August 23, 1887 – The Scottish Athletic Journal

20140509_132816

August 23, 1887 – The Scottish Athletic Journal

The Rangers Football Club

A friend of ours, and a member of the Rangers, certainly not noted for his acute knowledge of history, used to remark that there were only two incidents in the history of Scotland specially worth remembering. Jeffrey Broughman, and Sydney Smyth, met in an old garret in Edinburgh, and as a result of their “crack” determined to found the Edinburgh Review. P. McNeil, W. McBeith, M. McNeil, and P. Campbell, as the result of a quiet chat carried on without any attempt at brilliancy in the West End Park, determined to found the Rangers F.C. These old Rangers had been exercised – in fact their feelings had been wrought upon, on seeing matches between the Queen’s Park, the Vale, and 3rd L.R.V. Viewing the interesting and exciting points of the game, even the brilliancy elucidated by the Queen’s Park, had given rise to the itching toe, which could only be relieved by procuring a ball and bestowing upon it an unlimited amount of abuse. Accordingly a start was made, and soon the relic of their early years was sacrificed to the newly-awakened enthusiasm. Meanwhile, our enterprising friends had been using their best endeavours to get a lot of eligible youths to join with them, and, as all the football world is aware, not without successes. Soon after a meeting was held, and most of the gentlemen being strangers in Glasgow, with a nice eye to the fitness of things, they dubbed themselves “Rangers.” Practice was now the order of the day, and whilst three nights a week were set apart specially for that purpose, the enthusiasm of the members generally carried them to the Green six nights out of every seven. “How they must have enjoyed the day of rest,” exclaims some perfervid observer of ancient Scottish Sabbath ritual – now fast disappearing. We will not on this point express our inmost thought. Somehow we suspect that they regarded the sacred day with as much impatience as the average Waltonian forced to remark almost every Monday morning to his companion of the line, “Man, thae Sundays are aye the gran’ days for fishing.” But with or without Sunday practice, two months hard pursuit of the ball had imparted some confidence. “Show me some foemen worthy of my steel” – a la Bailie Nicol Jarvie, with the red-hot poker – was the mock-heroic exclamation of each budding dribbler. But caution and canniness were to be expected from youths practicing within so short a distance from celebrated Bailie’s retreat. The foemen has been found as personified by the Callander F.C.; yet notwithstanding the ebullition of such heroic sentiment, prudent councils prevailed, and it was resolved to meet him with as much forethought and preparation as possible. Pharsalia had not been lost upon “Our Boys,” however much Pompey, with only one arrow in his quiver, had to regret it. As the result of their cannie cogitations, ambassadors were sent, not to treat of peace – such an undignified proceeding was unworthy of the Rangers – but, if possible, secure the help and assistance of some doughty warriors, under whose inspiring example and leadership victory might be achieved. The negotiations were successful. Harry McNeil, W. McKinnon, J. Hunter, and Miller, all in their glory, consented to second – shall we say – the enthusiastic but certainly not too adventurous striplings. Candid readers will admit, now that they are prepared to hear of and judge the fight, that however victory might declare itself, “Our Boys,” at least, had done all in their power to deserve it. Nor did our heroes think the result at all so dubious as to necessitate stripping off every allowable half-ounce of superfluous clothing. Such an index of chicken-heartedness was alone manifested by the “subs.” Shades of McKinnon, Hunter, and Miller, what indignity! The battle commenced – or if you like it better – a terrible game ensued. Both sides were quite pleased when time was called without any definite result. If they could lay no claim to be players at least both sides had exhibited true British pluck. Judged by the multitude of his scars, W. McBeath was the hero of the day. He was laid up for a week. Thus ended their first match, played about the latter end of May 1872, some two months after inauguration of the Club.

And, reader, please note that henceforth the Rangers are thrown on their resources. And right manfully do they set to work. Some sort of meeting is convened, and office-bearers are elected. It is the middle of summer, but nevertheless engagements are made with all the Clubs round about – notably the Callander, Eastern, and Clyde. The result of these matches was most gratifying. All ended either in a draw or a decided win for Rangers. On their second match with the Clyde – the never-to-be-forgotten day on which they first donned the light blues – no less than eleven goals turned up to their credit. Not a bad beginning for a Club with only the fragment of a season for practice! Some jokes that the undefeated Rangers were now perpetrated by some of the more cocky members; and the dignity of the Club ought to be consulted by getting on matches with the Queen’s Park, Vale of Leven, Clydesdale, and 3rd. Peace, ye babblers! In the coming season the Star of Leven, and the Rovers, composed of players unworthy to tie the shoe-latches of the men of the former Clubs, will be found quite powerful to occasionally lower the dignity of the Club; and you will be almost well pleased to give a Roland for an Oliver.

1872 and 1873 saw “Our Boys” in orthodox-going fashion. It was in this year that they held their first general meeting, and elected office-bearers in a proper and satisfactory manner. Formal arrangements were made as to practice and practice nights, but what between boating and football, the majority of the members, six nights out of seven were almost always within call. For our readers must understand that a rowing Club existed in connection with the Rangers F.C. during the major portion of the time headquarters were established on the Green. These were the merry times. If a fellows shins were well pared, possibly his arms were intact, and so boating came to the rescue. But by and by, as progress in the exciting game became more apparent, and seemingly much more easily obtained, rowing was less and less indulged in, until at length it was altogether discontinued. The Garelochhead men had diverted all their energies to football, and for the first five years of the Club’s existence were its mainstay and support. This season’s team was, with only two exceptions completely composed of them. How well they played may be inferred from the results of the season’s matches. Playing all secondary Clubs, they were victorious over all save the Havelock and Star of Leven, a goal to each of these indicating the difference. But let us not pass over the Rovers, nor forget to mention, before alluding to the “Wee Internationals” – as they are called – played with this Club; that Tom joined in the spring of ’73. Certainly the matches with the Rovers were “the events” on the Green, both for players and spectators.

The word “spectators” reminds us that we have been going too fast. The light blues had not won so many famous victories without attracting attention. Peter McNeil, with characteristic self-denial, and zeal for the best interests of the Club, used to journey to the most desirable part of the Green about twelve noon, and set up the now noted standards. But it was not good enough to set them up. He had, at first, either to watch them himself or pay a boy for doing so until the classic hour in the afternoon was reached. Dear reader, observe “at first” materially limits the significance of the last sentence. It begets the philosophical reflection that even the meanest soldier of France was not inclined to worship Napoleon until he possessed some reputation. Peter’s commendable zeal was not taxed to the utmost. Perhaps “a wee thing gars folk look – sma’ thing gars some stare;” nevertheless the rapid strides with which the Rangers acquired reputation constrained the followers of the ball to look, wonder, and admire. As a consequence, the desirable part of the Green was, with something like mutual agreement, regarded by all as sacred to the Rangers. And if players looked, didn’t spectators come and stare? The sacred spots became the Mecca of the Green, the god Football being there worshipped by thousands of devotees, whose piety would not bear either a journey to Hampden Park, or the necessary subscription. We can come to no other conclusion when we remember how the flocked to Queen’s Park in order that they might witness the “Wee Internationals” with the Rovers. Almost grateful for their company, although sometimes not a little “riled” as their eagerness to see the game left only a narrow strip of ground for play, we put the most charitable construction on their motives. Shall we then venture the conceit – Football was their Allah, and the Rangers, if not at that time the prophet, were at least their prophet.

But to the Rovers and the three famous encounters only less eagerly talked of by old Rangers than those fought with the Vale in ’77. The practice for these games was more eager and spirited than anything now attempted in that line, even for the most wildly-exciting cup tie. It was in fact a case of zeal versus experience. In primitive days, zeal could bring them out six nights a week; now experience has convinced the Rangers that three games in the week, two being devoted to practice, give the most beneficial results. But this is digressing. The Rovers were a stiff Club to beat. The Rangers had then but little experience from which they might gain knowledge. Common sense and the wisdom of the times alike pointed to practice as the high road to victory, and to practice they accordingly betook themselves. But all in vein; the Rovers could not be beat. Three matches played either on the Green or Queen’s Park did not decide their respective merits. But what themes for appreciative conversation did they furnish to the most ardent and enthusiastic spectators! All had more or less their own special favourite, and with so many tongues wagging, is it at all wonderful that the Rangers were talked into some little distinction. The three celebrated matches with the Vale produces fellow-feeling – something akin to that awakened by the “wee drappie o’t” between Tam O’ Shanter and Souter Johnnie, and we are all supposed to know how
“Tam l’oed him like a very brither
Wha had been drunk for weeks thegither.”
A similarly britherly feeling was the result of the three less noted ties; indeed, years after some of the Rangers expressed their regret that the Rovers – surely Rangers and Rovers are brithers – did not more successfully climb the ladder of fame.

But in these early days it was the Star of Leven that mainly administered humble pie. The results of matches with them were certainly not disheartening. Victory to the extent of a goal leaves no great margin for cowering. Nor could the Star of Leven players fail to be impressed by the pluck and enthusiasm of men who turned out to play their conquerors three men short. At all events such manly bearing sufficed to gain the good graces of the people of Alexandria, where the event occurred. This match gives the utmost scope for the utmost judicial ingenuity. Beaten by four goals, shall we put down one to each absentee and credit the fourth to the superior merits of the Star of Leven?

But what matters it? Another season’s play had considerably improved the playing capabilities of the team. Such Clubs as the Star of Leven, Rovers, Vale of Leven Rovers, Oxford, Callander, Havelock, and Clyde were completely outrun in the race for fame. No place in the team was regarded as sacredly the property or right of any individual member. To have played from the first day of the Club’s existence in a certain place constituted no legitimate title. Right of play was the sole title to a place in the team. No doubt when a player was dispossessed there was some murmuring about the Club being a Garelochead institution; a stand, too being made on the somewhat taking contention that the Club was intended more for fun than fame. All such grumbling was, however, of no avail. Undoubtedly the Garelochead men formed the very backbone of the team. If all the players from that not very extensive district, then playing various Clubs in the city, had only possessed in a little more perfection and virtues of patriotism and clannishness, Garelochead, as represented by Rangers, might have held its own against all of Glasgow. Certainly Vallance, Campbell, and McNeil are classic names in the world of football, and in the Rangers’ Football Club at the time we speak of, and here were no less than two Vallances, three McNeils, and three Campbells all playing with the first team. Whether from early training or exceptionally favouring conditions, great natural ability in football must be concerned to the Garelochead contingent. Upon no other hypothesis can we explain the astounding celerity with which the Rangers shook of their early rivals and forged their way ahead. Nor should the fact be overlooked that seven or eight brilliant players bound together either by ties , long-standing friendship, or the dearly remembered incidents of boyhood’s years, formed an element of steadiness and stability entirely wanting in their competitors. Not much danger of a Club possessing such a solid element, suffering greatly from the “drafting system,” exclaims some genuine lover of native merit. No certainly not. It was, however, an experience, and one too, whilst it lasted, of a most nasty and depressing character. About this time Moses McNeil was, if anything, the choice forward in the team. His dashing runs and all-round vigorous play, combined with practically unlimited staying power, had attracted the notice of the Queen’s Park. Moses was coaxed into joining the black and white.

The runs of the brothers McNeil were not unnoticed in the reports of the only match or matches Moses played in such company – but friendship, home and beauty brought him back to his first love, and for the best. For could any harvest of badges equal the pleasure of playing with the majority of his kindred and so many of his early associates, or compensate him for the just pride he must now feel on contributing by his admirable play to the unlimited success of a Club generally regarded as first amongst equals, or second to none. So far as we are aware, the Queen’s Park, never noted for their respect for the tenth commandment, coquetted no more with the loyalty of Rangers. Rumour has it, however, that languishing glances were cast at Tom, but never came the courage to speak. Bringing the history of the Club in this particular up to date, it is to be noted that, save from the exigencies of life, no other Club has benefited by any renegade – G.A., isn’t that a strong word? – from the Rangers. True it is, some old members who rendered right yeomen service to the Club both before and after the days of its maturity, and whose names are regarded with the utmost respect, and their services with the utmost gratitude, sent in their resignation on losing their places in the first eleven. Suffice it to say, they succumbed to the use and wont of the Club – the first places to the first players – their only complaint, tersely expressed, being that as old veterans, in their case use and wont, having, we charitably supposed, been cultivated as a fine art from the day they achieved their places on the same principle, might be made to appear in the guise of an angel or some other incarnation more loveable than a post-card, or a decision arrived at only three days or week before some big match at some meeting of the team, themselves being present. Fair play, we do not hesitate to say, was meted out to old and young with the qualifications common to all sublunary affairs. Alas, perfection is not to be obtained here below either in playing or judging of it. Let us hope it will be different in regions of purity, beauty, and light.

Although the thought of Moses leaving the Club altogether had at the time a most depressing influence, yet when he again took his place amongst the light blues all felt as though they had received a personal compliment. Convinced that little separated the best from the worst, they eagerly looked forward to matching the hitherto undefeated Queen’s Park, and were even then exhibiting their eagerness for the fray. The secretary had hard work to make the pen keep pace with the ingenious suggestions of the dribblers. Blandishments were, however, to no avail. The Queen’s Park would not have been happy – so they replied – to play the Rangers had they had ground. With characteristic magnanimity, however, they made proposals about playing the light blues with the second eleven. Need we say that the club, now having celebrated famous victories over all secondary institutions, indignantly rejected the offer – surely “Our Boys” will not be claimed as Queen’s Park “chicks.” Yet they felt that “want of ground” was it, but without success. When we remember nervousness and anxiety with which members regarded the enterprise of their committee, we confess that the probabilities were reduced to zero.

However, a great epoch in the Club’s history was reached when the Association was joined for the season 1874-1875. It is a difficult task to turn a nice period with such materials as T. Vallance and P. McNeil, backs; W. McBeath and W. McNeil, half-backs; goal, J. Yule; and forwards, D. Gibb and J. Campbell on the left; M. McNeil and P. Campbell opposite; with G. Phillips and J. Watson in the centre. Gratitude necessitated the attempt, however, as to these players the early achievements of the Club are due. The first cup with the Dumbarton ended not disastrously but unfortunately. A draw was the result of a first meeting on the Green, and a draw ought to have been registered as the result of the second encounter in Dumbarton. Although the decision of one goal was against the Rangers, we must be allowed to state that the balance of probability rests with our “ought.” The spectators were equally divided even in Dumbarton as to the ball going over or under the bar. Not so with the umpires and referee. We merely mention that two out of the trio were Dumbarton men, and the decision went against the Rangers. If anything dishonourable was enacted, we freely forgive them. We are not oblivious to the fact that as enthusiasm increases, morality declines, and a man’s responsibility is not in the inverse ratio to his morality. Certainly enthusiasm was then at an awful pitch, and to any reflecting spectator no career seemed so admirably calculated for the production of a first-rate liar as that of umpire or referee with the second-rate teams.

The Rangers were now noted as a coming Club. The friendly matches of this season did not as yet, much to their chagrin, include fixtures with the four great institutions. “Want of ground” was still the ostensible excuse. The committee determined, at all hazards, to obviate this barrier to their progress, and so, despite the not very encouraging attitude of the majority of the members, Burnbank was secured for the season 1875-1876.

The cup ties were of course the events. This year is noteworthy in their history as that in which they reached the second round of the cups, and had matches with the big Clubs. The Vale was the first of the lot to favour Rangers with their presence. Burnbank was opened by them, and the match resulted in a draw – one goal each. The Clydesdale next smiled upon “Our Boys,” and the brilliant team who tied three times with the Queen’s for the cup had also to be content with a like result. The Rangers could no longer be ignored even by the invincibles. The matches with the Vale and Clydesdale had impressed them but they met on Hampden Park, where victory declared itself for Queen’s by two goals. The match was declared to be one of the finest ever played. There was no rough play or any attempt at charging, save between Weir and T. Vallance. The latter made his mark with spectators in this encounter, the Prince of Dribblers being completely checkmated by his brilliant play. The celebrated shoulder was a weak instrument against Tom’s length of leg, yet both were considered the best men on the field. The cup tie of this year with 3rd L.R.V. was won, and lost through a petty informality. The game was played in Cathkin Park and resulted in a win for the Rangers by one goal to nothing. Unfortunately the winners once kicked off the ball instead of their opponents, and, on protest by Third, this slight plea was maintained, the match having to be played again. On the occasion J. Hunter, a tall powerful back, seeing the ball in front of the Rangers’ citadel, crowded his men round it, and he himself opening out his arms was mainly instrumental in pushing Rangers and ball through the goal. No wonder the vanquished received the sobriquet “Our Boys”.

Next season saw them in for the final, pitted against the Vale. They did not manage to secure the cup, but if it takes three matches to decide the merits of contending teams, surely the line of demarcation must be a very fine one indeed. After these celebrated matches Kinning Park (to which the Rangers had removed some months before they were played) was generally regarded as the headquarters of a Club second to none as an exponent of football.

In our preface we took occasion to say that from the position then achieved there had been no backsliding. In their early years the Queen’s Park had hurt their feelings a little by offering to play them with the second eleven. But it was reserved for the Dumbarton in 1881 to hint that the Rangers had fallen so low that they (the Dumbarton) did not any longer intend to pay the usual and customary reverence characteristic of the dealings of one big Club with another. One lone success over Rangers in the cup tie of that year had begotten unheard-of ideas of their own ability in football. But is it not written “the proud in heart shall have a fall”? In their insane bumptiousness they sent up their second eleven instead of the first as per arrangement, to play the first eleven of Rangers. Those who doubt this statement can consult the public prints, in which their indiscreet secretary blatantly aired the opinion that the Dumbarton’s second eleven would give the light blues as much as they could take – that is, if they had been allowed to play. For the arrival of the second Dumbarton at Kinning Park, when the first was expected was truly the greatest surprise ever the Rangers experienced at football. It caused them some loss, coupled with great inconvenience. But they maintained their dignity, the match being played with mixed teams. The Rangers determined to avenge the only insult of the kind they had ever received; the opportunity arriving some months after in the charity ties. The Dumbarton altered their opinion of the Rangers’ powers and on this occasion came up full strength. The first eleven of the latter Club were on the field, as may be readily supposed, eager for the fray. The game was not two minutes old before the Rangers scored, nor had eight minutes elapsed without showing two goals in favour of the same Club. At the conclusion of the game they were credited with no less than eight goals altogether. The Dumbarton failed to score. At that period of the game when the Rangers had secured five or six goals an incident occurred which forcibly illustrated the relations of the contending Clubs. “How many goals is that?” Struthers was asked by one of his opponents. “Either five or six – the fact is, I have lost count.” “Oh, then, you need not play up so very hard,” said the dispirited one, “the match is yours, sure enough.” Answered the artistic dribbler, “Do you remember sending up the second eleven? If not, at least we do.” Never in the history of Scottish football was a moral so forcibly pointed. The play of the Rangers in the match referred to recalled to the recollection of old members the features of their style in the three famous matches with the Vale.

The first team of the Rangers Football Club has at all times been composed of standard players. As such we would consider, for instance, the majority of their team on joining the Association, nor need remind our readers that some as T. Vallance, G Gillespie, H. McIntyre, J. Drinnan, P. Campbell, M. McNeil, D. Hill, W. Struthers have achieved a higher place. In the team for 1881-82 are some younger players – A. Vallance, J. McIntyre, A. Steel, W. Inglis and W. Pringle – who, if they persevere, will undoubtedly attain like honours.

The Club itself is a steadily-going institution. None owes less to fortune or beneficent providence. Victory begets no undue elation, nor does defeat in the least disturb them from the even tenor of their way. Although they have never yet held the Association Cup, there is no use of disguising the fact that they (and not they only) honestly believe themselves to have won the Charity Cup. In holding this very decided opinion they do not asperse the honesty of purpose of either umpire or referee. They contend for the fact –
“The chiel that winna ding,
And daurna be disputed,”
knowing well that whilst a decision must be arrived at, the fact remains unaltered, perhaps unascertained. “Read me anything but history,” said Horace Walpole, “for that must be false.” And should anyone estimate the position the Rangers have occupied in Scottish football during the last five years without having seen the great matches, and without more than an intimate knowledge of the points by which victory was decided, his estimate will be incorrect, his opinion worse than valueless. Shall the history of Scottish football be written according to the decisions of three men, dispensing with all those tests which the enlightened historian applies for the detection of truth in other mundane matters? Certainly not. For instance, impartial reader, imagine the historian present at the charity tie between the Rangers and Queen’s Park played at on Kinning Park at the end of season 1879-80. Victory has been secured by the Queen’s Park during a lull in the play consequent upon the belief of the Rangers that the ball had crossed the line by no less than a yard. The three officials are called into requisition and a decision demanded – a decision that will settle the destination of the cup and official history. But two of the gentlemen are far distant from the scene of the dispute, and the other not particularly near. The impartial historian would quietly ignore the trio and seek the evidence of more trustworthy witnesses, shaping his narrative accordingly. Were the at least more trustworthy history of Scottish football written in this manner, the position of the Rangers during the last five years would be more correctly estimated than is estimated than is possible from the public prints or the official dictum. Truly it is not without reason that the celebrated statesman claimed, “Read me anything but history, for that must be false.”

[The above history of the Rangers has been taken from the annual published by Mr. Livingstone during his term in office as secretary of the Association. The article is, we believe, from the pen of Mr. W. Dunlop, better known as “Daddy,” and the effusion does him the utmost credit. We might recapitulate the doings of the “Light Blues” for the last six years, but we think it needless. Everyone who is anyone in the football world is conversant with the history of the Club for the period we mention. We have brought the early days of the Club within the comprehension of everyone; the remainder should be as an open book to them.]

My Take

It’s a sorry mess. It really is. It was obvious to anyone who watched the eventual mud-slinging and point scoring pre-AGM that when the Murray-led group of requisitioners’ flawed strategy inevitably failed, it wouldn’t be the end of the hostilities. Many called it at the time. As it happened, there has been only a temporary reprieve. Despite a relatively fresh board with most, if not all, of the problem personalities removed, the same anti-Board stance is still apparent. On the other side, despite obvious failures of past Board members they’ve backed, the same blind loyalty is shown on all issues to current ones. I hate to break it to you, guys, but your confrontational approaches are both equally problematic.

 

Graham Wallace, in my opinion, used language at the AGM which could be deemed misleading. I don’t believe he broke any laws, and I believe the complaint made is just another part of the well-orchestrated (on both sides, it seems) PR war which has recently recommenced. Any time I’ve witnessed Wallace speak, he’s always struck me as a man who is very deliberate in his choice of words. He never seems backed into a corner, and is almost politician-like in his choice of words, the statement in question being a fine example;

“[there is] sufficient cash in the business to fund the ongoing needs of the club in the near term”

Note the use of the word “near”. Near term. Not the well-defined short term, medium term or long term; near term. That sounds deliberately ambiguous to me, and it can certainly be argued that near term is a period which covers the next month. Misleading? Probably. Illegal? No.

 

We then move on to the other stupid and avoidable error of Wallace in his 120 day review; his attempt to lay the entire blame of the merchant acquirer demanding security at the door of fans.

  • Firstly, it was stupid; How can a CEO have the gall to make such statements when the business he presides over has lost £17.7m in 18 months of reporting? How short-sighted can he be? It was blindingly obvious that was a major factor in the merchant acquirer’s demands. Even if the ST trust idea did have an effect, a provably-strong business in financial terms would be able to guarantee the season tickets to counter any demands. And if you want to go beyond that and find one of the many other factors which would also play a part you could mention secured loans and a director requiring security on his loan as issues for the merchant acquirer to worry about
  • Secondly, it was misleading – again; yet another attempt to smear in this PR power-play
  • Thirdly, it was disappointing; I was pleased with the content of the rest of the review. Despite the fact that some of it might have been obvious and it might not have really needed 120 days to produce it, it was still a massive positive (historic scandals, aside, of course). It showed that some thinking on where we should be in 3 years time had finally occurred at executive level for the first time in over 20 years. Whilst that content is still something to be positive about, it’s disappointing that it’s been sullied slightly by this point.

Next we have the news that Board, just prior to the release of the review, decides to hire another PR spin doctor. No Chief Scout and we need to make people redundant, but there’s money to pay unsavoury guys like him? Ironically, a PR disaster just prior to the review being released and probably casts as much doubt on its content as anything else.

Despite all this, I’m still left with the indelible opinion that we’re better off with Wallace than without. Even in the worst case scenario that the Board actually were the worst (or best?) criminals in British history (or second worst after the last Board, I don’t know – hard to keep up), Wallace still has a reputation to protect and that brings some degree of comfort to me, even if it doesn’t mean he’ll always work in the interests of fans. The worry for me would be if Wallace is forced out, will you get anyone in after him who has a work reputation to protect? I highly doubt it. Sandy Easdale CEO here we come!

 

I am of the opinion that Wallace, with the correct non-executive board and answering to the correct shareholding structure would be a fine CEO. This all comes back to the refusal to accept what the actual problem is among sections of our support. The problem is ownership. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe for a second our non-executive Board is even approaching strong, I just don’t believe that the incessant stance of seeking their removal will alter anything until fans are in a position to influence who takes their place. We often complain about the lack of strategy and long-term thinking in taking the Club forward, perhaps a wee look in the mirror is in order for our fan base.

 

I think the aim of gaining security over Ibrox for fans is admirable. It is something I wholeheartedly agree with, and it is something that I know fans could achieve long-term by working towards gaining greater influence and cooperation with the Club. It cannot be achieved without the Club’s support, so the militant approach to it that we’re currently seeing is flawed and actually makes it less and less achievable every day the confrontation continues. As mentioned above, there have been misleading remarks made by Wallace and the Board and fans have every right to feel aggrieved by them, but it really boils down to what your actual aim is. Given the choice, would the Union of Fans want to achieve security or removal of the Board? I’m not sure working towards both can work.

 

There are ways in which it can be structured to bring significant financial benefits to the Club too as well as gaining fans security and peace of mind and even potentially furthering fan ownership at the same time, all it requires is a more cooperative effort from all sides. Nobody is being asked to abandon their position, only that they find the best means of achieving it.

 

As for Dave King? I find it difficult not to be critical of him as things stand. I would love to see him invest and be part of taking the Club forward, but I just can’t help but find inconsistencies from him and those driving his message.

  • Firstly, there’s his statement that the Board are asking for blind faith. This is followed up by a statement that he would invest £30m. The question I have is why asking fans to believe that isn’t blind faith?
  • Secondly, there’s his belief he can get other like-minded wealthy Rangers fans to invest £20m. Why didn’t he persuade these same people to put up £5.5m to buy the Club?
  • Following this up is the accusation that the Board’s review is full of vague promises and lacking in any detail as to how the Board will achieve their proposal. A statement made by the Union of Fans who haven’t offered the same level of criticism of King’s incredibly vague “challenge Celtic” and “treble the wage bill” plan.
  • There’s the criticism of the timing of the review in that it didn’t offer enough time for auto-renewals, whilst promoting a Trust which details of have still not been produced.

Lots of the criticisms were valid, some weren’t, but the same demands must be placed upon all parties. Practice what you preach.

 

As for whether to renew your season ticket or not? That’s entirely your choice. Don’t be pressured by anyone, do what is right for you. Don’t let anyone tell you that not buying one shows a lack of loyalty (I’m talking about you, Mr Easdale) and don’t let anyone tell you that buying a season ticket is “lining the Spivs’ pockets” – do your own thing. I know people who are renewing and I know people who aren’t; they all decided for themselves.

 

It’s sure to be a long and testing Summer, one which I hope we end on a stronger foot, but next season is one to look forward to; the year of the Sandy Jardine Championship – battled out, I’m sure, between his two most beloved clubs and the two clubs who hold him dearest. It’s a year the great man himself would have enjoyed.

The Problem/The Solution

The Board lied. They don’t operate the Club I love in the manner I think it should operate. The review should have been published ahead of renewals.

 

I agree with all three of those points. I don’t, however, see what Dave King’s “solution” to this problem fixes.

 

Rangers find themselves in a position almost identical to all clubs who suffer an insolvency event. We became a debt-free business, available on the cheap, with large revenue streams generated by a very loyal customer base. When Charles Green swooped in to take over – after repeated failings from so-called Rangers men, I might add – we accepted this fact. The second us, as fans, resigned ourselves to the fact that guys like Charles Green and institutions were free to make money so long as we made it back to the top was the second we lost our right to be continually outraged when the Club don’t operate in a manner that aligns with our views.

 

It’s a harsh realisation, but one I think most of us seem to ignore. The equation is simple; ownership = influence. Rangers International Football Club plc’s ownership structure is as follows; a disjointed-disorganised-12% fans 88% institutions/funds/investment vehicles. That 88% are in it to make money, they don’t have identical investment strategies, but they’re not too dissimilar. They don’t give a shit whether Ally McCoist is playing an injured Jon Daly up front as a lone striker. They don’t care that we have no scouts. They care not one jot about the long-term sustainability of the football club. They want short to medium term increases in the share price, at which point they want to sell up and get out. It is entirely their right to make the company operate in this manner. It is entirely on each and every single one of us that this happened, and it is incumbent upon us to remedy it.

 

This is how all businesses operate. The Board run the business in the manner the shareholders who appointed them wish it to be run. The Board are not the issue; shareholders are the issue. There is only one way to change this; buy shares.

 

It is up to fans to restore balance to our shareholding. If we want the Club to operate sustainably – not just with short-term goals, but with long-term goals too – then we are the solution. The only solution. If you are a fan who already owns shares, get together with other shareholders and form a Shareholders Association. If you aren’t; get involved with Rangers First or Buy Rangers – whatever floats your boat.

 

I don’t wish to go back over the whys and why nots of the Season Ticket Trust as a concept, having already done so. I would, however, like to ask how this idea fixes the issue? How does it guarantee that the Club start to operate a sustainable business model? How does it make sure the Board are thinking about more than the share price when considering company performance? How does it make sure they are focused on the long-term success of the football club?

 

(It doesn’t.)

 

The matter is simple, I really can’t reiterate this enough. A board works on behalf of shareholders. If the vast majority of those shareholders are focused on short to medium term profits on shares, then the company will operate with that in mind. If fans can organise themselves and readdress that balance, things will quickly improve. Until we do, the Club will continue to operate on a game-to-game basis with absolutely no foresight.

 

In short; Problem = Ownership / Solution = Ownership

The Ever-hastening Decline of Tradition and Standards

There is no escape, the football club we love is broken and there is currently nobody around willing or able to fix it.

 

We awake this morning to news that the team went back to Ibrox for a “party” after another embarrassing performance and humiliating defeat. I can’t help but feel that the Club founded by the Gallant Pioneers and built by Struth is dormant. The traditions, standards and virtues exuded since our inception are asleep, replaced by mediocrity, carelessness and down-right negligence.

 

I watched as our manager interviewed the last true Ranger at our great club , Sandy Jardine, just a few days ago and whilst gushing with pride that the Club referred to by this integrous man was Rangers, I was reminded of that interview after yesterday’s match and couldn’t help but feel sadness and anger. The Club I supported yesterday was Rangers, but the team on the park and management team in the dugout did not act or perform like Rangers. They could have turned up in green and white hoops yesterday and it would have felt equally foreign.

 

The ringing question I have today is why our team have abandoned the very basic principles entailed in being a Ranger? I saw no desire. I saw no belief. I saw no swagger. I saw three guys standing in the “technical” area with their arms folded waiting until the 60 minute mark to make the inevitable and obvious substitution. I saw a team who turned up trying not to lose, and in the process failing to win. I saw no indication that our manager will ever be able to do it at a higher stage. I saw no attempt to rectify, only subsequent belittlement of the scale of underachievement, and ultimately, I, along with everyone watching, saw that our club needs meaningful change to prevent further decline.

Police Scotland – Discriminatory

discrimination

 

1.

the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people

 

Police Scotland today released their statement outlining their prohibitions. Received by an angry and almost expectant fan base, it is just one further display of the complete contempt shown towards football fans in this country.

 

I appreciate the need for sensible policing and the desire for as little disruption across the city as possible, but how do Police Scotland manage it when Hibs play Hearts, or when Scotland’s rugby team and bands play at Murrayfield? Couldn’t we have arrived at a sensible compromise by allowing drinking only in easily-policed, designated areas? Why are all football fans immediately prejudged as alcoholic criminals with no control over themselves?

 

Football is the country’s national sport. Is it a coincidence that crowds are plummeting when the authorities in this country are strangling the enjoyment out of the game? Furthermore, why are our clubs allowing it to happen unchallenged? When will they grow a backbone and stand up to the unjust treatment regularly doled out to those of us who keep the game in this country breathing (and pump MILLIONS into local economies at the same time)?

 

The hypocrisy in it all is that not only can Police Scotland dictate whether us, the fans, are allowed to enjoy ourselves, but they’re handsomely paid for it too all whilst discriminating against people purely by the fact they happen to attend a football match instead of, for example, rugby.

 

Even their statement released earlier stank of prejudice.

“Keeping people safe and discouraging criminal activity will be the focus of Police Scotland’s operation at Sunday’s Cup Final between Raith Rovers and Rangers.

Anyone know why banning drink only discourages criminal activity at the Ramsden’s Cup final? No? Certainly a puzzler for me too. These aren’t the only signs of their discrimination of football fans either, we have the rather bizarre Offensive Behaviour at Football (and Threatening Communications) Act. Without delving too far into the ridiculousness of a bill that stipulates being “offensive” is a crime (a bill that offends me, ironically enough), it is the very fact that it only applies to football fans which is astounding. Take a step back for a moment and consider the stupidity of it.

 

Hypothetical scenario;

  • Weekend 1 – A man goes to a Scotland rugby match at Murrayfield. Before the match he has a drink with his mates in the surrounding area of the stadium, and during the match he has a drink too. Whilst in there, he sings songs which could be deemed “offensive”. He goes home happy (after seeing Scotland almost score a try in a one-sided arse-kicking);
  • Weekend 2 – The same man goes to a gig at Murrayfield. Before the gig he has a drink with his mates in the surrounding areas of the stadium, and he has a drink in the stadium throughout the gig. Whilst in there he and his mates sing some songs which could be deemed offensive before the band come on. He goes home happy;
  • Weekend 3 – The same guy has tickets to see Rangers in the Ramsden’s Cup final. He is told there is a city-wide drink ban in effect. He is told his supporters’ bus will almost certainly be spot-checked. He is told he will be searched and sniffed by dogs to make sure he isn’t taking flares or smoke bombs in with him. He goes in, sings the same song he previously sang at the gig and at the rugby match. He gets lifted and sentenced to 6 months in prison.

A combination of the laws and policing in this country allows the above scenario to be a fairly realistic possibility. That is absolutely sickening.

 

As a Rangers fan, I find it absolutely abhorrent that my club has done nothing to highlight these injustices.

Season Ticket Trust

Let me start by outlining my position on the trust before explaining why. I am not in favour of brinkmanship, especially with the Club’s health and future at stake. I don’t believe the season ticket trust will work, because I believe the premise is flawed. It has been promoted as fans using their leverage/influence; the reality is, as I will hopefully demonstrate, that the board and owners have the leverage. They control the assets and not one of them look upon the Club with the affection fans do – in a stand-off such as this, that affection is a weakness.

The first question I have, which has to be answered before all else is this; what happens in the event the Club refuses the terms? Or, to put it another way, is it a boycott?

No matter which answer it is, there’s an issue.

Answer 1 – boycott.

This, as confirmed by the accounts, will lead to secured borrowing over Ibrox and/or Auchenhowie, thus defeating the entire point of the trust. The rebuttal to this point I’ve seen so far is “why wouldn’t they agree to security for fans if they’re willing to give security to a lender?”.

It’s a fair question, but surely the people interested in the trust are doing so because they don’t trust the board in the first instance? They want security for the fans so that the stadium can’t be sold or money borrowed against it, so if that is your stance, why would you trust the current board to act in the interests of anyone other than the controlling shareholders? Aren’t you giving a board, who you already don’t trust, an excuse to do the thing that you’re trying to prevent from happening? Isn’t that self-defeating?

Answer 2 – no boycott.

This is an admission that in any case the board will receive the money, thus there is no leverage at all to cede to the trust’s demands.

Let’s go back to answer one again.

If it is a boycott, and the season ticket trust gets, for example, 3,000 fans to take part. Let’s assume the Club ignore it. Don’t interact with it and certainly don’t concede to it. Do those 3,000 fans have a mechanism to get their money back? If they do, how do the proposers of the trust plan to;

  • Cover the insurance costs, and;

  • Cover the legal/professional fees associated with carrying out an activity regulated by the Financial Services and Markets Act

If they don’t have that mechanism, then fans are obviously putting their money at risk.

On the security itself, which organisation will actually be assigned the security? The Association? The Assembly? The Rangers Supporters Trust? The season ticket trust itself, and if so, how? Or will the Union of Fans formalise their structure?

The premise of the Trust, it seems, is that they hope to make sure that Ibrox & Auchenhowie can’t be sold or used as security for other loans. In the very recent accounts, our fixed assets were worth over £43m. In theory, that means you can secure loans against the value of those assets. Gate receipts in 12/13 totalled £13.224m – and that figure also includes matchday tickets. Actual season ticket income would probably account for around £8m of that figure, but for the purpose of this demonstration, it’s not important.

Let’s assume that £13m is only season ticket income. If that £13m is secured against assets, in theory you can still borrow another £30m against the Club’s assets – so how does the security prevent the board from securing other loans against Ibrox?

In wrapping up, here are a list of other issues facing the trust;

  • Who will pay the cost of the trust?

    • Legal fees will be significant, with a trust covering both commercial and trust law in-depth

    • Escrow fees

    • I have been informed it would cost in the region of £150k

  • How will it deal with VAT?

  • How will it deal with FCA rules on becoming a bank?

  • How will it deal with credit card payments?

  • Consumer credit act?

  • Corporation tax?

Less legal questions;

  • How do I keep my seat?

  • Who is actually leading it?

  • Who are the trustees? Who am I trusting with my money?

  • Why is Dave King no longer involved?

There are other questions too, I’m sure, but I think I’ve listed enough to make my point. It might well be that a revolutionary structure is unveiled that answers all of my questions, but so far I haven’t seen a convincing answer to the first question I listed let alone the ones which you have to scratch below the surface to see.