Generous Rangers to leave Tannadice half-empty

As well as being able to exact some revenge, Rangers’ Scottish Cup tie at Dundee United in February will allow the club to make a bold statement.

Dundee United chairman Stephen Thompson was very outspoken in his opposition of the reformed Rangers being allowed into the Scottish Premier League in the summer, making him a particularly unpopular figure with the Ibrox faithful.  Fans groups have since decided that they will boycott the match and the club have supported their stance by not taking up their allocation of tickets.

With the profits from ticket money being split evenly in accordance with the rules of Scottish Cup matches, Dundee United have asked Rangers to waive their right to accepting a share.  Rangers chief executive Charles Green, however, declared that the club would be taking the money they are entitled to and would then donate it to charity.

Rangers have endured undoubtedly the toughest time in their history over the past 12 months, suffering the most sudden fall from grace Scottish football has ever seen.  Several teams came in during this period, picking off the best players of what was a very promising squad.  The club has suffered a great deal in a short space of time, yet they keep on fighting.

Despite all the financial troubles they have had and finding themselves in the Scottish Third Division, this act shows that Rangers’ unshakeable strength remains and they will continue to stand up for themselves no matter what.

Follow @TonyDefc

Comments

[tony h]

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.

[john bulloch]

Tony - get over yourself - we don't want to go to Tannadice - the club has backed us officially and decided not to take up any allocation of tickets which is their right. In fact - why would Rangers take any allocation if no fans wanted to buy the tickets - the club would have tio pay for them and wouldn't sell any (or very few anyway).

Giving the proceeds of the match to charity was a master stroke by Charles green - the man is a legend...

The fact that dundee United might have some financial difficulties because of this is just a bonus for me...

Here's hoping we get past Utd into the next round and draw the sheep - I'd love them to go out of business as much as they'd have liked us to go out of business in the summer...

To the rest of the SPL - GIRUY

[tony h]

well no john i.m afraid rangers are the ones who will be out of pocket ,given the fact that utd have not budgeted for this game ,it is an extra tie and if they fill the ground will recieve the same amount that they would have got.
rangers on the other hand will recieve nothing at all given their pledge to donate the money to charity,and what happens if rangers win and gets to the next round do they bycott this game as well all the way to the final,because whether you like this or not no-one wanted rangers,also if their is a draw and the utd fans decide to boycott then what happens next,slippery slope your boys are on my friend