Frankie 8,145 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Apparently, unless you have a signed affidavit from said individuals they don't exist. To be fair it IS difficult to prove the will or want of 13,000 people when our fan groups are so under-subscribed and open to valid criticism themselves. Empirically at least, I'd agree that most fans didn't renew because of the request not to but I can't prove it and neither can anyone else. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gisabeer 409 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Do you agree with any ? Do you believe that the behaviour of those in and around the various incarnations of the board weren't the biggest single reason for the sudden drop in ST numbers ? yes or no ? I know a few who dont go because they are sick to the back teeth of mccoist. the board arent the only ones turning the fans away. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I think that's fair enough but we have to recognise that as long as the off the park issues can't be solved neither can we ignore or excuse the on the park ones. In many ways, the failure (or perhaps more accurately the inability) of the board to be able to remove the manager and/or address the whole football operation may finally bring the issue to a head. I posted a long time ago, that the support will only be roused by what happens on the park, not off it. So I agree on the park might bring it to a head. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Like I say it's too simplistic just to talk of the club's survival as one issue when there are so many factors contributing to it. You or I may suggest the board's inability is the most important aspect of that but some fans will only care about what's happening on the park. This, in my mind, is where the fan groups are failing us. They've become blinkered to the board's performance rather than examining the whole problem. The meek acceptance of poor quality football is or could be as dangerous as those who used to break bread with the likes of Brian Stockbridge. Similarly, while I'd strongly disagree with Rab or No Pope on King's intentions, not criticising him is problematic as well. The dogs on the street can't afford to bite selectively. Further, we've continually shown that our bark is a lot worse than that bite. No-one says it's simple but the over-riding danger IS the club's survival/competitivity at a reasonable level. ie. to ensure there is a park to play on comes before what is happening on it. The whole omnishambles stems from those above. Had we had a board with the longterm interests of the club in mind, the monies raised in the IPO would in part have gone towards infrastructural spend in the football operation. If Graham Wallace worked for a board who were in it for the club's benefit, then he'd have been able to change the structure and McCoist would almost certainly have been out. The fruit is rotten because of who have been and are in control. Why is it that the club may not have enough money to pay him off ? ps. Don't mistake this for the defence of McCoist, I never thought he'd make it as a manager. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,145 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I posted a long time ago, that the support will only be roused by what happens on the park, not off it. So I agree on the park might bring it to a head. Rightly or wrongly many fans take little interest in the political stuff and they'll only voice their frustration as soon as the football gets bad. I remember the growling against Eck and PLG as being much louder/widespread than that of the anti-board stuff now. Why haven't the board removed the manager? That's the question to ask and more and more will start to ask it if the results don't improve. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,145 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 No-one says it's simple but the over-riding danger IS the club's survival.ie. to ensure there is a park to play on comes before what is happening on it. The whole omnishambles stems from those above. Had we had a board with the longterm interests of the club in mind, the monies raised in the IPO would in part have gone towards infrastructural spend in the football operation. If Graham Wallace worked for a board who were in it for the club's benefit, then he'd have been able to change the structure and McCoist would almost certainly have been out. The fruit is rotten because of who have been and are in control. Why is it that the club may not have enough money to pay him off ? ps. Don't mistake this for the defence of McCoist, I never thought he'd make it as a manager. I don't see anyone defending Ally now - no-one. Like I say, he may well just be the issue that unites the support for a change. And the board won't have the answer to that either. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I know a few who dont go because they are sick to the back teeth of mccoist. the board arent the only ones turning the fans away. There will be a variety of reasons, but the football under McCoist has been pish since the start of his tenure, and for many years prior to that. The difference is that the drop in ticket sales has never been so dramatic as it has this season. That cannot be ignored without those who use the football excuse providing compelling reasons as to why they are correct. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I don't see anyone defending Ally now - no-one. Like I say, he may well just be the issue that unites the support for a change. And the board won't have the answer to that either. The board will organise, 'ride the wave' and try and turn it into a plus (regards their interests). First effect is that it switches immediate attention away from board. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,145 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 The board will organise, 'ride the wave' and try and turn it into a plus (regards their interests). First effect is that it switches immediate attention away from board. It can't switch attention away from them. They are responsible for staff appointments. Ally is their responsibility. If the team continues to struggle it will only increase the focus on those that run the club. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 It can't switch attention away from them. They are responsible for staff appointments. Ally is their responsibility. If the team continues to struggle it will only increase the focus on those that run the club. It can and has. This type of matter tends to go through stages. The first is focus on the team/manager and that is currently where we are. A poor result at the weekend would probably result in a quick jump to the next stage and to what you refer to. 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.