Northampton_Loyalist

'NO MUIR SILENCE!' 'Rangers we will be with you' 'Murray Muir Lloyds, unholy trinity' What about any of those is attacking a Rangers board member?

The problem being that before guys like NL had anything to do with it the protest wheels were already in motion. A fund had been set up and ideas had been posted on FF for a good few days before. They then decided to take the official protest in a different direction but ultimately others chose otherwise. I don't believe there will be any further protests or if there are the same people will not be responsible. That would be a reasonable explanation as i was not aware that FF were planning a protest before NL took up the baton FF were not mate. Iniesta made a call for a protest, people got behind him as an individual straight away. I offered to help a couple of days later, after the thread had been up a while and a collection for money started. You might have seen that the statement did not go up until a week or so after the first call was made, that time was used to reign in some pretty wild suggestions and to try and get as many sites on board as possible.

You have your platform to find out what these claims are, but you are bending over backwards to avoid doing so. I guess we have to leave it at that. I dont want to be part of a wee PM war. Him telling me is not him telling the public. If he gives me free reign to post his answers then great, I will gladly take a PM from him. anything else is simply posting public claims and refusing to publically expand on them.

If you feel patronised I appologise. You are making 'half-claims', posting innuendo and refusing to expand in public. THAT is what I take issue with. I write, occasionally, for FF. It might be wise for you at this juncture to read a few of my articles. If you do you will clearly see that I am not in line with a good few of what are seen as FF party lines. I use the biggest Rangers site out there and have done for 10 years. If there are things everyone should know about the man at the top, you need to tell us. You are expressing concern at bullies but all you have done is accuse people without adding substance. Why would they take LESS umbrage with that than with you posting specifics? either way you have successfully muddied waters. You have publically claimed that there are some serious goings on that paint people in a bad light, why would that sit ok with them while specifics wouldnt? surely if they/he are/is (a) bully(s) they/he would be after you now for what you have already said? The fact you are happy to dismiss someone who is simply asking you to provide substance for your claims as a 'lickspitle' tells me all I need to know. You are not interested in furnishing people with truths, you are interested in scoring points. Good luck to you. If you decide to expand on your claims, great, if not, well, that is up to you. oh, and as a ps could easily be construed as a threat. could easily be construed as a threat. Now you deserve to be insulted. Don't talk shyte you muppet. We've been through this a hundred times about the imaginery threats and violence. Now I know where you come from, as that's a statement which has been banded about for as long as VB has been online. Right. So, Because I used a very common set of words to describe a threat EVERYTHING said in the post is to be ignored? Once again simply insults, no substance. there is no debate here, that much is obvious. You have your platform to expand on your very public claims and you are bending over backwards to avoid doing so. I guess we have to leave it at that.

If you feel patronised I appologise. You are making 'half-claims', posting innuendo and refusing to expand in public. THAT is what I take issue with. I write, occasionally, for FF. It might be wise for you at this juncture to read a few of my articles. If you do you will clearly see that I am not in line with a good few of what are seen as FF party lines. I use the biggest Rangers site out there and have done for 10 years. If there are things everyone should know about the man at the top, you need to tell us. You are expressing concern at bullies but all you have done is accuse people without adding substance. Why would they take LESS umbrage with that than with you posting specifics? either way you have successfully muddied waters. You have publically claimed that there are some serious goings on that paint people in a bad light, why would that sit ok with them while specifics wouldnt? surely if they/he are/is (a) bully(s) they/he would be after you now for what you have already said? The fact you are happy to dismiss someone who is simply asking you to provide substance for your claims as a 'lickspitle' tells me all I need to know. You are not interested in furnishing people with truths, you are interested in scoring points. Good luck to you. If you decide to expand on your claims, great, if not, well, that is up to you. oh, and as a ps could easily be construed as a threat.

He's sitting there mumping about how he can't get the information shared - but he has two options to get it easily. I'm merely showing him that what he wants is easily available and to stop being a wee hypocrite and moaning about not being able to get info that he can get if he wants. At least you've Pm'd him and I'm sure he'll share the info he said he would when he gets back. When you get the info you're after, maybe share it with Phil and he might stop moaning? Actually, Willhelm first said if he was pushed he would post the information. When pushed he aid he would impart it via PM. when asked to do that he changed it for a third time by saying he would do it over the phone. again, if you want to accuse someone of something, they NEED a right of reply. Willhelm has accused without specifics, meaning anyone looking in will see that 'there is something going on'. The accused has no way to refute that claim because the accuser is refusing to expand on his claims in public. It is a very easy way to muddy a name without saying a single thing. Again (again) If you want to accuse someone of wrong-doing, accuse him. If you want to play games, do what Willhelm has done. Where do you start with this lickspittle of poster? Your master will be pleased at your defiant defence, but the game's up son. Everyone and their granny is aware of the bully boy tactics and profiteering in certain quarters. use your intelligence mate. If I was trying to 'defend' anyone, why would I be asking for your claims to be made public? Surely it would behove me to try and ensure that they remained secret? Your continued use of insults does you no service at all.

He's sitting there mumping about how he can't get the information shared - but he has two options to get it easily. I'm merely showing him that what he wants is easily available and to stop being a wee hypocrite and moaning about not being able to get info that he can get if he wants. At least you've Pm'd him and I'm sure he'll share the info he said he would when he gets back. When you get the info you're after, maybe share it with Phil and he might stop moaning? Actually, Willhelm first said if he was pushed he would post the information. When pushed he aid he would impart it via PM. when asked to do that he changed it for a third time by saying he would do it over the phone. again, if you want to accuse someone of something, they NEED a right of reply. Willhelm has accused without specifics, meaning anyone looking in will see that 'there is something going on'. The accused has no way to refute that claim because the accuser is refusing to expand on his claims in public. It is a very easy way to muddy a name without saying a single thing. Again (again) If you want to accuse someone of wrong-doing, accuse him. If you want to play games, do what Willhelm has done.

By Willhelm asking people to PM him he is ensuring nothing goes into the public realm. Private messages are 'private' and should they be leaked the sender can claim that the info was confidential, not for public consumption and therefore 'questionable'. Private messages afford the accused NO right of reply. If I want to accuse Willhelm of something without actually saying anything, I simply need to drop in a few hints, then offer to tell people by PM, then when asked to do that, change it to 'by phone'. If you want to accuse people of something you need to just do it, not flirt with innuendo. I dont know the strength of his claims. I dont know what his claims are. I DO know, however, that what has happened so far is rank cowardice. Alledging all kinds of inpropeity in public then demanding that detail is only to be imparted in private. If you have something to say, say it. If you have nothing to say, dont.

do you know it was hooked? Do you know that a few days ago EVERY (as in every thread in the history of the bear-pit) thread got hooked? are you further aware that every thread between all those threads disapearing and today also got hooked? Was that thread hooked individually or did it disapear amongst the hundereds of others that also disappeared? I dont, btw, im jut not jumping to conclusions. This wasn't a few days ago this was last night and im saying that recently, all the threads between the great purge and now were also hooked. again, I dont know, all I know is that there was a multi-page thread saying 'well done'. what happened to it is not something I do know.

do you know it was hooked? Do you know that a few days ago EVERY (as in every thread in the history of the bear-pit) thread got hooked? are you further aware that every thread between all those threads disapearing and today also got hooked? Was that thread hooked individually or did it disapear amongst the hundereds of others that also disappeared? I dont, btw, im jut not jumping to conclusions.

I have no wish to discuss Vanguardbears other than their excellent efforts with regards to William McBeath. I do not know the inner workings of FF admins. This is bigger than all of us and the sooner some people (on ALL forums) realise this then the better. Until then, we plough on with the protests. (and I don't mean FF/RST) As far as I'm aware VangaurdBears never got the true recoginition they deserve regarding William McBeath. Not on ££ anyway, every other Rangers forum was more than happy to rightly mention the men behind such great work. Infact I'm sure a good amount of posts got chopped that mentioned the VB name. you are incorrect. there was a multi page thread on FF offering hearty and deserved congratulations to all involved Did they allow the VB name to be mentioned? Did they chop posts which mentioned the website involved? Did they ban members for mentioning who set it up? Did they eventually chop the post, because Bears were raging at their actions? I dont know if it was chopped or not. I know that there are ongoing databae issues and many recent threads are currently in limbo. I dont know the answers to the rest of your questions. I do know that regardless of who was behind the McBeath tribute, FF as a whole was very very grateful that people had bothered to do it.

I have no wish to discuss Vanguardbears other than their excellent efforts with regards to William McBeath. I do not know the inner workings of FF admins. This is bigger than all of us and the sooner some people (on ALL forums) realise this then the better. Until then, we plough on with the protests. (and I don't mean FF/RST) As far as I'm aware VangaurdBears never got the true recoginition they deserve regarding William McBeath. Not on ££ anyway, every other Rangers forum was more than happy to rightly mention the men behind such great work. Infact I'm sure a good amount of posts got chopped that mentioned the VB name. you are incorrect. there was a multi page thread on FF offering hearty and deserved congratulations to all involved

Lots of people from FF jumping on this as if it were gospel. Lots of people here jumping on it as if it were entirely ficticious. Not one person has asked the only really important question, so I will; Boss, Contacts, did you sit down with Mr. Muir this week?

It is impossible to visit every site and answer every question posed, every answer leads to a new question or 5 and while it is fairly obvious that Iniesta and myself are wonderful , we are not supermen. What happens when we answer one guy and ignore another? what happens when one 'chain' of questions leads to an in-depth debate where all other questions are overlooked? If you want answers to specifics, great, that shows a level of interest and we would be delighted, but please remember we are only human and have lives away from this whole episode too. So, again, I would say that both Iniesta and myself are going to stop fielding questions in open forum and respectfully request that questions are Emailed to the address given.

Since he stood up and put his name to the protest and asked for our money... Seriously, you're right, it shouldn't just be down to Iniesta (and the other organisers) but he's put himself forward as a focal point so I'm trying to help via constructive suggestions and questions. Unfortunately, I can't commit to doing anything more at this stage so respect you point about unfair criticism on these people. Fortunately, Iniesta and NL have been most patient so far in that regard which is why they're undeserving of the unfair stuff we've read recently. In the absence of genuine information (I've no reason to disbelieve contacts on RM or sccgers on FF) they're entitled to ask the questions many of us share with them. All the more reason for the fan groups to take up the baton on their behalf as I've urged Iniesta to request. Iniesta has come on here, as did I, in the direct aftermath of the game and protest yesterday and been hit with a barrage of people demanding answers to questions they were happy to keep to themselves right up until actions were underway. People who refused to offer any insight on how they believe things should move forward are today (and last night) happy to fire criticisms on method, mode and 'target'. That was always going to happen and is perfectly natural so rather than get drawn into long verbal tennis matches we have both asked people to Email their concerns to the address that was available as long as 2 weeks ago. They have not. That makes it appear, to myself at least, that people are less interested in answers than in being seen to lead a public flogging. Neither welcome, nor in any way helpful. I will say now, Frankie, in as unambigious a way as my limited talents allow...... If ANYONE (really, really ANYONE) has an idea, a thought, a question or a problem with ANYTHING to do with this protest, its aims or its 'targets' then we would unequivocably welcome them being written down and Emailed to the address given. We WANT to make this about as many of the fans as are interested in being involved. To do that we need to know what as many as possible want. If you have a problem with what we are doing, tell us, one of us will reply and try to answer your concerns and it is not a stretch to say that negative feedback is as important as positive feedback when considering ways to move forwards. Pointless sniping on messageboards is fine, I would not for a second try to stop it, but I will say now that no further replies will be forthcoming, we have neither the time to trawl sites looking for questions nor will to argue against people who seem to lack any genuine interst in our goals, other than handing out a cyber-beating, of course

The 3 of those banners were not produced by us. They were independent fans who I met with. They took them in off their own backs. They are their banners for them to do what they see fit with. Can you clarify which banners were made from the donations to the protest then? can you clarify why it interests you please? Did you donate? did you 'back' the protest in any way? did you email suggestions or criticism? If the answer is 'no' to all of those then the question of why it actually makes ANY difference to you becomes a valid and ultimately important one in the context of this debate. Did i back the protest? Yes Did i donate? No Did i give my suggestions to Iniesta via PM on here? Yes Is that good enough for you or do Rangers fans not deserve an answer to a protest which was supposed to be in our interests? You have become far more aggressive in your responses today compared to the diplomatic way you have approached things beforehand. I felt the idea of asking the pressing questions to the club was the correct way to go, instead of blind criticism of Muir or Lloyds without anyone knowing the facts. But today there were anti-Muir/Lloyds banners all over the ground. If you are organising a protest then i feel you should either been in full control of all banners which would be displayed or else not make the claim that there would be no anti-Muir/Lloyds banners. This is not having a go at you lads, your effort is admirable, it is simply constructive criticism. I thought i was being perfectly civil. If I came across as somehow aggressive I would like you to take my word that was not intentional. I AM a little exhasperated though. I dont see how people organising a protest can be held accountable for people making and displaying their own banners. We NEVER once claimed there would be no anti anyone banners, we claimed that our banners would be questioning the bank and lloyds and praising the management/backing the 'name' Rangers. As far as i know they all were. Also, EVERY banner made and displayed that was in any way connected to the protest 'officially' was made from direct input from those that paid for them. ANYTHING else would have been worthy of complaint. This was not an anti Murray protest. If you want an anti Murray protest, organise one, I would lend you any help you asked for. The target in the minds of a great number of fans is Muir and the bank, therefore they were the 'targets' (word used as no other fits), we cant cover every base and make every fan happy, as said (again) those who engaged the organisers had their views taken on board, those that didnt, well, didnt.

The 3 of those banners were not produced by us. They were independent fans who I met with. They took them in off their own backs. They are their banners for them to do what they see fit with. Can you clarify which banners were made from the donations to the protest then? can you clarify why it interests you please? Did you donate? did you 'back' the protest in any way? did you email suggestions or criticism? If the answer is 'no' to all of those then the question of why it actually makes ANY difference to you becomes a valid and ultimately important one in the context of this debate. Can't speak for GCL, but I'm interested as if the donations made funded the large number of banners about Muir/Lloyds, then I'd have to question why the protest was advertised as not being targeted at either specifically. as stated VERY clearly and on several occasions, the banners that the protest organisers made ALL came direct from suggestions made by the people who donated, the most popular slogans were adopted. Your point would have been valid if the banners were any different to that which they were. It appears that those who were against the protest are unhappy with how it went. That is fine and everyone is more than entitled to their opinion. It does look, from here at least, that people are demanding answers to questions they have no right to ask. If YOU didnt make a suggestion on how the protest should go how can you complain about the direction it took? If you didnt suggest a banner how can you complain about the banners used? If you were against the protest to begin with why are you now questioning the people behind it? surely that should have been done BEFORE the protest (and I know for a 100% fact that not one of the people on here complaining did question anyone about the method or email the given address with their own thoughts) I am happy to answer ANY questions anyone might have for me specifically. I will leave this thread for a while as I appreciate the site bods allowed us a platform to approach their membership and feel that regardless of any answers given here, people will not be happy, I dont want to argue so will take it off-site. Just Email the given address and put this name on the topic, i will get to you tomorrow. Please remember this though. The people behind the protest are a group of individuals who have never done anything like this before and have relied on help and suggestions. There has been no end of help on policy and direction from folk and it has ALL been taken on board. People can only act on advice they are given, not retrospective criticism, however well intentioned

The 3 of those banners were not produced by us. They were independent fans who I met with. They took them in off their own backs. They are their banners for them to do what they see fit with. Can you clarify which banners were made from the donations to the protest then? can you clarify why it interests you please? Did you donate? did you 'back' the protest in any way? did you email suggestions or criticism? If the answer is 'no' to all of those then the question of why it actually makes ANY difference to you becomes a valid and ultimately important one in the context of this debate.

Fell flat on it's arse? That certainly was not the case. You have to start somewhere and we started today against Hibs. Personally I'd rather be TRYING to do something about getting answers to certain questions than sitting on my arse denegrating others efforts. Then again, we're ten points clear so, does it really matter? Course it does. What happened to it not being an anti muir/lloyds protest ? you will have seen 'the enemy within' banners long long before this protest was planned. Other than that several groups designed, funded and took in their own banners. Furthermore, the banners were paid for by donations. EVERY banner that was made for todays protest came from the email link that was provided for suggestions. The people that ponied up the cash had what THEY wanted made. If the organisers had simply decided what to make themselves then they would have been deciding how to spend other people's cash. Please bear in mind that today was never going to please EVERYONE and ultimately, those that took the time to donate cash and make suggestions had to be at the forefront of peole's minds when deciding what to use. In my opinion any Ire towards the bank/nuir/the directors of our club is justified. This protest is happening because NO fan knows what is going on. Leaving aside the minutae of the situation, the fans are being treated appaulingly. So why did you tell us something different then ? You said the protest wasn't anti muir / lloyds but it was, seems the good intentions were overtaken by agendas. No, it was not. The protest aims are clearly set out in the statement. OTHER PEOPLE made and funded their own banners. The enemy within banners had already been in use. Again, the banners were what the people who paid money (and some who simply offered slogans) wanted to see. You tell me which banners were made by the protest organisers and then we can debate the relative merits of each. 'No Muir Silence' for example. Or maybe the pro Rangers banners that didnt even mention the banks/Muir, or 'Rangers under seige'. You were against the protest before today and that is absolutely fine, but if you were against it for reasons of 'angle' or 'agenda' I need to ask if you Emailed in YOUR suggestions on what should happen? As said, people were always going to take issue with parts or all of the protest. Nobody was press-ganged into anything and EVERYONE who donated was happy with what happened (well, unless a late email comes in complaining, obviously). The fact people saw the message and decided to donate then tell people how they wanted the money spent is fine. I understand your concerns, but if you are honest NOTHING that happened today was going to meet your approval.

Fell flat on it's arse? That certainly was not the case. You have to start somewhere and we started today against Hibs. Personally I'd rather be TRYING to do something about getting answers to certain questions than sitting on my arse denegrating others efforts. Then again, we're ten points clear so, does it really matter? Course it does. What happened to it not being an anti muir/lloyds protest ? you will have seen 'the enemy within' banners long long before this protest was planned. Other than that several groups designed, funded and took in their own banners. Furthermore, the banners were paid for by donations. EVERY banner that was made for todays protest came from the email link that was provided for suggestions. The people that ponied up the cash had what THEY wanted made. If the organisers had simply decided what to make themselves then they would have been deciding how to spend other people's cash. Please bear in mind that today was never going to please EVERYONE and ultimately, those that took the time to donate cash and make suggestions had to be at the forefront of peole's minds when deciding what to use. In my opinion any Ire towards the bank/Muir/the directors of our club is justified. This protest is happening because NO fan knows what is going on. Leaving aside the minutae of the situation, the fans are being treated appaulingly.

the flyer clearly states inside the ground mate, no mention of outside at all

I severely doubt the club will say anything to EC, or Real Radio. I just can't see it. Martin Bain had that meeting the other night.....IMO, that's as far as any official statements will go from the club! I agree but i would be surprised if they have not given some token snippets to try and dull the edge of the protest. If they have it could backfire should people see it for what it is. If they come out and give some real answers then magic, that is what we want and it will show the pressure is working, if they dont, that will harden the resolve of people to force the issue I think

At approximately 6:20 this evening Steven Clifford from the protest organisers will be having a chat with Ewan cameron on his Real radio phone in. Radio coverage from this outlet was started on the same show last night when Ewan declared that he would be contacting Rangers to try and have all of our questions answered. We don't know if he was successful but anticipate at least some level of contact between the radio station and the club, and potentially some of the answers we are all looking for. It would be great if people can listen in, both to hear directly what we are hoping to achieve and more importantly what Rangers themselves have to say. This protest has been sparked by the support, primarily on-line, so it is fitting that we all hear whatever is to be said. Some may be convinced by words from the club, other sceptical and the only way we can move this project forward is by hearing the opinions of our fellow supporters. Please remember that Steven is not a public speaker he is an average fan who holds serious concerns, just like the rest of us. Gordon McPherson

I know its a pain but is there any chance you can use the email address given to pass on your suggestions and questions? Im sure you can appreciate that with a good number of sites being involved it is difficult to give each one the time it deserves. Thanks again

Because the protest has been made public with a week to go there is a very real chance that individual people will bring their own banners. The organisers of the protest cannot really be held responsible for everything within the stadium. Their statement is clear on the matter. I would add that if people do have anti whoever feelings, my personal view is that by allowing the support to reach this stage, there is justification. We need to remember, in my opinion, this could all have been prevented if the support had been in even the slightest way engaged by the people in charge today. I'd like to think that the support know that these kind of banners aren't going to help the situation at present. They are born out of frustration and suspicion but now we have a positive way to express those emotions instead of just bashing the Bank. I would think that is very much true In my mind the idea of getting suggestions is a good one, people can quite literally have their say on matters