forever 2 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Could debate this forever but new era. Lets move on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bears fan 259 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Your calling bears scabs,(real classy) bears who stuck by the club and helped keep us running, you should be thanking those bears for still having a team to support. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergio 1,199 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 For me the boycott helped get rid of the most corrupt board we've had in our history. My heartfelt thanks to everyone who participated in this. As for those who continued to turn up, week in, week out, they are basically strike breakers deserving of our contempt who see themselves uber alles and who prolonged our suffering. What a fucking rocket you are. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenosebrad 452 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 What they did was make my fuckin share have the worth they where when I bought them,So, do the guys who are saying the boycott achieved nothing believe that the Club was running along perfectly fine until this season? And it was only due to the boycotters that Ashley got his claws into the Club?Geez peace, lads. He was in this from the start and received the naming rights of the stadium for £1. Do you really think it was only because people never bought season tickets that Ashley decided to take advantage of us? That was always going to be his game but the lack of revenue this season just made it easier for him.While I don't know if the boycott directly achieved anything it certainly changed the mood surrounding the Club and make some unknown shareholders realise that this wouldn't just be a free and easy ride to take money out of the club.I think the boycott has to be taken in conjunction with other factors, for example shares being bought by external investors. Look at what has happened in GM's in the past with Sandy Easdale receiving a 80 or 90% vote of confidence.It seems like some people think that if the Rhecord and the Bheeb write it then it must be bad therefore anyone they report negatively on must be good.I'm not saying I think the new board are messiahs, but surely nobody can believe that the Club was in any way, shape or form being run well up til now? I will some of the questions you askNo but it made it easier for him to give Rangers hand outs in his favour because the club was starved of much needed revenue.I would put that down to the shit football Ally had us suffer coming to ahead this season and it make it easier for fans to stay away and boycotters claim look at all the fans boycotting when in fact fans were pissed off the football on display.I am glad you think they are but boycotters and the New board seem to think they are savers and ST didnt play a part all, when in fact they stayed loyal to the team that Ally totally fuckin destroyed a perfect opportunity that any Manager of Rangers would have jumped to.All this pish come on guys lets fill Ibrox and pretend that everything is rosey in the garden, I dont trust any Directors of Rangers they will need to prove and gain my trust before I support any board, in the mean time I will stay LOYAL to my team and through good and bad times. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hand 4 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Oh boy them Ashleys are sure hurting bad. Good Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoldierBlue1 499 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 So what did the boycott achieve. Well it got Cliff 2012 onto the board. What a shower of duds the board are turning into. Makes me sick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancer 43 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 So what did the boycott achieve. Well it got Cliff 2012 onto the board. What a shower of duds the board are turning into. Makes me sickIt looks like Graham and King did a deal - One would arrange boycotts to drive down the share price (who cares if it damages the team's prospects of promotion!), the other would take advantage of the low share price, and appoint the first as a director.The club might get shafted, but at least two ghoulish failures get to be in charge for a while.This is disgusting me more and more every minute. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I fought the good fight back in the day, unlike the handwringers who come on here. You would never have survived the Old Derry. Bears had class then.Yeah, because sitting on your arse on the couch or in the pub watching the game while calling yourself the saviour of a club you dont even follow reeks of class. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlippinEck 3,708 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 double Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlippinEck 3,708 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Getting into it a little on FB about how I believe we might have been doing better on and off the park if fans had turned up all season. Its ended up with someone calling me a sheep for continuing to go watch my team every week Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommo23 4 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I don't understand if we didn't boycott Rangers game M s would give us loan after loan sd make a loads of money of fans now we have people who care about club no brained Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonefield teddies 467 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 It had to be done or the old board would still be robbing us.look at the lotto money they tried to get that before they left paying to go to home games just fed there greed . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spectre 1,663 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I don't understand if we didn't boycott Rangers game M s would give us loan after loan sd make a loads of money of fans now we have people who care about club no brainedSo just to be clear, the logic here is that if people hadn't boycotted, we'd sold twice as many season tickets, had a handful of sellouts and generally had people buying from the club that we'd have been in greater need of a loan from Mike Ashley? Patent nonsense. It's far more likely that the boycotting caused such a cash shortfall that we had to rely on Ashley's loansI don't think there are many fans of Ashley about, or people who don't think he was (and still is) in it purely to make as much money as he can from our situation, and I for one am not disappointed to see a change in the regime but I and a fair whack of others simply won't give credit for the latest developments to the boycotters when in all likelihood they made things worse and played into Ashley's hands and the recent positive developments are in spite of them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_r_sole 366 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 So just to be clear, the logic here is that if people hadn't boycotted, we'd sold twice as many season tickets, had a handful of sellouts and generally had people buying from the club that we'd have been in greater need of a loan from Mike Ashley? Patent nonsense. It's far more likely that the boycotting caused such a cash shortfall that we had to rely on Ashley's loansI don't think there are many fans of Ashley about, or people who don't think he was (and still is) in it purely to make as much money as he can from our situation, and I for one am not disappointed to see a change in the regime but I and a fair whack of others simply won't give credit for the latest developments to the boycotters when in all likelihood they made things worse and played into Ashley's hands and the recent positive developments are in spite of them.Where did the money they did have go tho? Do you think giving these guys more money would have helped them run the club any better? They seemed to waste shit loads in strange places and consistently make suspect decisions on where to cut and his to raise capital... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spectre 1,663 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Where did the money they did have go tho?Do you think giving these guys more money would have helped them run the club any better? They seemed to waste shit loads in strange places and consistently make suspect decisions on where to cut and his to raise capital...I'm pretty sure a hell of a lot of the money can be accounted for but either way I'm just struggling with the idea that if we had more money we'd need to borrow more money from Ashley Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_r_sole 366 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I'm pretty sure a hell of a lot of the money can be accounted for but either way I'm just struggling with the idea that if we had more money we'd need to borrow more money from AshleySorry, that wasn't my idea either. My point was purely that of they had more money they likely would have wasted more money rather than using it to run the club more effectively. There wouldn't have been any boycott if they managed to run the club well within our means Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilko89 507 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 It looks like Graham and King did a deal - One would arrange boycotts to drive down the share price (who cares if it damages the team's prospects of promotion!), the other would take advantage of the low share price, and appoint the first as a director.The club might get shafted, but at least two ghoulish failures get to be in charge for a while.This is disgusting me more and more every minute.I'll have to correct you there mate. It was Paul Murray that done the deal with Chris Graham. This has been in the pipeline since the original reqs in that first AGM after admin. I noticed that Graham started backing everyone Paul Murray was trying to get into power, and anyone with no association to Paul Murray who tried to step up to the plate was smeared, or more recently labelled "a distraction" it's been a well thought out plan all along. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reallyruff 622 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 So if the boycott was so effective why'd King change his tactics of calling for it and vowing not to buy shares from investors in the IPO, to buying shares then calling an EGM? Surely the very fact that he went down the latter route means this was the only way to achieve his goals? Ergo the boycott wasn't working. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.