Deserted seats show reality of angry Rangers fans voting with their feet

[buster. 4,809]

Originally Posted by Time4_Change

We have a double barrelled, rudderless Omnishambles with both RIFC (month at a time) and TRFC (match at a time).

 

Rudderless may be a little inaccurate in that some have plotting a course but it isn't for the benefit of Rangers.

 

I missed this one first time through.

Whatever it is, it's still my club and I'll take it. Patience will have it's own reward. As far as I can gather, there is not a damned thing you, your friends, or I can do about it.

Remember how people were screaming to get rid of Big Eck, and we ended up with a moonbeam. I'd rather be winning something.

 

That kind of attitude is what has traditionally made it easy for Rangers to under achieve throughout the club whilst playing in a footballing backwater and it also made it much easier for the sp.ivs to be welcomed instead of chased.

 

Regards sp.ivs, any opportunity or timely act was therefore missed as we instead layed out the red carpet for the robbing bastards.

 

Being patient and accepting whatever was thrown at us is your right but some may want more.

It was one thing when it was mainly the football operation but now we can add the boardroom and the diversion of a percentage of the revenue which threatens the club itself.

 

But if you want to be patient and see if the sp.ivs leave anything behind, fine.

I do take the point that there is a limited amount we can do and that because of Blind Loyalty, Patience and an addiction to Spin we find ourselves where we are today.

 

A double barrelled, rudderless Omnishambles with both RIFC and TRFC.

[Frankie 8,186]

 

On a sidenote, while our minds solely revolve about Rangers, has anyone actually checked how good or bad the support of other teams is? Have their attendance figures dropped too? If only for the sake of the argument.

 

Our minds revolve round Rangers because we're Rangers fans.

 

Consequently, as long as the situation at our club is so bleak then, and I'm sorry for the bad language, I couldn't give a flying fuck about other teams. Our ticket sales are down substantially and the club's viability in serious question. It's completely irrelevant if Hearts, Hibs or Celtic have higher or lower sales.

[Rangersitis 0]

On a sidenote, while our minds solely revolve about Rangers, has anyone actually checked how good or bad the support of other teams is? Have their attendance figures dropped too? If only for the sake of the argument.

 

You're the master of pointless comparisons, so nobody is better suited for the job of hunting for a club which has had a 20-25 percent drop off from last season. Let us all know your findings.

[der Berliner 3,290]

Our minds revolve round Rangers because we're Rangers fans.

 

Consequently, as long as the situation at our club is so bleak then, and I'm sorry for the bad language, I couldn't give a flying fuck about other teams. Our ticket sales are down substantially and the club's viability in serious question. It's completely irrelevant if Hearts, Hibs or Celtic have higher or lower sales.

 

Well, no harm in that and none disputes that. But neither should we just pretend that we live in our own isolated universe ... something I happily leave to the Yahoos. If the product Scottish football is declining on the whole, there'd be no reason not to relate that to our situation as well - without putting too much emphasis on it, of course. IMHO, a few factors have come into play here, be it the boycot, the board's previous behaviour, the lack of "quality" football on display and/or the shortcomings (perceived or not) of our management team. Not one isolated matter. Add to that that home fixtures have again been moved and will be around to Fridays and Mondays, something that would lead to a (considerable) drop in attendance figures even if everything was right. Next up, our home game against Hibs, neatly tucked into a Monday night slot. How many of our English- or Ulster-based supporters will enjoy somesuch?

[der Berliner 3,290]

You're the master of pointless comparisons, so nobody is better suited for the job of hunting for a club which has had a 20-25 percent drop off from last season. Let us all know your findings.

 

Yep, I value your opinion too ...

[buster. 4,809]

 

 

IMHO most of those who have not renewed have taken the position of being selective because of the poor quality of football on show and many of thosee who cite the Board etc as their reason are using this as an excuse to hide the real reasons which are the lack of quality/poor tactics/duff opposition etc. If we were top of the league and playing scintillating football against better teams than the last two seasons then I think our attendances would be up on last season's 42,938 average regardless of who is sitting in the Boardroom.

 

That is quite a claim to make, even for you.

 

Perhaps you are making a judgement based on how you with all your related experience cheered on Charles Green& his mysterious backers whilst they 'robbed' and set-up 'onerous contracts'.

 

I'd venture that many have learnt from bitter experience and this has shaped their current outlook and decision-making regards the club. They also still see many of the mysterious backers and other names in the background loading up their wheelbarrows........Perhaps it isn't unreasonable to assume that many are fed up with part of their Blue Pound sailing off on an onerous journey.

 

If the lack of spend were down to mainly football reasons then why the sudden fall this summer ?

Edited August 28, 2014 by buster.

[calscot 0]

Our minds revolve round Rangers because we're Rangers fans.

 

Consequently, as long as the situation at our club is so bleak then, and I'm sorry for the bad language, I couldn't give a flying fuck about other teams. Our ticket sales are down substantially and the club's viability in serious question. It's completely irrelevant if Hearts, Hibs or Celtic have higher or lower sales.

 

I think it would be folly to avoid ignoring environmental factors... You don't just sack someone for not increasing profits when you're in the middle of a recession. There are overarching baselines that you need to measure yourself against.

[Rangersitis 0]

I think it would be folly to avoid ignoring environmental factors... You don't just sack someone for not increasing profits when you're in the middle of a recession. There are overarching baselines that you need to measure yourself against.

 

See his earlier post which measured it against games last season.

[Frankie 8,186]

I think it would be folly to avoid ignoring environmental factors... You don't just sack someone for not increasing profits when you're in the middle of a recession. There are overarching baselines that you need to measure yourself against.

 

I'm not saying we should ignore the recession or price rises in terms of reasoning. I'm just saying these won't be hugely different when comparing with other teams.

 

Our ticket sales have substantially fallen this season - more than any other Scottish club - despite them holding pretty firm for 20+ years; even since the banking crisis and during the recession and oldco admin process. A big enough fall to bring the club's viability into stark focus and mainly unrelated to economics in my view.

 

Ergo, examining what's happening elsewhere won't help us to any great degree.

[calscot 0]

Lastly I reject the argument that "The only win rate stat that counts is Cup competitions completed 11, won 0%." On that basis, what is our success rate in the league? Well it's 100% in the last two seasons. The former doesn't prove that Ally is a bad manager (though I don't think he's a manager at all) but neither does the latter prove that he is a good manager.

 

I agree here and think it's unrealistic to expect the current level of squad we have to consistently win cup competitions. For me, it would like expecting Hearts to win a trophy every year (or even every other year) as well as finish at least third in the league with a first or second every few years.

 

The thing about cup games is all it takes is one bad performance against a highly motivated side to put you out. Most squads of our past, have had a massive gap on quality outwith Celtic and so have been able to often win against lesser teams while not playing so well and just have the one real rival to overcome. But even the most spectacular of our sides have lost many a cup game to a lesser side or even just lost two finals to Celtic.

 

You could say that we have big gap over our rivals in the challenge cup but not winning it twice equates to no worse than all the failures of our best sides, especially when Celtic were struggling or went out before meeting us. Top Rangers sides have lost to the likes of Raith Rovers never mind one the most under funded and handicapped in modern history.

 

Calscot's view of the statistics representing an 82% win rate in cup ties is perhaps a better assessment but it's by no means the full story. The reason for that is fairly obvious; namely that once you lose you are out! So no chance of further losses (unless you are Celtic FC). A weighted average taking account of the quality of opposition might be more instructive.

 

I agree it's not a quality statistic due to what you say and also as it doesn't count us going out to top tier sides but you have to win a lot of rounds to get your percentage up that high. Out in two rounds every time and you might not lose again but you have a 50% stat.

 

But the point was that we have been well capable of beating those sides but cup games being cup games it's easy to have the odd bad one against a fantastically motivated side. That's why the league is more of a barometer of where you are as when you lose, you get to opportunity to win next week. McCoist record of results is better than any previous Rangers manager when you put ALL the games together and while you can argue about the level of opposition, outside Celtic, we've often had just as big a differential.

 

However, there is the special case of how well a manager can motivate his own side in cup competitions with some being better than others. John Greig was able to do it somewhat but at the expense of dreadful results in the league. I would agree that McCoist has not yet shown an aptitude for bringing the best performances out of his players for individual big games, which to me, is his greatest flaw as a Rangers manager, that would be more ignored elsewhere, given good league results.

 

Our league win pecentage in 2012/13 was 80.5% and last season it was 95.8%. Would anyone argue that those figures prove that Ally is a great manager, I doubt it.

 

I agree again, but feel I have to re-itterate: *no-one* is saying Ally is great manager. There is only one extreme argued for.

 

He has a reasonably high success rate in domestic cup ties but not in cup competitions; it's important to distinguish between the two.

 

I doubt the latter shows a low success rate for a non-OF manager (outside Sir Alex and Jim McLean) and it has to be argued that Ally is not really the equivalent of an OF manager in this context. His position is nearer to a reasonably well funded Hearts or Aberdeen - who've been relegated. Some of the extremely negative judgements need to take this into account.