sugna Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Nicely provocative title. I would repeat that I don't think the dead-alive thing is as clear-cut as most on either "side" would like to imagine. Before Rangers went into liquidation, my impression at the time was that just about every one considered this as constituting "the end of Rangers". Certainly, the likes of Traynor and Walter Smith were documented as being of that view, and no club-company duality ever been invented - presumable because there had never been a commercial needed before then. So in an effort to avoid revisionism, I would say that there is no continuity other than has been constructed since then. Various parties have various reasons for such construction, and good luck to them. But it was never a point of debate before it happened: virtually everyone was on the same side, that liquidation meant the end of the club. However, I also think that it's perfectly reasonable to consider another aspect of "being a club": if the same people - particularly the supports - are behind the "new" club, I've no problem at all with them considering it to be the same club. I would disagree with claims for continuity, but new Rangers/old Rangers/ same Rangers are quite entitled to decide for themselves how they view their club(s). It seems to me to be a mistake and probably a bit arrogant for others to say "you must view your club as dead!" Almost as daft as the "a company is not a club" argument. Since there is never going to be agreement on the died/survived. new/old/same questions, there's little point in debating them. The truth seems to me to include a little of both. In its most basic terms, I think that the claim to be supporting the same club is a reasonable one; but the claim that this club has 54 Scottish titles is incorrect. The old and new were separate at one point, at least, and the new didn't have the titles; and I don't think that historical titles can be transferred as "assets". So, interpreting the question as "What made Rangers unable to continue?", I am pretty convinced that the prime mover was the entitlement thing as encapsulated in the "for every £5" quote. You can slate Murray for saying something that silly; but at the time, and again now, there are pressures that most of us can never imagine, that drive the custodians away from any sort of balance between resources and "delivering on the pitch". I can't see any way for Rangers - the current Rangers - to become self-sustaining; and while they are battling for distant second, spending well over income to do so, it seems absolutely impossible for the board to overcome the fans' sense of entitlement. The circle simply can't be squared. tl;dr Yeah, entitlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakeSAFC Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 David Murray killed them and their mutant, fat lazy support let it happen. Craig Whyte just finished off the job Murray started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shootingboots Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 The fans let the club die. They also sat back and enjoyed the clubs overspending without a question asked. I don't blame them for that though. David Murray killed them. And the fans let him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordHawHaw Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 David Murray ego killed Rangers football club, aided and abetted by a whole raft of people and institutions. Rangers died, the club is in the latter processes of being liquidated, the new club fans have no right, other than in their own minds, to claim anything that belongs to the soon to be dead Rangers football club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Steve Chalmers killed Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flood Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 it was david murray's institutional tax cheating, and their own fans inaction that killed them- it cannot possibly be one answer. is glorious though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flybhoy Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 20 hours ago, The_Kincardine said: There is no answer to the question as the premise is wrong. We remain P&B's most posted-about team , much to the chagrin of the "aye but yer deid" brigade. Aye but you are deid though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booker-T Posted October 30, 2017 Author Share Posted October 30, 2017 13 hours ago, sugna said: Nicely provocative title. I would repeat that I don't think the dead-alive thing is as clear-cut as most on either "side" would like to imagine. Before Rangers went into liquidation, my impression at the time was that just about every one considered this as constituting "the end of Rangers". Certainly, the likes of Traynor and Walter Smith were documented as being of that view, and no club-company duality ever been invented - presumable because there had never been a commercial needed before then. So in an effort to avoid revisionism, I would say that there is no continuity other than has been constructed since then. Various parties have various reasons for such construction, and good luck to them. But it was never a point of debate before it happened: virtually everyone was on the same side, that liquidation meant the end of the club. However, I also think that it's perfectly reasonable to consider another aspect of "being a club": if the same people - particularly the supports - are behind the "new" club, I've no problem at all with them considering it to be the same club. I would disagree with claims for continuity, but new Rangers/old Rangers/ same Rangers are quite entitled to decide for themselves how they view their club(s). It seems to me to be a mistake and probably a bit arrogant for others to say "you must view your club as dead!" Almost as daft as the "a company is not a club" argument. Since there is never going to be agreement on the died/survived. new/old/same questions, there's little point in debating them. The truth seems to me to include a little of both. In its most basic terms, I think that the claim to be supporting the same club is a reasonable one; but the claim that this club has 54 Scottish titles is incorrect. The old and new were separate at one point, at least, and the new didn't have the titles; and I don't think that historical titles can be transferred as "assets". So, interpreting the question as "What made Rangers unable to continue?", I am pretty convinced that the prime mover was the entitlement thing as encapsulated in the "for every £5" quote. You can slate Murray for saying something that silly; but at the time, and again now, there are pressures that most of us can never imagine, that drive the custodians away from any sort of balance between resources and "delivering on the pitch". I can't see any way for Rangers - the current Rangers - to become self-sustaining; and while they are battling for distant second, spending well over income to do so, it seems absolutely impossible for the board to overcome the fans' sense of entitlement. The circle simply can't be squared. tl;dr Yeah, entitlement. great build up, predictable ending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 Hereford, Aldershot, Chester, Gretna, Halifax fans all accept that the club they now support is different from the previous incarnation which was LIQUIDATED - and there is always a tweak of the official club name. The emotional heritage of the previous club is carried on. Why do 'Rangers' consider their circumstances different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mylothedog Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 Hereford, Aldershot, Chester, Gretna, Halifax fans all accept that the club they now support is different from the previous incarnation which was LIQUIDATED - and there is always a tweak of the official club name. The emotional heritage of the previous club is carried on. Why do 'Rangers' consider their circumstances different. Because they are the people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanMc99 Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 Sieb dijkstra and Dirk Lehmman killed rangers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsr Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 1 hour ago, Ken Fitlike said: Hereford, Aldershot, Chester, Gretna, Halifax fans all accept that the club they now support is different from the previous incarnation which was LIQUIDATED - and there is always a tweak of the official club name. The emotional heritage of the previous club is carried on. Why do 'Rangers' consider their circumstances different. Because the 'success' of their chosen club is the only thing underpinning their self esteem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenconner Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 Has David (i'll spend a tenner for every fiver Celtic spend) Murray every said anything about wrecking the club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yossarian Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 It was me. In the library with a candle stick. Billy McNeil. In Lisbon with the European Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radar2032 Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 Murray and his delusions of grandeur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 Was it not the sparra', wi' his bow and his arra'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamenitza Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 3 hours ago, Jacksgranda said: Was it not the sparra', wi' his bow and his arra'? The sparra' wi' his wee bow an' wee arra, people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Saintee Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 Neil Simpson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raidernation Posted December 6, 2017 Share Posted December 6, 2017 Hopefully agent Deek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
locheedfcno1 Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 It doesn't matter who killed them. They are deed as fuk. Watch the crowds dwindle like back in the 80's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.