Red & Black shirts for sale

[Stimpy 0]

When things were desperate in the recent past, the RST's SaveRangers looked like it could become a serious players in the game, but it was derailed by the RFFF, one of the biggest own goals we've ever scored and a complete waste of time and energy.

 

We have a few who are searching for constructive solutions, but we still have a tendency to tug our forelocks to the man in the big house, and it holds us back dreadfully.

 

There are three groups:

 

Those who want fan ownership and democratisation of the club - like the RST: those who want another supreme commander to make all the decisions and carry all the responsibilities, which is the biggest group, and a small group intent on wrecking and badmouthing whatever comes along if it doesn't come from within the club itself.

 

Effectively, they are:

 

1/ The democrats

2/ The deferential

3/ The wreckers

 

The first one is growing, the second is reducing and the third is thankfully very small.

 

Nicely put. Hopefully 1 and 2 does swing in opposite direction.

[Rangersitis 0]

When things were desperate in the recent past, the RST's SaveRangers looked like it could become a serious players in the game, but it was derailed by the RFFF, one of the biggest own goals we've ever scored and a complete waste of time and energy.

 

We have a few who are searching for constructive solutions, but we still have a tendency to tug our forelocks to the man in the big house, and it holds us back dreadfully.

 

There are three groups:

 

Those who want fan ownership and democratisation of the club - like the RST: those who want another supreme commander to make all the decisions and carry all the responsibilities, which is the biggest group, and a small group intent on wrecking and badmouthing whatever comes along if it doesn't come from within the club itself.

 

Effectively, they are:

 

1/ The democrats

2/ The deferential

3/ The wreckers

 

The first one is growing, the second is reducing and the third is thankfully very small.

 

The third group may be small, but it is certainly noisy, and as history shows, is easily manipulated by the spin merchants for those controlling the club. There is a chance that their influence could be exaggerated using compliant journos within the mainstream media. The board(s) will attempt to make great play of publishing their answers to the recent 'grilling'.

[Steve1872 4]

Red + Black Shirt ‏@ProtestShirt 4h

Over 800 shirts sold as of this morning! Great response with payday and launch still to come

[Hildy 0]

Red + Black Shirt ‏@ProtestShirt 4h

Over 800 shirts sold as of this morning! Great response with payday and launch still to come

 

An official launch? That's great news. The project seems to have come together quickly.

 

Plaudits to the guys involved.

[Bluedell 5,329]

When things were desperate in the recent past, the RST's SaveRangers looked like it could become a serious players in the game, but it was derailed by the RFFF, one of the biggest own goals we've ever scored and a complete waste of time and energy.

 

I'd disagree with that. Save rangers was never going to raise serious cash and the introduction of the RFFF didn't have a huge impact on it. The Rangers fans were not ready for fan ownership at that point, and probably still aren't.

 

The RFFF raised cash that would not have gone to SaveRangers. They had a simple message that punters could relate to and understand, but a share scheme would not have been as attractive to many.

 

In addition, the RST missed the boat with their launch of SR, but even if it had been earlier I doubt it'd had a huge impact.

 

We have a few who are searching for constructive solutions, but we still have a tendency to tug our forelocks to the man in the big house, and it holds us back dreadfully.

 

There are three groups:

 

Those who want fan ownership and democratisation of the club - like the RST: those who want another supreme commander to make all the decisions and carry all the responsibilities, which is the biggest group, and a small group intent on wrecking and badmouthing whatever comes along if it doesn't come from within the club itself.

 

Effectively, they are:

 

1/ The democrats

2/ The deferential

3/ The wreckers

 

The first one is growing, the second is reducing and the third is thankfully very small.

 

I think it's a bit insulting to call the second group "the deferential" and it's the use of that kind of term that tends to polarise people's positions. As someone whose tried to convince people of the benefits of fan ownership in the past, I know that there's many in the second group who are there because those in the first group have yet to sell a convincing vision of how it will work.

 

Looking at various forums, the arguments both for and against season ticket renewal are also so polarised that many fans don't see that their view is just that. An opinion. It's not fact despite what both sides think, and the ongoing bickering is doing nothing to persuade a huge section that fans are ready to make decisions as to who is fit to run the club going forward, which would presumably be the case under fan ownership.

 

I'd also argue that the third group are just a subsection of the second (and perhaps partly the first).

[Hildy 0]

I'd disagree with that. Save rangers was never going to raise serious cash and the introduction of the RFFF didn't have a huge impact on it. The Rangers fans were not ready for fan ownership at that point, and probably still aren't.

 

The RFFF raised cash that would not have gone to SaveRangers. They had a simple message that punters could relate to and understand, but a share scheme would not have been as attractive to many.

 

In addition, the RST missed the boat with their launch of SR, but even if it had been earlier I doubt it'd had a huge impact.

 

 

 

I think it's a bit insulting to call the second group "the deferential" and it's the use of that kind of term that tends to polarise people's positions. As someone whose tried to convince people of the benefits of fan ownership in the past, I know that there's many in the second group who are there because those in the first group have yet to sell a convincing vision of how it will work.

 

Looking at various forums, the arguments both for and against season ticket renewal are also so polarised that many fans don't see that their view is just that. An opinion. It's not fact despite what both sides think, and the ongoing bickering is doing nothing to persuade a huge section that fans are ready to make decisions as to who is fit to run the club going forward, which would presumably be the case under fan ownership.

 

I'd also argue that the third group are just a subsection of the second (and perhaps partly the first).

 

SaveRangers, if I remember correctly, had around £13,000,000 in pledges although it's difficult to know how much of this figure would actually have come in. I think we were as ready for fan ownership at that point as we have ever been, but the advent of the ill thought-out and pointless RFFF effectively took it off the table.

 

"Deferential' should not be insulting to those who are naturally inclined this way. Those who believed every word said by SDM and want another just like him, most probably King, are more than happy to defer to a rich and powerful man. They often accuse ordinary fans of 'getting ideas above their station' when it comes to fan ownership, and this could certainly be construed as being insulting.

 

Those who want fan ownership are arguing that every Rangers fan who wants to have a contributing opinion should get it. That is about as respectful as it gets.

 

Those who don't want fan ownership are asking their fellow fans to pipe down and defer to an all-powerful individual. That's not very respectful at all.

[Bluedell 5,329]

SaveRangers, if I remember correctly, had around £13,000,000 in pledges although it's difficult to know how much of this figure would actually have come in. I think we were as ready for fan ownership at that point as we have ever been, but the advent of the ill thought-out and pointless RFFF effectively took it off the table.

 

I disagree as I've said and you've made no further attempt to justify your position so I guess we need to agree to disagree.

 

"Deferential' should not be insulting to those who are naturally inclined this way. Those who believed every word said by SDM and want another just like him, most probably King, are more than happy to defer to a rich and powerful man. They often accuse ordinary fans of 'getting ideas above their station' when it comes to fan ownership, and this could certainly be construed as being insulting.

 

Wouldn't it be great if everyone that didn't currently support fan ownership could be pigeon-holed into believing every word that SDM said and go around accusing fans of 'getting ideas above their station'. Unfortunately life (and our fans) aren't as simple as that and I know quite a few people who didn't believe SDM and don't want fan ownership for other reasons. I know one guy who'd point to the paragraph that you've just written and highlight the attitude shown in it as to why he wouldn't want it.

 

Those who want fan ownership are arguing that every Rangers fan who wants to have a contributing opinion should get it. That is about as respectful as it gets.

 

Not if you show no respect for those who don't share your views.

 

Those who don't want fan ownership are asking their fellow fans to pipe down and defer to an all-powerful individual. That's not very respectful at all.

 

You may know a few like that (I can't think of any immediately) but I'd argue that the vast majority don't think like that at all. and again you're pigeon-holing everyone who doesn't share your view.

 

The way to change people's minds from being against fan ownership is to explain how it would work and how the problems (such as funding) would be overcome. It's not by being insulting because they don't share your view and or just saying that it's got to be better than the sp1vs (not that I'm claiming you are saying that last part).

[craig 5,195]

SaveRangers, if I remember correctly, had around £13,000,000 in pledges although it's difficult to know how much of this figure would actually have come in. I think we were as ready for fan ownership at that point as we have ever been, but the advent of the ill thought-out and pointless RFFF effectively took it off the table.

 

"Deferential' should not be insulting to those who are naturally inclined this way. Those who believed every word said by SDM and want another just like him, most probably King, are more than happy to defer to a rich and powerful man. They often accuse ordinary fans of 'getting ideas above their station' when it comes to fan ownership, and this could certainly be construed as being insulting.

 

Those who want fan ownership are arguing that every Rangers fan who wants to have a contributing opinion should get it. That is about as respectful as it gets.

 

Those who don't want fan ownership are asking their fellow fans to pipe down and defer to an all-powerful individual. That's not very respectful at all.

 

This post is clearly suggested from someone who wants fan ownership and will make every attempt to put those who want fan ownership in a positive light whilst putting those who dont, or who are undecided, in a negative light. Typical politics.

 

It isnt being respectful at all to suggest that every fan who wants a contributing opinion should get it - it is actually being disrespectful to those who simply dont wish fan ownership by, effectively saying, "well, you dont want fan ownership so your opinion doesnt really count". Hardly respectful.

 

How much of the million quid did Save Rangers get from the guy who was in the paper with the big cheque for a million ? Answer, probably very little. Pledges mean absolutely nothing. That 13 million was as fictitous as it gets - you dont think it was infiltrated by Tims ?

[Hildy 0]

I disagree as I've said and you've made no further attempt to justify your position so I guess we need to agree to disagree.

 

 

 

Wouldn't it be great if everyone that didn't currently support fan ownership could be pigeon-holed into believing every word that SDM said and go around accusing fans of 'getting ideas above their station'. Unfortunately life (and our fans) aren't as simple as that and I know quite a few people who didn't believe SDM and don't want fan ownership for other reasons. I know one guy who'd point to the paragraph that you've just written and highlight the attitude shown in it as to why he wouldn't want it.

 

 

 

Not if you show no respect for those who don't share your views.

 

 

 

You may know a few like that (I can't think of any immediately) but I'd argue that the vast majority don't think like that at all. and again you're pigeon-holing everyone who doesn't share your view.

 

The way to change people's minds from being against fan ownership is to explain how it would work and how the problems (such as funding) would be overcome. It's not by being insulting because they don't share your view and or just saying that it's got to be better than the sp1vs (not that I'm claiming you are saying that last part).

 

 

I know someone who was ready to commit a six-figure sum to SaveRangers. When it was replaced by RFFF, he kept his money in his pocket: understandably. We went from the beginnings of hope (SaveRangers) to a scheme which played on the emotions of fans (fighting fund!) that was a loser from its first breath.

 

The overwhelming attitude within the Rangers support has been deferential for a very long time. If people can't live with a characteristic that fairly aptly describes us, they should dwell on where we are and why we are here. We have been ducking responsibility for Rangers for too long, and even now many want Dave King to come in to write the cheques, make us successful and square up to a hostile media.

 

We need to stop being passive and become active in the way the club is organised. This is hard to achieve though when folk instinctively want a leader to follow rather than having any kind of belief in themselves.

 

Frankly, I think the Rangers support needs to give itself a shake. If accusations of being deferential stir it into life, it will be no bad thing. If it takes the huff, though, it will get everything that it deserves.

[Bluedell 5,329]

I know someone who was ready to commit a six-figure sum to SaveRangers. When it was replaced by RFFF, he kept his money in his pocket: understandably. We went from the beginnings of hope (SaveRangers) to a scheme which played on the emotions of fans (fighting fund!) that was a loser from its first breath.

 

I don't recall it as being an either/or. I'd have thought he could have still invested in BuyRangers (was it not called that?).

 

The overwhelming attitude within the Rangers support has been deferential for a very long time. If people can't live with a characteristic that fairly aptly describes us, they should dwell on where we are and why we are here. We have been ducking responsibility for Rangers for too long, and even now many want Dave King to come in to write the cheques, make us successful and square up to a hostile media.

 

We need to stop being passive and become active in the way the club is organised. This is hard to achieve though when folk instinctively want a leader to follow rather than having any kind of belief in themselves.

 

There is still a requirement for leadership even if the fans were to become owners. There would need to be fans driving it forward. Perhaps there hasn't been suitable leadership within the fans bodies? I like guys like Dinnie and Kerr but they aren't going to get 1000's of fans to follow them, and Dingwall is seen as being too divisive. Perhaps it's the fact that RST was seen as divisive right from the start and it's never recovered and as such there's been a lost opportunity?

 

Some are happy to be drawn in by an ideal but others need to see something more tangible and perhaps those who have been involved in the fans organisations are at fault for not developing this latter point sufficiently? It doesn't mean that the fans as a whole don't have belief in themselves. The problems lie elsewhere.

 

Frankly, I think the Rangers support needs to give itself a shake. If accusations of being deferential stir it into life, it will be no bad thing. If it takes the huff, though, it will get everything that it deserves.

I'd agree that the support does need to give itself a shake, but your accusations aren't going to stir anyone into anything. Reasoned arguments, something sadly lacking in the whole season ticket debate, should be what changes people's minds.