Just what will it take to stir the majority from their Apathy ?

Last updated : 01 February 2010 By sccgers




I found the reaction to the Ibrox banner protest extremely interesting. A surprising amount of supporters that I have spoken to seem unwilling to and I quote 'Rock the boat as it does the team on the park no favours', whilst I reply that the exact opposite is actually being tried here, my argument seems to cut no ice. 'Aye, but its not the banks fault is it, its Murray who is to blame', really? Its seems that six months ago these very same people were reluctant to blame Sir David Murray, insisting that elements of business, amongst other things, had factored against him.

Whilst I converse with fellow supporters, both in person and our website, it seems quite clear to me that everyone seems to be waiting on the wings for news and leadership, naturally I may add. Yet when people (with only the best interests of the club at heart, may I add) do try to offer take leadership and guidance, they are only to quickly shot down because of something trivial. 'He doesn't speak for me' for me is one of the classic counter arguments heard in every discussion, whilst at the very same time 'I wish we could get a few players in soon' is always a common complaint. Funnily, that person that 'doesn't speak for you' is working to ensure that our future means many new signings will always be available to the club.

Recently I have been accused of being manipulated by a consortium trying to take over at Rangers, even accused of being an agent sent out to scaremonger fans into buying into the takeover bid. I found that accusation one of the most obscure and unrealistic I have ever encountered. Rangers are in one great big mess, banks pulling strings at every level of our club but apparently wanting that stranglehold to be released is an alien concept. Of course I want Rangers to be bought over, of course I want the debt to be clear and the banks influence over our club to be over. Even dealing out with things I have put on our board which have not been 'actually confirmed' by Rangers in the Media, lets look at exactly what the banks are doing:

- We are in a position where contract offers are still to be ratified by the people running the club, remember Walters comments on the Boyd contract ?

- We are also in a position where we have not paid one penny for a single signing in the last 18 months, yet we were told in a situation such as an 'injury crisis' funding would be made available - Isn't that what we are going through now ?

- We have been unable to maintain proper levels of due care to our once proud stadium, to the point where even the big screens have been unable to be fixed.

- A plan to replace the management team with a cheaper alternative was only blocked after intense Media coverage by the press and thankfully pressure by those left inside Ibrox still fighting for Rangers.

- The Chairman (feelings aside on this particular person) has been forced out of the door.

That above is all reported 'fact' but yet apparently trying to stand up against this running of the club is 'not the Rangers way' or 'not doing any favours to the team on the fact'. In response I would suggest that it is doing exactly the opposite.

Yet even with the reported facts above being readily available we seem all too keen on trying to rip holes in each others efforts to actually do something.

Whilst the bank are perfectly entitled to ask for their debts to be returned to them there is a certain way to go about them. Rangers are not a business and no matter how much downsizing they intend to do that fact will never be changed. You can not run Rangers under the business models they have set out. For example, leagues must be won to achieve valuable prize money in European competition. Being unable to sign players or offer management or even the playing squad no new contracts, which was largely the case until November last year, is hardly going to help that cause is it?

Lets not forget here, the bank did indeed allow Rangers to run up these debts and they allowed overdrafts to spiral out of control. Where exactly were they when these business plans were being presented? They bought into it and now they are acting like some sort of school boy bully in an attempt to take it back. Put Simply, when a random Joe Bloggs goes to the bank for Mortgage advice they are not allowed to borrow out with their means, so why exactly were Rangers?

Most of our support would have no sympathy for a fellow bear if they leant £200 to an unreliable family member only to be told they couldn't pay it back. Yes it is a world of difference to the position the bank find their selves in now with Rangers but the principle remains the same. That's why I can't help but feel the sympathy towards the bank within some of our support is somewhat misplaced, the bank are in no way at all the innocent party in all this.

That brings us along nicely to Mr Donald Muir, the 'apparent' Rangers fan. Appointed onto the board by David Murray when surely even a blind man can see this was forced upon him by a bank desperate to claw back their losses. Whilst Mr Muir may only be 'doing his job' the same principles above are very relevant to his role. He is bossed and governed by the bank with guidelines set out to him. While many are quick to criticise Martin Bain and Walter Smith for apparently not coming out and standing up to the bank which makes them 'not doing there level best as Rangers men' why does the same rules not apply to Mr Donald Muir?

As far as I can see, surely Mr Muir as such a 'Rangers Man' would want to be able to offer the club the very best and surely that involves being able to sign players, offer new contracts and even bloody fix the big screens? Surely we should also expect him to stand up to the bank, apparently he is a 'Rangers Man' so what is the difference? I mean surely the vast majority of support can't have one rule for one and not the other? Surely Mr Donald Muir would be going to the bank and working as hard as he can to ensure the bank are listening to the consortium to try and get the best deal for Rangers? The facts point to the exact opposite, so I can't help but wonder why there is a constant defence for the job he is doing. Why exactly do we seem intent on criticising everyone but the exact people who deserve it?

People will tend to believe Rangers when they say that no banners were stopped from Ibrox on Saturday and that they never advised against this at all. The truth is it could not be further from the truth. Being close to exactly what went last weekend I can tell you that the organiser went to Strathclyde Police to outline the exact plans to the Match Commander for this particular Match, who was a Mr Robin Howe. In Discussion with Police, Fire certificates were offered and full details of exactly what was planned was passed. The Police ratified that plan and had no objections, indeed the organiser was even told 'everyone has the right to a peaceful protest'. Rangers contacted the Police and the protest was to be denied access. When contacting Rangers for clarification when pushed, the organiser was told it had come directly from Mr Muir himself. If this is not to be believed, why did Stewards try to take the banner unveiled in the Broomloan stand from the support? Why when the Police were approached did they refuse to get involved? But the most intriguing question, certainly to me is; Just what did Mr Muir have against the questioning of his role at Rangers and what exactly was he so scared of being asked? Why did he feel the need to go to these lengths to avoid these questions being asked of Lloyds bank and his role at Rangers? Its something that we should not at least explore in quiet moments we find ourselves in.

The consortiums attempted takeover of our club has also hit certain criticism from our support because they have not revealed their true Identity. Never mind the fact they are trying to help our club from some of its darkest waters some seem to be to quick to criticise them. They are entrusted businessmen who are trying to make a business deal, why exactly would they choose to reveal their identity? Or just perhaps they have a strategy? Perhaps when they put in another bid and then reveal their identity?

Should we not be at least happy they are trying to buy the club instead of trying to pick tiny holes in it? Instead of being quick to condemn this takeover as it does not involve the fans, why not get out there and do something about it so that when the takeover does go ahead the supporters voice can be heard? Why not get out there and appeal to the consortium to come forward and share there plans with the support so that we can all get behind the bid? Why does it seem that the support are waiting round for everyone else to do it for them?

There is nothing stopping any supporter from voicing their concerns and everyone can do so. The ordinary punter seems to be so quick to be negative yet unwilling to actually get out there and fix the problems for ourselves. We should all be pulling in the same direction yet the we could not be more divided it seems. The majority seem to be all to willing to sit back and wait for that knight and shining armour without actually doing anything to help the situation. If you don't agree with actions of somebody speak to them about it or try too do it yourself, your voice can be heard and united we can be the biggest voice and weapon for our club in its time of need.

We can't sign players and we can't even fix the bloody big screens, a couple of weeks ago we couldn't even fill a bench of 7 players. The Manager has told us all exactly what is going and the facts are all there to see.

So the big questions remains;

Just when will we the support awake from our apathy, stop fighting amongst ourselves and help the club in its time of need?