opportunityknox

I despair, I really do.

Last night I logged on to the site, and this thread in particular, only to see a surprising volume of criticism for the VB article, and our Facebook group. It’s something we’re used to from the 666FC support, but it comes as something of a shock to see criticism from Rangers supporters, for what essentially is an article asking a question that I’m sure all Rangers fans would be asking themselves if they had the chance to confront some of those involved in the “takeover” talks. As it happens, both Ellis and Rangers have clarified the situation somewhat; if only to say that the Noon tomorrow date quoted is fantasy. Most of the other points raised have not been clarified or specifically discounted, which is a concern. I believe Adonirum posted the article in good faith believing fellow Rangers fans would like a read and that it might strike a chord, given that there were no other similar articles on RM or ££ yesterday. As for the Facebook group, I believe I can speak for VB admin here, when I state categorically that the intentions while setting it up were genuine, heartfelt and done out of despair at the current situation at Ibrox. Word had got to our Admin of some specific objectives being undertaken by Donald Muir, which kicked us in to action. The intention was to generate a collective of concerned fans in one place, and act “as one” to get the necessary answers from the club, and take the necessary action to ensure fair treatment from Lloyds bank, until such time as the club is sold. Was or is it misguided? Time will tell, but all I can say is that we looked around the various Rangers fan sites, at the Trust, and the RSA, felt there wasn’t enough of a groundswell happening to challenge Muir and co, and we felt we had to act, and that Facebook could well be the medium to do it. We felt it was a risk worth taking, as it is the biggest issue to face our club in decades. We see this morning that this site is now carrying an excellent article on Muir. It may just put things in perspective, and I for one am taking it seriously. If indeed Muir is not "the enemy within", then perhaps we are barking up the wrong tree, but for now I'm keeping an open mind on it. VB do not claim to be a voice of the support, claim to be speaking for anyone else, or claim any kind of authority or superiority. We just have a distinct lack of trust in Lloyds banking group, and hope others will join us in fighting for fair treatment. If you wish to read anything else in to our intentions you’d be wrong. With regards to Newsnow, we have been temporarily suspended following an article we published which resulted in a wave of complaints from fans of 666FC. Our discussions with Newsnow are confidential for now, but may well become public when the issue is resolved. Lastly, I’d like to clarify the vanguardbears forum administration policy. Yes, it’s strict, and always has been, with our intention always to be a board of rangers supporting activists who will fight agendas against the club, and right some wrongs along the way. It’s not just about that though, it’s about an overall vibe on the board. Those regulars who also reside here will tell you that it’s a friendly community, with courtesy and manners being an overriding ethos, which is difficult to find on any forum on the web football or otherwise That said, a balance between numbers and a community feel is very hard to achieve, as agitators and keyboard hard men make any site administrator’s life difficult, but I believe VB does it as well as anyone. We have far less than most boards I've ever been on. This is just a personal opinion, but I always felt that VB would be a temporary site to do a job on the media that wasn’t being done elsewhere; do a job on Murray, and once we were satisfied that we could do no more, and that we’d had some tangible success we would walk away. That’s easier said than done, and I believe now we’ll need to be in for the long haul. Yours in Rangers, Opportunity Knox

I asked for that

Correct, although the Gerald reported said player as a Defender this morning.

Isn't it interesting, that the Herald have more page views for a report linking Rangers with a £0.5M defender than Shellik have for their official announcement regarding their new manager?

The brutal assessment is that most of the media in Scotland have anti Rangers activists in their employ masking as writers or columnists. Most however, make a pretence of balance by employing more objective writers or columnists alongside them, although none employ any overtly pro Rangers hacks. Yes, the Sunday Mail might have Guidi, but they also have Waddell The Daily Mail might have McGowan but also Jardine The Herald may have Michael Grant and Hugh McDonald but also have Richard Wilson The theme is largely consistent across the media, with one exception...the NOTW. Any newspaper that allows Phil McGillivan a platform is clearly pusing an editorial agenda against Rangers Football Club. They do not have a yang to McGillivan's Ying, and that's the difference. Rangers fans are big enough and intelligent enough to apply some reason to their decision making when entering a news agent, but one rule should be consistent, avoid the NOTW, The Sun, and The Times. All Bears Boycott the NOTW http://www.vanguardbears.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291&Itemid=26

Hi Charlie...

McGillivan is a lying fantasist. I'll say no more. For now...

Or just get the Dawn Primarolo Loyal one out again

You may laugh, but the figure of Gerry Donnelan running Manchester's Police operation in 2008 indicates just what the dangers are. Did you know he's since been promoted?

This is just another reason why this game should NOT go ahead. This game is doomed, and Rangers should take note that this is the kind of coverage we get in the NORAID stronghold of Boston before we've even signed a contract. If Rangers are touring the states, then Bears will get a chance to see them, without the spectre of appearing in the Boston Globe depicted as a hooligan for following your football team. It makes 100% sense.

I'd suggest "Mark Stokes" has got his information from kerrydale st, or is a member at said site His editor will be made aware of the startling coincidences between his "piece", and a similar piece on KDS, and he will also have the record set straight. My view is that Rangers should NOT touch this with a bargepole.

Are you, or have you ever been an RST Board Member? Did you use this moniker for some time on Follow Follow? That is all.

There's a couple of reasons this could never really happen. It doesn't just involve money either. It would more likely be the player's choice than Rangers'... What? I meant he's a tim. Correct, which is why it would be his choice not to come, not Rangers. After all, being a tim isn't a barrier to Rangers trying to sign players, but it's a barrier for the players themselves. Otherwise James McCarthy might not be at Wigan

If you're reading this Eck, please stay retired. Thanks Lots of love xxxxxxx

I voted for VB, but I'm biased RM's my second choice though I've never even heard of Rangers Loyal. Does that make me a bad person?

There's a couple of reasons this could never really happen. It doesn't just involve money either. It would more likely be the player's choice than Rangers'...

My information is that the club looked at him 2 years ago, and he was too expensive then... Do you know if we are looking at anybody just now mate? 'fraid I don't. Sorry.

He could be the bogey man. Which is par for the course. Does he have an Island near New York?

My information is that the club looked at him 2 years ago, and he was too expensive then...

Interesting. Is he the only show in town?

I won't claim to have any inside info, but I believe a clean break is nigh on impossible.

There's a question waiting for you over at VB...

I'm firmly in the KT fan club, but know several bears who aren't. But some bears didn't like Stuart McCall, and some didn't like Spackman, who I thought were great players for the club, so everyone is entitled to their opinion.

The way I see it, without knowing either of them, thats not really the point, its fairly irrelevant. You look at the story, and, as well as being shoddy as hell, its offensive, and, obviously made up, and, written with an intent to do just what it has done. I would be fairly sure that if the shoe was on the other foot, an eager up and coming journo would do the same about them, seems natural. The interesting part for me is, the writer and the subject are both members of the same group on Facebook I believe? You then have the potential cor collusion, which is highly plausible. "Hey, you can slate Rangers in the press, let me help with a story" scenario. Maybe she is gullible and fell for it? This McJanet fella certainly seems to be proper scum. She may well put on a completely different "face" around LF, than she does elsewhere, as, viewing her twitter and other places certainly paints an entirely different picture of her than the one he seems to know. Maybe the girl he "knows" isnt actually the real person? Some people are saying nonsense like "she has an Irish flag, so what?" well, indeed, I have noticed more and more that this is how "arguments" are done on message boards, individualise aspects to make them look trivial. Its a "nice" plan, as it does just that. However, when you look at ALL the aspects together, it paints an entirely different picture. You may think owning a tricolour is trivial, it is. As is posting that "Rangers fans actually disgust me" (bheasts disgust me too!), or, being members of certain facebook groups. Individually, not much in it. But, put them all together, along with the article, and, along with the fact its subject was a person there is every reason to believe she could have been in touch with in a non professional scenario, and... Thats why people have there back up about it. And, I think he is getting it more for the "no agenda" and "she isnt like that" type lines, as, it looks fairly clear that she actually is. Indeed. A lesson learned for Laudrupforever perhaps not to take all people at face value. Don't get me wrong, you have to try and see the best in people, and it's an admirable trait, but the sad truth here is that many many people in the West of Scotland (and elsewhere for that matter) who support Celtic can seem "alright" face to face, and even somewhat moderate, but their real views can often be somewhat different. I guess there comes a point in time, when you still try and take people at face value, but become a better judge of character. I am certain most people called it right on Smith, and if they haven't, then she isn't very good at representing herself. Time will tell.