With the news that Rangers are to boycott the Scottish Cup tie with Dundee United at Tannadice, it appears that a new front is about to open up in the war raging between Rangers and the SPL. Rangers CEO Charles Green confirmed that Rangers will not be accepting tickets from Dundee United and urged the Rangers support not to attend the fixture. His statement is forceful and to the point:
“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.” “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.”
This official statement came from the club after all the main supporters associations urged the club to refuse the ticket allocation. Charles Green has shown that he is will to listen to the support. Just as fan power of the SPL clubs played a part in the Rangers story, then surely the fans of the Ibrox club should be given a voice.
Dundee United chairman Stephen Thompson probably more than any other individual outside of Celtic was instrumental in judging Rangers before they had a chance of a fair hearing. The level of hatred directed towards Rangers during this last year has shamed the Scottish game. We shall wait and see what effect this decision has on the SFA, the sponsors and the turnout at Tannadice.
The real question is what this boycott will do for the Rangers support? A support that has felt powerless in the face of the onslaught from the ill-informed media and internet trolls who pre-judged the club on the tax case, only to discover that Rangers were innocent.
This boycott will give the support some of the power back and will let them put their money where their principles are and give the Rangers community a way to stand up for something they believe in. If the boycott is well observed then it will give the support an easy and relatively painless way to voice their beliefs. We will always support the team but sometimes the greater good of the club must come first.
I believe that this boycott will show that the Rangers support has grasped its responsibility to the community it represents. This boycott will bring publicity on the corrupt acts of those SPL clubs who couldn’t wait to condemn Rangers. Pounds and pence is the language that profit corporations understand best and Rangers use of this economic tool is a smart move. After all that has gone on in the last year it would be easy for the Rangers support to feel powerless to change anything but this boycott can be a strong tool and give us the strength to carry on our fight back.
A boycott of SPL grounds and the loss of revenue to those clubs will declare that Rangers are no longer the punch bag the SPL thought they were, and Rangers and their support are sending out a clear message whether they listen to it or not – that Rangers will hit back where they are most vulnerable; in the pocket.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/42143
http://rangersthefallandrise.wordpress.com/
Follow me on Twitter @Cyberted72
Introducing the neat little app that’ll pay you to view content tailored to your interests:
ThisisFutbol.com are seeking new writers to join the team! If you’re passionate about football, drop us a line at “thisisfutbol.com@snack-media.com” to learn more.
poorly written and to put it simply a bias article. I can only assume the author has a fondness for Rangers. Rangers were not forced out of the SPL the rules dictated that they go due to liquidation, the HMRC tax case was one asect of the debts the owed (being appealed, so not proven so far) they had many other they simply walked away from, they were financially mismanaged for years and where they are is their own fault. Stop blaming everyone else, it was not me guvnor, a dog ate my home work arguements are getting old
Another Celtic fam lmao, we’re fine with it, yous have a weird obsession with what happens to rangers, go away!!!!
Oh come on that is another excuse celtic and rangers fans have commented on each other for ever..my mates who follow Rangers are for ever commenting on celtic, they were all supporting Moscow on wednesday not a problem at all…so the “we are obsessed with you” holds no water just like it wasn’t our fault we are in SFL 3 because we got liquidated..No one is buying it. Oh an the website is called this is futbol not this is Rangers
Why isn’t it a good idea, no one was thinking is it a good idea to demote rangers, they all said we can survive without the gate money accumulated bye rangers, if that’s the case then there shouldn’t be a problem, and when we do return to the top, there will be plenty more boycotts, TO QUICK TO JUDGE!!!!
Rangers weren’t demoted. They went bust owing many creditors many millions of pounds. The newco was allowed admission to sfl3 without 3 years audited accounts. A massive favour was done allowing this to happen. You are where you are deal with it and the other clubs in Scotland shall do the same. See you in the spl in about 5 years.
Think next time Rangers should accept tickets. Sell 2 send rest back and keep their share of the money. This is what teams do coming to ibrox!
Good idea
boycott of rangers fans to tannadice:
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
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 **** 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 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.
The new Rangers share prospectus clearly states more than once that the newco Rangers will be back in the SPl. So that is one more CG lie. I’m sure they will be back with more of the same bile bigotry and thuggery we have known from the oldco. Scotland does not have a chance to compete as a modern nation as long as these dinosaurs are still around teaching their kids the same old tripe they were taught.
It would be interesting if other spl supporters clubs encouraged their members to go to the match as neutrals and effectively kill the boycott.
Nice to see SEVCO TRFC celebrating 140 days , tainted for ever!
would love for dundee united to completly sell out the ground to show that sevco are not needed. I know they will benefit from ticket money but it will show once and for all the SPL do not need them.
come on dundee united, calculate the money from your average gate, divide it by the number of seats and sell the tickets at that price to guarantee sell out and no extra cash to sevco – even give some tickets away free to local schools to get the fans of the future supporting you, you have a great opportunity to challange like you did early and mid eighties!