Thinker

It's definitely true that the support grows during times of success. Some are glory supporters who drift away when fortunes turn, but some will be hooked and stick with it and hopefully pass on that loyalty to their kids. I can only speak for myself, but I'm Rangers till I die. All the shit that's been thrown in the way of our success these past few years just makes me more determined to see things put right. We've been busted down to the foot of Scottish football, and we've been beset by parasitic owners, but we're still going, and we're in a better position this year than we were last year. And I'm optimistic we'll be in an even better position next year.

I'd imagine most of the smaller nations would be interested in this - so much so that there very likely would have to be a few divisions in the league. Teams with a big support and decent financial base (like us) would have an advantage in rising to the top. Even if we had to start off playing teams from Denmark, Austria and the like (which would still be far better than the status quo) we'd get up alongside the Dutch and Portuguese eventually.

Spot on - at the point of the split the season would pretty much be over for the teams lying in 8th, 7th, 6th and maybe even 5th place. The only way to really make sure of significant games at the end of the season is to have some sort of play-off system and Grand Final like Aussie NRL, for example. Personally I hate the thought of the best team throughout the season losing the title in a one-off grand final though. It also just shifts the problem to the period of the season just before the play-offs begin when teams know their league position isn't going to effect their seeding in the knock-out stage and therefore have nothing to play for. As has been mentioned before, the Belgian top flight has a kind of compromise where the league splits into play-off "groups", each vying for either the title, European berths, or staying up. It's a bit contrived and ugly though.

I was at work too - sitting across from a Celtic fan, both of us anxiously checking the scores online. I remember calmly saying "That's Motherwell scored." - trying my best not to celebrate because it wasn't over yet and I didn't want to be left with egg on my face. Then I refreshed and they'd scored again... Probably not the most exciting way to experience it, but nonetheless those couple of minutes are burned into my memory. It must be close to what seeing your lottery numbers come up feels like.

I say side-tracked because, even though I could discuss it at length, it's a mile off-topic for a Rangers Chat topic. But okay though (Disclaimer: I AM NOT A RACIST). Using the N word pejoratively in order to insult a black person is obviously out-of-line, but I actually think (and I may be in the minority here) that it's kind of self-defeatingly discriminatory that 50 Cent can use the term in an ironic jokey way, but a white artist can't. It's an example of society completely losing the ability to see the context and the intent of the usage in a grown-up way. If I was to sing a 50 Cent song at the karaoke which included the offending word would I be a racist? I'll never do it, because I'm certain that if I did, someone would give me a hard time about it - even though I doubt Fiddy himself would give a shit. IMHO the right-or-wrong of it should be defined by the context, not the user and until such a time as that's the case, we won't have solved the problem. Anyway - a further example of the F word being used in a non-offensive, non-sectarian way: I remember Billy Connolly doing a skit about the street hawkers around the Barras shilling pens to passers-by "A blue yin for a blue-nose! A green yin for a ******!" Is that offensive? Does it depend on the religion of the seller? To my mind the word only becomes offensive when preceded by, for example, "dirty" or followed by "bastard". Once again, it's all about context.

A bit - although the Samaras example isn't exactly self-application. Is it okay for me to call Samaras the Athenian ******? I don't want to get side-tracked by an N word debate, but that's a fine example of hypocrisy. If a term is unacceptable, self-application is just as bad. Anyone who does undermines the argument against its use.

Celtic fans self-apply the term. For example they called Samaras "the Athenian ******". Should any Celtic fan using that phrase have been prosecuted? If the answer is no, then the term does have acceptable, non-sectarian usage.

The SNP created their anti-sectarian legislation (that prohibits the use of the word hun) because they, as a party, believe such language and behaviour to be offensive. The type of online behaviour O'Hara indulged in only became illegal at the time the legislation was passed (so there's no question of him being retrospectively prosecuted) but did it also only become offensive to the values of the SNP at that time? To argue that it did would seem strange. I'd have thought a political party would seek to distance themselves from any individual who has a record of indulging in behaviour that they consider so offensive they felt compelled to create legislation against it.

I absolutely hate the current split in the top flight. The unequal number of home and away fixtures pre-split is ugly, and the whole reason behind it (having a more exciting finish to the season) is undermined when the authorities painstakingly avoid the possibility of an Old Firm decider. Boring as it may sound, I'm convinced the best system for a league of our scale is a 10 team top flight. The only other option would be to do something really novel like the Belgian Pro League (16 teams with bewilderingly complex play-offs for the title, European spots and relegation). I fear Scottish football traditionalists would hate that more than the current split though.

I don't know how you could get him to cut the mistakes out. He doesn't seem to be able to concentrate for the full 90 minutes, and that's not really something that can be addressed that with training. Maybe the best option is to play him in a position where his lapses wouldn't be so costly (i.e. slightly more advanced so that he's never the last man.)

I think it's about consistency for most of us. Imagine the same situation but with Guidetti and the H word, replaced by Vuckic (for example) and the F word. Do you think we'd have been allowed to dismiss it and let it blow over? I'm not offended by anything Guidetti did, but I am offended by the idea that Celtic should get away with something we'd get lambasted for.

My mate's whole family are Killie fans and they hate Celtic at least as much as us. I think the only real difference is that there's been a convenient stick for them to beat us with recently. The notion that Celtic fans put about of them being the goodies and us the baddies is met with derision by the majority of non-old-firm fans. In fact, I think we get a bit of credit with them for not claiming to be BFITW, darlings of European football, and all that nonsense.

Sorry, fair enough. It's just that I've seen others claim that the cartoon is homophobic, which I don't really think it is (and I'd be astonished if Chris Graham meant it that way).

I agree with you. The picture was not of Mohamed carrying out a homophobic act, it was of Mohamed carrying out a homosexual act. IMHO, the point of the cartoon was to lampoon the homophobia prevalent in fundamentalist Islam (and, TBF, many religions and sects that don't consider themselves to be fundamentalist). To my mind the joke is obvious: "You're intolerant of anyone drawing a picture of Mohammed, you're intolerant of homosexuality, therefore you'll be doubly out-raged by a depiction of Mohammed performing a homosexual act". (Jar-Jar Binks' inclusion is an added piece of light comic absurdity.) Is it offensive to suggest a prophet of God might be homosexual? If so why? I think you can only come to the conclusion that it is if you approach the question from a starting point of mild homophobia.

Je déteste Charlie.

Chris clearly isn't an Islamophobe or a homophobe (if, for example, Frankie Boyle made a similar tweet would anyone suggest he was?), but he's cocked up in the sense that he's created an opportunity for the usual suspects to attack him and the club. I think the technicality that it's a re-tweet might just save him. He didn't create the image, or (to my knowledge) express approval of the image, all he did was bring it to Choudary's attention with the message, "You probably won't like this one...then". I'm pretty sure you could hide behind that legally if you wanted to. (Where's the line? Would it be okay to retweet the image with the message: "Look at this, it's horrible!"?) If Chris gets through this, and I for one hope he does, I'm sure he'll serve the club well and is unlikely to make any other faux pas.

It was all pretty dire except for football. I used to love going to Anchor Boys when I was wee though.

So basically what you're saying is that, without the boycotts, even more time and money would have been wasted? If so I agree. I'd argue that the boycotts influenced Laxey, and made them more amenable to being talked round by King. The boycotts made Ashley's power and disregard for the other shareholders clear for all to see. They forced his hand and brought the problem to a head. Which has to be a good thing?

I'd say it's a pretty reasonable assumption that the boycotts only hastened the need for the loans. Any additional money that may have come into the club, had there been no boycott, would simply have been siphoned off.

For the past few years, those in control of the club have been actively trying to deceive the support, so I don't think there's much to be gained by pointing the finger at those who were taken in. TBPH, I fell for Green's bluster at first, and I suppose some folk find it harder than me to reassess which side of an argument they should be on or admit that they've made the wrong call. But we can't, on the one hand, lament the factionalised nature of our support, and then proceed to bear grudges against certain groups for their judgement during the fog of misinformation deliberately put out there by PR men and spin doctors. I say forgive and forget - anyone willing to get behind rebuilding the club under a new regime is 100% welcome back into the fold as far as I'm concerned. Let's remember who the real enemy is here.

That's true, but to someone like 3 names a ban would be meaningless. The best response to slander-merchants like that is to debunk their garbage - and with an open, well-run club, all the information required to do the debunking should be freely available to anyone who cares to look. Ideally, the likes of the RST or any friendly blogger would be able to shoot trumped-up accusations down in flames - and after being repeatedly "owned" what little credibility these career anti-Rangers have will be gone.

The aim of the boycotts and protests were to put pressure on a board who are unfit to run our club. It looks like it may well have worked so, far from damaging the club, these acts have brought about the prospect of a much brighter future. Do you think, if we'd all compliantly bought merchandise from SD (supporting a deal which damages the club) and obediently purchased match tickets (providing more dosh for the board to squander and pilfer) we'd be in a better place? I'd argue it's truer to say that the board have been defying the will of the fans (the true spirit of the club) these past few years, rather than say we've been defying them. We reject them, we don't defy them - they're supposed to be there to do a job for us. And with regards to the singing - how will airing songs which we all know could result in the club being sanctioned help matters? Do you think defying the authorities' ruling on this matter will in any way put pressure on them to change it?

I wouldn't ever suggest that a system of schooling should be abolished - but is that really the correct description of what RC schools are? A system? If parents want their kids to be schooled in a particular way then absolutely they should have the right to choose, but all schooling "systems" should be open to everyone without reference to their religion (or any other irrelevant trait). Would it be okay to apply this idea to any other kind of institution - that certain of them are only for people of a particular religion? I suppose I approach this whole subject from a negative starting point because I'm fairly anti-religious in outlook and don't agree with the concept drumming religion into children too young to properly question what they're being taught. To paraphrase the school superintendent from The Simpsons, "God has no place within education, just like facts don't have a place within an organized religion."

It's obviously a bit much to say that denominational education turns children into bigots, but I definitely think it's the case that it creates the divisions and differences in beliefs that bigotry is rooted in. My best pal up until I was about 10 was the kid across the street - I don't think separation at primary school age made too much of a difference. When we both went to secondary school we drifted apart until we were about 17 or 18 when (both being total nerds) our paths crossed again and we spent a lot of time playing computer games, nintendo and stuff like that together. We were still good mates and got on really well, but the peer pressure of the RC secondary school he attended had most definitely influenced his attitudes. In the 7 or 8 years when we hadn't been hanging out together he had become (shock-horror!) an avid celtic fan - where previously he had a lack of interest or knowledge in football to the point of it being embarrassing for him (not knowing who played for Scotland etc.) I suppose that change is self-explanatory - you adopt the interests of your classmates in order to fit in. Obviously, that's no big deal, but he had also adopted, for presumably similar reasons to his football affiliation, a fairly cookie-cutter set of political opinions - Pro Irish-Republican, anti-royalism etc. TBF, since the town I grew up in was far from cosmopolitan and the Secondary school I attended was effectively the Protestant school, I'd developed some proto-Sectarian attitudes that certainly didn't come from my parents (fairly innocuous ones - "the pope" was regularly the punch-line for off-colour jokes amongst my school friends for example.) I'd argue that increased differences in football affiliation and political attitudes (to Britain/Ireland mainly) are both effects of segregated schooling (pressure from a different set of peers during formative years) and whilst we all ought to grow out of that when we leave school, it's inevitable that some of us won't. So would the Catholic/Protestant divide exist in the West of Scotland if we all went to the same schools? I'm convinced it would be much less pronounced if we did.

McMurdo's latest blog is fairly critical of Ashley, so maybe that's another indicator that they've ditched the PR set-up they've been using. IMHO it would actually be a pity if they have, because I'm convinced that the blatant, cynical spin that's come from Toxic's minions has done more to stoke resentment of the regime than raise support for them. The majority of fans can see straight through their bilge.