Utterly divided support

[caseyjones 0]

Yes, comparing an American philanthropist who seeks to save Rangers FC from folding with the 16th century Church of Rome is entirely appropriate....

 

Philanthropist now!

[Tannochsidebear 2,405]

I disagree that a large number of our usual attendees at Ibrox are also vociferous online.

 

That is my argument. My proof is in my own dealings with many fans and fans reps that do go as explained earlier.

 

If you choose to disagree with that argument, that is your want. However you can't really argue against it by suggesting that most of them are online without any evidence to back it up.

 

I'm not having a pop at you for not going to games, nor do I think that makes you less a fan or your opinions less valid, but I think your argument lacks any foundation.

[Zappa 0]

I don't know how many times I have to say that the RST was not responsible for the banners. One of our Board was involved, as was Andy Smillie who paid for them. Having said that, American is not a race and the banners were aimed at the administrators as they were about to name the PB.

 

Just an opinion here - The person or people behind the banners didn't need to be named because it was pretty obvious who was behind it.

 

FWIW, I don't think it really matters either because Miller didn't have what it takes to take over our club and keep it running, never mind keep it successful, so the whole anti-Miller campaign really is a moot point. That's talking in retrospect though and it has to be said that a fair number of people won't forget.

[caseyjones 0]

Just an opinion here - The person or people behind the banners didn't need to be named because it was pretty obvious who was behind it.

 

FWIW, I don't think it really matters either because Miller didn't have what it takes to take over our club and keep it running, never mind keep it successful, so the whole anti-Miller campaign really is a moot point. That's talking in retrospect though and it has to be said that a fair number of people won't forget.

 

I'd say that most who won't forget had already made up their minds long before this particular incident.

[Danny 0]

I disagree that a large number of our usual attendees at Ibrox are also vociferous online.

 

That is my argument. My proof is in my own dealings with many fans and fans reps that do go as explained earlier.

 

If you choose to disagree with that argument, that is your want. However you can't really argue against it by suggesting that most of them are online without any evidence to back it up.

 

I'm not having a pop at you for not going to games, nor do I think that makes you less a fan or your opinions less valid, but I think your argument lacks any foundation.

 

Are you categorically stating that the guys you deal with are absolutely not online? You appear to be projecting it as a fact, and one which you suggest I have no evidence to disprove.

 

Well the evidence I'd use is I know plenty of fans online who go to the matches, and their opinions online (and offline) appear to be the ones you suggest those who go to matches do not possess.

 

I've seen plenty of opinion from fans who do go to games who are disgusted with the splits, the behaviour of other fans etc.

 

I am in no way calling you a liar, as I know you are not calling me one, but you seem to be truly stubborn to the notion of behaviour online simply not matching up with the 'real world'.

 

The simple fact fans showed up at Ibrox with banners saying 'go home yanks' which is the kind of thing being expressed by anti-Miller pro-RST folk online seems to suggest there's more than a correlation.

[UCF2008 0]

I'm no fan of the RST. I have never appreciated their arrogant stance that they speak for our support as a whole

 

I believe their actions for the most part to be with the cub at heart, but that doesn't get away from the fact that they have consistently been most vocal when our club comes under threat and from the media coverage and opportunism that ensues. Despite their good intentions, in general the RST have been nothing but a PR nightmare for the club, as far I'm concerned

 

The interference of the RST throughout the bidding process by pledging allegiance to one bidder while attempting to discredit others has hindered our clubs chances of survival. The most recent attack on an 'unwelcome' bidder is disgraceful, although I wouldn't be too quick to put ALL of the blame on the RST for that one.

 

We need to realise that we do have a division in opinion amongst our support on a variety of issues and have had for some time. HOWEVER, if ever there was a time for unity this is it.

[pete 2,499]

It is also pretty funny how Brahim was hung drawn and quartered on FF for questioning if a knight had the time to fulfil the needs of his clients and do Rangers work at the same time and contacted his company for an answer. Then a board member of the RST and forum owner starts a witch hunt by getting other people to email a serious bidders company for answers. Strange!

[plgsarmy 111]

I'm no fan of the RST. I have never appreciated their arrogant stance that they speak for our support as a whole

 

I believe their actions for the most part to be with the cub at heart, but that doesn't get away from the fact that they have consistently been most vocal when our club comes under threat and from the media coverage and opportunism that ensues. Despite their good intentions, in general the RST have been nothing but a PR nightmare for the club, as far I'm concerned

 

The interference of the RST throughout the bidding process by pledging allegiance to one bidder while attempting to discredit others has hindered our clubs chances of survival. The most recent attack on an 'unwelcome' bidder is disgraceful, although I wouldn't be too quick to put ALL of the blame on the RST for that one.

 

We need to realise that we do have a division in opinion amongst our support on a variety of issues and have had for some time. HOWEVER, if ever there was a time for unity this is it.

 

Please show me one statement where the RST has claimed to speak for all Rangers fans. That would be impossible and nobody could ever claim that. We, as with all other supporters trusts, have always been clear on what our aims are and why shouldn't we support a bid if we feel it's in the best interests of the club? I don't believe that we have tried to discredit any other bidder although we did ask questions of the Bill Miller bid. To suggest our actions have in any way hindered our club's chances of survival is, quite frankly, ludicrous.

[pete 2,499]

Please show me one statement where the RST has claimed to speak for all Rangers fans. That would be impossible and nobody could ever claim that. We, as with all other supporters trusts, have always been clear on what our aims are and why shouldn't we support a bid if we feel it's in the best interests of the club? I don't believe that we have tried to discredit any other bidder although we did ask questions of the Bill Miller bid. To suggest our actions have in any way hindered our club's chances of survival is, quite frankly, ludicrous.

 

PLG was the e-mail announcement RST backed or did MD do it on his own?

[UCF2008 0]

Please show me one statement where the RST has claimed to speak for all Rangers fans. That would be impossible and nobody could ever claim that. We, as with all other supporters trusts, have always been clear on what our aims are and why shouldn't we support a bid if we feel it's in the best interests of the club? I don't believe that we have tried to discredit any other bidder although we did ask questions of the Bill Miller bid. To suggest our actions have in any way hindered our club's chances of survival is, quite frankly, ludicrous.

 

I agree that the RST has always been clear on what it's agenda is.

 

Please, can you tell me why exactly the RST supported a bid from square one that had insufficient financial backing along with a declared intention to reinstate the old board?