amms

Is it possible to agree with both those articles? Traynor is correct, this shouldn't be going anywhere now, it's wasting money and is simply a witch-hunt. At the same time it is going ahead and I feel Green and Rangers need to deal with that, simply ignoring the hearing is a risky strategy.

Does anyone know how that '72' magazine/fanzine sold? I bought a copy at the Charing Cross Post Office and thought it was pretty good, some serious effort went into producing it. There is still a place for printed media, but it needs to adapt, reporting 24 hour old news is not it, but with behind-the-scenes exclusivity a Rangers News type publication could still work. I'd make it photography led myself, kids still put pictures on their walls. Amusingly the advertisement at the bottom of this page is for some weight loss mob called LighterLife, big brother is watching you Andy, and he clearly feels you still need a wee push!

What needs changed is who investigates the police when they do something wrong. In this case it was the West Midlands Constabulary who investigated the South Yorkshire force, the police investigating themselves is hugely flawed. They can only have deliberately overlooked the changed statements and organised attempts to discredit the dead. It needs to be an outside body that investigates the police, they simply can't be trusted to do it themselves. In America, not usually my first stop for law enforcement advice, the FBI operate completely independently of the police. It's not the worst system in the world either. The waters were further muddied by the 'debt' the Thatcher government owed to the South Yorkshire police for their help in destroying the miners strike. No way was that government ever going to do anything but help the senior officers in that force.

I don't think it's right to describe Hillsborough as a conspiracy against Liverpool FC, more a conspiracy to cover up and protect people who should have been punished and to deflect blame onto the blameless. I think the fact it was Liverpool supporters who died helped some of those involved in this conspiracy justify it to themselves though. The Liverpool of that time was the city of Derek Hatton and Militant Tendency, Toxteth riots and strong anti-Thatcherist ideas voiced publicly in work like No Surrender, Letter to Brezhnev and Boys for the Blackstuff. Demonising Liverpudlians wasn't a great leap in the thought processes of many involved. I'm uncomfortable with McMurdo's blog, what happened at Hillsborough and subsequently over the last two decades is one of the most shameful episode in Britain in my 42 years here. It in no way compares to what has happened to us. We brought this on ourselves, we allowed successive owners deceive us and run our club badly. That others have taken advantage of that doesn't detract from our own culpability. The Liverpool fans who died that did NOTHING wrong, they simply went to see their team play a match the way all of us have done over the years. It's not a good parallel to draw.

I don't know origin of the phrase but Waddell's article was certainly using the phrase in conjunction with his belief that Green was socially or mentally different from the rest of us. Whatever the origins of the phrase Waddell used it in the way Andy describes.

When you say two good teams what are you benchmarking them against? Playing on the strongest league possible is surely in our best interest?

Oops, double post.

I think we need to be clear about who our beef is with. The SPL as an organisation have shown themselves to be corrupt and incompetent, I would be angry if we agreed to rejoin them without some fundamental changes taking place. I'd have little problem with refusing promotion to the SPL if the organisation still existed in its current form. The talk of moving to England is interesting, I too would have supported an application to play south of the border had we made one. We didn't, but we now find ourselves surrounded by decent, straightforward football people again. I hope we remember that these clubs, the smaller clubs, were fair to us when the larger clubs weren't. I'd put all our energies into creating a 2 league structure, containing far more teams and who play each other twice a season. 3 up and 3 down, more even spreading of money to all clubs and a focus on improving the quality of player and style of football, not about maximising income and increasing debt. As an aside on the English thing. A Glaswegian by the name of Frank Lynch (we'll all just guess what team he supports) started bankrolling an obscure Carlisle non-league club recently. Gifford Town play in the Northern League and they recently changed their name to Celtic Nation, they now also wear green and white hoops. They are expected to be promoted again this season as they are buying players from senior leagues, considerably better quality than the rest of the league can afford. Strangely Mr Lynch has no connection with the club, or Carlisle or indeed Cumbria, he's a rich Glasgow guy who now lives in South Carolina. Quite why someone who lives 2,000 miles away and has no connection to the region would want to bankroll a team with no history (they were founded in 2005) and a tiny support to make progress through the English leagues we can only guess at. It's also curious why he picked a team situated as close to the Scottish border as possible, I'm not aware of the transatlantic flight connections between Charleston and Carlisle, perhaps a club nearer Manchester or indeed Heathrow might have made more sense. Why you'd insist they changed their name and strips to ones resembling a club 100 miles or so north we can also only speculate at. This is all perfectly legal, Lynch has no official connection with any other club under the auspices of a different FA. If, in a few years time, when perhaps Celtic Nation have made it to say the Conference their ground won't meet the criteria required, they've such a small support they've no hope of building a new one, they might then consider looking for a new home to play in. I wonder where they might consider finding somewhere suitable?

Who was that?

Ach, see, we were worried for nothing - http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/2160-the-future-boys THREE of Rangers’ most promising talents have pledged their long term futures to the club today. Lewis Macleod, Barrie McKay and Robbie Crawford have all agreed extended deals with the Light Blues following a promising start to the season. Macleod has started all eight games that Ally McCoist’s side has played this season while McKay has also featured at some stage in each of those outings. Crawford has been a regular on the subs bench, making four appearances in total, including his top team debut as a sub in the first match of the campaign against Brechin. 18-year-old Macleod and 19-year-old Crawford have both put pen to paper on contracts that will keep them with Scotland’s most successful club until the summer of 2017. Both have been with the club for a number of years, developing their talents at Auchenhowie and now have the opportunity to blossom in the first team. McKay, 17, has also pledged his future to the club for another five years after arriving from Kilmarnock in the summer of 2011. Both McKay and Macleod have represented Scotland at various youth levels, with each taking part in this week’s 2-1 defeat to the Netherlands at under-19 level. As you can see from our exclusive picture above, Ally McCoist is delighted to have secured the long term future of his trio of talented youngsters. Couple of points, where are the shirts and ties boys? I'd sell them for that alone, and Ally's phone is a thing of beauty.

Haha, you know we've gone fully through the looking glass when Radio Clyde is seen as the station of impartiality. I'm sure they've taken expensive legal advice on this, I'm sure it's not just a PR stunt. But it's curious, I've never known a lawyer recommend not pleading a case, it's an unusual course of action for them to suggest. I think we're all agreed that the case stinks and that those bringing it are doing so out of spite, I agree entirely with Green on that. I just worry that by publicly stating we don't recognise them he's tilting at windmills.

He was on Radio Scotland this morning too and when asked the same question regarding what we'd do if promoted to the SPL he said we'd need to be 'welcomed back with open arms' before we would return, however he is sceptical if the SPL will still exist in 3 years time. I'm still not sure he's done the right thing here. I understand why he's done it, I understand why most are supporting it however I'm still uneasy. To state 'We're not appearing as we don't recognise your authority' is a big gamble. I still need convinced it's not in our best interests to be represented.

Would not attending the hearing be done on legal advice? It's a good statement, forceful and enlightening, I'm just curious if not attending is in our interests?

Fair point, I don't disagree Bluedell, Keevins isn't much of a writer and his opening does detract from his point, which is a good one. I guess I'm just trying to point out the nub of his article, that I need to do that kinda tells you all that's wrong with it.

I'm familiar with Keevins' past however I don't have much of a problem with this piece. The thrust of it; that fans are being charged too much to attend matches, is one I agree with. SPL prices in particular are a joke, that this will be detrimental to the future of the game is a fair observation. Accusing Rangers and Celtic supporters of blind loyalty is also a fair accusation, a quick view of some of the posts on here after a match should tell anyone interested that a lot of supporters feel the football on show is poor. The thrust of his article is that Rangers and Celtic supporters are being taken for granted, are being overcharged for what's on display and are mugs for continuing to overpay for the quality on show. Now you might not agree with all that, following a football club isn't all about the quality on the park after all, if it was we'd all follow Barcelona, but it isn't that controversial an article, is it?

You need a thick skin and a sense of humour to write for any Rangers website.

No, not really, not all Arabs are Muslim. It was/is a form of Arab nationalism, in Hussein and Gaddafi's case it was inspired by Nasser and was quite powerful as it manifested itself as anti-colonial. Nasser kicking the British and French out of Egypt was massive in the Arab world and he was lionised throughout the Middle East because of it. I kind of feel I'm splitting hairs with you here and I don't mean to, I was simply pointing out that the two dictators you mentioned rarely used religion to cement their power, indeed both were keen to keep the zealots in check. It's one of the great ironies of both their overthrows. If you are interested - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Arabism

No they didn't. Hussein and Gaddafi were Socialists and used anti-colonial feeling to gain power, religion wasn't a big issue in their coups, pan-Arabism was a bigger ideal for both of them. Both Libya and Iraq were fairly secular under those two. It's got little to do with this thread I know.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here Biggordy? I'm certainly not condoning what Adams and McGuinness were certainly involved in. Simply pointing out there was an inevitability about them becoming politicians and senior ones at that. Does that stick in the craw for lots of people, absolutely. But what you gonna do? Societies that emerge from violence tend to take generations to settle down, there are exceptions but the reasons for the violence don't disappear overnight because a truce is called or one side wins. Northern Ireland is a far safer place today than it was 20 years ago but it's far from 'fixed'.

You're right, you could have used David Cameron or Gordon Brown, only you know why you chose Hitler instead. I'll not mention it again. Infiltrated? You mean elected? Religions try and tell people what to do, that's kind of the point of religions I think. It's up to us to elect people who won't listen to them. The last time I saw a Catholic spokesman on TV he was damning Slamond and the SNP to hell over gay marriage.

Actually anyone who studies history could have predicted McGuinness/Adams and co would end up in government and part of the establishment. It's a fairly typical journey for many terrorists as they get older. It had certainly happened in Ireland before as well as in South Africa, Kenya, Israel, Cuba, India, Pakistan and Algeria off the top of my head. The situation Scotland is in today and Germany was in following WW1 are so totally different as to make your Hitler/Nazi analogy offensive. It can only be deliberately antagonistic on your part. I'm no fan of Salmond or nationalism, there are plenty of areas you can criticise him on without resorting to nonsense.

C'mon Biggordy everyone including Ian Paisley has 'cosied up' to Martin McGuinness, I'm no fan of Salmond but you can hardly criticise him for that, McGuinness is the deputy First Minister after all. I'm no fan of any form of nationalism but to compare the SNP with Sinn Fein and the Nazi party under Hitler is stupid, that just makes you look ridiculous.

Spot on andy. Economics drives the media. The Sun didn't decide to serialise that book because they wanted the 'story' to get a bigger audience it was because they thought it would generate some headlines and increase circulation. When it became clear it would have the opposite effect they dropped it. Chasing profit is destroying the media bit by bit, this was simply another example of it.

I still think McMurdo knows more than he's letting on. The world of a football agent must have been murky at times and McMurdo dealt with many clubs.

Well Holland is a three horse race with one of the horses falling badly a couple of years ago and a new horse having a couple of good seasons. The point I'm struggling to make Zappa is why should Ajax bother to rear players if they are simply going to leave before they turn 21? In the past they had a chance in Europe now they've none.How long do we allow that to continue for before we all pack it in and become Man Utd fans?