The Art of Protest

[Frankie 8,119]

http://www.gersnetonline.net/newsite/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=663&Itemid=1

 

Carlos Cuellar has gone then and going by recent years it’s extremely unlikely to be a case of ‘The King is dead; long Live the King’. The 21st Century has seen a large number of quality players leave the club with the chairman proclaiming they will be replaced with players of a similar standard. In almost all cases – particularly with regard to our midfield – that has not been the case. From the Van Bronckhorsts to the Reynas, to the Numans, to the Amorusos; the decline in quality has been a steady one since our club’s downsizing began in earnest. It’s now reached the stage where not only the continuity of the team is threatened but the very future of the club is being brought into disrepute. What options does that leave us with? Do we protest or will our apathy contribute to our downfall?

 

Firstly, I think it’s important that we address the issue objectively. It is far too easy to be vocally critical and while that may satisfy for a short while; it won’t do any good without solutions for the problems we face. One of the biggest and most valid criticisms of the Murray reign at Rangers is that of short-termism. We shouldn’t be guilty of the same flaw. Thus, if we are to protest – and I certainly empathise with that view – we need to be careful in how we go about it.

 

‘Murray out’ is the cry from many. ‘Walter Smith’s time is up’ is even more prevalent. Fair points as both deserve a lot of criticism for their work recently. Unfortunately, neither is likely to be replaced and I see little alternatives offered by those who shout loudest. Quite simply, while it may be agreeable that it’s time for a new owner (none more agree than Sir David Murray), we don’t have a knight in shining armour with a spare Ã?£100million to put into Rangers.

 

Let’s face it – any new owner(s) would need around Ã?£20-30million to buy the club; Ã?£20million to underwrite the existing club debt; and at least Ã?£50million in reserve, to not only supply an annual transfer budgets equalling the last two years but to implement the various improvements we’d all like to see to the club. A new ticket office, a better youth system, a museum, stadium development (not to mention upkeep), improved retail/marketing and a genuine worldwide scouting system would need considerable investment just to get off the ground; never mind run on an annual basis. Not many investors have that kind of money to hand – especially when one considers the market we operate in.

 

Even if we discount the problems we face on the field, the last paragraph shows just how serious things are at Rangers. The most positive supporters can surely now see how the under-performance of the club generally is affecting the general malaise at the club. There’s no doubt while some people may exaggerate some of these issues; there’s also no doubt the challenges we face as a club are serious ones and need urgent attention. In fact, most of them have needed attention for a number of years but it’s only now some supporters are awakening to them. And that’s where my concern is. Realism regarding the financial climate needn’t be an acceptance of under-achievement and inefficiency.

 

Football fans – and particularly Rangers fans – are demanding sorts. Success should be regular, failure is not an option and everything is measured by an SPL title-winning barometer. This is how many supporters view our club but in my view it’s far too empirical and it’s this flawed vision that has helped put us in the position we are today. More seriously though, it’s not just the support that is guilty of this – the Rangers board of directors are similarly short-sighted and far more culpable.

 

My single biggest criticism of Sir David Murray’s Rangers’ tenure is one which goes against how the man made his impressive business reputation. After a successful initial period, investment into the club (out with transfers) wasn’t enough, was only ever based on the short-term and failed to ensure our club’s position as the number one football club in Scotland. Remember we were Ã?£30million in the black around 1998 and only a few short years and Ã?£100million later we were Ã?£83million in the red - with next to nothing to show for it. Sure, at the insistence of Dick Advocaat, Murray Park was built but even that has taken a number of years to deliver while only showing inconsistent performance given it’s not the Youth Academy many believed it would be.

 

Where are we then? Are we any further forward than late 1988 when SDM bought the club? Of course there are lots of positives during those 20 years and they shouldn’t be forgotten or ignored in the haste to vilify. However, the fact remains, the last 10 years of the reign have been inconsistent, lacking in quality, ambition has been lost and our future bleak. Much like what was happening under Murray’s predecessors it could be said.

 

Protest is the answer then? Yes, it is, but probably not in the way some agitators would prefer.

 

Firstly, we need to ensure that our support of the team and players isn’t compromised. While Walter Smith is just as much to blame for our current woes as anyone else and while we all agree certain players are simply not good enough to play for Rangers, difficult times require extra support – not less. I’m not suggesting blind loyalty – that would be equally wrong – but enough support to help the team regain the confidence and form to win matches. After all, not winning the title would only make things much, much worse.

 

However, I’ve already said winning titles should not be a barometer of how successful our club is. After all, we didn’t win the title last season but generally it was a successful one in terms of European performance and incoming finance. Importantly though, it’s how we use this success that really matters. And that’s where we’ve failed this summer and in previous times. We’ve simply not achieved consistent domestic and European success. Ergo, that’s where any protest must be focussed.

 

Thus, while bizarre 60 minute walk outs may indicate our displeasure; and while fans reps in the media provide further obvious methods of channelling our frustration; neither will be successful without constructive alternatives. By all means protest but it has to be done at the right time and place. The status quo is unlikely to change because a few hundred fans walk out unnoticed or because a few congregate outside the front door. That will only result in further division and problems.

 

Genuine protest has to have a goal behind it. While the ultimate goal may be one of regime change, that’s not one that is immediately possible or one that would yield immediate results anyway. As such, any protest should have aims that are possible. Obviously, that is also much more difficult to achieve. What can we do to improve the club? How can we reach the people to responsible for that improvement? Can we catalyse them via workable solutions?

 

That place is the Rangers AGM in the next month or so. That’s where ALL the guilty parties will be present. That’s where ALL the relevant questions should be asked. That’s where ALL the board of directors can be brought to task on their under-achievement. That’s where the manager can be challenged. That’s where positive change can be implemented. That’s where the Rangers supporters can rise to the challenge. That’s where leadership can be sought in the presence of ALL the people who can make the difference.

 

We can help shape our future. We can never be accused of not being loyal or being supportive of the club through difficult times. Let’s continue to do so by cheering the team to victory over 90mins and keeping our criticism for the place where it really matters.

[bmck 117]

great article frankie. some of the reactionary shite that is kicking about after what will probably be the furthest we've got and the furthest we'll get in europe for a long time is ridiculous. walter smith has to accept his share of the blame, but i'm quite sure he would have gotten a midfielder in if there was one in budget.

 

what i mean is, negativity is contagious, and there's lots of reasons just now to be negative. but petty protests and irrational complaint will only work against us. murray cant change the league we're in - he's acted in an astute manner. if he were only a little more honest, and had a little bit more drive and ambition for rangers left, i'm sure we'd get a lot further. but if there really were buyers lurking just round the corner then he'd have sold already - too much reaction could work against us.

 

the team needs support, and i think the support just needs patience - very little will be gained in some of the plans i've seen spouted. we need some vision - some consistent youth policy, some sort of Rangers Way in playing football. ach, who knows.

[alexscottislegend 2,043]

Really good, cool-headed objective analysis Frankie. All those eligible for the AGM should certainly make themselves heard and ensure it is not stage-managed. I can understand and even accept the downsizing, given the, as you say, market we now operate in, but find it much less acceptable to put up with the lack of clarity we've seen recently. For example, it was unforgivable to tell the RSA reps last Friday we had no plans to sell Cuellar when SDM must have been aware of the release clause. We knew he'd go - but hoped he would stay for at least a season. Novo has said it was Cuellar's decision - did he really drop the bombshell on Sunday? And if that wasn't the case, what was the truth about him not being cup-tied? A little bit of honesty is not asking too much.

 

Long-term you make cogent points about the scouting and future strategy. We must have an end to the days of RFC being seen as an elephant's graveyard, or a stepping-stone for EPL wannabees.

[Frankie 8,119]

bmck:

 

I think lots of the criticism has been reactionary but there has also been lots from people who have maintained throughout that the club is being badly run.

 

As such, it's imperative these concerns are addressed in the correct forum. Better late than never may be the adage here.

[calscot 0]

I think we have to work out exactly which parts of running the club are done so badly and focus on that. A lot of the criticism recently has been unfounded and often uninformed.

 

You can't change anything without really knowing what you want to change and you can't change things that are not true.

[Frankie 8,119]

I think we have to work out exactly which parts of running the club are done so badly and focus on that. A lot of the criticism recently has been unfounded and often uninformed.

 

You can't change anything without really knowing what you want to change and you can't change things that are not true.

 

Agreed. Which was why it was imperative to have an elected and accountable supporter on the board of the club...

 

He/she would have been able to pin-point where the failings were and work with the supporters/club to find solutions.

[Bluedell 5,329]

walter smith has to accept his share of the blame, but i'm quite sure he would have gotten a midfielder in if there was one in budget.

He had a budget of at least �£6m and he decided to spend it on 3 forwards, 2 of whom were deemed not good enough to merit a starting place in the CL qualifier. Why not spend, say, the Lafferty cash on a player that we actually need?

 

It's like the Naismith �£2m as well. We don't have a large amount of cash. We shouldn't be pissing away millions of pounds on players who can't get into our first team.

 

Walter has to take the lion's share of the blame at the moment.

[bmck 117]

He had a budget of at least �£6m and he decided to spend it on 3 forwards, 2 of whom were deemed not good enough to merit a starting place in the CL qualifier. Why not spend, say, the Lafferty cash on a player that we actually need?

 

none of this changes the point. i said that if there was a player he thought was good enough in midfield, then he would be here probably.

 

buying good young players (which naismith and lafferty are) needn't be thought of in either/or terms. it's not difficult to say why they have been - we desperately needed a midfield player for the qualifier, but we also should've been able to beat them with what we had, but if buying players of that quality and age is a policy of the club, and walter's still got money to spend if he can get the right person, then it's not his fault.

 

walter smith's got a lot of blame to take for the way he set us out, but i still think some of the blame is just going a little too far.

 

arguing "if we'd spent all that on a midfielder we would be fine now" doesn't magically make a decent midfielder available for all that cash. these players are long term signings - the very sort of thinking we've been crying out for. everyone gets accused of short termism at ibrox, then the longer-term deals get decried as a waste of money.

[Bluedell 5,329]

buying good young players (which naismith and lafferty are) needn't be thought of in either/or terms.

I disagree. When you have a limited transfer budget then they do need to be thought of that way.

 

I'm not sure that the current position allows is to take a long term view. Getting knocked out of the CL has a majopr financial impact and the knock-on effects of that (eg losing Cuellar, giving Celtic extra cash, being less attractive to sign for than we were 3 weeks ago) mean that the team is weaker now and will damage our chances of winning the league this season, which may result in us not qualifying for the CL next season etc etc. It's a vicious circle.

 

It's Walter's responsibility to make sure he has the players. He was given an adequate budget and spent it in the wrong areas. It seems strange that we are now being told that we are about to sign some midfielders who have magically become available when they weren't before. I do accept that timing can be an issue, but timing for us was vital. We knew we needed to qualify for the CL, and didn't have the team in place for that.

 

If we are to buying to speculate, as we appear to be doing with Lafferty then do so after we earn our �£10m+, but concentrate on getting the basics of a team that can beat Kaunus first.

[calscot 0]

He had a budget of at least �£6m and he decided to spend it on 3 forwards, 2 of whom were deemed not good enough to merit a starting place in the CL qualifier. Why not spend, say, the Lafferty cash on a player that we actually need?

 

It's like the Naismith �£2m as well. We don't have a large amount of cash. We shouldn't be pissing away millions of pounds on players who can't get into our first team.

 

Walter has to take the lion's share of the blame at the moment.

 

While I see your point, isn't that a short-termist view of the kind that SDM is now being slated for?