that the people who have every right to ask questions are the ones that will be buying season tickets in a few months as well as the latest new strips. By all means argue their point but be strong and ask yourself if you can improve the situation. We’re not saying this can be done overnight but there should be a plan of action. The same goes for the fans generally. We can mump and moan our way through games. We can complain about certain players being unable to take a set-piece. We can take umbrage at the club unfulfilling its potential. But, if we’re going to do that, then we should be prepared to examine ourselves and what we offer. Yes, we are the biggest investors into the club – both emotionally and financially – but if we want seats on the board or to own the club then these ambitions must be backed up by intelligent debate. It is on that note Gersnet is launching a new project for fans to get involved in. Yes, we agree with the ‘we deserve better’ slogan but only on the premise that we help facilitate that in a positive sense. Ergo, over the coming weeks, we’ll have a series of articles from our writers discussing many of the concerns raised by the campaign and how these could be addressed. We've got great, constructive ideas we want to develop and present to the club and we're looking forward to debating them with you. We’d also like all our readers to get involved. Comment on the articles using the main site software, join the forums to give your opinion and contact us by email if you’d like to offer more. To that end we hope this project will catalyse change while showing the club that ‘faceless’ internet supporters are capable of more than just sniping. Keep an eye on the site for each article and we look forward to you joining the debate!

No they can only enforce a yellow card which doesn't take him over the points limit.

Everyone can now enter - mods and previous winners. You'll just have to trust me not to rig the comps...!

Bump for this... Get your entries in folks.

Good stuff. Well done to the ref for admitting his mistake.