Rangers being held hostage: Stockholm syndrome

[Frankie 8,145]

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/272-rangers-being-held-hostage-stockholm-syndrome

 

It’s been a stressful week for those interested in the well-being of Rangers Football Club. Not only does the club admit to the Stock Exchange that if the latest share offer is under-subscribed it will be unable to pay its creditors; we have key board members who represent the interests of the vast bulk of existing shareholders conceding that his and our CEO’s intentions are different, confirming a split at board level. Meanwhile the negative detail of each onerous contract placed upon the club are drip-fed to concerned fans on a week-to-week basis: from retail deals where the money is yet to be released to our struggling accounts to stadium naming rights which appear to be the result of self-interest rather than good value. Never has it been more obvious that our club is being held hostage to the whim of chancers. Yet, bizarrely, almost in a comedic fashion, we have some fans absolving these people of blame.

 

Wikipedia describes Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, as ‘a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with them.’ The syndrome itself is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken in Stockholm, Sweden, in which several bank employees were held hostage in a bank vault from August 23 to 28, 1973, while their captors negotiated with police. During this standoff, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, rejected assistance from government officials at one point, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal.

 

Ok, I’ll admit at the outset the analogy is a bit strong but if we examine the last few years – from the excesses of Sir David Murray to the actions of Craig Whyte right through to the present day incumbents, there are examples of the above. These include the eyes-wide-shut worship of Murray onto the lauding of Whyte’s supposed net-worth despite all the evidence to the contrary at the very outset to some fans insisting the ‘current’ board are not to blame for the club’s position now. Indeed, not only do we have bloggers continue to suggest Charles Green remains interested in the well-being of the club but we have various fans eager to hold their own as culpable in Rangers’ problems. Apparently it’s Dave King, the Union of Fans or Sons of Struth’s fault that the club cannot pay its bills. Similarly, possible investors such as Dave King who has proven his good intentions to the tune of £20million previously are mocked and pushed away. Conversely, some supporters are eager to extoll the virtue of Mike Ashley’s ongoing involvement despite many Newcastle fans being desperate to rid their club of him. He’s a billionaire they cry – without acknowledging the reason for his success is the kind of questionable retail and naming deals he strikes with clubs such as ours.

 

Let’s be clear: the future of the football club is again in serious question and the danger should not be under-estimated. There has been a shortfall of at least 12,000 season tickets and it’s this lack of working capital that is directly impacting upon the club’s ability to trade. Thus, those that suggest the fans are to ‘blame’ for the financial problems are at least partly correct but the reasons are worth examining as well as the club’s inability to address this serious problem. Never has it been clearer that our money runs the club year on year – not Sir David Murray’s, not Craig Whyte’s and certainly not the anonymous investors currently in control of it. Therefore, engaging with the support should be a priority for any regime looking to make a success of the club. For all his faults, Murray realised this and while he was by the dominant partner in that relationship, we did have a nominal seat at the table and aside from a few small issues (comparatively speaking anyway!) crowds were always high and only his cowardice led to the Whyte debacle. Yet even in the dark days of that era attendances didn’t drop and after administration we had capacity crowd after capacity crowd. The same can be said after we fell to Division Three – our support did not dissipate and our loyalty should never be questioned. Not by anyone – least of all our own.

 

Unfortunately the last year or so has seen attitudes change: not due to fans becoming lazy or greedy but because of a combination of factors. Firstly it become clear that much of the substantial monies raised in backing the Charles Green ownership were wasted and his associates less than ideal custodians of the club. In the face of this criticism, board changes were made and supposedly extensive reviews into the business carried out but the paucity of these contributions didn’t provide much solace. A poor quality (or at best inconsistent) product on the park wasn’t helping but promised changes highlighted in the review to address this have not been forthcoming. Thus, reluctantly, and by way of protest, many fans chose to withhold their investment and, if we’re brutally honest, that’s understandable. Generally, the last year has seen fans become ever more frustrated with their club and increasingly obvious evidence that the incumbent board – or more accurately the decision-making investment groups – cannot turn things around. Not just in terms of the £30million investment talked of in their empirical reviews but the kind of credible and transparent leadership required to rebuild trust in the boardroom and entice fans back to Ibrox. With almost 250 staff members and overheads of aging stadiums, training grounds and dilapidated white elephant buildings, is it any wonder a new administration event looms large on the horizon?

 

Consequently, where does that leave us? Well, I’d suggest we have two distinct pathways ahead. One: if as seems likely, the share offer is subscribed enough to defer our problems to another day; we’ll have the fait accompli of 75% share-holding levels for approval of AGM/EGM resolutions related to the sale and/or leaseback of club assets ¬– such as the Auchenhowie training ground which has consistently been ignored by club representatives when talking about such revenue sources. Or, two: investment groups are able by way of this issue to consolidate their holdings enough to enable a sale to other interested parties. Now, I won’t try to predict the outcome but I’m certain both the existing ownership and the likes of Dave King and/or Mike Ashley will have planned for these eventualities over the last year. The events of the last week won’t be a surprise to them.

 

What is easier to predict is that without one of these outcomes an insolvency event is inevitable as things stand. However, misguided suggestions that this may be an agreeable solution make me uneasy. For example, will onerous contracts be removed by this process, would ownership be guaranteed to change after it and what of the club’s league position after the fact? We don’t know so, simply put, no-one should look at administration with anything other than horror. On the other hand, neither should fans be emotionally blackmailed into providing what appears to be an ever-more toxic board and ownership with a mandate to stumble on in charge. The time for making excuses for these people has long gone. There is no defence of Charles Green and, whether he’s still involved now or not, his associates on the ‘current’ board are equally tainted by their deficiencies.

 

With that in mind, what options are available to fans? Not many is the desperate answer. Yes we have worthy share initiatives like Buy Rangers and Rangers First but with further financial uncertainty abound, can we really expect fans to invest in shares after the events of 2012? Even so, we absolutely must consider such projects with an open mind but with the greatest will in the world, they’re arguably not a short term solution. Nevertheless, possibly buyers engaging with these groups going forward would go a long way to cementing the fans’ contribution in a better future. Indeed, it’s only through that kind of undertaking that we may finally achieve the kind of bond between supporters and ownership that has been missing for so long.

 

Unfortunately, such a positive conclusion seems difficult to attain. The coming weeks and months will define the future and it may well be beyond the fans abilities to impact upon this. Nevertheless, neither should we be held to ransom by people who will never understand the love we have for our football club. We have a choice and while I’d never begin to tell my fellow fans what to do, at some point we have to stop identifying with people who don’t share our love for our club. In that sense Stockholm syndrome is not a workable survival strategy – it just prolongs our inability to escape from the status quo and it’s that kind of clarity every fan needs for our battles ahead. Either that or be held prisoner forever.

[Jim1955 12]

I think that is a very fair summary of our situation.

[Rangersitis 0]

Hard hitting stuff, Frankie. A superb piece of writing.

[der Berliner 3,231]

Ok, I’ll admit at the outset the analogy is a bit strong but if we examine the last few years – from the excesses of Sir David Murray to the actions of Craig Whyte right through to the present day incumbents, there are examples of the above. These include the eyes-wide-shut worship of Murray onto the lauding of Whyte’s supposed net-worth despite all the evidence to the contrary at the very outset to some fans insisting the ‘current’ board are not to blame for the club’s position now. Indeed, not only do we have bloggers continue to suggest Charles Green remains interested in the well-being of the club but we have various fans eager to hold their own as culpable in Rangers’ problems. Apparently it’s Dave King, the Union of Fans or Sons of Struth’s fault that the club cannot pay its bills. Similarly, possible investors such as Dave King who has proven his good intentions to the tune of £20million previously are mocked and pushed away. Conversely, some supporters are eager to extoll the virtue of Mike Ashley’s ongoing involvement despite many Newcastle fans being desperate to rid their club of him. He’s a billionaire they cry – without acknowledging the reason for his success is the kind of questionable retail and naming deals he strikes with clubs such as ours.

 

Wow ... all neatly placed in one section. If you turn this on its head, one might get the idea that there is but one truth, one right way, and unless it is that of the UoF, SoS, and King, it is all wrong.

 

Stockholm syndrome ... I take it that some will warm to that theory. A right good club to beat people with and essentially keep folk away from such debates ... unless the are inclined to a certain way of approach. Statements such as these tend to make any debate about the board, Ashley, Easdale et all toxic from the outset. I doubt that is needed on here.

[forlanssister 3,050]

Wow ... all neatly placed in one section. If you turn this on its head, one might get the idea that there is but one truth, one right way, and unless it is that of the UoF, SoS, and King, it is all wrong.

 

Stockholm syndrome ... I take it that some will warm to that theory. A right good club to beat people with and essentially keep folk away from such debates ... unless the are inclined to a certain way of approach. Statements such as these tend to make any debate about the board, Ashley, Easdale et all toxic from the outset. I doubt that is needed on here.

 

You don't half spout some shite when you're on the troll.

[Frankie 8,145]

Wow ... all neatly placed in one section. If you turn this on its head, one might get the idea that there is but one truth, one right way, and unless it is that of the UoF, SoS, and King, it is all wrong.

 

Stockholm syndrome ... I take it that some will warm to that theory. A right good club to beat people with and essentially keep folk away from such debates ... unless the are inclined to a certain way of approach. Statements such as these tend to make any debate about the board, Ashley, Easdale et all toxic from the outset. I doubt that is needed on here.

 

I certainly didn't suggest there was one truth and you're being completely disingenuous to suggest otherwise. I also explained the analogy is a bit strong and I made clear supporters are in a difficult position and there's no easy answer.

 

Debate about Easdale and others is somewhat toxic from the outset because they are. Some may wish to excuse their performance without good reason which lends weight to the analogy but I don't and I'm more than comfortable with that on this forum.

 

Now, if you want to discuss or take issue with what anything I write, then please do. That's why we have this forum - my opinion is just one amongst hundreds.

[der Berliner 3,231]

I certainly didn't suggest there was one truth and you're being completely disingenuous to suggest otherwise. I also explained the analogy is a bit strong and I made clear supporters are in a difficult position and there's no easy answer.

 

What I actually wrote is ...

Wow ... all neatly placed in one section. If you turn this on its head, one might get the idea that there is but one truth, one right way, and unless it is that of the UoF, SoS, and King, it is all wrong.

 

I'm not any more hypothetical than your remarks that I quoted then.

 

Now, if you want to discuss or take issue with what anything I write, then please do. That's why we have this forum - my opinion is just one amongst hundreds.

 

As I said with regards to the quoted paragraph, it essentially places people who are not inclined in a certain way firmly under the umbrella you suggested, or alluded to. IMHO.

 

I'll decline to comment any further, as we've been through similar umpteen times before, with no satisfying result whatsoever.

[Hildy 0]

It's strange, isn't it, how things change? An older generation of fans has lived through the good and the bad, and their disillusionment is probably greatest of all.

 

Many of them will have been Conservative-inclined and with a belief - not just in the Union - but of the permanence of the Union: Scottish and proud - British and proud. The idea that the blue in the Union Flag could ever fade was too far-fetched to lose sleep over, and yet here we are on the brink.

 

Scotland could hold itself in high regard in banking and finance. The country had a reputation for prudence and our banking sector was a visible and respected part of the British economy. The Royal Bank and its Jacobite cousin, the Bank of Scotland, were pillars of the Scottish establishment and powerful symbols of Scottish identity - and yet they crashed and burned in 2008.

 

Rangers was Scotland's number one football club and enjoyed a degree of secondary support from fans of provincial clubs. These fans followed their local teams but had an affection for Rangers too, and they often turned up at Ibrox on European nights. I wonder, where are they now?

 

Suddenly, the secure post-war Scotland that the older generation grew up with has changed so radically that it must feel that a revolution has taken place. There has been no revolution though - just an erosion of their values and a dismissal of their outlook.

 

Even the national Church has faded into obscurity. The national media is more likely to seek out the Catholic view on new developments and controversial issues. The Church of Scotland, like the banks and Rangers, is slipping away.

 

So much of what was enthusiastically believed in is turning to dust. The new Scotland must seem like a foreign country to some of our old guard. We never were the establishment club but many thought that we were, including many of our enemies.

 

The fixtures and fittings that provided comfort and security to many Scots in post-war Scotland, including many whose allegiance was red, white and blue, are withering, fading and dying.

 

We can prop some of them up artificially, but for Rangers, a club with more enemies than friends, survival is no longer automatic. It has become a challenge, and those charged with meeting it are incomers and strangers.

 

It's a question for everyone, but especially the baby boomers who must be shaking their heads and wondering now:

 

How did it ever come to this?

[Frankie 8,145]

What I actually wrote is ...

Wow ... all neatly placed in one section. If you turn this on its head, one might get the idea that there is but one truth, one right way, and unless it is that of the UoF, SoS, and King, it is all wrong.

 

I'm not any more hypothetical than your remarks that I quoted then.

 

 

 

As I said with regards to the quoted paragraph, it essentially places people who are not inclined in a certain way firmly under the umbrella you suggested, or alluded to. IMHO.

 

I'll decline to comment any further, as we've been through similar umpteen times before, with no satisfying result whatsoever.

 

People can be under whatever umbrella they want. I'm merely offering some observations for some behaviour I find strange.

 

Anyone can disagree and/or offer an alternative explanation. Your inability to do so while taking umbrage is enlightening.

 

You're right about having been through this before though. Some of us have learned the lesson and face home truths - others want to take shelter from the impending storm. Perhaps an umbrella will be useful after all.

[Frankie 8,145]

It's strange, isn't it, how things change? An older generation of fans has lived through the good and the bad, and their disillusionment is probably greatest of all.

 

Many of them will have been Conservative-inclined and with a belief - not just in the Union - but of the permanence of the Union: Scottish and proud - British and proud. The idea that the blue in the Union Flag could ever fade was too far-fetched to lose sleep over, and yet here we are on the brink.

 

Scotland could hold itself in high regard in banking and finance. The country had a reputation for prudence and our banking sector was a visible and respected part of the British economy. The Royal Bank and its Jacobite cousin, the Bank of Scotland, were pillars of the Scottish establishment and powerful symbols of Scottish identity - and yet they crashed and burned in 2008.

 

Rangers was Scotland's number one football club and enjoyed a degree of secondary support from fans of provincial clubs. These fans followed their local teams but had an affection for Rangers too, and they often turned up at Ibrox on European nights. I wonder, where are they now?

 

Suddenly, the secure post-war Scotland that the older generation grew up with has changed so radically that it must feel that a revolution has taken place. There has been no revolution though - just an erosion of their values and a dismissal of their outlook.

 

Even the national Church has faded into obscurity. The national media is more likely to seek out the Catholic view on new developments and controversial issues. The Church of Scotland, like the banks and Rangers, is slipping away.

 

So much of what was enthusiastically believed in is turning to dust. The new Scotland must seem like a foreign country to some of our old guard. We never were the establishment club but many thought that we were, including many of our enemies.

 

The fixtures and fittings that provided comfort and security to many Scots in post-war Scotland, including many whose allegiance was red, white and blue, are withering, fading and dying.

 

We can prop some of them up artificially, but for Rangers, a club with more enemies than friends, survival is no longer automatic. It has become a challenge, and those charged with meeting it are incomers and strangers.

 

It's a question for everyone, but especially the baby boomers who must be shaking their heads and wondering now:

 

How did it ever come to this?

 

Enjoyed that - at 37 I'm a bit younger than the older generation but there's no doubt the Scottish sporting, political and social landscape is a lot different from when I attended Ibrox for the first time in early 1987.

 

I was lucky to begin my journey on the crest of the Souness/Holmes revolution. Little did we know then that in fact that exciting period was just the beginning of the end in so many ways.

 

Can we reverse the rot?