amms

Right, so nobody said Rangers should be divided into classes and nobody said we should pander, you just imagined it. Let me try and clear this up then so we can get back to the point in hand. This isn’t about ‘class’ or ‘PR’, they are just words used to illustrate a point. It isn’t about pandering to anyone. It’s about recognising that a significant and influential group of people in this country are put off Rangers by any ‘orange’ association and what they perceive that to mean. In many ways they should be natural Rangers supporters, their geography and cultural upbringing should lead them to favour us. Some of those people might have been quite helpful to us in recent times. It’s not a matter of pandering to them, it’s about understanding that the majority in our society choose not to get involved not only with organised religion but with the Orange Order’s specific brand of it. They’ve rejected it, for whatever reasons, as being irrelevant to them. Why would we as a club then choose to associate ourselves with an organisation the bulk of the population have rejected? Aside from any cultural or religious reasons it doesn’t make long term financial sense to align ourselves there. You know if we’re looking for quasi-military religious groups to partner then bring out a BB replica strip, less baggage, more members, greater affection in society. Navy top, white ‘sash’, brown belt and badges on the sleeve; I’d buy it!

Look, go back and try reading the words again. Not what you want them to say, or imagined they said but what they actually say, it's not as hard as you're making it out to be. You called the OP 'naive' 'mental' or 'at the wind-up' if he thought there were people who would support Rangers if we improved our 'PR'. I pointed out who I thought those people were. Since then all you've done is insult fellow Rangers fans. Who said Rangers should be divided into classes? Who said we should 'pander'? Please, show me where that was said? It's not just the big words you seem to be struggling with Anchorman, it's reading in general.

Rubbish, utter rubbish. Anchorman chose to play the 'class' card and project his on prejudices onto others. He has no idea the background or social standing of the people he chose to insult on here, class snobbery is vile whether it is inverted or traditional. If those who want an orange strip can't take fellow supporters questioning it then fuck knows how you'll do when the 'outside' world asks the same questions. Grow a set for fuxake.

It does make you a coward, I'm glad you can live with it. What the fuck do you know about my academic background? No, I didn't mean "lack of class snobbery", if I'd meant that i'd have said that. I meant lack of class, something you are simply oozing just now.

Look, you asked the question so I gave you an answer, if you don't like the answer then fair enough, but to then resort to personal attacks makes you a coward in my book. If you can't engage in the debate then don't, but don't fuckin complain because other people can. Your reply just shows a total and utter lack of class. I'll keep the words small for you in the future.

Do you think our influence matches our numbers?

Yeah, actually, I do think there are literally thousands of people out there who would support Rangers if we got our 'PR' right. This ties into the BBC bias thread too. Rangers have lost the support of many of the 'Protestant' middle classes in the West of Scotland, you might not care about that, but it has cost us dearly recently and will continue too in the future if we don't address it. Bringing out orange strips does not help do that in my opinion. Whether people like it or not the Orange Order are viewed as, at best, anachronistic and inconvenient and, at worst, bigoted luddites by the most 'Protestant' people in Scotland. The main Protestant churches in Scotland keep them very much at arm's length, and most 'Protestant' people in Scotland keep the churches at arm's length. They no longer have a natural constituency here, they carry no weight politically and little socially either. So hitching your wagon to that particular star plays well to one particular market, it might indeed be a big seller, but that money will be earned at what cost? The Rangers Standard had an article by the Aberdeen supporting ex-editor of the Glasgow Herald a few months back. It was excellent, he very clearly pointed out that when he'd first came to Glasgow, Rangers supporters were very visibly represented among the professional and mercantile community in the city; they aren't now. We've missed those supporters in the last 12 months. Where were the lawyers, the accountants, the captains of industry and the broadcasters speaking up for us? They existed in the 1960s and 1970s though, so why not now? Ask yourself this, are we viewed as progressive, as inclusive, as being in-tune with modern Scotland? You might reject those notions as being unimportant, but in my opinion you'd be wrong, and as long as those who set the agenda view us that way we'll continue to struggle to not only make our voice heard but to be accepted as relevant. Many of the people who criticise Rangers would have been natural Rangers supporters at one time. Feeling that you can't openly support Rangers because they don't represent you is slightly depressing, yet I personally know a good number of people who feel that way. Most Rangers supporters aren't bigots, they aren't particularly religious and they aren't politically right wing, yet somehow we've allowed that to be the impression so many have of us. Simply not having an orange strip in itself won't change that view, but having one would certainly reinforce that.

I've always been sceptical that there is an anti-Rangers 'culture' at BBC Scotland, I know people who work there and they are certainly not anti-Rangers. I've not got time to go into why I think we continue to rub up against the BBC just now but I'm happy to expand on it next week. In terms of media bans I don't think the London bosses will care all that much if Rangers aren't cooperating with them. London has considerably weightier issues to deal with, they'll view this as a provincial spat in the sports department, to be dealt with on a local basis. Working with the BBC to change their reporting, their behaviour and, in your words their culture, would be a far more productive way of improving this. A reasonable number of Scots rely on the BBC Scotland for their sports news, we're in effect hurting some of our own fans by imposing a ban. The BBC are not a commercial organisation, this won't affect them financially so who is going to apply the pressure? It's just my opinion but I don't think we're boxing clever here, I know a wee bit about changing people's behaviour and one of the least effective ways is by ignoring them. McCoist should do his interview with the BBC at the weekend and should speak about this issue and only this issue. He should ask the interviewer if he/she thought it appropriate to depict him jumping out of a window, what were they inferring by showing that and what did they think his reaction would be? Don't speak about the game, the players or the tactics, we hold far more power that way. Saying that live on radio or TV would be a far more effective way of changing behaviour and setting the agenda. That's just my take on it.

Banning media is pointless. It changes nothing, they can still report, discuss and review us, all they can't do is ask employees of the club a direct question, frankly that might be a blessing having heard the anodyne nonsense that passes for interviews in Scotland. Complaining when they are in the wrong, and they are with the opening credits in my opinion, is far more effective. The BBC must follow up complaints, if enough are made change will take place, perhaps not immediately but eventually.

Look, the crowd last night was supposed to be measured in four figures and we were supposed to get gubbed by the SPL leaders. Some people are really struggling with the narrative now that it's playing out. 1,000 Motherwell fans turned up, wow, one thirtieth of the attendance, you'd have thought they'd travelled from Mars the way they were being congratulated. That our team last night featured 7 homegrown players, 5 of them teenagers would normally ignite rapture among the Scottish media; the future of Scottish football blah blah blah. With our demotion they got what they'd always wanted; us on our knees. The mistake they made is not realising that even on our knees we're still taller than them. They didn't kill us they made is stronger, and it hurts them. Edit - to be fair Nevin actually told it it like it is at the end, he was surprisingly balanced.

I can't get onto the Rangers website currently so I can't read the complaint. The title sequence is indeed odd. It seems fair to say that it has most likely been influenced by the title sequence of Mad Men, but why? I'd be astonished if the designer involved hasn't watched Mad Men, it's a big 'media industry' favourite and, ironically, has become very influential in current popular culture. The Mad Men titles are themselves inspired by the Hitchcock film Vertigo and by the 'falling man' photograph taken on 9/11 at the Twin Towers. Without wanting to deconstruct them too much they are supposed to represent desperation, anxiety, the power of capitalism and society's false facade as well as America's slow descent into consumerism. It wasn't very well done either, if you're going to rip-off something as good as Mad Men at least do it well.

I used the word 'most' not 'all' because most white, English speaking Scots will not experience racism in Scotland. I didn't state racism is a one way street or the proviso of 'whites' only, nor did I infer it. That you feel you've experienced racism is regrettable and shameful, you are right to be angered by it.

Aren't all our views clouded by personal experience? Isn't that how they become personal, he, like you and me, can only express his own views. I didn't read his tweet as an attack on Rangers, simply pointing out that some Rangers fans have an odd sense of loyalty to the former England and Chelsea captain.

What exactly is their to defend about Terry, he's demonstrated on a number of occasions that he's just a ned with money. If that's your kind of man then good luck to you.

It would be interesting to read his thoughts on it I agree, perhaps Gersnet or the Rangers Standard might offer him a platform?

I see this slightly differently. Firstly let me make it clear that I don't think the greater Rangers support has a racist streak in it, I think the vast majority of our support welcome players and supporters no matter their colour, nationality or religion. Indeed I actually believe the Rangers support is far more open and welcoming to people of other races and religions than some other supports in Scotland, I think being a city based club means we are a naturally more multi-cultural club than some clubs from smaller towns are. However, my stomach turns when I see that BNP stall in Mafeking Street, with their fascist leaflets and ideology. It's not there every week but it's there often enough. As a support we tolerate its presence amongst us; why? Generally they are ignored, but I've never seen them challenged, far less seen them chased from the street, their tables overturned and leaflets trod into the dirt. I'm as guilty of turning a blind eye as anyone. Raman Bhardwaj is a Rangers supporter, as far as I know he doesn't hide this. His tweet, that seems to have caused most reaction, doesn't call Rangers fans racists, it simply states that only Rangers fans on his timeline have defended John Terry. Let's be clear, being a Rangers supporting Scottish based presenter he'll have a disproportionately high number of Rangers supporters on his timeline so that'll be a factor, it's unlikely he's got many Chelsea fans following him. For reasons i've never been entirely clear on we seem to have sort of 'special relationship' with Chelsea. I've read that this dates back to the time of the Chelsea barracks when many Glaswegian soldiers stationed there went to see them play. Today I imagine it has a lot to do with the colour they wear and their supports propensity for waving Union flags. So some Rangers fans might feel a certain loyalty to Chelsea and their captain. For me that loyalty is very misguided though. John Terry is a thoroughly horrible man. The son of a drug dealer he sleeps with his close friend's wife just because he can, he thought it was funny to mock Americans in a London hotel during 9/11 and he takes large cash bungs to give personal guided tours of Chelsea's training ground despite being a multi-millionaire. I don't know if he's a racist or not, but he did call Anton Ferdinand a 'fucking black cunt' during a match last season. That he was found not guilty of it was simply down to the fact England doesn't have a not provan verdict. His defence was he was trying to clear up what Ferdinand misheard, Ferdinand disputes this. Read the judge's notes on his verdict if you need clarity on that. Why would anyone want to defend that man? So when a Rangers supporter of Indian extraction, who will have experienced racism both casual and institutional during his life the like of which most of us will never experience, finds his timeline contains lots of people defending a horrible man who is facing a racism charge, I can understand his dismay and his disappointment.

I'd agree if he was older, and certainly if he did it again, but he's basically a kid and kids are stupid. I'm not condoning it, I just think the repercussions should be appropriate.

Whilst I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have said anything as stupid as that I am pretty relieved Twitter didn't exist when I was 17. He's obviously an idiot and he needs his arse kicked, at least metaphorically, but he shouldn't be sacked or charged with a crime.

I've always wondered what happens if you breach one of them, what's the worst they can do, sue him?

Thanks. It's not that many when you consider the size of our support, he might well feel there is a vast untapped market out there.

Do we feel this will be aimed at the average supporter looking to buy some 'sentimental' shares or at the corporate investor looking for profit, or indeed both? Does anyone know how many separate shareholders Rangers had before?

So he's resigned, that seems fair enough, not much more Stirling Albion could have done. Does that mean the SFA can't censure him now? BTW Is that really Darryl King or someone pretending to be him?

Dick King? Really? Imagine going through your life called Dick King, no wonder he's bitter.

You know you might be right, I'm no expert. I'm not sure we can claim to be a 'different company' but the same club though. Whatever legal definitions are made we're still 'Rangers' and those titles are still 'ours'. In my opinion that is. I'm uneasy about not being represented, simply not recognising their authority doesn't mean they don't have any whether we like it or not.