ranger_syntax 3,765 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 D'Artagnan: I'm not sure if I understand your post. What is it that you think should be rectified within the RST? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 and that's me being generous. i may have said you sought to make something of a situation that simply was not there by being both disingenuous and vague. now i only have marks word for it that he could not afford to pay for tickets after being let down by others. but what we both know is the outstanding money was for tickets to a function. attaching the term loan to this has always struck me as curious at best and nasty at worst. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Let me be clear - if there have any dodgy dealings within the RST, that is entirely unacceptable. Organisations such as this have to be above board and seen to be above board. Those upset by accusations about the conduct of certain RST board members - I presume they will not want Dave King at Rangers. As has been widely documented, question marks have been raised about some of his financial dealings, too. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 You have failed to give all the facts as well. The RST as an organisation prevented the incident from being discussed at the proper time at its AGM, resulting in the membership not knowing the facts, and the RST accounts not giving the required disclosure. Have some people given the issue too much prominence? Yes, but some have also not given it enough importance. We saw the attempted discrediting of more ex-board members yesterday, which isn't good to see, and is not in the club's best interests. people should feel free to add any facts to the discussion they are aware of. i'm not trying to make people believe anything re this. me i can see how this happens to people and i can see why they wouldn't want it discussed especially if it's been delt with and paid off. but thats just because i've been through similar. people will see it differently from me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 D'Artagnan: I'm not sure if I understand your post. What is it that you think should be rectified within the RST? RS I was commenting, as requested by Chilledbear, on why I felt the devaluation had a permanence about it and why it was erroneous to attribute that purely down to some people's personal dislike of Mark Dingwall or the RST 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 D'Art Thanks for your post, it sounds as if everything that is wrong with the RST comes down to one person. Is there not a time limit on his involvement ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 again i will say this. he is gone. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 3,765 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 RS I was commenting' date=' as requested by Chilledbear, on why I felt the devaluation had a permanence about it and why it was erroneous to attribute that purely down to some people's personal dislike of Mark Dingwall or the RST[/quote'] Ok, it looked like he was asking about what you think should be rectified when I looked back through the responses/quotes. In any case I don't think that anything you said supports the claim that the RST is permanently devalued. The value of the RST will change based on the contribution that members make to it. If people think that there is a problem with governance then I don't see why that can't improve but it would require effort. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) Rolling Stone magazine has an article this week entitled "Marx Was Right: Five Surprising Ways Karl Marx Predicted 2014". Being an American magazine Rolling Stone is taking a risk with this because for many in America being labeled a Marxist is career suicide, the phrase is so loaded as to be used purely as an insult now. Yet the article points out that for many people capitalism doesn't work very well and one of the 'people' it doesn't work for is us, the Rangers support. The opposition to 'fan ownership' puzzles me. I suppose for those under 30 brought up on a diet of Sir David's largesse, of the rise of the mega-clubs like Man Utd, Barca, Real Madrid and now Chelsea, Man city and PSG and the creation of the G14 organisation then money is everything, only those with the deepest pockets can succeed. That's how football works, isn't it? But I'm 43, I watched clubs like Nottingham Forest, Malmo, Red Star Belgrade and Brugge contest the European Cup Final, I know that football isn't all about money and the club with the most money doesn't have to always win. Football has changed though, and today the club with the most money usually does win, in every league we're now seeing that. TV rights, sponsorship, endorsements and countless other 'income streams' help fuel this. Add in megalomaniacs from Russia or Malaysia or much nearer to home and the clubs run with some sort of fiscal responsibility are left behind, derided even. But here's the thing, it's unsustainable, Marx predicted this and he was right. All of these business bubbles burst eventually and this one will too. They are "chaotic by nature" and one which is as unrestricted as football currently is will crash and burn eventually, nothing is surer. Have a look at some of the ticket prices being charged in the EPL this season. Have a look at the debt being carried by football clubs all around Europe. Tell me that's sustainable, tell me that someone bigger will come along and pick up the cheque. Yeah right, go read an economics book or two. We're the guys who'll be picking up the 'cheque'. I'm not a Marxist. Professionally, when I'm not wasting my time on football forums I help grow those capitalist bubbles and i've seen a few of them get too big and go pop now. Too many of us judge 'success' on how much profit a company makes, not on how good its product or services are, how well it treats its employees and customers and how well it's prepared for the future. Time and again we fall for this, short term gain over long term stability seems to be what we desire. So look at football clubs. History tells us they can disappear, no matter how unlikely that might seem, they can and do. It happens when people no longer care about them, so it is in the interests of all football clubs to ensure people keep caring. The best way to ensure that is to involve people in them. If football supporters become nothing more than 'customers' then eventually we'll start to behave like customers. As anathema as this might sound it is starting to happen now. Already English sides (and they and the already bankrupt Spanish sides are the driving force behind this) are seeing more and more of their tickets being sold to 'football tourists' rather than supporters. London clubs in particular are seeing this phenomenon but it is also happening in Manchester too. That's helping to drive the price of tickets up and force 'supporters' out. That the concept of fan involvement seems alien to us is puzzling to me. But then how many of us are actually involved in anything outside of our work or family these days? How many of us are on the PTA of their children's school, how many of us are involved in youth organisations on a voluntary basis, how many of are in trade unions or are members of political parties or help out at the local bowling club? Tell you what I bet it's a hell of a lot fewer than did in the 70s and 80s. The whole concept of taking responsibility for our community assets has been diluted now. My father was born in an Ayrshire mining village which consisted of three rows of houses, it was tiny. Yet it had a Junior football team an amateur football team, three Friendly Societies, a quoiting club, an ambulance corps, a juvenile football club, a brass band, a dramatic society, and a phonetics class. Today, in the Glasgow area I live in my daughter's Brownie group can't find enough volunteers to staff their troop. Don't get me wrong there's no shortage of parents who want their daughters to join, just a shortage of parents who are willing to give up any of their time to help out. This is the same. Too many of us want someone else to run Rangers. Too many of us want someone else to carry that burden, hopefully someone very rich too. We can blame factionalism in our support, unhappiness with how the RST has been run, personalities involved in various groups or find reasons to explain how fan ownership can't work. But then we can't complain when things go to hell. Can we really complain about the people running our club if we aren't willing to do it ourselves? How do we judge success? What do we want from Rangers? Do we care what the share price is? The football bubble will burst, nothing is surer, economics tell us this if we care to look. When it does there will be casualties, the clubs who are stable both fiscally and politically will be the most likely to survive that. So I'd argue it is in our best long term interests to own our club, to have a say in how it is run, to be keeping a watchful eye on things. Remember, no one else cares, nobody else gives a damn about our club, only us. Why entrust it to people who don't share our values or dreams? Edited February 2, 2014 by amms typo 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 That's a good post, amms. People who object to fan ownership sometimes give out about it being a socialist model and out of tune with the capitalist society we inhabit. My politics are right of centre. I am comfortable with capitalism, which is still one of the best ways to organise society. It does not offend me to see companies making profit and to see individuals making and accruing wealth. I don't endorse Labour wanting to raise the top tax level to 50%. If it was up to me, I'd reduce it even further. I cannot envisage a set of circumstances where I'd contemplate voting Labour. But when it comes to football clubs, which are about identity and the collective, and in particular, our football club, which is almost a national monument, it is obscene that it can fall into the care of people whose priorities lie elsewhere. Companies chasing profit come and go. They may last a hundred years and sometimes more, but in the end they tend to collapse or wither and die. This will happen to Rangers, too. It is inconceivable that Rangers will survive over hundreds of years when its ownership is left to chance. Those against fan ownership are holding the door open for rogue elements to come in and kill the club from within - while at the same time hoping that only upstanding and impeccable individuals will dare to walk through. This isn't just careless. It is inexcusably crazy. 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.