scottish wrote:The big difference is that in Thirds's case most of their fans had long since turned their back on them before they went under. In the hypothetical and extremely unlikely case of Rangers going the same way we're talking about close to 50,000 at every home match and over 5,000 travelling to away games. I think the likes of Linfield, Airdrie United, Morton and Ayr United may get a boost
I think you overestimate how many would still take an active interest in the game. No doubt there would be some distribution but I just don't think it would be significant. It's like when the News of the World was closed down. I haven't seen the figures so I'm speaking from a position of ignorance - unusually - but not every NOTW reader immediately switched to another Sunday paper. Some did but the majority just didn't buy any replacement. I think the same would happen if Rangers went under. Most would just be sickened by it and lose interest or watch foreign leagues. Some hardcore sorts would try and recreate the old magic somewhere else.
BMCCOLL wrote:2 questions...
if Rangers reformed under a new name, would it still retain its present following?
It's difficult to say. A lot of people assume everyone would just follow (follow) on but who honestly knows. There's a lot of variables.
BMCCOLL wrote:And what would Rangers FC gain in having the site closed down?
I don't know. As I say, the existing database is very small but there was a suggestion that Rangers were looking to set up their own official database/records (a mere 15 years after they went online) so didn't want fans muscling in on their turf. My experience of Rangers, pre-Whyte mind you, was that they don't like the fans doing anything for themselves and are very protective of the 'brand'. As I say, it was just Internet chitchat.