sairdyy 0 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 It has nothing to do with it, it was merely a lazy way to show you in a negative light. I have no interest in shining a negative light on any Rangers fan, so good luck to you. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Again with the deflection to another situation. It's not deflection, i'm pointing out that we should have had boycotts years ago if that's the response to inappropriate owners/boards. We're running out of money anyway so how is denying us even more money going to help? Far as I can see all it'll do is guarantee administration when there might still be the chance of it being avoided if King or someone makes a move. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 What Rangers means to people is supporting their team first and foremost. David Murray sucked the life out of us for years so we should be well used to it, but you're deluded if you think cutting off the life support machine is somehow going to make things magically better. tell me what sdm did to suck the life out of us. was it paying half a million a year for track side advertising instead of getting it for free like ashley. was it suing the club like ahmed. was it onerous contracts. was it a merry go round of directors and payoffs. we were successful under sdm we never will be under greenco. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 I have no interest in shining a negative light on any Rangers fan, so good luck to you. Eh? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 It's not deflection, i'm pointing out that we should have had boycotts years ago if that's the response to inappropriate owners/boards. We're running out of money anyway so how is denying us even more money going to help? Far as I can see all it'll do is guarantee administration when there might still be the chance of it being avoided if King or someone makes a move. we would have had if things were this bad but they were never even close. not even in the same ballpark. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 tell me what sdm did to suck the life out of us. was it paying half a million a year for track side advertising instead of getting it for free like ashley. was it suing the club like ahmed. was it onerous contracts. was it a merry go round of directors and payoffs. we were successful under sdm we never will be under greenco. Throwing money about like there was a bottomless pit of it, treating fans like shite, lying to the fans, cosying up to our haters, selling us to a crook, appointing McCoist as manager, just for starters. We might have been successful but we paid a right heavy price for it thanks to that man 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 It's not deflection, i'm pointing out that we should have had boycotts years ago if that's the response to inappropriate owners/boards. We're running out of money anyway so how is denying us even more money going to help? Far as I can see all it'll do is guarantee administration when there might still be the chance of it being avoided if King or someone makes a move. it will send a message to greenco about what is appropriate and what is not. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Throwing money about like there was a bottomless pit of it, treating fans like shite, lying to the fans, cosying up to our haters, selling us to a crook, appointing McCoist as manager, just for starters. We might have been successful but we paid a right heavy price for it thanks to that man so nothing like as bad as we are seeing just now then. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 It's not deflection, i'm pointing out that we should have had boycotts years ago if that's the response to inappropriate owners/boards. We're running out of money anyway so how is denying us even more money going to help? Far as I can see all it'll do is guarantee administration when there might still be the chance of it being avoided if King or someone makes a move. So, you are against boycotts, but we should have had them years ago under Murray's tenure. As there weren't any then, there shouldn't be any now. Doo-roo-doo-roo-doo-roo-doo-roo..... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 I mentioned the other day how SDM/Irvine had landscaped what would become a battlefield, with deep trenches for the divisions that they helped to sow and those that followed (with the help of the ever present Toxic Jack) would nuture with loving care. The effectiveness of this makes our support significantly different to Hearts. This has in part allowed a toxic situation to develop whereby we are within the claws of sp.ivs and trapped by 'onerous contracts' and more. So you have a 'battlefield' executively controlled by the 'dark forces' and a split, confused opposition at fan level. This and the scale make it very complicated for a Budge/Hearts type of proposal to work. The time for it was around 28 months ago. Complicated - yes. Impossible - no. One of the few alternatives available to us - absolutely. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.