Sir Ally?

[reaper 0]

Utter bollox we the fans played our part but we couldn't even fill our IPO quota, seems ingrates are all around when it comes to giving Green due credit, what the reaction will be when he officially returns will be interesting.

[reaper 0]

I see what you implied there.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

The fans saved us, no one else, certainly not one individual.

 

true, but without Mccoist we would have had nobody to rally around and/or trust

[The Real PapaBear 0]

is it just me or is anyone else getting heart-felt sick of people using every chance they can to denigrate and slander Ally?

 

Granted, McCoist has yet to convince us that he is the right man to be the manager, but this sudden upsurge in anti-McCoist postings which have nothing to do with on-field activities makes we wonder if those posting them really are Rangers fans - because no *real* Bluenose would *ever* attack the personal integrity or honesty of Ally McCoist.

 

And on the subject, it would be a refreshing piece of honesty if all the anti-ally brigade (whether real Bears or interlopers) would say clearly what Ally would have to do before they would stop their sniping.

 

I'll start; I'm pro-McCoist - but if we don't finish next season 20+ points ahead, playing a style of football that is blowing away the opposition on a regular basis,, with a healthy supply of new blood into the team and talk of prospects in the pipeline, then I'll be willing to agree that maybe he's had his chance and it's time to move on.

 

Over to you greetin'-faced whingers, what would it take for youse to shut up?

 

(I kinda feel I've broken a forum rule somewhere there, Frankie - and if I haven't you have to revise the rules - apologies in advance of getting my knuckles rapped.

[Super Cooper 0]

true, but without Mccoist we would have had nobody to rally around and/or trust

 

Disagree with that.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Super Cooper

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Disagree with that.

 

Ok. Now we know that you disagree with that. What we don't know is the reason for your disagreement and which other unifying figurehead in whom we could all have trusted you would propose in counter argument. I await with breath baited.

[Super Cooper 0]

Ok. Now we know that you disagree with that. What we don't know is the reason for your disagreement and which other unifying figurehead in whom we could all have trusted you would propose in counter argument. I await with breath baited.

 

It didn't bother me who was an alleged figurehead, why did or do we need one? I didn't go to games because McCoist was manager, i put my money into the club last season because it was Rangers Football Club.

 

McCoist may have been good in front of a mic at the start of the season but as soon as a ball was kicked he had fans split right down the middle, there was no unification, even now, fans are split on this figurehead i assume you claim we needed to keep our club together.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

It didn't bother me who was an alleged figurehead, why did or do we need one? I didn't go to games because McCoist was manager, i put my money into the club last season because it was Rangers Football Club.

 

McCoist may have been good in front of a mic at the start of the season but as soon as a ball was kicked he had fans split right down the middle, there was no unification, even now, fans are split on this figurehead i assume you claim we needed to keep our club together.

 

where do I start with this? Firstly, McCoist wasn't an "alleged" figurehead, he *was* the figurehead.

 

Secondly, Why did we need one? Because everybody who we knew as being part of the club before disaster struck had done a runner, had retired or had been sacked; The new people, or rather the new, new people ( since the old new people i.e Whyte's mob has got us into the mess in the first place) were unknown to anybody. The only person who we knew ad who we knew to have the best interest of the club at heart was McCoist.

You might have been foolish enough to put hundreds of pounds into RFC in the immediate aftermath of thousands of people losing the money they had put into RFC, but without the support of McCoist it is doubtful whether many others would have been willing to trust the latest group of chancers to appoint themselves to the Ibrox board.

Have you *completely* forgotten where we were in the summer of 2012?

 

Thirdly, you are confusing McCoist's position as manager with his position as figurehead for the club, whether willfully or because you didn't take the time to read what I wrote, I don't know.

McCoist's performance as manager is, as I have already said, the subject of legitimate debate. The support is split on this.

The support is not split on his position as one of the guys who saved the club or on is position as one of the all time Rangers' greats.

 

Finally, I did not say or even insinuate that we need McCoist or any other figurehead to keep the club together now. My assertion about McCoist's invaluable role referred to 2012. I assume that you have confused past and present and raised this straw man argument because you haven't been able to pose an alternative; i.e. in the summer of 2012 when the club was in freefall and heading for possible oblivion, nobody knew or trusted anybody else and we needed a figurehead; McCoist stood up.

 

You've said you disagree with this but haven't said who else we could have trusted or who else could have done the job he did.

 

My breath is still baited awaiting this other name.

[Super Cooper 0]

where do I start with this? Firstly, McCoist wasn't an "alleged" figurehead, he *was* the figurehead.

 

Secondly, Why did we need one? Because everybody who we knew as being part of the club before disaster struck had done a runner, had retired or had been sacked; The new people, or rather the new, new people ( since the old new people i.e Whyte's mob has got us into the mess in the first place) were unknown to anybody. The only person who we knew ad who we knew to have the best interest of the club at heart was McCoist.

You might have been foolish enough to put hundreds of pounds into RFC in the immediate aftermath of thousands of people losing the money they had put into RFC, but without the support of McCoist it is doubtful whether many others[/b] would have been willing to trust the latest group of chancers to appoint themselves to the Ibrox board.

Have you *completely* forgotten where we were in the summer of 2012?

 

Thirdly, you are confusing McCoist's position as manager with his position as figurehead for the club, whether willfully or because you didn't take the time to read what I wrote, I don't know.

McCoist's performance as manager is, as I have already said, the subject of legitimate debate. The support is split on this.

The support is not split on his position as one of the guys who saved the club or on is position as one of the all time Rangers' greats.

 

Finally, I did not say or even insinuate that we need McCoist or any other figurehead to keep the club together now. My assertion about McCoist's invaluable role referred to 2012. I assume that you have confused past and present and raised this straw man argument because you haven't been able to pose an alternative; i.e. in the summer of 2012 when the club was in freefall and heading for possible oblivion, nobody knew or trusted anybody else and we needed a figurehead; McCoist stood up.

 

You've said you disagree with this but haven't said who else we could have trusted or who else could have done the job he did.

 

My breath is still baited awaiting this other name.

 

I could not disagree more. He is not some sort of Messiah. He is an individual forced into a managers position and given a great chance to win the hearts of the gullable. And i have already said, i didn't need one individual, i was not weak minded, i had faith, faith that my club would of course survive.Perhaps had we appointed a more appropriate manager post Walter we may not have suffered such horrendous outcomes in 2012?

 

I am not confusing his position as manager and figurehead, or mouthpiece as some call it. Any good work he did do in front of a mic in 2012 was completely nulled by his performance in the job he is actually paid to do. One thing i do agree on is Ally being one of the clubs all time greats, of course he is and always will be. The man is a club legend, a hero to thousands. my hero growing up.

 

Don't assume, it's dangerous. I told you i disagreed with you and did not need any one individual as any sort of figurehead. It's that simple. I had trust in my club.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

I could not disagree more. He is not some sort of Messiah. He is an individual forced into a managers position and given a great chance to win the hearts of the gullable. And i have already said, i didn't need one individual, i was not weak minded, i had faith, faith that my club would of course survive.Perhaps had we appointed a more appropriate manager post Walter we may not have suffered such horrendous outcomes in 2012?

 

I am not confusing his position as manager and figurehead, or mouthpiece as some call it. Any good work he did do in front of a mic in 2012 was completely nulled by his performance in the job he is actually paid to do. One thing i do agree on is Ally being one of the clubs all time greats, of course he is and always will be. The man is a club legend, a hero to thousands. my hero growing up.

 

Don't assume, it's dangerous. I told you i disagreed with you and did not need any one individual as any sort of figurehead. It's that simple. I had trust in my club.

 

One of the surest signs that somebody has no argument is when they resort to extreme terminology and use straw men.

 

Nobody has claimed AM was a 'messiah'. What he was, however, was a leader at a time when the fans and the club desperately needed one.

 

AM wasn't "forced" into the manager's position. He chose to stay in the position he was in and he did so with no pay. Why did he do that? Because he knew that if he walked away there would not have been one single person the fans could have trusted and the club would have been in a potentially fatal position.

 

"Gullible" describes people who, yet again, are willing to throw their money without thinking at whichever charlatan or crook happens to be chairman without stopping for once to demand answers - even after the club has been brought to the edge of oblivion by that very sort of mindless behaviour.

 

In fact, no, strike that; that's not gullible behaviour, that's bordering on criminally negligent.

 

We had been run by a fool, whose mismanagement put the club in mortal danger. No questions asked.

We were taken over by a criminal, whose recklessness almost killed us. No questions asked.

We were sold to a consortium of fly-by-nights and shady characters and yet some people were still willing to follow along blindly, believing whatever these carpetbaggers told you, no questions asked?

 

Thankfully the great bulk of the support weren't as blind and we demanded assurance that this latest bunch of chancers weren't going to kill the club off completely this time - and the only person we could trust to do that was McCoist.

 

I told you i disagreed with you and did not need any one individual as any sort of figurehead. It's that simple. I had trust in my club.

 

You had trust in your 'club'? Really? What exactly and who exactly did you have trust in?

I'm really keen to know what and who it was that you trusted so much, because nobody I knew or heard or read had any trust in anybody or anything at that time - except Ally McCoist.

 

 

Don't assume, it's dangerous.

fans are split on this figurehead i assume you claim we needed

 

Ahem!