gersnet article (image) Making marginal gains

[Rick Roberts 246]

1 hour ago, Big Jaws said:

Fan groups should be taking more affirmative actions leading discussions etc but if they are reluctant to put their head above the parapet then the fans themselves need to voice those concerns where they can be heard. Youtube, Twitch-TV, Podcasts and other media are the modern equivalent of radio/TV/Dead Tree Press. I'm a strong supporter of a holistic approach, the more Rangers focused pods and shows the better as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately David Edgar has set himself up a bit of a walled garden and so it would be difficult to establish a voice in his echo chamber but I'd encourage any Rangers fan with an opinion to put themselves forward to join the discussion on any one of the other emerging new Rangers medias. Perhaps then when fan groups and their reps have a clear message from their members and supporters we will hear them.

You make a good point on the pods, and probably one i've overlooked and underplayed. There's plenty positives there. And good interaction between members 4lads, club1872 and then narsa etc on H&H. There's also a lot of common themes occurring and shared views. Would be great to see that continue and other big hitters brought in.

 

And then see it somehow punch through to the mainstream. Where the biggest positive appears to be Ewen Cameron (who's great) but which is damning on our PR thus far. 

[Gaffer 1,665]

2 hours ago, Rick Roberts said:

You make a good point on the pods, and probably one i've overlooked and underplayed. There's plenty positives there. And good interaction between members 4lads, club1872 and then narsa etc on H&H. There's also a lot of common themes occurring and shared views. Would be great to see that continue and other big hitters brought in.

 

And then see it somehow punch through to the mainstream. Where the biggest positive appears to be Ewen Cameron (who's great) but which is damning on our PR thus far. 

Unfortunately you're absolutely correct there.  Our PR seems to be non existent at the club.  I don't read any rags and don't listen to what you'd consider mainstream radio stations so perhaps I'm missing it, but I am not aware of anything the club is doing to address the negative PR sourrounding our club.  Have they delegated this responsibility to the supporters' groups?

 

I suppose at some stage what is regarded as mainstream media will change, afterall I'd imagine that more people now listen to YouTube, podcasts and read blogs rather than listen to radio or watch the BBC?  Perhaps this is already the new mainstream media?!?  Certainly the new generation wouldn't even contemplate looking to the BBC or radio stations for their information or entertainment, but there's still a need for the club to address the negativity, especially when it can have a direct impact on our chances of winning the league.  You're article talks about the trial by sportscene and that's definitely something worthy of some time and attention by our board.  I don think see anything obvious being done.  That's a worry.

[Bill 13,717]

9 hours ago, Rick Roberts said:

I was discussing this with a mate last night. What worries me is I don't see any signs of strategy or change anywhere (on the ground, amongst the support - there's plenty good work ongoing at the club and football wise).

 

An example i had used previously was of the rally at the BBC. I contacted club1872 and got a slightly non-committal response. It shouldn't be like that, personalities/history/agendas have to be put aside. Both Frankie and David Edgar had no problem promoting event. It eventually got rained away but that's a different story, if anything fails it shouldn't be from lack of effort or cooperation. Without wanting to pick on club1872 its purely because they are the most prominent and influential, and i contribute to them. 

 

 

 

The BBC rally convinced me the same old territorial flaws still permeate our main supporters group, which still seems isolated from the main issues facing Rangers.  Sadly, the same could be seen here, with some members immediately rubbishing the initiative because it came from VB. it’s beyond frustrating. 

[buster. 4,808]

We always tend to return to the same old background. problems and questions underpinning much of any such debate,....you could call it quicksand.

 

• Somebody mentioned our collective strength but we are a long way away from being anything close to a collective
• We discourage quality leadership because of the way we have tended to treat those who do stand-up
• We are good at loyalty and following the team, not at politics
• We tend to follow pied pipers and not want to learn lessons
• We are increasingly marginalised and we inadvertently seek to go ever deeper (where others want us to go)
• We tend to respond positively to ideas that take us further down the road of marginalisation and vice versa (club often react to this so as to curry favour / ie. PR between club and support/customers). That doesn't mean such a road is always mistaken, it's not

 

You could fairly argue that the general political situation and societal tendencies have exacerbated such marginalisation and helped take it to a level that it's difficult to see changing positively anytime soon... #confrontation

 

 

 

 

[Gonzo79 13,508]

The online Rangers support tends to split on just about every issue, other than wanting Rangers to be a successful team.

 

When you go to matches, things tend to be a bit more diluted and reasonable (with exceptions).  The majority of Bears just want to see a decent side and have a few pints with friends and family and barely touch on the politics/causes etc, in my experience.  But the same majority will happily read the Record/Sun and tune into Sportscene once a week.  They aren't mobilised or focused enough to change things in our favour.  That's just the way it is.

[Bill 13,717]

2 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

The online Rangers support tends to split on just about every issue, other than wanting Rangers to be a successful team.

 

When you go to matches, things tend to be a bit more diluted and reasonable (with exceptions).  The majority of Bears just want to see a decent side and have a few pints with friends and family and barely touch on the politics/causes etc, in my experience.  But the same majority will happily read the Record/Sun and tune into Sportscene once a week.  They aren't mobilised or focused enough to change things in our favour.  That's just the way it is.

You’re right and those who aren’t interested are entitled to their apathy. The rest of us are entitled to want a supporter group that actually represents our and the club’s interests, rather than appearing to represent its own organisers.

Edited June 19, 2019 by Bill

[Gaffer 1,665]

15 minutes ago, Bill said:

You’re right and those who aren’t interested are entitled to their apathy. The rest of us are entitled to want a supporter group that actually represents our and the club’s interests, rather than appearing to represent its own organisers.

I have no experience or understanding of the previous or current groups, other than Club 1872 (of which I'm a member).  Is it still the case that the organisers tend to be more focussed on self interest than those of the supporters?  I see the good things that Club 1872 does and I'm quite happy to contribute to a group that speaks up like they do, but I don't see anything else that goes on.  As I mentioned a while back, I'm not in favour of the supporters organisations having a seat on the board, but that seems to have been dropped now.

 

I'm just interested in the opinion of you guys that know the ins and outs (and history) because I don't.

[Rick Roberts 246]

3 hours ago, buster. said:

We always tend to return to the same old background. problems and questions underpinning much of any such debate,....you could call it quicksand.

 

• Somebody mentioned our collective strength but we are a long way away from being anything close to a collective
• We discourage quality leadership because of the way we have tended to treat those who do stand-up
• We are good at loyalty and following the team, not at politics
• We tend to follow pied pipers and not want to learn lessons
• We are increasingly marginalised and we inadvertently seek to go ever deeper (where others want us to go)
• We tend to respond positively to ideas that take us further down the road of marginalisation and vice versa (club often react to this so as to curry favour / ie. PR between club and support/customers). That doesn't mean such a road is always mistaken, it's not

 

You could fairly argue that the general political situation and societal tendencies have exacerbated such marginalisation and helped take it to a level that it's difficult to see changing positively anytime soon... #confrontation

 

 

 

 

If groups want to do there own thing then there should be strength in that. It allows different roads to be followed. Which at any point one will be the right road, and we all get on board.

 

 

As an example - the vanguard bears do their own thing and do a lot of digging and messy, thankless work. But there must be times when that info and knowledge has to be of use to the club or club1872 or whoever. 

 

Agree on the marginalisation point. It's too easy to dig in. But this is where there has to be a message or understanding about what fights to pick. (i.e. you don't beat John Mason by calling him a DFB, you beat him by voting him out and helping Rangers beat his team). 

 

 

 

 

[26th of foot 5,822]

17 minutes ago, Rick Roberts said:

If groups want to do there own thing then there should be strength in that. It allows different roads to be followed. Which at any point one will be the right road, and we all get on board.

 

 

As an example - the vanguard bears do their own thing and do a lot of digging and messy, thankless work. But there must be times when that info and knowledge has to be of use to the club or club1872 or whoever. 

 

Agree on the marginalisation point. It's too easy to dig in. But this is where there has to be a message or understanding about what fights to pick. (i.e. you don't beat John Mason by calling him a DFB, you beat him by voting him out and helping Rangers beat his team). 

 

 

 

 

I agree.

 

Attempting to provide leadership to the Rangers support is akin to herding cats. Of course, their is tremendous strength in such diversity. However, the aspect of ignoring information on a matter of principle because the source of information is deemed unsavoury for whatever reason, is madness.

 

My professional life found me presenting/being a recipient of a formal set of Orders. It could take 45 minutes and involved copious notes. It's a process of distillation, if you are presenting, you have already attended another orders group and filtered out the relevant detail for your tasking. If you are receiving, you are interested in everything relevant to your designated task.

 

The one aspect which is never filtered, the very same exacting information passes from Field Marshall down to the newest recruit; is information on the Enemy/Threat.

 

Thus, if VB/Rangers Media/Gersnet/Follow Follow, ...... etc unearth a piece of information that makes a difference to how all Rangers supporters are treated/effected by the BBC Scotland/SFA/prominent Journo, ...... etc; then it should be utilised by all. John Mason MSP attends a church that has a literal interpretation of the Bible. He believes the world is several thousand years old. Dippy the Diplodocus was on display at Kelvingrove Museum for several weeks, the skeleton is 160 million years old. John Mason was educated at Hutcheson' Grammar School for Boys'. He is easy to isolate and dissect.

 

Simple adherence to an objective appreciation on each issue as it arises should allow us to prevail. The very second a piece of information is discarded because of source, the appreciation is subjective.   

[Rick Roberts 246]

9 minutes ago, 26th of foot said:

I agree.

 

Attempting to provide leadership to the Rangers support is akin to herding cats. Of course, their is tremendous strength in such diversity. However, the aspect of ignoring information on a matter of principle because the source of information is deemed unsavoury for whatever reason, is madness.

 

My professional life found me presenting/being a recipient of a formal set of Orders. It could take 45 minutes and involved copious notes. It's a process of distillation, if you are presenting, you have already attended another orders group and filtered out the relevant detail for your tasking. If you are receiving, you are interested in everything relevant to your designated task.

 

The one aspect which is never filtered, the very same exacting information passes from Field Marshall down to the newest recruit; is information on the Enemy/Threat.

 

Thus, if VB/Rangers Media/Gersnet/Follow Follow, ...... etc unearth a piece of information that makes a difference to how all Rangers supporters are treated/effected by the BBC Scotland/SFA/prominent Journo, ...... etc; then it should be utilised by all. John Mason MSP attends a church that has a literal interpretation of the Bible. He believes the world is several thousand years old. Dippy the Diplodocus was on display at Kelvingrove Museum for several weeks, the skeleton is 160 million years old. John Mason was educated at Hutcheson' Grammar School for Boys'. He is easy to isolate and dissect.

 

Simple adherence to an objective appreciation on each issue as it arises should allow us to prevail. The very second a piece of information is discarded because of source, the appreciation is subjective.   

Exactly you sow many seeds and harvest what you need.

 

One model that stands out is the amount of celtic-view reared journos across the MSM. They've been given that foot up, trained and seasoned, then allowed out into the wider world. Where they regularly pop up and throw grenades at Rangers. It serves its purpose short-term, then pays out even more beyond that.