andy steel

Well, that's fair enough, but unless we have a remedy for society's ills (resists Marxist propaganda opportunity), we shouldn't beat ourselves up too much. Coming from Johnstone, I used to know a fair few St Mirren nuts - if they have them, every club must do!

Can't see how we have a group actively seeking trouble. If that was the case, how come the vast majority of our games, at home and in Europe, go off without any bother?

Oh btw, when we have a fan owned club, I bagsy Eponymous Archon first.

Very thought provoking. Unfortunately, the thought it is provoking atm is that we have to accept beatings and whatnot, grin and bear it. I can see the sense but stone me, that's hard to do in practice. I'm as big a wuss as you'll find but if someone is thrashing me I fancy I may resort to hitting back. As Zappa writes, no doubt I would be the one punished but that's not really in your thoughts at the time, is it? All I can think of just now is only going to games in northern Europe and bodyswerving anything south of France and east of Germany.

Hey! How come s t r a i g h t got edited? Guess I spelled it wrongly. I'm intrigued as to what the filter thought I was typing!

You think fan ownership will lead to a better side straight away? I would point out, though, that despite the wearisome line trotted out that Murray Park has failed to come up with anything so far, we have a goalie (slightly, I know McGregor was loaned out as well), a RB in Little plus Hutton, a LB in Smith, a CB in Wilson, and a forward in Fleck. That's nearly half a team: if we can do that when it's NOT been a time to use young players, we ought to be nicely placed when it is.

Well, I'd rather see a Rangers I was a part of than a Rangers that is a plaything for big business. If that means less success then so be it. I'll still be a Rangers fan.

I'm all for chastising BBC Scotland. But in all honesty, how much does 'police are looking for someone wearing a three-years out of date, grubby Celtic top' narrow things down around here? They'd have to lift everyone east of the Cross.

If we'd be willing to see the club risk a fallow period then it would all be worth it. If we insist on victory every year, there's no point going down this road at all. I would like to think that we're supportive enough to back the club for anything up to a decade while we get this sorted out, but I'm not sure.

I wish I could think of a better concluding paragraph.

Bad scenes.

Not to mention anyone wanting to invest, say $10m wouldn't have to spend an equal or more amount trying to buy the club in the first place. Although atm, anyone wanting to invest $10 would be welcomed with enough grovelling, bowing and scraping to satisfy and Arab. I know anyone can offer the club money as it stands, but people usually want something for their wedge. Under the ownership scheme, there would be no need for fuss about takeovers or whatever. It would be fans investing for all the right reasons.

Highly enjoyable stuff. Liddle's old man was an uber-Prod, apparently, and he fairly often has a go at Timothy. I doubt he cares much for Scotland or Scottish football, but I do enjoy his putting the boot into 'them' now and again. Or I did until The Sunday Times spoiled my weekends by carrying Graham Spiers boring column...I had to stop buying it then.

A positive post UCB, and I agree strongly. I think that if we keep organisations out of it for just now, and everyone simply classed themselves as 'a Rangers fan' and did what they could when they could, we'd avoid any infighting.

What would be the point of whoever invests most getting most voting rights? That way we're just back to where we were with an owner, only with a vote thrown in. OMOV.

When an ill advised Rangers supporter, watching a dull game between his side and Kilmarnock last season, rose to his feet and began a chant of 'The famine's over, why don't you go home?', he had little idea the weight of the law was about to fall upon him. Pointed out by a steward (apparently employed by Rangers, incidentally), arrested by the police, ejected from the stadium, charged with aggravated breach of the peace, conviction confirmed on appeal. One of the lines from a policeman's testimony has stuck with me, that the man was 'acting in a manner likely to alarm others.' Leaving aside the weak legal grounds and general pointlessness of the whole affair, it nontheless shows us where we stand as football supporters attending games, and what we can and can't do. Contrast this with some 40 Celtic fans, standing outside Falkirk's ground last Sunday, waiting until the start of a minute's silence on Remembrance Sunday and then carolling the assembed throng with a Republican anthem, which BBC Scotland report was in praise of an IRA terrorist killed by the British Army. No arrests. Are we to assume that the officers of the law who were there refused to carry out their duties during this emotional moment? Or that they considered singing through the silence not to be a breach of the peace? Or that their behaviour would neither alarm nor outrage anyone else? I wouldn't like to see people arrested for singing, no matter how offensively. It actually beggars, if you'll pardon the pun, belief that one can be arrested in Scotland for singing, no matter how badly. If one is about to smash someone on the head with a bottle while chanting I can see the point but not for mere words. Whatever happened to sticks and stones? The point here is that when Rangers fans sing some (offensive to some) songs, they are slammed. When their fans, as a group or individually, sing something which one group doesn't like, they are slammed. When another group sings, nothing is done. The legal system in this country has a choice to make, and make it it must. Either singing is sometimes unsavoury but hardly worthy of legal proceedings, or everyone comes under the same laws and they must be applied equally. This seems straightforward common sense to me - my worry is that the law in this country has been drawn to the siren song of The Great Oppressed and can't see the wood for the trees.

Well, they didn't inore it on Real Radio, but I still think it sounded undignified. The presenter was dreadful, but I congratulate Alan Rough on berating the police for not arresting these wallahs.

I think it comes from the crazed imaginations of these writers, to be honest.

The aim is certainly to remove the overt association with right wing British nationalism, no question of that. Even a left wing Scottish nationalist such as myself finds the ass-kissing of one political institution ('them'), compared to the ass-kicking of another, us, unfair. The only comfort is that it is so unsubtle as to be counterproductive. That pisses me off politically, but I'm happy about it football-wise! I am a bit schizo on this subject, in all truth. But there's no doubt these wallopers object to the flags, the songs, and so on, and will attempt to play up the links that come from such an identity as the problem within.

I hope the phone ins tonight 'mute' this issue as well. It's not fit for point scoring between football fans. Everyone in the UK can see and hear what those fans were like, and decide what to think of them. There's no need to take it any further from our point of view.

When Berndt Schuster, the classy midfield libero, decided to abandon his international career in 1984 at the age of just 24, there was much wailing in West Germany. Despite the tears, though, the Jerries knew that they could call upon player of similar stature and continue to bestride the European and world stage. Germany's luxury of choice, though, has never been an option for Scotland, who are lucky to have one or two world class players per team. How frustrating is it, then, when the few players we have whom you would rate highly are as likely to be standing beside you in the pub, watching the game, as they are to be on the pitch? Another international week, another reason for Scotland fans to gnash their teeth in bitter frustration. Or perhaps just the Rangers fans amongst them, for they better than anyone know what form their keeper, Allan McGregor, is in. Owing to the contrived media storm over the V-sign controversy some months ago, of course, McGregor is unavailable for the Scotland-Wales game, and in the wake of Sunderland's Craig Gordon breaking his arm at the weekend, there is news today that St Mirren's Paul Gallagher has been called up. I don't know much about Gallagher; he may be a very promising player for all I know, although at 30 you have to feel he's as good as he's going to be. His performance on Saturday, ironically enough against Rangers, didn't inspire much confidence, as he spilled the ball in the opening 20 seconds to present Kris Boyd with the dream start of a goal. Scotland boss George Burley, who apparently went along with the decision to ban McGregor, can't be happy with this state of affairs. Instead of a goalie who is excelling at Champions League level, we have one who is at best average at SPL level. We can't ignore McGregor's role in all this: I'd hate to see the player think that, due to his talent, he can do what he likes. Any recall would have to be accompanied by a very public statement about being in the last chance saloon! McGregor seems to be, from the outside anyway, a boy whose head has been turned - we Rangers fans have Walter Smith to thank for bringing him back from the graveyard of wasted talent and I doubt we would be thrilled in the SFA drove him there in a limo. I would bet, though, that we can trust him to behave this time. Reversing his decision and picking McGregor would leave Burley open to charges of weakness, and indecision. So what? If he sticks with his current plan, he'll be criticised for being too dogmatic. In short, he can't win: so why doesn't he simply pick the best team, to get the best result? I suppose this is a bit utopian, but I'd still like to think that the boss of Scotland is only interested in seeing Scotland win, rather than worrying about what some writer or fan may or may not say. It's bad enough that Boyd is unavailable due to a mix of poor management and petulance, but at least there are one or two forwards who are at least nearly as good as he is. In goals, we have Gordon and McGregor. That's it. We're in no position to be fussy here. Grab the bull by the horns, George Burley! Pick up the phone. What have you got to lose? Only the game.

I'd do a swap for Hutton if they like.

An outbreak of Adam Syndrome?

Well, not having being there, I will defer to your knowledge.

<sets down can of Strongbow> I don't think it's funny at all, and that's why I back the proposals going to Holyrood soon; certainly not perfect but a step in the right direction at least. In reply to your earlier post, no, we didn't see the chair throwers being waded into, but from what I've read fans were being assaulted outside as they tried to gain entry - or at least some were, and who's to say they were not the same people reacting later? There's a world of a difference between thinking violence is acceptable, and that it is always wrong - a lot of ground in between.