What's their problem?

[Coplandrear25 232]

1 hour ago, five stars said:

If you want to start a topic along the lines of "What have the board done for us?", go ahead.

Then, who knows, you might get the answers you say your looking for.

But your not really looking for answers, you've closed your mind like some religious zealot, unable to see both sides and as such producing hysterical ramblings like an upset teenage girl.

I quite like the Muppets. 

 

2

You are a Muppet.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

2 hours ago, five stars said:

We don't need a NOMAD or a listing on the LSE. 

You're not going to get anymore institutional investment in Rangers.

Why? There simply is no money to be made in Scottish football. Unless joining the EPL or a European league of some sort was on the cards, the only people who will invest are those with an emotional connection.

If your some high flying fund manager you'll be looking at India or somewhere like that with potential high growth not Scottish football.

Naive possibility. I suggest you try and find an article in the Financial Times at the weekend, on what it described as 'the "Disneyfication" of Football'; it was mainly related to Man City, but it also put the possibility that football is going to change in how it is funded, with multiple clubs coming under an umbrella of one corporation and so on. You cannot predict what could happen to Rangers, especially with a "brand" that still spans globally, and a fan/customer base such as it has; many ingredients are there, and although we can't rule things in necessarily, we can't really rule them out either. No more institutional investment in Rangers?; the reason you state is that there is no money in Scottish football, but Rangers don't only compete in Scotland already as it stands, and maybe it won't need the club to play in the EPL, or the Premiership. Do you need funding on those scales anyway, and how many predicted Man City would be where it is now just under a decade ago? The potential for this club if it landed someone with a vision is not for you or I to negate just because we may lack the imagination that person would have. Weirder things have happened, and this club has taken ambitious routes before, and can do so again.

[dougie76 15,359]

42 minutes ago, Coplandrear25 said:

You are a Muppet.

More of a puppet to be fair?

[FSM 20,892]

I think that some people will always harbour an irrational hatred for Dave King and Paul Murray, no matter what they do. Paul Murray was the face of a previous failed regime, Dave King has failed to back up previous promises, I get it. However, I'm off the mind that I think the board are badly performing at the moment, and probably some in-fighting is taking place which isn't helping, but I also think my preference would be for this board to stay in place if it was guaranteed to start performing better.

I know you don't need the board to be die hard supporters to run the club well, but I do like this thought because football isn't just about numbers, there has to be an emotional connection and motivation from the top down to get us all where we want to be.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

8 hours ago, graeme_4 said:

Pretty poorly, I don’t hate them either, but I’m apathetic to them. 

They aren’t doing a good job (or even an acceptable one), and have failed significantly in delivering on a number of promises - particularly in terms of transparency.

I can see why some are very, very angry. Surely you can too?

I think it’s a more difficult job than many believe ( including the current board) - they have done many things right - many wrong - and are poor communicators but only one thing counts and that is performance on the pitch - if we were top of the league and the board were basket cases we would barely even give them a mention. Forums try to make everything binary, but most things are a lot more neuanced than that. 

[KeyserSoze 14,541]

3 minutes ago, Bluepeter9 said:

I think it’s a more difficult job than many believe ( including the current board) - they have done many things right - many wrong - and are poor communicators but only one thing counts and that is performance on the pitch - if we were top of the league and the board were basket cases we would barely even give them a mention. Forums try to make everything binary, but most things are a lot more neuanced than that. 

I agree with this. 

On another note, when I was a young lad/adult following home and away I couldn’t tell you who any members of the board were and when we had really bad times (John Greig iirc) it was the manager/players that got pelters no one even considered a board somewhere in the deepest Ibrox were to blame. 

Fans nowadays are much more savvy as boards make themselves more open and transparent (in media terms) It becomes easier to shift blame from players and managers to actually a more strategic lamb to slaughter. 

Funny how things go eh!

[Bears 792]

Always been impressed by the current board's transparency.

They really should have used it as a selling point when attracting support against the previous board.

[five stars 1,621]

9 hours ago, With Heart and Hand said:

because you're kidding yourself on, you're the most pathetic poster I've seen here in a while 

you thot you'd get some defenders on here but you don't and now you've shat it. Shitebag

This is the level of debate we've reached on The Bears Den.