Before you attack your screen, I don't mean small-minded in the usual sense; I mean it regarding the way we collectively look at everything, from youth and competitions to Murray and Smith on the microscopic level while, for the most part, ignoring or failing to see the wider picture.
David Murray has dragged the club to a level that many Rangers fans find heartbreaking. We are in a position that no club should ever be in, never mind a national institution and record breaking club. Although there are certain slight mitigating circumstances, the blame lies firmly with erstwhile regime. The world's economic problems played a part in both Rangers' and Murray's rapid descent, but they served as little more than a catalyst, something that speeds up an already on-going process.
How was Murray able to effect the damaging policies that he did? The answer, in my mind, is an unpalatable one. We, the support, not only watched it happen, we facilitated and encouraged it. There are a group of people who had misgivings, there a small group who were scared by the way we were being run and although that group was beginning to expand towards 'the end', they were never more than a scorned fringe.
Until about two years ago I was particularly guilty of facilitating the downfall of Rangers. The 'voice' of the Internet supporter is often played down but in truth anyone with the ability to form an argument in a coherent manner and deliver it with a touch of passion and intelligence will find an audience, and a platform, and thus has the ability to shape the thoughts of others. How was I guilty of facilitating the downfall? Because like the overwhelming majority of our support I did not see the big picture.
So long as Rangers win, we are happy. That sounds like an idea that makes perfect sense. Rangers are a football club, we exist to win and surely our level can only be judged on results? The costs involved in winning are the problem. Under Advocaat we saw some fantastic players playing some fantastic football, we won leagues and cups left right and centre but never quite hit the heights in Europe. The result was a debt of some £80 million and nothing more than a good share of titles. McLeish followed Advocaat and spent pennies in comparison. He won a very commendable amount of trophies, more than comparable to the Dutchman's haul, and performed on occasion to a decent level in Europe.
Advocaat spent fortunes on players, some fantastic, others questionable. For every Reyna there was a Konterman, for every Gio there was a Flo. We, as a support, and I'm talking in a general sense, lapped it up without looking at the problems that could follow. We watched tens of millions being spent to win a trophy that one tenth the cash could have secured with ease. Ultimately Advocaat left us with Auchenhowie and a debt that was simply mind-boggling. McLeish achieved pretty much the same, arguably even more, and at a fraction of the cost. His achievements put Advocaat's tenure into perspective.
To blame Advocaat is unfair. He spent what he was given and the man who sanctioned it should have been spending that huge amount of money better, or not at all. However, Murray can correctly say he was simply delivering what the fans wanted. Not many of us would have been overly upset at the money being banded about in those days but ALL of us today wish that it had been used differently - to rebuild the club under a model that would have avoided all the problems we have today and been in a position to move forward with confidence in an ever more competitive manner abroad. Hindsight is great, of course, but the fact is that had Rangers fans looked at the wider picture, as a collective, Murray would have been forced to look at alternative methods of running the club to the obvious boom and bust we have seen.
The press have long been a topic that provokes widespread and heated debate on FollowFollow.com. There are unquestionably certain journalists who tread a very fine line between representing their readership and downright agenda driven lies. The noisy consensus on the message-board is ban them. It would take a crazy man to say that there are not individuals amongst the press that deserve at the very least a note to their editor explaining exactly why they will not be allowed the privileges afforded to honest journalists, the pre and post match perks of the pressman's badge. Simply banning, for example, Spiers is not going to solve the problems we face in the media. It is another example of looking at the small and ignoring the large. The people who give Spiers the space to write - the people who actually pay him to write - can simply send another hack in his place. The immediate nuisance would be gone but the source of the problem would remain, the immediate desire to punish would be satisfied but the longer term results could, and in all likelihood would, work against us.
A wider view on the issue of the press is needed, concerted efforts to force news outlet owners and editors into a level reporting ground, whether it is through vetos, targeting advertisers or simply challenging each and every lie printed in the fiercest possible way. I am not for a second saying that we should not look at banning some of these reporters, I am saying that instead of only looking at the immediate problem, if we want to make headway, we need to look at the wider picture; scratching the itch works for a while, but while the fleas are in abundance there will always be more itches to scratch.
I have used those two examples to explain the points that follow. They illustrate ways in which we look at the short-term and small scale instead of appreciating the 'big picture'.
With the club in turmoil and up for sale it is understandable that one of the 'hot' topics is supporter representation at boardroom level, or even outright fan ownership of the club. My initial thoughts are that it is something we should be looking into with every intention of working with a new owner. The immediate, or 'small' picture dictates that we find a way to pay the banks what they want, pay Murray what he wants and move forward as a fan owned club. The wider picture forces questions such as 'how would we convince the bank to give us an overdraft?' or 'how will we fund a new manager's vision or implement our sweeping changes now that we have spent £30 million (at least) on simply acquiring the club?'.
Fan ownership can work. There are no two ways about it and there are a multitude of clubs in Europe that prove this. All bar two Bundesliga clubs for example have a majority stake-holding in the fans' name. The Spanish giants Barcelona are a fan owned club. German sides are considered 'top' teams and it certainly cannot be denied that Barcelona are one of, if not the, best team in Europe today. Neither of those examples, however, guarantee that a fan-owned, or greater supporter involvement in, Rangers would be a success.
If the fans took control of Rangers tomorrow I think we would fail. The first job would be to vote in a chairman. The habit of looking short term would, in my mind, lead to the overwhelming majority of voters electing the man who promised the most money to the high profile foreign manager he would employ. We would simply walk into a repeat of the Murray years under a different name and so long as titles were delivered on a regular basis few would complain. If the titles dried up then a new man with more money to spend would be voted in and the problems would disappear for a year or two before re-appearing. The circle would go around and as new, younger supporters found their voice, more immediate success would be demanded.
I started a thread six months ago on the message-board asking if people would be prepared to suffer a few years of famine if it allowed a new owner the time to build the club up from scratch (from memory I left the length of time undefined but mentioned 5 years as an example). I was surprised by the fact that only a tiny number of posters said that they would. A few indicated that they thought a lean period was not needed and so they answered 'no' but the vast majority were unequivocal in saying that Rangers exist to win trophies and we must at all times challenge. Would those posters, tomorrow, once 'we' own the club, vote for the man who asks for patience while he spends money on coaches and scouts (or other fundamental aspects of the club's framework) or would they vote for the man who tells them he will hire Mourinho and give him £20 million to spend?
The small picture says 'get the chosen one in'. The big picture says get the club sorted so that we don't need to rely on money from benefactors and work towards being able to hire the chosen one with OUR money. As a support we are not equipped yet to deal with looking at that bigger picture and once a pattern of 'Laporta' style chairmen is established, the habit will become ever more difficult to break.
A solution is actually fairly simple and would work to absolutely everyone's benefit. Work with the next owner. If the support can find the money for a 25% plus one share stake of the club we would have a guaranteed seat on the board and, more importantly, the ability to veto any moves from the majority share-holder to dilute our position. The support would have someone inside the club with the ability to push an agenda and report any issues to the fans. If the new owner was willing, we could slowly build up toward greater or full ownership, rewarding the owner by buying his share at a reasonable mark-up. While this is happening the money the club spends would be under direct and all encompassing scrutiny from an engaged support. We would not only see the money being spent but would have a direct influence on how it was being spent. Those 'lean' years would be under the control of whoever bought the club from Murray and once the framework was in place the support could begin to assume more and more control.
It is easy in the dark hours to imagine a Rangers run not only by the support but for the support, a Rangers with the ability to engage the next generation of supporters on a level we simple do not see today and a club that stands alone, on its own two feet and competes with pride and reasonable and sustained success in every competition it enters. For us to reach any of those goals we simply cannot continue to look at the world in terms of 'here and now', as the Rangers we all want WILL take time to emerge from the troubles of today and WILL require patience and planning.
We need to start looking at the big picture on every level.