Frankie 8,145 Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 Interesting to read in the Herald today about one of Scotlandâ��s oldest house-builders being forced into receivership by the Bank of Scotland*. Juxtapose that with the ongoing challenges of our own 138 year old institution, it perhaps lends weight to the claims that the financial issues at Rangers are problems that may result in the bank foreclosing on their facilities resulting in claiming the �£20million+ debt they are owed back quicker than the currently agreed ~20 year term. Indeed, a cursory look across the community again finds sources warning of the pressure that is about to me brought onto the club by a bank eager to get out of our football club at the first opportunity. Of course, them increasing their liabilities in our parent company (cross guarantees or not) suggests this premise may not be quite as hasty as some suggest. Unfortunately, a stand-off remains between the club message of the status-quo; i.e. prudency by way of reasonable cost-cutting and increased efficiency - and the stark warning of no investment; i.e. mass sales of key players and concrete/mortar assets with no replacement. Once again then, as a result of this polar argument, the average supporter is left in a quandary - do we believe a club eager to maintain our financial investment or do we see the wood for the trees and buy into the hysteria precipitated by our manager, competing buyers and other alleged 'credible' sources? Perhaps the middle ground is the best position to adopt? After all, I don't think anyone denies the influence of the bank is a worrying one. It is just the extent of their influence and their associated potential actions that can be debated. The problem we have is that it doesn't help the situation when people spread rumours about the situation one day, then change their mind the next - be it Walter Smith, potential buyers or whoever else is involved in spreading misinformation in this whole charade. Even if people do believe the very worst of scenarios put to us, what do those informing us of this message honestly expect us to do without proper guidance and leadership? 1. Not renew/buy season tickets? Deadline for existing holders has passed and renewals are supposedly in line with last year while new sales are expected to also mirror recent seasons. Success brings its rewards and I'm also unsure not providing the club with one of its invaluable revenue streams would encourage the bank to invest more of non-ticket money such as CL income or transfer fees. 2. Direct protest The bank AGM last week was as good a place as any to embarrass the bank publicly and effectively. Did the people feeding Darrell King and associated fan groups/forums attend and ask questions? Did they protest outside with existing banners? Or did they allow only one person to attend and ask the kind of question much better coming directly from a big-hitter? 3. Gauge fan support Have those interested in buying the club and/or those worried about the influence of the bank attempted to gauge support for their concerns (and bids) by stimulating debate in a positive, constructive fashion - e.g employing club legends, celebrity fans, existing club staff, fan groups, website owners to help run a positive campaign of information sharing, fund-raising and lobbying? Surely if the evidence was clear that the situation was so bleak, this would be easy to find support for? Compare the above different levels and type of effective lobbying and leadership with the drip-feeding of information via confused journalists and anonymous posters on the internet with the club chairman and his representatives organising meetings with high net worth fans, fan groups, the bank and potential owners; then it isn't a surprise the average supporter is inclined to go with the club message (which isn't all that fantastic by the way) as opposed to believing people in it for vested interests. Now, asking valid questions doesn't always mean flying banners at Ibrox Stadium. As I posted above there are much better and more constructive ways of doing this which can involve every supporter while removing the negativity and hearsay from the debate. In my opinion, that has not happened effectively enough which only weakens the stance of those suggesting the bank are the devil incarnate. Therefore, as the John Dickie Group are forced into administration this week by the Lloyds Banking Group, just how long are those predicting a similar outcome for Rangers FC going to wait before coming out into the open? Or will they continue to use rumour and counter-rumour on internet forums instead of genuine leadership which we can all buy into? * http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/corporate-sme/bank-blamed-as-john-dickie-is-forced-into-receivership-1.1027074 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 While not relevant to the club, I'm extremely saddened to see John Dickie go under. They made fabulous properties and my first property purchase was brand new flat made by them. I loved it, but gave it up when I got married. A quality company with a great reputation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 While not relevant to the club, I'm extremely saddened to see John Dickie go under. They made fabulous properties and my first property purchase was brand new flat made by them. I loved it, but gave it up when I got married. A quality company with a great reputation. Bluedell , my present house is a Dickie , build and whist very nice it could and should have been a lot better .They only employed 3 peolpe directly on site , every trade was subbied and they continually changed due to never completing their contracts , so towards the end the whole estate was a shambles , they may have been a quality company once but not any more , fuuny but their is definetly comparisons with Rangers 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 Bluedell , my present house is a Dickie , build and whist very nice it could and should have been a lot better .They only employed 3 peolpe directly on site , every trade was subbied and they continually changed due to never completing their contracts , so towards the end the whole estate was a shambles , they may have been a quality company once but not any more , fuuny but their is definetly comparisons with Rangers Sorry to hear that, rbr. It was 20 years ago that I had dealings with them, and perhaps the company has gone downhill in the last 10, as I know that, up until that point, what they were involved in was extremely high quality and often sold out before it was built. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,145 Posted May 13, 2010 Author Share Posted May 13, 2010 (edited) Just a quick post to highlight that already some on FF are interpreting this as an attack on one particular fan group or forum. Nothing could be further from the truth - I prefer to see it more as constructive criticism of all parties to widen the debate. If anyone disagrees with what I say about improving strategy to increase awareness of alleged problems, then I'm eager to hear why leading publicly from the front is a bad option. Edited May 13, 2010 by Frankie 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Northampton_loyalist Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 Frankie, before you read this, please accept it in the manner intended You are a 'face', known across the various sites. Do you have suggestions or are you waiting for leadership? If we all wait for someone to take the lead, we could be waiting while the walls crumble. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,145 Posted May 13, 2010 Author Share Posted May 13, 2010 I accept that disgraceful criticism in good faith it is offered... You will remember the imperfect STS project from last year where I attempted to build bridges by going to every single website and every single fan group and asked them to contribute. Not an attempt at leadership (I'm no leader of men and freely admit so) but an attempt to provide some fresh impetuous in a neutral fashion. It only partially worked because some are intent in rejecting unity - despite the grand public proclamations. As always I'm interested in addressing that in a positive, constructive sense. I'm happy to help repair relationships but am also of the opinion those who can't get on need not be important to unity anyway. I'd also like to make it clear that I don't particularly care who steps forward to lead. If they have the right attitude and the right strategy people will buy into it no matter if they are a 'face' or not. That goes for individuals, fan groups or buyers. I just want something credible to rally behind and I don't think the mild, constructive criticisms in the original post suggest anything other than that. I'm happy to move forward and be part of something tangible to act on the complaints I have. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Northampton_loyalist Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 I accept that disgraceful criticism in good faith it is offered... You will remember the imperfect STS project from last year where I attempted to build bridges by going to every single website and every single fan group and asked them to contribute. Not an attempt at leadership (I'm no leader of men and freely admit so) but an attempt to provide some fresh impetuous in a neutral fashion. It only partially worked because some are intent in rejecting unity - despite the grand public proclamations. As always I'm interested in addressing that in a positive, constructive sense. I'm happy to help repair relationships but am also of the opinion those who can't get on need not be important to unity anyway. I'd also like to make it clear that I don't particularly care who steps forward to lead. If they have the right attitude and the right strategy people will buy into it no matter if they are a 'face' or not. That goes for individuals, fan groups or buyers. I just want something credible to rally behind and I don't think the mild, constructive criticisms in the original post suggest anything other than that. I'm happy to move forward and be part of something tangible to act on the complaints I have. It was not a dig, it was leading onto this comment.... What you say is right, there are people who are against any unity and those are the people that are key to achieving it. While we sit and bump gums about it, waiting for someone with the right idea or the right direction, everyone else is doing the same. Sometimes a leader is borne of the situation and does not create it (topical, spartacus lead 70k slaves in the end, he didnt set out to, the situation grew and demanded leaders). If we start with the common goal, someone will see that it fits and step up. If the goal is good and the ideas sound, the people against unity will be left with a choice, embrace it as others are doing or be left behind. So, in summary, throw ideas out there and see if they catch. You dont need to lead people, just put into the air the ideas that will lead to something happening. If we all sit and moan about a lack of leadership (NOT what I think you are doing btw, just a general observation) without suggesting what that leader could/should be doing, we step no nearer to a solution and infact decrease the chances of it happenng, after-all, who will step up unaided in an atmosphere of 'where the fuck have you been?'. If we wait for an individual with all the answers we will be waiting forever, if we provide the answers, someone might just think to themselves 'I could do that'. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wabashcannonball 0 Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 I accept that disgraceful criticism in good faith it is offered... You will remember the imperfect STS project from last year where I attempted to build bridges by going to every single website and every single fan group and asked them to contribute. Not an attempt at leadership (I'm no leader of men and freely admit so) but an attempt to provide some fresh impetuous in a neutral fashion. It only partially worked because some are intent in rejecting unity - despite the grand public proclamations. As always I'm interested in addressing that in a positive, constructive sense. I'm happy to help repair relationships but am also of the opinion those who can't get on need not be important to unity anyway. I'd also like to make it clear that I don't particularly care who steps forward to lead. If they have the right attitude and the right strategy people will buy into it no matter if they are a 'face' or not. That goes for individuals, fan groups or buyers. I just want something credible to rally behind and I don't think the mild, constructive criticisms in the original post suggest anything other than that. I'm happy to move forward and be part of something tangible to act on the complaints I have. Time for idle talk is long past Frankie, time for money to talk and bullshit to walk, or for Murray to declare he is staying. We the fans can get back to football matters, the high heid yins entrusted with the running of the club can get on with doing just that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,145 Posted May 13, 2010 Author Share Posted May 13, 2010 (edited) N_L: Agree whole-heartedly mate but I've been saying the same things for months and specifically asked the RST board members on here to comment. They gave a valid reason for being unable to discuss more because it was renewal time but we've heard nothing since. Maybe I should book the Partick Burgh Halls myself for early June and send invites out to all relevant parties...? 'If we build it', will they come though? Edited May 13, 2010 by Frankie 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.