Rangers being held hostage: Stockholm syndrome

[Hildy 0]

Can we stop the rot?

 

Well, I'd like to see the NO vote win the day in the referendum, but the picture will be bleak for Rangers no matter which way it goes.

 

As things stand, Rangers have peaked. Its best days are over and will not likely be repeated unless there is a revolution at the club, and for Rangers, this is far more difficult to achieve than, for example, at Hearts.

 

Small clubs can pull their fans together much easier than we can. Rangers is perceived to be big time, so individual fans don't really believe that something like fan ownership can work. The expectation is always for a David Murray-type figure to rule the roost, make the tough calls and put his hand in his pocket. If there doesn't happen to be one available, though, things can quickly turn messy.

 

An institution like Rangers cannot survive like this. What is happening was foreseen by the RST and many who signed up to it, but most fans prefer to leave things to chance, which is a recipe for disaster, as we have now seen.

 

When you have 5,000 fans and there is a crisis, it can be addressed by this relatively small number working together. With 50,000 active fans, though, splintering quickly enters the equation. Not only do we have the madness of two share buying schemes, the two singing sections couldn't even work together for more than five minutes.

 

Effectively, then, the Rangers support is paralysed by its natural dysfunctionality. This type of fanbase needs leadership. It really isn't interested in democracy and accountability too much. It is comfortable looking up to a leader to do all the things that it can't or won't do. Essentially, and it sounds cruel to say it, but the Rangers support is easy to seduce with a suit and tie and a large wedge in the bank.

 

Some have used the term 'forelock-tuggers' when describing the Rangers support. Sadly, this isn't a million miles away from the reality. We despise fellow fans for attempting to represent us. What we really want is a boss to tell us what to think, and to tell everyone else what to think, too.

 

Decades of being a big club have removed us from the harsh realities of life. Small clubs are far more advanced and organised than we are when a crisis comes calling.

 

In our present state, which is actually becoming a bit of an emergency, we could certainly do with some powerful assistance, which goes against my fan ownership principles, but as I inhabit the real world, I am aware that a short term solution that can save us is more appropriate than a long term solution that can't be made to work - and by the time that it can, the club could be irreparably damaged or worse.

 

So what to do? I would ask the RST or UOF to approach certain people. Dave King is an obvious choice and Jim McColl is too, but I would also like to see an approach made to Sir David Murray. These guys have the money and the clout to turn this around. King is a fan, Murray has a legacy to protect and McColl came close to meaningful involvement in the past.

 

I would ask them to win the club back, and then, perhaps over a period of five or even ten years, transfer Rangers to the support in a deliberate manner with all details clear to see and understand.

 

I know there is animosity towards David Murray, but if he was prepared to lend his support to help make things right, that's fine by me. As I touched on earlier, in the real world there sometimes has to be compromise and I would welcome David Murray into a small consortium to rescue Rangers.

 

In the longer run though, and assuming the club is saved, it is essential that we move towards fan ownership.

 

It is the only way to safeguard Rangers for the generations still to come.

[Frankie 8,151]

FWIW Hildy, I think the latter part of your post is distinctly possible. How closely some of these people would work with each other I don't know (King is very much a lone wolf) but I wouldn't rule it out.

 

The problem is none of these people have shown a huge amount of gusto so far and their time-line (and tipping point) will be very different from ours.

[Zappa 0]

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.

 

After the nightmare of the first one, the bidding shambles and the Club handed over in a closed deal to shysters like Green & co, a second insolvency event has always been one of my biggest worries because the danger of a second event was increased tenfold by Duff & Phelps not properly addressing the excessive cost base like administrators normally do when they go into a loss-making football club.

 

With the position we're in now in terms of the ownership another insolvency event could potentially finish us off and even if we managed to get through it via a CVA I'd be very worried indeed about the ownership of the stadium and training ground because numerous clubs down south and across Europe have lost ownership of their stadium or in some cases even lost it completely during an insolvency.

 

Another failed CVA & newco scenario could be absolutely catastrophic because even if we got through it with our license, history & titles in tact I think there's a high chance that quite large numbers of fans would just decide to jack it in altogether because they've simply had enough.

 

Very worrying times indeed.

[jhunter 0]

but I would also like to see an approach made to Sir David Murray.

 

what an absolutely fucking ridiculous offering

 

"legacy to protect"

 

the state we are in is directly attributable to him

 

absolute horseshit.

[Hildy 0]

what an absolutely fucking ridiculous offering

 

"legacy to protect"

 

the state we are in is directly attributable to him

 

absolute horseshit.

If he is in a position to help, and if he agrees to help, would you reject the possibility?

 

I want to see this mess sorted. If SDM can help out in some way, that is the priority as far as I'm concerned.

[Rangersitis 0]

If he is in a position to help, and if he agrees to help, would you reject the possibility?

 

I want to see this mess sorted. If SDM can help out in some way, that is the priority as far as I'm concerned.

 

Other than gifting a wad of cash, with no further involvement, I don't see that being a vote winner, Hildy.

 

You should probably stick to your attempts at selling the RST to barca72.

[Hildy 0]

Other than gifting a wad of cash, with no further involvement, I don't see that being a vote winner, Hildy.

 

You should probably stick to your attempts at selling the RST to barca72.

This isn't a battle for votes.

 

It's a battle for survival.

 

If David Murray has something to offer, we would be foolish to turn him away.

[Rangersitis 0]

This isn't a battle for votes.

 

It's a battle for survival.

 

If David Murray has something to offer, we would be foolish to turn him away.

 

Don't piss your panties, it was only meant as a light-hearted comment.

[forlanssister 3,050]

This isn't a battle for votes.

 

It's a battle for survival.

 

If David Murray has something to offer, we would be foolish to turn him away.

 

Is this "we" the fanbase or the club (i.e. the present office bearers).

[Hildy 0]

Don't piss your panties, it was only meant as a light-hearted comment.

That may be so, but plenty have issues with SDM, including me.

 

If he offers to help, I would welcome it. Feelings of animosity towards one man must take a back seat if said man can set Rangers on the right course again - and I do believe he'd be open to the idea of fan ownership in the future - as would McColl - and Dave King has probably moved a tad in this direction, too.