Rangers condemn banner at Old Firm game

[Uilleam 6,459]

18 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

the reaction from media and politicians is farcical

Well, of course it is; but we should not ignore why that is; and why it is aye the case.  There isn't much to be said on both sides, here. 

 

 

[Rousseau 11,799]

26 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

Is it just a Scottish thing where everything must be either black or white, it can't be both? It's surely entirely understandable for the CEO and board of the club to feel that an enormous banner showing a figure pointing a gun in the general direction of the away support isn't the kind of image they feel represents them, while also thinking it's not literally calling for anyone to be shot and is entirely in keeping with the type 'edgy humour' associated with ultra groups. It's also fair to think the reaction from media and politicians is farcical. Those are not competing ideas. 

 

Likewise, you can feel the events of October the 7th in Israel were horrifying, barbaric and carried out by monsters while still feeling that a lot of what is happened since then in Gaza and beyond is also horrific and barbaric. You can utterly condemn Hamas and also believe that many of Israel's subsequent actions are also worthy of condemnation. Again, I don't see why these need to be competing viewpoints. 

 

Lastly, it's ok to be unhappy with the current board and senior management at Rangers and also be very wary of the likely new owners. Because you are unhappy currently surely doesn't mean you should welcome any change that comes. Many were very unhappy with Sir David Murray, and so welcomed Craig Whyte without question. There were influential fan groups offering unwavering support for him right up to us going into administration, this support seemed to be based on the fact he wasn't SDM. I'm not saying the 49rs people are Craig Whyte, all I'm saying is you can be wary of their motives and nervous of their aims while still feeling change is required. Again, these shouldn't be competing ideas. 

I blame social media... 

[L72 253]

27 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

Is it just a Scottish thing where everything must be either black or white, it can't be both? It's surely entirely understandable for the CEO and board of the club to feel that an enormous banner showing a figure pointing a gun in the general direction of the away support isn't the kind of image they feel represents them, while also thinking it's not literally calling for anyone to be shot and is entirely in keeping with the type 'edgy humour' associated with ultra groups. It's also fair to think the reaction from media and politicians is farcical. Those are not competing ideas. 

 

Likewise, you can feel the events of October the 7th in Israel were horrifying, barbaric and carried out by monsters while still feeling that a lot of what is happened since then in Gaza and beyond is also horrific and barbaric. You can utterly condemn Hamas and also believe that many of Israel's subsequent actions are also worthy of condemnation. Again, I don't see why these need to be competing viewpoints. 

 

Lastly, it's ok to be unhappy with the current board and senior management at Rangers and also be very wary of the likely new owners. Because you are unhappy currently surely doesn't mean you should welcome any change that comes. Many were very unhappy with Sir David Murray, and so welcomed Craig Whyte without question. There were influential fan groups offering unwavering support for him right up to us going into administration, this support seemed to be based on the fact he wasn't SDM. I'm not saying the 49rs people are Craig Whyte, all I'm saying is you can be wary of their motives and nervous of their aims while still feeling change is required. Again, these shouldn't be competing ideas. 

Too much sense in this post, don't like it.

[Uilleam 6,459]

12 minutes ago, buster. said:

is you can be wary of their motives and nervous of their aims while still feeling change is required. Again, these shouldn't be competing ideas. 

We have no control over events. 

 

If we are to adopt a sceptical position, we have to base that on some investigation, or analysis. If Cavenaugh is a 'bad man', it will be clear from his previous dealings and business(es). I haven't seen anybody demonstrate anything of the kind. 

If the 49ers are 'bad actors', then that would have been clear from its ownership of LUFC. Again, nobody, as far as I can see, has demonstrated that they are. 

However, if concerned citizens snipe from the sidelines, based on no factual evidence, whatsoever, then I think that unhelpful to the Club. It plays into the hands of those who would do us down. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[buster. 5,647]

34 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

We have no control over events. 

 

However, if concerned citizens snipe from the sidelines, based on no factual evidence, whatsoever, then I think that unhelpful to the Club. It isplays into the hands of those who would do us down. 

 

I sniped from the sidelines when Craig Whyte arrived and I got Pelters from many.

 

I sniped from the sidelines when Green&Co arrived and I got told that for him to make money, Rangers would have to be successful. Got Pelters for a long time as the support in general lapped up his pish.

 

 

Right now, I am sceptical on how this plays out and don't go along with the general vibe of large warchests and that we are going to be able to quickly go through the process of becoming sustainable at the same time as starting to repeatedly win trophies. 

 

 

Their intentions may well be to make the club into a modern functioning football club that can turn a profit, fine.

How long does it take?

Will the support be happy waiting?

If it doesn't work, what happens?

 

 

The controlling interest will have different bottom line goals to the support. How much they converge is open to question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 9 hours ago by buster.

[Uilleam 6,459]

57 minutes ago, buster. said:

I sniped from the sidelines when Craig Whyte arrived and I got Pelters from many.

 

I sniped from the sidelines when Green&Co arrived and I got told that for him to make money, Rangers would have to be successful. Got Pelters for a long time as the support in general lapped up his pish.

 

 

Right now, I am sceptical on how this plays out and don't go along with the general vibe of large warchests and that we are going to be able to quickly go through the process of becoming sustainable at the same time as starting to repeatedly win trophies. 

 

 

Their intentions may well be to make the club into a modern functioning football club that can turn a profit, fine.

How long does it take?

Will the support be happy waiting?

If it doesn't work, what happens?

 

 

The controlling interest will have different bottom line goals to the support. How much they converge is open to question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it ludicrous to lump the SF 49ers and Mr Cavenaugh into the same bag as cheap, barely legal, chisellers like Whyte, Green, and the rest. 

 

 

[L72 253]

1 hour ago, buster. said:

I sniped from the sidelines when Craig Whyte arrived and I got Pelters from many.

 

I sniped from the sidelines when Green&Co arrived and I got told that for him to make money, Rangers would have to be successful. Got Pelters for a long time as the support in general lapped up his pish.

 

 

Right now, I am sceptical on how this plays out and don't go along with the general vibe of large warchests and that we are going to be able to quickly go through the process of becoming sustainable at the same time as starting to repeatedly win trophies. 

 

 

Their intentions may well be to make the club into a modern functioning football club that can turn a profit, fine.

How long does it take?

Will the support be happy waiting?

If it doesn't work, what happens?

 

 

The controlling interest will have different bottom line goals to the support. How much they converge is open to question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think we'll be fine 

 

[buster. 5,647]

3 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

I think it ludicrous to lump the SF 49ers and Mr Cavenaugh into the same bag as cheap, barely legal, chisellers like Whyte, Green, and the rest. 

 

 

I have said on more than one occasion that I am not directly comparing them as like for like so with regard to what I said, that is inaccurate.

 

After what happened to Rangers what is ludicrous, is not to employ due scepticism to new owners who want to make money out of us. 

 

 

 

 

[Uilleam 6,459]

1 minute ago, buster. said:

I have said on more than one occasion that I am not directly comparing them as like for like so with regard to what I said, that is inaccurate.

 

After what happened to Rangers what is ludicrous, is not to employ due scepticism to new owners who want to make money out of us. 

 

 

 

 

What actual grounds do you have foe scepticism? Beyond experience with thrusting, dynamic, entrepreneur SDM, or with the corner boys who were able to dupe this Captain of Industry? Or the fact that you  want to eat the rich?

 

I should like to know. 

 

FYI: I am not in the Cavenaugh/49ers camp. It is the only show in town, however. I am not prepared to be agin the takeover, merely because I am agin the takeover. 

 

 

 

[JohnMc 3,218]

1 hour ago, Uilleam said:

We have no control over events. 

 

If we are to adopt a sceptical position, we have to base that on some investigation, or analysis. If Cavenaugh is a 'bad man', it will be clear from his previous dealings and business(es). I haven't seen anybody demonstrate anything of the kind. 

If the 49ers are 'bad actors', then that would have been clear from its ownership of LUFC. Again, nobody, as far as I can see, has demonstrated that they are. 

However, if concerned citizens snipe from the sidelines, based on no factual evidence, whatsoever, then I think that unhelpful to the Club. It plays into the hands of those who would do us down. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We don't have control but we do have influence, any owner of Rangers needs the fans onside or else it's going to be a very bumpy ride. 

 

There's a difference between being cautious and being sceptical. I've concerns and I'm surprised more of us don't too.

 

In terms of analysing what the owners have done at Leeds they've spent two seasons in the Championship, losing in the playoffs and then winning the league. Unusually they stuck by the manager who lost in the play offs. That paid off and I suspect it wasn't a universally popular decision this time last season. 

Off the pitch Leeds have lost an eye-watering amount of money. Even with parachute payments they lost over £60 million last season following on from a loss of over £30 million the season before. They sold a couple of their better players last summer for big money so this season, while many assume it will be loss making again, shouldn't be as bad. They do run a significant risk of falling foul of the financial fair play rules and they'll need to strengthen their squad if they've to have any hope of staying up next season, so an interesting summer ahead for them. 

Now, I don't follow English football closely but I have read people say that it's almost impossible to stay up without breaking the financial rules, the gap in quality between the divisions is so big now. So maybe they're gambling they'll be able to survive even if they are penalised. 

 

What, if anything, can we divine from that? Making a profit hasn't been their first action. They stuck by a manager who didn't deliver first time around. They sold popular and valuable players. Leeds got promoted. Leeds have made huge losses and still owe a lot of money in transfer fees. Now, Leeds are by far the biggest club in the Championship and getting them promoted, while still receiving parachute payments, is surely the least you could expect. That said promotion is no given from that league, it's hard won and most fail. 

 

I remain cautious, I don't think they're spivs, I don't think they're Craig Whyte. I do think they might be willing to gamble with us, and then walk away if it doesn't pay off. They have no emotional ties, we're a business opportunity to them, nothing more than that. Where that might leave us is a concern. Let's see what they say and then what they do.