Gordon Waddell: Altruistic Ann Budge puts money-grabbing Green and Whyte to shame

[andy steel 0]

They fought to destroy the greatest evil Europe has ever inflicted on the world, and God knows it has inflicted a few! To boil that down to 'they fought for all of Great Britain' is accurate as far as it goes, but it only shows a tiny part of a huge picture, and furthermore is most certainly adopting their fight for your own political belief.

 

I think I'll refrain from further comment since squabbling over other peoples' loss is in the poorest possible taste.

 

Having complete strangers, whose motivations are a mystery to us, being able to own Rangers is the biggest pitfall of all.

 

Worrying about fan ownership is like worrying about democracy.

 

There will always be problems and difficulties to overcome, but standing back while rogue owners march in to Ibrox is more than a pitfall.

 

It is a mineshaft to oblivion.

 

I don't necessarily disagree, but it is fair to point out that for a few of our more strident voices, the team on the pitch is some way down the list of priorities. This poses another danger, since it will alienate non-baggaged fans, make corporate investment less likely and less sizeable (Blackthorn! We should have Ford or someone equally large on our shirts), and continue our chronically poor public relations disaster, thus ensuring the continuance of the first two items, entrenching the third and so on and so on until we're playing before the type of crowds I Used to see in the mid-80's, with about as much success.

 

Now, it's as likely that this won't happen as it will, but I don't see any reason not to raise the issue, unless we're just going to breenge on with the LUMP mentality and to hell with the rest of the world.

 

Onwards to the Ghetto! Timothy is already there, we should copy them!! No for me, thanks.

[Hildy 0]

Andy, the club is presently underachieving massively - not just as a team on the pitch, but off it, too.

 

We've touched on this before, but until the basics are right, everything else will fall short. It is no use thinking that things will eventually fall into place when we can never be sure into whose hands the club will fall next.

 

The club is a sporting and cultural monument, but it has no protection. It is as vulnerable as a high street shop. It can change hands at any time, and to any one.

 

Is anyone actually relaxed about this? If they are, they shouldn't be.

 

If Rangers is as important as we think it is, we should surely endeavour to look after it - short term and long term.

 

We think it belongs to us, but the reality is rather different. Rangers belongs to whoever is prepared to pay for it, and as long as this remains the case, its future is going to be bumpy and difficult, and nowhere near as long as our mostly distinguished past.

[der Berliner 3,249]

Andy, the club is presently underachieving massively - not just as a team on the pitch, but off it, too.

 

How about coming to terms with reality? If you think our team could do oh so much better, how about casting your mind back to days and teams past, who all went throughout their seasons losing no games, playing champagne football for 50odd games and whatnot.

[andy steel 0]

Andy, the club is presently underachieving massively - not just as a team on the pitch, but off it, too.

 

We've touched on this before, but until the basics are right, everything else will fall short. It is no use thinking that things will eventually fall into place when we can never be sure into whose hands the club will fall next.

 

The club is a sporting and cultural monument, but it has no protection. It is as vulnerable as a high street shop. It can change hands at any time, and to any one.

 

Is anyone actually relaxed about this? If they are, they shouldn't be.

 

If Rangers is as important as we think it is, we should surely endeavour to look after it - short term and long term.

 

We think it belongs to us, but the reality is rather different. Rangers belongs to whoever is prepared to pay for it, and as long as this remains the case, its future is going to be bumpy and difficult, and nowhere near as long as our mostly distinguished past.

 

Fair enough points. My spirits are in my boots today (Spiers is the last straw, again) and so it's only fair that those with oomph take their chance before worn out old records, moaning on and on. I wish you luck.

[Bluedell 5,342]

"war effort" - that's one way to put "illegal invasion and occupation of somebody else's country where we have no business being"

 

I was referring to WW2. Sorry if you feel that we had no business being in that.

[Bluedell 5,342]

To boil that down to 'they fought for all of Great Britain' is accurate as far as it goes, but it only shows a tiny part of a huge picture, and furthermore is most certainly adopting their fight for your own political belief.

 

It was a throw away comment FFS. Nothing was being boiled down. Talk about "faux outrage". The question was asked as to whether the beneficiary had opposite political views. Saying that "I doubt Erskine Hospital is particularly pro-independence" as the guys fought for the whole of GB is hardly an attempt to put forward a big picture. It was just trying to make the point, perhaps not that well given your reaction, that as an organisation Erskine would not be pro-independence. That's hardly adopting their fight for my political beliefs (unlike my subsequent comment, which was more catty than anything else) and the fact that you took so much from it seems to be that your political beliefs are making you read into things that aren't there.

[calscot 0]

I've got to say that saying because someone fought in the British Army means that are not for independence is nothing short of stupid and has an arrogance of presuming not just to know how someone thinks but to completely simplify them.

 

It could be said that in WWII, people were notionally fighting for Europe as much as the UK so does that mean they all want a United States of Europe? There is no chance they could be Eurosceptics?

 

After all the EC was originally bourne out of the idea that countries who are economically and politically involved with each other are unlikely to start another huge war between them.

 

You can like the rest of the UK, want them to do well, want to have a great relationship with them and still want to be independent.

 

You can love your family and be loyal to them but there can still be a time when you want to leave home.

[Bluedell 5,342]

I've got to say that saying because someone fought in the British Army means that are not for independence is nothing short of stupid and has an arrogance of presuming not just to know how someone thinks but to completely simplify them..

 

Given that I didn't say that, I'd have to ask who is the stupid one?

[calscot 0]

Given that I didn't say that, I'd have to ask who is the stupid one?

 

Didn't even mention you or quote you. I just asserted that a certain presumption of other people's opinion based on such a very simple premise is stupid. To be attributed, it's all depends whether you subscribe to that type of thinking.

 

If you don't, then fine. I'm not going to presume to know one way of the other.

[andy steel 0]

It was a throw away comment FFS. Nothing was being boiled down. Talk about "faux outrage". The question was asked as to whether the beneficiary had opposite political views. Saying that "I doubt Erskine Hospital is particularly pro-independence" as the guys fought for the whole of GB is hardly an attempt to put forward a big picture. It was just trying to make the point, perhaps not that well given your reaction, that as an organisation Erskine would not be pro-independence. That's hardly adopting their fight for my political beliefs (unlike my subsequent comment, which was more catty than anything else) and the fact that you took so much from it seems to be that your political beliefs are making you read into things that aren't there.

 

Well, that's something I'll try to address, maybe. As I said before, though, I don't want to say any more on the subject, so I'll leave it at that.