elderslieblue

Just read elsewhere, there will be NO discussion of takeover, buyout, etc.

The very second Boyd ran to the fans I knew he would get booked.

No matter what Boss would have said sans Trust dig or not, some people would have used his article as a reason to open old wounds. The continued 'gang of 7' maliciousness as well as well-trodden myths about why some of these board members resigned 18 months ago (as well as our alleged political stance about aspects of the club then) are direct evidence of that.

 

Perhaps the people responsible for these equally unnecessary digs will apologise as well so we can start with a fresh slate during this vital time for all. Obviously, I'm sure boss didn't apologise simply to look for one back but I'm glad he's been the gentleman here and taken the lead.

 

I'm sure we'll all be taking about much more interesting stuff next week!

 

Couldn't agree more Bear.

When you're inside Ibrox it's Rangers baw and they can demand just about anything they want. Hence the problems and misunderstandings about flags, songs, etc.

Rangers make it plain they want fans to sit down. If you don't sit, they'll say they have the right to ask you to leave.

Health and Safety will obviously come into it somewhere too.

I don't think anyone was looking for Boss to 'apologise' for any of the facts on his article on Duffy. It was obviously well researched and he did a lot to put Duffys history in front of the average messageboard Rangers fan.

The wee dig he had was what caused most of the furore I'd suspect. :box:

Just saw your reply above Craig.

As said, I'm not long back here and it will maybe take some time to catch the pace of the flow as far as the RST are concerned here.

I apologise if needed and hope we can debate [without misunderstandings] often in the future.

Craig. your quote from above: "Just a shame that you have chosen to take me to task on ONE item in what was a rather more lengthy post elderslie. Take a look at the post where I referenced this statement (post number 9) and you will actually find that this comment was one small element of a larger post with other elements to it. I wasn't just taking the Trust to task on that one item, there was more in there - but by highlighting one element you make me out to be petty, which I am actually NOT trying to be."

I didn't 'take you to task' from post number 9. I hadn't even read post number nine.

I was 'taking you to task' on having a go at S.S. for his comment when I can see nothing wrong in what he said. You wanted a 'far more dignified comment'. Why ? Young and his ilk deserve nothing from any Rangers fan and how it's said doesn't come into it.

EB:

 

I think you'll find craig is one of the milder critics of the Trust to be honest.

 

Sure, perhaps the criticism of SS's comments about this journalist are unimportant in the grand scheme of things but we're all entitled to our opinion.

 

There are far more interesting criticisms which are more relevant and which we don't see answered. Perhaps if these were answered more openly, we could all move forward a bit more constructively.

 

But I agree, people need to avoid complaining about every singly little thing as that will put the Trust on the defensive.

Frankie. I meant no offence to anyone [and would apologise if it were perceived that I did].

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the poster appeared to be having a go at someone he has a grievance against. Fair enough if there was something to attack. But there wasn't.

Smith is there to represent RST members. He didn't hatch out of an egg. He's a supporter himself and is saying what the majority of Rangers fans will have been wanting to hear. How he says it, doesn't matter. It's the fact he DOES say it that's important to me.

So you think it made any difference to Chick Young and his reporting style ? I doubt it.

 

Think it made the RST look petty and unprofessional ? IMO yes.

 

But then.... opinions are like arseholes

Craig. Be honest here. It doesn't matter HOW he worded it. You would still have had a go at him.

You've an axe to grind with the RST that's obvious. But, again being honest, who's appearing petty ?

Sorry. I'm only back on here a few days after a long absence but it gets very tiring reading folk girning on and on about some perceived mistake the RST or their reps have made. There are far more important things for Rangers fans to be worrying about right now. If they drop a complete bollock take them to task but this one has the distinct whiff of 'petty' about it.

The same end means can be achieved by a far more dignified statement. Do you honestly think that if the Trust (or any other body) make continual use of petty name-calling that it will improve or enhance their reputation ? I don't.

I couldn't give a monkeys what kind of language they use. It should have been said a LONG, LONG time ago.

I only hope Speirs, and the mhanks at Radio Clyde get the same soon.

Petty name calling or not, I'm glad he did it. Doesn't happen often enough as far as I'm concerned.

So being left-wing is incompatible with being a Rangers supporter? Since when?

Since around the time we started seeing England jerseys and Nazis selling newspapers around the stadium.

I'm sure my father, grandfather and greatgrandfather would be happy to know they were incompatible with the majority of our support.

That's the problem with the RST in a nutshell...To be honest, I think in the end, they will be an irrelevance. They are no more than a pressure group for self interested parties.

I'm an RST member. What 'self-interest' am I promoting ?

Divisions need to be healed. They almost never heal themselves. What do you suggest?

I'm a Rangers supporter, not Henry Kissinger.

I'll repeat what I previously posted. My information [which I accept as accurate] is the Trust have NOT spoken to Duffy. News Of The World published quotes on Duffys backgound attributed to the Trust . Those quotes were later broadcast on T.V. The programme which used the quotes has since apologised and withdrawn them. I assume the NOTW will also apologise this weekend.

Can anybody see where the backlash against Boss' wee jibe is warranted ?

I post this, not to defend the RST. They are capable of doing that themselves. BUT, I see that a few posters above continue to not only run with the original inaccurate infromation, but are now beginning to disect it and to criticise other Rangers fans for talking to 'shady businessmen'.

Or did the posters somehow all miss what I originally posted ?

We're all in this sh!t together. Divisions ain't helping.

I admit I didn't see it at first. I first started to worry how we were being run in the mid/late 1990's around the time when Walter Smith resigned. After all those years of spending and building it gradually dawned on me that we hadn't actually built anything. Then the Advocaat spending really concerned me since even then it was dubious if that could be endured and for the first time I started to wonder if the club was being put at serious risk. By the time Eck arrived there was no need to wonder, we were heading for big trouble. And still the support kissed the Murray arse.

 

Like you say, once you started taking a serious look at the way Murray operated, it wasn't hard to see the man was basically a scheister, a fukking blowhard of the worst kind. And the slimey bastard is still here ..... and still the support won't attack him. You have to conclude we get exactly what we deserve.

Unfortunately, [and without bringing politics into the Forum], 'Thatchers Revolution' spawned hundreds of slimy b@stards like him. They all disappeared like snaw aff a dyke. Usually with somebody elses cash in their hip pocket.

Murray was a keen disciple.

Reading Murray's comments again, I'm really quite staggered by the sheer dishonesty of the man. If you didn't know any better, you'd never suspect this was the same man who's inept leadership of Rangers has brought the club to it's knees. He talks like some sleighted bystander.

 

Five minutes in a locked room Sir David ....... with me ....... and this pencil.

I'll blow my own trumpet here and say he never, from the moment he took over, had me fooled.

'The flyness was staring out him' as my auld Granny used to say.

Boss.........I take it from the end of the opening post you are implying that the RST have been "hanging their hat" ie talking to this guy ?

As far as I understand, they haven't.

Thanks for the info in the article though. I did learn a lot from the rest of the article.

It's a shame that Whittaker is now carrying the can for Walters tactical ineptness.

Before anybody jumps in and says "He deserves all he gets", I'd ask them to stop and think for a second.

Was there ANYBODY else at all, apart from Whittaker, on the right side [before Novo came on] ?

I heard someone saying after the Stuttgart game, "Davies was on the right". Was he ? He was pretty invisible to me if he was.

As for MOTM..............No Rangers player stood out.

I wouldn't argue with anything you say needs done but I've probably written more letters to the club, media, football authorities, and politicians than the RST has done. If I thought the RST had done half as much as it should have these last five years, that would be ten as much as it actually has done. It is the organistaion that should be doing these things but the actual impact has been almost indiscernible, which is why I fear so much about their self-styled role in the fan ownership proposals.

I've spent a fortune in stamps and phone calls myself over the years Bear and apart from a letter in Hugh Taylors Sportsbag in the Rhecord around 1972 it hasn't made an ounce of difference.

The RST have managed to comment to the public via radio and t.v. on most of the things that concerned me. For what my membership costs, I'm happy.

 

They'll stop it by refusing to grant a safety certificate. Whether they would actually do that or not I don't know.

 

It's already been discussed a few times [as has alcohol sales within football grounds] at the Scottish Police Federation conferences. Shot down every time.

 

Their members are responsible for policing events and with the polis having only recently come under the umbrella of Health and Safety at Work legislation there's no way the Police Authorities will expose themselves to legal action if cops get hurt at a football match.

 

Believe me. It's a non-starter.

No. Conditions have NOT improved re the treatment we receive in Europe. But at least there's someone willing to speak up about it and to challenge some of the lies printed in the Press about our behaviour.

That's all I ask. I'm sick of being painted as some kind of savage just because of the team I support. Even if the RST only answer half of the allegations made against me I'll be satisfied. I've seen very little issued from any other supporters group or the Club itself and there SHOULD be.

The buyout/buyover/shares thing is a different matter and to be honest, I have no real interest in it. I'll wait until the dust settles before deciding if I'll invest my hard-earned in it.

Just read the article in todays evening times i really like the ideas of BRINGING IN A STANDING SECTION and increasing the capacity of Ibrox.

 

Its time we filled in the corners anyway hopefully the team on the park would justify

a capacity increase as nothing worse than a half empty looking stadium.

 

Is there a ray of light in the near distance ? i sure hope so

Standing areas are a non-starter. The polis will be dead against it.

I'm an R.S.T. member and will continue to pay my membership as long as they speak out against some of the treatment our fans have recieved at away matches in Europe. That alone is worth the subsciption simply because there is nobody else who will put OUR side of the story in the Press. [certainly, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on some kind of defence coming from within Ibrox].

To put in bluntly, and I ain't interested in previous internal blood-letting, they are the only show in town.

It's a barrybaldy post from FF.

I believe he's been spot on with a couple of predictions before.