amms

You might recall a few months ago we had a discussion on here after another banner was displayed, quite possibly by the same group. It singled out a politician for fairly robust abuse. At the time the majority on here didn't have much problem with it, indeed a fair number were defending those who displayed it and their right to display it. It got quite heated on here, indeed at least one poster left the board shortly after it. The point I made at the time was that different banners will upset different people. Because a number on here agreed with the basic sentiment of the anti-Salmond banner they happily defended it. Because some disagree with this sentiment it's being criticised. Who is the arbiter of taste here, who decides what can and can't be displayed? The way I see it we either need to ban them all or none at all. As for the banner it is very misguided, Ashely, however objectionable he comes across isn't the villain here, he's buying, the subject of their ire should be whoever is selling.

I'm probably in a minority of one here but I kind of like the banner. Part of going to football is empowerment, the ability to have a voice and make it heard rarely exists elsewhere in many peoples lives, particularly young people, but it exists at the game. They've got a point of view and they are entitled to express it. Sometimes direct action is all that's left, as a support we've been treated with such distain that it's good a section of the support are willing to let directors know how they feel. They'll probably be ignored, fans usually are and they don't speak for the majority. The language used made me laugh, welcome to Glasgow Mr Ashley, anyone who isn't used to earthier words clearly never stood in the East Enclosure. We need a militant arm to our support, it's normally made up of young guys and they usually annoy older guys, that's part of football fandom.

Fights in boardroom's are not that uncommon, I know people who have that as their default operational method, it works for them fairly regularly too. We don't know what this one is about yet, perhaps Murray is in the right. A 'him or me' ultimatum surprises me, assuming it's true, you do wonder what subject or direction could cause that level of brinksmanship.

Traynor represents the club not the support, it's an important distinction. Whilst nobody can represent the entire support, people like the author and a few others identify themselves as Rangers supporters, rather than professional journalists or sport's broadcasters or indeed heads of communication. The important point in this piece for me at least is that BBC Scotland feel a show about Rangers must include several Celtic supporters. It's this thinking that needs challenged, again and again. It was interesting that Scotland Tonight on STV, after the EBT findings, invited Chris Graham, a Rangers supporter, Neil Patey a financial expert and Graham Speirs a sports journalist who has claimed to be a Rangers supporter in the past and is heavily involved in writing about us. They saw that as a balanced 'panel', an expert, a supporter and a journalist who has been very critical. No need for Celtic bloggers or Dundee Utd's PR mouthpiece. The Rangers Standard continues to impress me, engaging with the BBC is a great move. Well done all involved.

You'd be surprised, Celtic and Nike use several throughout the city, London Road and Balmore Road spring to mind. It's the advertising contractor's problem anyway, they'll request extra sheets are printed in case of damage and are contractually obliged to ensure the 'billboards' aren't defaced or weather damaged. If they are they don't get paid. Football 'tourism' isn't properly exploited in Glasgow. Between us, them and Hampden there's a real opportunity for someone to put on an official 'football' tour with a stop at West of Scotland Cricket ground and Glasgow Green for good measure.

Of course arguably the most successful coach on the planet just now comes from Govan! Nationality isn't important, experience and openness are.

Excellent news. Imagine the level of performance enhancing drugs our youngsters will now have access too, we'll turn the SFL into La Liga or Serie A yet.

It's a big headline with no story though. No quotes other than 'a fraud expert' stating the bleedin obvious. This reads like the Record taking a flyer, if nothing comes of it expect a 'puzzled police insiders' piece.

I don't disagree with anything you've written, I'm just uncomfortable that it happens. I'm not fooled into thinking Thomson is some sort of virtuous crusader, but our dislike and distrust of him shouldn't blind us from the apparent fact that the press are often too cosy with club owners. That's not healthy or in our best interests.

You might well be right. Traynor doesnâ??t deny it of course just offers an explanation as way of mitigation. Itâ??s this explanation that troubles me though. Why send him the whole article, why not just the salient â??factsâ?? he wanted Whyte to confirm? How much of what we read, and see reported, is filtered through the prism of club owners first? I accept Thomson and a few others have it in for Traynor, itâ??s childish and unprofessional, but thatâ??s not what really concerns me about this, Traynor is big enough to look after himself.

Yeah, probably. I imagine it is fairly endemic at some level. I'm not sure that makes it okay though. The press shouldn't be as cosy as this suggests they are, with Whyte, Lawwell, Green or any single director. That muppet Spence on Radio Scotland is like Steven Thomson's personal spokesman, the press collude on stories, it's not a startling revelation but it's still an uncomfortable one.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Thomson having a go at Traynor is just dick-swinging arseholeness, I'm not quite sure the point of it other than to embarrass Traynor. It strikes me as an abuse of his position at C4 and is unfortunately what we've come to expect from Thomson. That being said Traynor's closeness to Whyte is alarming. I get that journalists need contacts and they need to have a working relationship, but running the whole story past him? Surely an email saying 'we're running a story that mentions your £15 million war-chest, you ok with that figure?' would have sufficed. I'm not sure I buy Traynor's explanation actually. I've some sympathy with press journalists. Budgets and staffing levels have been slashed yet deadlines and expectations remain the same. Corners are cut, deals are done, nests are feathered, we get the media we deserve. I agree with the central premise that too many of the media bought into Whyte without question. That had they done their jobs a bit better we might, and I stress might, have been wise to him earlier. Or perhaps we'd have called the media all the bastards under the sun and accused them of having a pro-Celtic agenda. Either way, it still strikes me a as bit iffy, although I'm not sure it actually matters all that much.

First question made me laugh - 'what school did you go too?' Aye, you can take the boys out of Glasgow... The Conference thing is interesting, if he's serious about it that is.

We seem to be getting vexed by something that hasn't actually happened yet. Bell hasn't signed, we've only the Sun's word for what he'll be paid and it seems their story is inaccurate already. If Alexander is on £16k then that clearly is unsustainable. I believe McCoist when he say's he'd like Alexander to stay, I imagine we'd all like him to stay, but only if the salary was right. I imagine Alexander quite fancies something close to what he's on just now and we aren't likely to give him that. If he can get it elsewhere good luck to him. Having both Bell and alexander at the club, on money that suits the club is fine with me. Having either of them on money that suits the club is also fine with me. In the past we've excelled at making good keepers great ones, I hope we can do the same with Bell, if he signs.

So the OP's fishing I take it? Anyway it has always gone on, it's just caught by cameras now.

I didn't pick any age group to suit my argument, indeed I didn't make an argument. I made a flippant post as this thread was started whilst I was involved in a 'youth discussion' on another thread. As a matter of interest what's the correlation between representing Scotland at youth level and say representing Scotland at senior full international level? Has anyone ever worked out if youth internationalists are more or less likely to become full internationals or indeed full-time professionals? It isn't a question aimed at you just a general question of everyone. Other than prestige is there any demonstrable benefit in being a youth international? The Republic of Ireland, with similar population and arguably fewer resources than Scotland finished third at the Fifa Youth World Cup in 1997. Of that squad, probably the most successful ROI side ever, only one player, Damien Duff, had what you could describe as a successful career. Indeed almost all except Duff spent their careers in the League of Ireland or non-league English football. Of the Scotland under-19 squad who lost the final of the European championship to Spain in 2006 about half of them have made a career in football. 2 are with English Premier League clubs and 2 playing in the SPL, the remainder are at lower levels than that. Lee Wallace is obviously with us and should be considered of SPL standard at least. But again that squad has under-delivered, in terms of the potential it showed back then.

Haha, applause.

That wasn't a personal insult, simply a gentle jibe as you increasingly lose the plot. Little never played for Ballinamallard first team, Watt was a first team regular for Airdrie and has only started 8 matches for Celtic so far. Time will tell how good he really is. Either way, they bought him from someone else.

Who by? That's just a bizarre statement.

Watt? You're as bad as Kuznetsov McStay up thread. Aye, McGeoch's a guaranteed starter isn't he...

Kuz, you really are a man less for their team, gie up. They signed him from Airdrie, he didn't come through their set-up, I thought a Celtic youth team aficionado like you would know that. And if we'd stayed in the SPL we'd have kept Ness, McGregor, McCabe, Fleck, Little and so on. Honestly go and have a drink or a lie down, this obsession you've got for them is brutal to watch.

Ah, the Elfideldo card, can't believe it's not been played before now. Look, tell me how many are in their first team, that's all that matters in the end. That's the yardstick here, getting players into the under 17 squad is nice but ultimately it's worthless.

Haha. Maybe because it isn't always just about ability. Maybe because he can't follow instruction. Maybe he loses his man, doesn't work back, refuses to close players down, doesn't link up, is a tosser in the dressing room. I don't know, I fancy you don't either. There's a big difference between training and playing though.

Are you taking the piss GS? Are you really suggesting liking football is the qualification you've got?

I suppose last summer was a fairly exceptional time for the club, perhaps organisation and finance weren't at their best. But I take your point. Yeah, the school thing is very strange and frankly quite telling.