THE RANGERS BOYCOTT – an historical ramble by JohnBhoy

This post will provide a definition of boycotting, outline the historical rationale underpinning boycotts and, within this historical context, discuss Rangers’ boycott of the Scottish Cup tie with Dundee United, including the potential unintended consequences of Rangers’ action.

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines a boycott as an activity whereby a group of people “combine in refusing social or commercial relations” with another person, group or country. Importantly, it is a voluntary activity normally requiring support out with the core protagonists. Hence the precarious difficulty of predicting both a successful outcome and long-term unexpected repercussions.

The name boycott can be traced back to Captain Charles Boycott, a land agent acting on behalf of Lord Erne in the year 1880 (that date, for some reason, is so familiar). Erne’s tenants wanted a 25% reduction on their tenancy rent but Erne would only offer a 10% reduction. The tenants responded by spurning any contact with Charles Boycott. They ignored him in the street, refused to collect the harvest, the house staff downed tools, local businesses ceased trading with him and even the postman refused to deliver the mail. So, although the principal stakeholders effected by the rent were the tenants, the wider community supported the action and, furthermore, participated in the protest.

Captain Boycott, from Vanity Fair in 1881

Captain Boycott, from Vanity Fair in 1881

In an effort to break this protest, 50 Orangemen were brought into the community, under armed protection. The story caught the attention of the national press and the wider public opprobrium precipitated a successful outcome for the workers. Ever since, the voluntary withdrawal of services and/or custom has been referred to as a ‘boycott’. However, boycotts did not start in 1880 (for example, in 1820 the abolitionists in Pennsylvania, USA started a “boycott” of goods produced by slaves). It would be more accurate to state that Charles Boycott is honoured with the unfortunate distinction of giving a name to this type of protest.

The primary reason for boycotting has mainly been altruistic and egalitarian in nature: to make a difference for the greater good. Related to that higher purpose is the perception of self-enhancement for those that participate i.e. it is a good feeling to do something for a good cause. For example, prior to America’s entry into the Second World War there was an organised boycott of Nazi goods and Japanese silk; the intention was not only to hinder those at war with America’s allies but to encourage Americans to reflect on the evils of fascism and so make the participants feel that they were personally contributing to a greater good. Similarly, the cause of the 1995 Montgomery Bus Boycott in Alabama was done for a greater good: in 1955, Rosa Parks, a soft-spoken delicate African-American with a strong sense of dignity and self-worth, bravely refused to surrender her seat to a white woman and was promptly arrested – her actions snowballed into a boycott of public transport until colour segregation was removed. The courageous and moral actions of a group of African-Americans was done for the greater cause of an egalitarian society. The boycott was successful because it was based on a moral indignity and because it had the support of the wider community, including many whites.

Presently there is a call to boycott Amazon, Google and Starbucks because of their aggressive tax-dodging practices. There is a groundswell of opinion, including Government ministers, that these companies, while behaving within the law, are operating in a grossly immoral fashion and that by participating in circuitous business practices they are, in relative terms, paying less tax than their customers. A boycott of those companies, it is argued, if successful will force them to pay their fair share of tax for the greater good.

For the avoidance of doubt this picture is offered as an illustrtaion, rather than a recommendation, suggestion or instruction

For the avoidance of doubt this picture is offered as an illustration, rather than a recommendation, suggestion or instruction

Let us now turn our attention to Rangers’ boycott of the Scottish Cup tie with Dundee United. When reflecting on Rangers’ boycott, keep this in mind: the purpose of a boycott has historically been to change something for the greater good. On the official Rangers website the word boycott is not actually used. Instead, Charles Green makes the following statement:

Rangers Football Club will not be taking its allocation of tickets for the forthcoming Scottish Cup match against Dundee United at Tannadice. This is a unanimous decision by the board, senior management and staff at Ibrox. Everyone at this club is dismayed at the actions of certain SPL clubs, which were actively engaged in trying to harm Rangers when we were in a perilous situation and we are acutely aware of their attitude to us. Not all clubs who voted against Rangers returning to the SPL fall into that category and indeed we made Motherwell very welcome when we played them at Ibrox in the League Cup competition recently. However, feelings remain very raw and it should be no surprise that we as a club feel this way. It is unsurprising too that there has been a reaction from our supporters to this particular fixture. The last thing we as a club want to do is to compromise security arrangements for any match. I therefore appeal to all fans not to travel to this match and to Dundee United not to sell tickets to Rangers supporters. Our only regret is that this turn of events will not assist Ally McCoist and the team in what will be a very difficult fixture.

A statement from the Rangers Supporters Assembly clarifies that it is indeed a boycott that is proposed: “The Rangers support has waited patiently for the opportunity to send a clear message to those that tried to destroy our club and starve them of their much-needed cash by boycotting this game”. So, this protest takes the following shape: a) Rangers are to reject the briefs for the game and b) Rangers fans are not to attend the game.

Rangers’ boycott is unusual for two reasons. Firstly, historically boycotts involve an individual or individuals protesting against a group or company or, indeed, a country. However, this boycott has been orchestrated officially by one company against another company, Rangers against Dundee United. It is rare for one company to instruct its employees and customers to boycott another company’s trade. Indeed it is quite extraordinary to find a Chairman of a company orchestrating a boycott of a neighbouring company’s trade.

Secondly, the rationale behind a boycott has historically been to make a change for the greater good. What is the “change for the greater good” in Rangers’ case? Charles Green’s stated reason for the boycott is punitive: Dundee United was, according to Rangers, “engaged in trying to harm” his club. The Rangers Supporters Assembly reinforce that perception: “[it is] a clear message to those that tried to starve our club”. Thus, not only is the type of boycott historically out of kilter with other boycotts but so also is the rationale. Revenge is the motive and Dundee United is the target. There is no moral cause and no plan to correct an evil to advance a higher purpose for society. It is punishment for perceived injury.

A boycott can be summarised in the following equation:

Boycott = Moral Cause + Support = Successful Outcome for the Greater Good

Let us try and fit Rangers’ proposed boycott into this equation. What is the Moral Cause? Rangers do not have a moral cause: their protest is based on a perceived injury. They believe that Dundee United participated in actions, unspecified by Rangers, that particularly harmed their club. Nearly all the SPL clubs voted not to accept The Rangers into the SPL, and given that Rangers are not boycotting all those clubs then their must have been some other reason for Rangers to call for a boycott of Dundee United. Charles Green’s boycott now becomes historically bizarre. It is the first time in history that a boycott has been called for unspecified reasons. When Dundee United voted to deny Rangers entry to the SPL they did so for reasons of sporting integrity and had the support of other clubs and the wider Scottish football fan base. This sets another world record in the history of boycotts: it would be first time that a boycott was called because a company behaved in a moral fashion for the greater good – in this case for the higher purpose of sporting integrity – and was punished for doing so. In this phantasmagoric boycott created by Charles Green the ‘moral cause’ belongs to Dundee United and not Rangers.

In terms of Support for this boycott, the Rangers fans will support it. In that sense it will achieve its ostensible and abrupt aim of ostracising Dundee United for the aforementioned Scottish Cup tie. Nonetheless, the lack of support from other football fans, and the wider public, may come back to haunt Rangers in the long term. It is not just that there is an absence of support from outside the core geography that is Rangers, it is that the wider community may view Rangers’ vengeful action with disdain.  That is when the boomerang effect of intended consequences come into play.

Lastly, what is the Successful Outcome for the Greater Good? This leads us to yet another aberrant historical first in Charles Green’s proposed boycott. Oddly, this  protest appears to be an end in itself. The practical purpose of any boycott ought to be to change something for the better and to ensure that a larger interest group benefit. That is why Rosa Parks – God bless her – and fellow Americans in Montgomery took the action they did. In this case Rangers have not declared how they want Dundee United to change whatever they are doing wrong and how that change will impact positively for a wider stakeholder population. In the context of a boycott, revenge is neither a cause nor an end product. It is also shameful that the manager of one club supports the boycott of a sporting competition, harming the interests of another club and image of the competition itself. He should hang his head in ignominy. If this is a personal attack on the Chairman of another club then find a way not to take it onto the field.

Rosa PArks

Rosa Parks

The overall purpose of this protest could be construed as a threat to other football clubs: do anything that we view as injurious to our interests and we will respond as above. A protest based on revenge that sends out potential retaliatory signals to other parties is not one that could in any historical sense meet the higher purpose of aiming for a greater good for the benefit of others.

It should also be noted that Rangers should not accept any financial proceeds from the game that they are boycotting. To do so would be immoral and the first time in history – yet another first for Rangers – that those orchestrating the protest were rewarded for their participation, rather than suffering a temporary detriment so that others may benefit from their sacrifice.

Now the interesting bit. Rangers’ boycott may have unintended consequences. The intended consequences are quite straightforward: Dundee United’s trade could be harmed. The potential unintended consequences are far more serious:

–       This protest does not advance the image of Scottish football;

–       The sporting integrity of the competition could be damaged

–       Potential investors in the Scottish game may look elsewhere

–       Traders in Dundee could lose out

–       Rangers’ reputation could suffer further damage;

–       Those considering investing in Rangers may decide differently

–       Other Scottish clubs could turn against Rangers

–       The wider Scottish community could turn against Rangers

–       Pitting club against club – and perhaps Charles Green has other clubs on his hit list – may be playing with fire and, given the volatile nature of football rivalry, could lead to social unrest.

–       Scottish football fans might take it upon themselves to band together and boycott Rangers and anyone trading with Rangers, including investors and sponsors.

If a number of the above become a reality the financial impact on Rangers might be such that their very survival could be placed at risk. In effect, Rangers’ vengeful boycott could boomerang with disastrous unintended consequences for their own club.

Rangers’ boycott is extraordinary. It does not fit into the traditional model of boycotts. The absence of a moral stance and the venomous nature of the protest is such that Scotland may decide enough is enough. Rangers have made an irretrievable commitment to harm another football club for the most base of motives: revenge. There is the perception that Rangers see others in Scotland as their enemy: this protest does nothing to allay that view. Scotland has had ample opportunity to judge what Rangers and their fans bring to the table. Their incredible array of silverware is also matched by a catalogue of shame down the decades. Rangers fans, for the good of their club, should boycott this boycott. Historically, they would be on solid ground. If Charles Green’s boycott goes ahead then Scotland needs to ask itself the following final question: who needs this shit?

Posted by JohnBhoy


Filed under Charles Green, Guest Posts, History, Rangers

355 responses to “THE RANGERS BOYCOTT – an historical ramble by JohnBhoy

  1. The camera never lies, neither ESPN or Sky…….”just can’t get enough”

    • GWG

      and your point being caller??

    • Ash

      Can’t remember if was an article on SPL banter or pie’n bovril but they made some valid points about this new found obsession with numbers (though not in an accountancy context obviously).

      To paraphrase and plagiarise. The rangers a few months in to their adventure. For supporters who have been spoon fed success to continue to follow their team is hardly a shock, especially with the promise of jam tomorrow. Will they all be there if its 10 or 20 years before the next cup success?

      Frankly more respect for people who follow teams because it’s their team, not glory hunters.

      “fans” of rangers go on about others’ obsession with them. Thats because they’ve got a lot to answer for. Why their obsession with the SPL which they and Charles Greed want no part of? (till he’s fleeced them anyway – at least he can’t rob them of their dignity – long gone)

  2. It’s obvious, there is only one show in town The Rangers…………”just can’t get enough”….lol

  3. I thought Rangers were in liquidation. I assume in your blog you mean “The Rangers”.

    But maybe not….”Their incredible array of silverware”….The Rangers haven’t won anything yet.

    Apart from that, a very enjoyable and informative piece.

    • JohnBhoy

      You are absolutely right Seamus. It should have read “… The old Rangers has an incredible array of silverware – some of which is under dispute for alleged cheating – but undoubtedly had a catalogue of shame. The tribute act – called The Angers, or something similar – wear the same menacing garb…”

  4. Great post JohnBhoy, great read, really enjoyed that, thanks

    Of course, when it got down to applying the traditional meaning of ‘boycott’, as described, to the Rangers call for a ‘boycott’ of the Dundee United game, you almost lost it, such is the utter stupidity of the situation. Of course it’s not a bloody boycott! You left out another vital ingredient for it to be one: reasoned argument.

    The assumed ‘reason’ behind this move, as far as the word ‘reason’ can be aplied here, is so childish as to be embarrassing, not to mention an insult to anyone in Scottish football – including Rangers players, football management and the club’s supporters. What, are Rangers now only going to play teams they like? Do they know just how ridiculous it makes them look?

    If Charles Green’s regime were to be made flesh right now it would look a lot like Willy Loman towards the end of Death of a Salesman; embarrassingly arguing against everything and anyone and basically crying ‘no fair!’ They’ll be asking for their mum next.

    Sure, we were all enjoying Mr Green’s chutzpah all summer, some on here continually making him out as some sort of ultimate salesman (despite a track record very much at odds with any such claim), but this latest stunt is really beyond the pale – it is an utter affront to the Scottish game, not to mention the memory of a once-great club.

    How long is the SFA going to put up with this clown?

    How long are Uefa and Fifa going to put up with the SFA putting up with this horseshit?

    How long are Rangers supporters going to follow this idiot?

    Can anyone with a footballing bone in their body at Ibrox seriously give a reasoned, civilised and SPORTING argument as to why this is a good idea?

    Sorry guys, if any Rangers fan is not embarrassed by this then you truly have completely lost it guys. A shame, I was hoping you might come back a better team and club, but if this type of crap continues, and those who support the club back it, then there’s really no hope for you. So long and thanks for the memories. You’re just a joke now.

    • JohnBhoy

      Hi Kenny. It is a boycott nonetheless albeit a weird one. Charlie’s behaviour reflects his short term intentions and that’s what his followers fail to see. They, and us, will have to live with the consequences. In the meantime his battle cries are appealing to not just the lowest common element but to hitherto decent people like Cam. That’s the real problem. It’s more than embarrassing – it’s divisive and dangerous.

      • ecojon

        @ JohnBhoy

        I have never ever thought cam was ‘decent’ but someone who hides his agenda under a mask of humour and doggerel all the better to spread his message.

        Although I must admit that in writing styles there are two distinct ‘cams’ which is a bit of a puzzler. Maybe just the change of PR shift.

        But in many ways his style echoes Leggo and he may well be Leggo whose father-figure is cardigan.

        • JohnBhoy

          Hi eco. Yes, I have noticed the different writing styles. Very similar to the two Andys: one decent one a bit loopy. Even then, the “decent” one is becoming increasingly loopy and less likeable.

    • Maggie

      @Kenny Mc Caffrey
      Death of a Salesman……..that’s why I love this blog.
      Our visiting trolls will be scratching their heads wondering
      when Willy Loman played for Rangers,he must be a bluenose
      right? his name’s Willy after all 🙂
      Great post Kenny.

    • ecojon

      @ Kenny McCaffrey

      What a powerful post that truly captures what the vast bulk of Scottish fans are feeling.

  5. andy

    i dont think us gers fans are necessarily getting caught up in some hype here driven by Charlie. Its pretty well known that Thomson despises Rangers, who could possibly deny this fact alone? Therefore it is a good call to quite simply say to him that we wont be giving you our cash. As a gers man myself I wouldnt want this to be a precedent and a one off basis is fine. I would also do the same with Hibs as well, as Petrie was particularly harsh on us also. Turnbull Hutton too and a couple of others. You cant blame Charlie on this occasion and he has played a blinder. Wounds will heal in time but I am sad to say at present I am delighted to starve united of some cash as some retribution.

    • Ally McMoist

      Try asking yourselves WHY Thompson & everyone else dislikes Rangers & your idiotic chairman? Start with looking at how your fans & chairmen behave & have behaved for over a century. Embarrassing.
      “a one-off basis would be fine..i would also do the same with Hibs, Turnbull Hutton & a couple of others”!!
      – Hardly a one-off then,eh?!
      Pathetic bitterness towards another club, wanting retribution for not giving the newly formed club “The Rangers” special treatment of instant SPL entry!! Do any of you know how utterly childish & petty you are exposing yourselves as? Do the rest of us a favour & boycott all away grounds. Keep kidding yourselves we all need you.

      • iain

        @Andy I guess it would be a push to assume you had equally outraged thoughts when your own fans chief called for a Boycott of Rugby Park for the heinous crime of abstaining in the vote?

  6. andy

    the standard of comment and debate has been pretty decent on this blog entry……makes a change!….nice to see some civility

  7. callumsson

    Removes any doubt, if ever there was any, that this is a club sanctioned boycott. Given his recent record I would have expected this of McCoist and no doubt we hear from him soon but I am saddened that Smith should so firmly put himself in the naked vengeance camp. This will not end well.

    • iain

      Excellent comments from Sir Walter.
      And removes the notion…posted here yesterday….that he wouldn’t have been for this justifiable boycott

      • Maggie

        Oh well,that’s the last time I make the assumption that
        there is ANYONE associated with Rangers who has a
        scintilla of intelligence or character.
        Five months into your new incarnation and your reputation
        and standing in the country is worse than ever.Is there no one
        among you who can see how much damage this will do to
        the club you profess to love.

        Btw Definition of Character “Doing the right thing when no one
        is looking”

    • JohnBhoy

      McCoist’s cheeky-chappy image has been shredded for ever. He meekly submits to whoever is the Chairman, like a lapdog. Remember, he whole-heartlessly supported Whyte. He should be calming things done, but his subservience to Green gives succour to fans of The Rangers. He’s a disgrace.

      • cam

        He’s a Gers legend that speaks his own mind.If you want to check out a disgrace have a wee look at Lenny and his “in the face of referees “rant.

      • Maggie

        Morning JB, just read the Sun article “All About Walter”
        What is there to say? Thought he was there to promote
        The Street Soccer initiative?
        Their founder David Duke spoke at my son’s graduation
        ceremony a few years ago and was very inspirational.
        His achievements and selfless desire to help
        others very impressive.
        Do we read anything about the organisation’s current campaign,fundraising or indeed anything at all about
        the reason for the photo opportunity? Of course not.
        It’s “All About Walter” and his desire for revenge on
        Dundee United and his tortured,anguished long night
        of the soul decision making process on whether he
        should join the board of Rangers.
        I think they’ve hit a real low point now,the lowest yet.
        A great many people will see HRH Walter in a very
        different light today.

        • ecojon

          @ Maggie

          cardigan’s bitterness has always been clear to me and under chico he will be encouraged to express it.

          His anguish re joining chico’s circus will be as nought to the anguish he will face when the circus leaves town.

          No doubt then we will get the insider exclusives about how he moderated the worst excesses of the old regime – a bit like the LibDems and Tories – and how he managed to save the silverware from being melted down for scrap value 🙂

          • Maggie

            I also have never bought into the “Walter’s Myth”
            ( Was it one of you guys who used this appellation or did
            I read it somewhere else,maybe Jim Traynor used it
            in the DR 🙂 ) but foolishly thought in terms of footballing
            fair play that he wouldn’t be in favour of the ridiculous boycott,
            even against their greatest enemy.I’m right on that,aren’t I?
            It used to be Celtic,now it’s Dundee United! So many
            enemies,so little time,who can even keep up?
            Let’s be honest eco,that shower of duffers who play for
            Sevco could most definitely use a 12th man for their cup game.
            Again they shoot themselves in the foot.

            • JohnBhoy

              The Rangers did not expect the moral reaction to their boycott and are trying to send out soothing words about the future – “moving on” – and Celtic’s progression in Europe. Won’t wash. The Rangers are no longer the masters of their own destiny but they are burning their bridges quicker than you can say “Charlie’s Our Darling”. They need Celtic but we’re happy with Barcelona, Benfica etc. I was at the game against Spartak and their fans were wonderful – kept mimicking our songs and supporting Celtic! Now that’s the type of company we want to keep. So refreshing and different from the hateful venom oozing out of that fascist symbol of division and discrimination across the river.

        • JohnBhoy

          Hi Maggie. I agree with your take on Walter. Like Ally, he wants to “move on” but only after they settle old scores. Ultimately, what I think is behind this is the need to scare off those seeking justice over the titles under dispute. That is what terrifies The Rangers and their fans.

  8. portpower

    Not all clubs who voted against The Rangers returning to the SPL fall into that category and indeed ……………
    So which clubs is Charlie talking about? We want names.

    • ecojon

      @ portpower

      When asking chico for anything always add that you want the truth a well. Probably won’t do any good but worth sticking in as he gets so confused re fact & fiction.

      • portpower

        I imagine the truth as being:
        Mr. Green where will the money from the rangers supporters for shares be going?
        They will be invested into the club.
        Mr. Green what are the ingredients of a sticky date pudding?
        •340g dried dates, pitted, chopped
        •2 teaspoons bicarbonate soda
        •500ml water
        •120g butter
        •340g brown sugar
        •4 eggs, lightly beaten
        •1 teaspoon vanilla extract
        •340g self raising flour

        •400g brown sugar
        •200ml cream
        •250g butter.
        I rest my case.

  9. Adam

    I hear Companies House have been inundated by emails and letters demanding to know why Walter Smith hasnt been registered as a non exec director on their website, including one from ecojon.

    Im not sure if they have replied yet but i can tell you that he will not officially take the position until after the share issue,hence no registration to date.

    Nice of everyone to be so concerned though. 🙂

    • ecojon

      @ Adam

      Lying again Adam – par for the course with you 🙂

      Emails to Companies House – probably part of the Rangers black arts PR campaign I would think.

      However, a a first step, I will draw your post to the attention of Companies House re your claim about having knowledge of who is emailing them.

      I know you are a liar re the statement you have made about me as I am well aware of cardigan’s legal position. But you never pay attention to detail Adam.

      When cardigan’s appointment was announced by chico – without actually checking the press release – I seem to remember chico stating or giving the impression that the appointment was immediate. Which I knew was cobblers and just more hot air from your Leader.

      • Adam

        Me. A liar. Really 🙂 You knew Walters current status. Strange then that only 2 days ago you wrote this.

        December 5, 2012 at 10:16 am
        @ Charliedon

        Just checked Companies House – he is not listed as a director on The Rangers Football Club Ltd. I’ll drop them a line and query it as I think any directorship changes have to be notified to them I think within 15 day or it might be 30 but I’ll ak them.”

        Hoisted by your own petard methinks.

        Quite embarrassing.

        • cam

          I think he should go back to bed and try getting out the other side,,,as the fans would say “he’s having a nightmare of a game today”

        • Adam,

          Perhaps not.

          Astonishingly there seems official confusion re Mr Smith’s role – see my latest post.

        • ecojon


          This is a beautiful example of the deliberate lies and mis-information that the chico apologists use to try and attack people on this site who try to present a balanced picture. It shows that not one word they use can be trusted unless independently checked.

          Adam posted that I was deluded in thinking that cardigan was actually in-post as a Rangers NED. I responded that he was lying as usual.

          He then replied very selectively with the obvious intention of deceiving posters on this site:
          Adam December 7, 2012 at 11:03 am
          Me. A liar. Really 🙂 You knew Walters current status. Strange then that only 2 days ago you wrote this.
          “ecojon December 5, 2012 at 10:16 am
          @ Charliedon
          Just checked Companies House – he is not listed as a director on The Rangers Football Club Ltd. I’ll drop them a line and query it as I think any directorship changes have to be notified to them I think within 15 day or it might be 30 but I’ll ak them.”
          Hoisted by your own petard methinks. Quite embarrassing.
          What he did was ignore the actual exchange with @charliedon which shows the TRUTH of what was said but as we all know The Truth and Rangers do not sit well together. Adam is a LIAR and MANIPULATOR and a I said when he first appeared: WELL WORTH THE WATCHING! Of course perhap he i just an idiot and that wouldn’t surprise me either.
          December 5, 2012 at 8:37 am

          You alway have to distinguish chico-speak from reality. Cardigan is meant to be a non-exec director on the Plc Board after the AIM Flotation and is not, a far as I or Companies House know, a member of the current ‘The Rangers Football Club Ltd’.

          December 5, 2012 at 9:16 am
          A couple of recent press quotes, the 2nd one is dated 12th Nov.

          “Walter Smith becomes non-executive director at Rangers
          Walter Smith has returned to Ibrox as a director of Rangers.”

          “Smith, who will take up his new role with immediate effect, said: “It is a great privilege to serve the club that means so much to me in the capacity of non-executive director.”

          December 5, 2012 at 10:16 am
          @ Charliedon

          Just checked Companies House – he is not listed as a director on The Rangers Football Club Ltd. I’ll drop them a line and query it as I think any directorship changes have to be notified to them I think within 15 days or it might be 30 but I’ll ak them.

          • Adam

            No need to start shouting. I thought you told me a few days ago to ligthen up and see the fun side of the posts. Is it, so as i say, not as i do.

            You said you were writing to Companies House. I took it you were a man of your word.

  10. charliedon

    So Walter has spoken. I had already been disappointed by some of his actions during Rangers demise and rebirth but his vengeful attitude to the club he spent 20 years with is quite disgraceful in my opinion. I’m interested that the article says “With the SFA backing Gers…” I haven’t heard that the SFA have made any statement about the proposed boycott.
    My disappointment in Smith is compounded by other parts of his statement;

    “But I had to have a good think about it, because I always thought board positions should be businessmen.
    I have always just been a manager. But Charles was at pains to point out the inexperience they have in terms of Rangers overall. They felt as though they needed someone to come in and help them.
    it is not a role that will involve me doing anything on the football side. That is Ally McCoist’s job.”

    So he’s not a businessman but he won’t have any involvement in the football side. So what is his role? Charles Green’s friendly puppet and mouthpiece? Very poor Walter, especially from a former Scotland national team manager.

    • Adam

      Normally, a board is a mixture of industry and company experience. None of the current board have vast experience in the football industry nor indeed in Rangers. Walter has been asked to provide that.

      And of course it doesnt do you any harm to have someone the customers of a company know and can trust.

      So all in all, it seems a decent appointment and I believe Walter will be more outspoken than John Greig ever was in the Boardroom.

      Im not really sure why you are disappointed about an ex manager being given a place on the Rangers Board when it doesnt really concern you at all.

    • iain

      Why would the SFA need to make a statement?

      Their rules are perfectly clear and have been in place for some considerable time.

      • charliedon

        The article in the Sun suggested the SFA were backing Gers, so I wondered if they had actually made a statement or if the Sun’s assertion was inaccurate, that’s all.
        I believe, and Walter himself seems to agree, that a non-executive director’s role is normally a business one, and they have responsibilities in that respect. If Walter has no business experience and he is not involved in football matters, it seems a strange appointment and odd that he would accept such a role.

        • ecojon

          @ charliedon

          In a trictly business sense cardigan’s appointment will do nothing a he doesn’t have the necesary experience or abilities.

          He wa brought on more I reckon to sell shares to the Bears.

          The latest two NEDs announced for the Board appear to have the necesary background and it may well be that intitutional invetors wanted some kind of ‘experience’ as well as ability to question when it came to oversight of the company exec board members viz Chico and Brian Stockbridge.

        • iain

          You may be correct charlie. But that doesn’t really explain why you would be disappointed in him for taking the role.
          Why on earth would you care?

          • charliedon

            My disappointment stems from his vengeful attitude to Dundee Utd, the club which employed him for 20 years. Need I say more?

            • iain

              But you said you were disappointed, or rather your disappointed was “compounded” with him taking a seat on the board.

              So….setting all else aside. Why on earth would you care enough to be disappointed, or even have your existing disappointment compounded by the news that Smith will be on the Rangers board?

      • jocky bhoy

        I would suggest that the chairman of a football club undermining of a fellow professional football club and the inferring that Dundee Utd cant be trusted to deal with security arrangements might be grounds for bringing the game into disrepute. I further think that his tacit approval of mob law might also bring similar criticism.

        • cam

          So fans choosing not to attend a fitba match is now “mob law”?
          What do we call hundreds of the GB ultras standing outside Parkhead in protest on Remembrance day?,,a legitimate political protest? or a bunch of dafties?
          If the SFA can turn a blind eye to Turnbull Hutton’s corruption rant then Chico telling the SFA that we don’t want any tickets might just squeeze past the Ministry of Mind Control.

        • ecojon

          @ jocky bhoy

          Spot-on. I reckon the first casualty of Rangers could be the SFA if they don’t find a backbone.

      • carl 31

        I agree that the SFA have had a number of rules in place for some considerable time.
        They should simply apply them without fear or favour.

        A statement should straightforwardly state what the relevant rule is and how it has been applied.

      • ‘ Ian

        yes so why were sevco going to great lengths to have them bent and adapted to suit the new operator? Why could nt CG just accept that the correct thing was that you start again in non league football and after 3 yrs trading apply for full SFL league membership? What about all the SFL clubs that voted against trfc joining division one again against league rules? are they going to be blacklisted as well? new friends my arse!!

    • ecojon

      @ charliedon

      Looks as though cardigan might be a back-door channel of communication to the SFA as he seems to know what their private thoughts are.

      If he isn’t privvy to that and is being misquoted then I am sure he will issue a disclaimer on Rangers website to clarify the position.

  11. Adam
    December 7, 2012 at 8:21 am

    You know that they just can’t get enough……..of The Rangers….lol

  12. Joe

    Dundee United should just take the total gate receipts and make a donation to charity with the share that would have went to newco. After all it will be all their own money anyway. And if the new share issue hype is anything to go by they dont need such meagre money anyway. Still any excuse to completely alienate the rest of the country against them. Nae wan likes us, I wonder why.

    • iain

      You think they should break the rules?


    • ecojon

      @ Joe

      As I have said before 2 excellent charitie being dragged into the mire by Rangers – they mut be raging but obviously have to keep stuum.

      I can just imagine the horror on their faces when a charity gets a call from Rangers offering dosh with the charity wondering where the money actually came from.

      One thing for sure it won’t be from Rangers share of the TV money. TV coverage might get pulled anyway because of the Rangers debacle.

      • cam

        I just spoke to the lady who runs the local Princess of Wales hospice charity shop she is a lifelong friend who seems to find a clear path through the rampaging Gers hordes each morning.
        She reckons that a fat wee cheque from the Gers doesn’t constitute being dragged through any mire.
        I reckon that come the day of reckoning that the Gers hordes won’t be doing any wrecking,,,what do you reckon?

  13. cam

    Scouting parties have been sent ahead to gather information for the coming winter offensive.
    Mechanised units of the Union Bears are studying maps to overcome enemy roadblocks.
    In the likeliehood of snow in the Tayside area a massed bombardment(a snowba fight) will signal commencement of hostilities.Fuel dumps are being organised in the Clep and Centenary bars.
    Classic pincer movements shall be used and total enemy encirclement acheived by nightfall.Commando units are attempting to locate and kidnap the minister of propaganda, Albert Eco.
    If possible extra units shall be deployed from the LNS front and Govan expects every Bear to do his duty.

  14. JohnBhoy

    By refusing to decline the gate receipts, The Rangers has lost the last remnant of morality that might have been rescued from their ill-conceived boycott. Money got from vengeance, and which they should have declined, then given away to charity to make them look good is the height of hypocrisy.

    Green, McCoist and Smith have set a precedent – a club endorsing deliberate harm to another club’s trade. If that is not bringing the game into disrepute then I don’t know what is.

    • Grant


      You know very well that the % Rangers are due for the Dundee United game is in no way linked to the number of fans they take and in fact if they take any at all. The payment is for playing the match.

      Why should Dundee United keep 100% of the gate money, are they playing themselves? Do other teams that come to Ibrox in the cup and take a few hundred fans get a lower percentage, the answer is no, so why should Rangers.

      If the SFA want to change the rules re gate receipts it will be Rangers who benefit.

      I would say it is Dundee United who have no morals by asking to keep money that is not due to them. The fans at that club have low morals for on one hand saying boycotts and wrong, but forgetting that they threatened a boycott of their own club in the summer if they did not get theor own way over Rangers entry into the SPL

      Rangers are not endorsing harm to another club, Dundee United still have the opportunity to sell all the tickets, the harm will only be done to the club if these tickets are not sold. Dundee United couold in fact still decide to sell the tickets to Rangers support but they will not do so.

      From a commerical perspective if Rangers decide to sell tickets they have yo pay for all of them regardless of how many they sell, so the money goes into the pot regardless. It makes perfect sense for Rangers not to sell them as their fans said they would not buy them, so Rangers would be out of pocket.

      Dundee United would be unlikely to sell the tickets to Rangers fans for the very same commercial reason, because they would not be sold, ubless of course they have a very small segregated area.

  15. I wonder who the groin brigade donated their home ground home team “boycott money” to, there again I don’t…………….just can’t get enough …lol

    • iain

      “Green, McCoist and Smith have set a precedent – a club endorsing deliberate harm to another club’s trade.”
      Deliberate harm??? They just aren’t taking tickets. I don’t think they have came up with a rouse to stop United selling tickets to their own ground

      ” If that is not bringing the game into disrepute then I don’t know what is.”
      This seems to be the last desperate plea for those not interested in Rangers now it is clear there will be no expulsions from the cup and the gate receipts will rightly be divided as normal.

      It’s all just so desperate.

      • Grant

        Bringing the Game Into Disrepute – this seems to be the all encompassing charge that is labelled against Rangers when they do or say anything that is not liked by the SFA, SPL or fans of other clubs.

        What about saying the game is corrupt (Turnbull Hutton), I can think of no finer example of bringing the game into disrepute.

  16. JohnBhoy


    It is noticeable that whenever the fledgling The Rangers and their fans have been caught bang to rights over yet another despicable act, they shout en masse a dismissive word or phrase as justification. “Obsessed!”, “Rangers Haters!” Are the two mal mots in current usage:

    Your old club refused to pay its taxes: “Obsessed!”; your old club left creditors high and dry: “Rangers Hater!”; this boycott is harming Scottish football: “Rangers Hater!”.

    There must be a collective noun to describe such behaviour:

    CHARLATANS. French from the Italian ciarlatano, from ciarlare ‘babble’. A babble of sheep-like automatons responding to the teachings of their chosen master – A Proper Charlie – to call out specific words in unison in an attempt to deflect evidence of shameful conduct. Charlatans are also known to be aggressive and lack a conscience.

    • cam

      Steam pressure needle now entering danger zone!!
      WARNING;Eye popping and mouth foaming about to commence,,,stand clear!

    • iain

      Since we can’t use “obsessed” any more…how would you describe spending the afternoon of a crucial CL game for your own team by scouring the net for details on the background of new directors of an inconsequential 3rd Division side?
      Or camping out in the forums of said 3rd division club for evidence of potential violence akin to “Manchester” which was so overwhelming that it moved the chairman of said insignificant 3rd division to not buy tickets?

      As an aside…”yet another despicable act”.
      How does that work?
      We are either a “fledgling” club with no “despicable acts” under our belts or we aren’t.
      What’s it to be?

      • Merciatic

        You are a fledgling club. Buy you must have bought the rights to these types of “despicable acts” along with the assets of the now defunct old club.

    • Grant


      Thet deeply offends me, the Charkatans are one of my favourite bands!!!

  17. Merciatic

    How many times this year have we heard from Ibrox: “all we want to do is to move on and play football” , “for the good of Scottish football we have to move on” , “time to put this all behind us” etc? Obviously only when it suited them to avoid possible sanctions. Hardly rings home true now. As usual there actions betray the mentality of this heinous bunch of reprobates.

    • Merciatic

      “their actions” before anyone else spots it

    • Grant

      And likewise other clubs need to move on as well. They cannot continue to sat the past is in the past regarding their actions and Rangers fans should forget and yet continue to spread the nonsense about Rangers cheating etc.

  18. cam

    Where’s mick? i hope he isn’t still waiting for BDO’s live feed to this blogsite.
    I hope you bhoys told him that if you want to hack into ” well devo juicy news” that you don’t use a saw.

  19. cam

    At my end the sites gone wonky,,,its a masonic plot!
    I’m off to pay my cooncil tax if i can get past the Gers fans picketing,looting and destroying the country,,,wish me luck.

  20. Colin f

    I’m not sure how 500 million rangers fans would’ve fitted inside tannadice anyway.

  21. Bhoyracer

    For a club who in a previous incarnation were proud that, as the ditty goes, they didn’t care that no-one liked them, the Sevconians seem to have been born with a rather sensitive streak and now it seems they do care. Bless.

    Note to Sevconians: get used to it.

    • john mac

      They demand boycotts then whine about morality when they get some back. Pathetic hypocrisy from idiots brainwashed from birth.

  22. Matt

    Join and share this event if you agree that this action by Rangers is an attempt to bully one of Scotland’s clubs and that we should all stand up to it.

  23. john mac

    Every boycott in history is moral in its nature. Lol guess that depends on the perspective on the individual’s involved. Pathetic obsessed nonsense. Indoctrinated little people pretending they are rational but fooling nobody except similarly indoctrinated little fools. Your opinion isnt really your own. It was dictated to you by an accident of birth.

  24. john mac

    I’m pretty sure rangers fans will consider this boycott a morally correct action because they would perceive it an action to right some wrongs made against their club by a chairman who had no need to stick the boot in when their club was on its knees. As with everything morality is in the eyes of the beholder. That simple fact and the fact you just happen to be a Celtic fan and inherently biased makes your article a piece of obsessed nonsense.

  25. john mac

    It’s simple this really. These people hate rangers and they will give constant vent to their obsession. No amount of selective quoting from history and hypocrisy is enough. Brainwashed from birth. Embarrassing to our country.

    • How is it that the vast majority of Scotland is “brainwashed”?

      It’s not just Celtic, most of Scotland hates them.

      HMRC, the Engirlish msm, even the crown hates them.

      Why? Have a think.

      ……..or try to have a think.

      • john mac

        Think, yeah I can do that just fine seamus lol, even the name gives away your inherent bias by birth. I can rationally think no problem but you can’t pal and that’s exactly my point. Your opinion is totally worthless because it’s based on one word which you openly admit… Hatred. Every have isn’t your own, it’s dictated to you by indoctrinated hatred. People like you on both sides drag our country down.

  26. john mac

    And of course in your opinion the Celtic fans boycott of Kilmarnock just becuase the killie chairman abstained in a vote where his abstention was on a point of principle at the weekend there was morally correct!
    Thats not killie being bullied them?!? Loool just lok at the blinkered hypocrisy of these brainwashed idiots.

  27. Pingback: Boycotts and a director’s duty to promote the success of a company | basedrones

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s