It's good to Talk - Sir David and the concerned supporters.

Last updated : 27 January 2009 By Banjobear
It's good to talk

In an age where communication modes are aplenty, it's apparent to me that there is no substitute for face to face discussion and debate.

Of course, technology has advanced and people make great use of texts, emails, the internet, video conferencing, phone ins etc: however these modes all rely on articulation and 'honest' perception. One party can always cut the other off, close a thread or introduce prominent public figures, if well enough connected, to add weight to almost any argument.

Any good salesperson will tell you that you have two ears and one mouth, use them in proportion. Ask clients about their needs and respond appropriately, don't rhyme off a load of benefits which might not apply.

Any forward thinking manager/director doesn't implement change without getting the majority to believe in the rewards and/or longer term benefits. He/she will devise plans and presentations in order to get the mainstays to subscribe to the strategy being put forward. This manager/director, although having the final say, will be open to suggestion and will, genuinely, consider alternatives and/or compromise if deemed feasible.

I'm sure the two ideals above apply to personal relationships with spouses, offspring and parents etc as well as creditors, bank managers and other life influencers, the common theme being communication, particularly discussion aimed towards a mutually beneficial outcome.

A simplistic person, such as I, cannot fathom the furore that the 'We Deserve Better' campaign has caused. In my mind, the seventeen points the campaign cites are not, even remotely, unanswerable. In fact, in SDM's position, I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss each point with the fans, well providing I had confidence in my strategy.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once said "Divide and rule, a sound motto. Unite and lead, a better one". SDM has had this choice presented to him on more than one occasion; rather than taking the second option he consistently chooses the first. Why?

By choosing to discredit perfectly legitimate questions/issues through the media by belittlement, and furthermore using sycophants such as Walter Smith, David Weir and Mark Hateley et al to answer 'some' of the seventeen points, SDM has only achieved a widening of the chasm between himself, perhaps some players, and the concerned punter. I apologise if any comments attributed to any member of the playing staff, background staff and pundits really are their own opinions.

I think we all realise that SDM is with us for the foreseeable future; surely it makes sense to attempt to disassemble the present dichotomy and try to portray, albeit superficial, a degree of solidarity? After all SDM wants to relinquish ownership and a proportion of the Rangers support concur with his wishes. Why not cut out the middleman (the media) and talk?

SDM has, over the years, confounded many with his contradictory remarks "We'll invest in the team" to "We have to sell", "If we don't sell it'll be bad for Rangers" (paraphrase) to "Not selling won't have an impact" (paraphrase). Just tell us how it is, Sir David!

Despite the derogatory remarks from SDM and WS, there's a lot of intelligent, and need I say astute, Rangers supporters. These supporters have invested more than money into The Rangers -they've invested their hearts and being.

All we are asking for is our opinion to be considered. We care for The Rangers - in many cases The Rangers are all we care about: sad, maybe, but factual.

A quote from a FF poster has stuck with me for some time… "I love Rangers more than Rangers love me". I defy anyone to argue!

If SDM, WS, MB and the "it goes in cycles", "he brought us 9 in row" brigade are looking in, the answer is quite simple, answer the seventeen points… face to face.

I maintain that by addressing the seventeen points, SDM could yet regain/earn the trust of many of his most militant opposition (within the Rangers fraternity), whilst he has to remain at the helm, if only he does so with honesty. The best way for him to do so is face to face. If he was to follow the ideals in paragraphs 3 to 5, would he really be so far off the mark?

Face to face with whom? As SDM says, "the real fans"; no, not handpicked but those elected, regardless of views, a cross section. Debate will ultimately decide.

Yes, it's good to talk, but only in a two way conversation.

Discuss this article on our message board.