Hildy
-
Posts
1,747 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Hildy
-
Got it in one.
-
You used the term 'nose-in-the-air' earlier. This is like Rangers-haters using 'sectarian' and other derogatory terms to describe us. It displays more about them, and in this case, you, than about those they take issue with. Perhaps this is where the problem really lies. The Orange movement does not encompass to any great degree the broad spectrum of the Protestant community. It represents what we might call the blue collar Protestant community, or at least a part of it, and has limited appeal elsewhere. It cannot reach out and embrace Protestants from the white collar part of the community in any great numbers, perhaps because it perceives a 'nose in the air' attitude to be distasteful, or maybe because the organisation itself is too flawed, too parochial and too entrenched. The Orange movement may well have had to deal with unfairness and finger-pointing over the years, but has it reacted in a way that sees it winning the argument? Few would say so. Its marching presence brings embarrassment to the very community it purports to represent - because it represents only a strand of the Protestant community and seems to alienate the rest. When its defenders use terms like 'nose in the air', it's maybe not too difficult to see why. To reiterate the earlier point, it would be utter madness to highlight in any way the Orange movement or Rangers in this NO campaign. Most Rangers fans can grasp this and I would hope that members of the Orange movement can grasp it, too.
-
I read an article by a Jewish Celtic fan, which was actually quite dreadful, saying that most of his Jewish friends supported Rangers during our nine in a row years - glory-hunters he called them. As I understand it from much older people, Jews were more inclined towards Rangers than Celtic back around the time of the game you mention, although the numbers at Rangers were never particularly great either.
-
If a Protestant businessman had done that, what would it prove?
-
No, you don't. The Orange Order has lost it way - just as Rangers have. I am highly critical of Rangers because I care about it. I hate to see it and its supporters tolerating mediocrity and excusing its many highly paid servants for delivering low grade football and empty promises. My opinion on the Orange movement, which I know much less about, is also low. It has about as much political influence as the Scottish communist party and is regarded in similarly low esteem. It will likely be banned from marching extensively in the future because it is an easy target and has even less friends than Rangers - which is quite an achievement. When it finally happens, I'll support it in any way that I can, but I suspect that it will take a lot more than me to stop the rot. Scotland has changed, and not in a way that I would have chosen, but it would be a lot more useful if people could dismiss romantic notions of how it was and deal with things as they now are. What the Orange movement once was, it no longer is. As for Rangers, I'm a bit more optimistic - but still a pessimist.
-
You aren't getting it. The fervent argument as you call comes not from me, but from many, many people across Scotland who believe that the Orange movement is an anachronism that serves no useful purpose in modern-day Scotland. Should it pack up? Of course not. If it has value and worth it will survive, but does it have the personnel and leadership required to take it forward and face down an ever-growing number of enemies. I'm not sure that it does.
-
If you are part of the Orange movement, and if you support it and want it to thrive in the future, don't kid yourself that my experience is remote from the truth.
-
The Catholic community generally dislikes the Orange movement, which is hardly a surprise, but in my experience it isn't popular with the vast majority of people who could reasonably be bracketed under the Protestant banner, including many Rangers fans. I would certainly struggle to find many people who have a good word to say about it. It may find itself struggling in the future - independence or no independence - as there is growing pressure to limit its marches or have them banned altogether, which would be an absolute outrage, but most Scots would not be sorry to see the back of them and the movement shouldn't delude itself that it could count on mass support to defend it. Rangers and the Orange movement are intertwined as far as the Rangers-hating community is concerned. You can argue differently and probably make a reasonable case, but popular perception is hard to counter. They call us orange b******s after all - not blue ones.
-
I don't think anyone is bothered that he faces punishment, but if the Celtic player who was sent off in a friendly escapes scot free, there is a situation pertaining to general fairness that needs to be addressed. This idea that some referees report the matter while others don't is ridiculous. If a player receives a red card, it should be included in the referee's report every time.
-
Firstly, who said anything about spurning it? Secondly, where did I say that the NO campaign is inclusive and fully representative of all? Thirdly, where am I telling a huge block of voters to stay away? Fourthly, where have I stated that this huge army of voters should be rejected? You may not like it, but the Orange movement's reputation across Scotland is extremely low. This may be unfair, but the organisation is reviled more than it is respected and the Rangers support is on the same dangerous road. When you try to persuade people and sell them an idea or concept, you do not do it by highlighting those groups who have already bought into it who are not generally well respected. Can you imagine the NO campaign having an advert for the Union which highlighted the Orange Order and Rangers? No, neither can I. I am a Rangers fan who understands that Rangers is becoming toxic. If you are an Orangeman, you should realise that the movement has a mountain to climb before it is ever likely to be respected again. Any leader of the NO campaign who tried to sell the Union to people by promoting Rangers and the Orange would be sacked before nightfall. It's sad and regrettable that it has come to this, but it's the way it is and we'd all better face up to it.
-
I'm sure there are. There are misguided souls in every walk of life. Rangers and the Orange movement have such poor reputations that they do more harm than any benefit that might follow from their involvement. As someone who is fully behind the NO campaign, I hope both Rangers and the Orange movement keep a safe distance from it. Do you really think that the NO campaign is sitting hoping that the Rangers support and Orange movement get publicly behind it? They would dread it far more than they welcome it.
-
People have to grasp something when they choose to fly what could be seen as controversial flags and banners. The rest of the world sees one Israeli flag and believes that we are all pro-Israel and in favour of its current actions. Historically, Rangers has probably always been a more agreeable choice for the west of Scotland Jewish community than Celtic, but do we want the club and support to be portrayed as backing Israel when a highly contentious conflict is under way? Then there are banners which support the Union. Are they a good idea? Do banners proclaiming support for the Union actually help the Union cause? I don't believe they do, and I know that there are one or two in the unionist camp who are horrified at the thought of Rangers and possibly the Orange movement getting publicly behind the NO campaign. They believe that this is more likely to drive people into the nationalist camp than attract people to the NO side. When we see dubious banners within the Celtic support, we tar the whole lot of them with backing whatever they happen to be. Don't be surprised then when the same thing happens to us.
-
Football is a fantastic sport and I think it was Pele who described it as 'the beautiful game'. Is it beautiful at Ibrox? No, it's not. Is it pretty then? Again, no. Is it interesting and with just enough character to be attractive in its own unique way? Sadly, no. Is it ruggedly handsome then in masculine fashion? No, quite the opposite. What is it then? It is ugly, submissive football. If it was a car, it would be a clapped-out jalopy; if it was a plane, it would be Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose; if it was a boat, it would be a leaky rowing boat with one oar; if it was a building, it would be boarded up and derelict; if it was a girl it would be a wallflower and if it was a politician, it would be John Prescott. Down Ibrox way, Mr McCoist has removed the beauty and artistry from football and replaced it with fear, bland, boring and tedious - while incorporating an old folks' home into the home dressing room. Football at Ibrox barely resembles football at all. It is a grotesque Frankenstein creation that should be for undiscerning adults only. Taking children to witness this is tantamount to child abuse. To the uninitiated, here are a few words of advice if curiosity gets the better of you and a trip to Ibrox is on the cards. It should really be on a sign next to the turnstiles. ANYTHING YOU SEE HERE WHICH RESEMBLES FOOTBALL IS PURELY ACCIDENTAL
-
I'm not saying that it will happen, but we live in a changing world where the unpredictable and unimagined really does come along. Rangers and Celtic merging is about as far-fetched as it gets, but a few years ago how many Rangers fans would have believed that the club would suffer all the bad things that have happened to it? A relative handful. We are experiencing an era where Rangers is gradually weakening as a football club and as an institution. I don't expect there to be a full recovery unless there is fundamental change to the club, and also to Scottish football. Rangers has to re-invent itself at every level and if I'm honest, I'm not sure that it is capable of doing so. Anyone suggesting in Manchester 2008 that the roof was close to falling in would have been laughed at. I wonder what clued-up soothsayers are predicting now.
-
Inverness is a merged entity and although it has some success on the field, it doesn't attract significant support. Maybe the wounds of the merger are too recent to have healed. Aberdeen is a merged club too, the product of three clubs, but as this happened a long time ago, it has largely been forgotten. We talk about the Dundee clubs merging, but would it really work? Would thousands of fans be lost to the game when the city derby was lost along with the individual heritage of both clubs? If UEFA offered a huge incentive for Rangers and Celtic to merge so that Glasgow could strut the world stage competing with Madrid and Munich, how many would be in favour? Think about it - sectarianism in the Glasgow football scene reduced or wiped out and the city given an opportunity to participate more equally in England and in Europe. How many would be up for that? The solution for Scottish football - right now - is not mergers. It is to regain a meaningful profile in the glamour zone. Rangers and Celtic give Scottish football stature, but Celtic is struggling and Rangers is lame. Somehow, Scotland must find a way to have Rangers and Celtic competing in the big league. If this doesn't happen, Scottish football will effectively get wiped off the football map - no matter how many mergers there are.
-
Dismal. I agree that a league should be proposed between leading clubs in Holland, Belgium, Scotland, Austria, Portugal and one or two other smaller countries. This proposal has been described as an Atlantic League in the past. Could Scottish clubs play in the English league? Yes, they could. If the UK remains united there will need to be a political initiative to stave off Scottish nationalism in the future. A limited integration of leading Scottish clubs into the English game would likely be a part of this. The FA could be pressurised by the 'political establishment' to make it happen. It's not that difficult. Would England really want Scotland to have such close football ties (Atlantic League) with a variety of European countries rather than with itself? Probably not. If the Scottish league continues as it is and Rangers and Celtic remain in it, you are correct - Scotland's children will be drawn to the English and European elite rather than following the mundane and substandard Scottish game. Rangers and Celtic, big as they are, will not be able to compete with the glamour of Barcelona, Real Madrid and Manchester United. Summing up: if things don't change, doom and gloom will be our future. If they do change though, there is a degree of hope, if not a cast iron guarantee, that the situation will improve.
-
If he was appointed to a prominent position at Rangers, he would be seen as an improvement on whoever he replaced. He is apparently a Rangers fan so he'd be in a minority of one if he was made a director. The thing is, though, anyone joining this current lot will likely become tainted quite quickly. If he joined and was a success, I would hope that he'd make it his business to clean out the SFA/SPFL in ruthless fashion and step up our influence. If he was able to engineer the removal of some of the leading lights there, he would certainly be awarded more than a few brownie points.
-
We really don't know the breakdown in reasons why fans aren't renewing in the usual numbers, but there is much to mull over. Is the Dave King/Richard Gough campaign a factor? Without a doubt. When ticket sales fall off a cliff around the same time a campaign like this is receiving significant media attention, it simply has to be a contributing factor. Is the rotten football a factor? Most definitely. Not only are people no longer prepared to pay to watch the unimaginative guff that is regularly served up, some aren't even watching live streams of games any more, and often, if a Rangers game coincides with an important English or European game, they will watch the more entertaining alternative instead of the endurance test that is watching Rangers. General disillusionment. People are sick of the whole sorry tale. Between the board, the management, its lack of imagination and insatiable desire to sign elderly footballers; the failure to have a meaningful vision at any level and the experience of being part of a support that is often vindictive, hateful and small-minded, people are growing away from Rangers and finding better uses for their money and their time. In truth, many are beginning to realise that Rangers probably did disappear in 2012. The know that the club is still there but believe that its spirit has long since departed. One point worth noting that has been said to me by several people who don't bother going now: if Dave King arrived and sorted out the mess behind the scenes and gave the manager a large cheque to bring in new blood, would they come back? No. Not one. The last straw for some people is when they return to Ibrox after having had a break from the football. When they see the same old junk being served up, they realise that they don't want to be there any more. This is a complex business and none of us really knows how the future will pan out, but I think we should be able to agree on one thing. This chapter in the history of Rangers has been extremely damaging. It hasn't been a journey. It has been a nightmare and some people can only escape it by chucking it.
-
Steven Whittaker - no regrets about quitting Rangers
Hildy replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
He did the right thing. What professional with a decent part of his career left would have endured three years in a football backwater rather than taking the opportunity to earn serious money down south? Would Lee McCulloch have stayed at Rangers if he'd been a younger man when the roof fell in? I think it was Whittaker and Naismith who embarrassed themselves at their leaving press conference - which was completely uncalled for - but leaving Rangers was absolutely the right thing to do for any professional player who had more lucrative and worthwhile career options to exploit. As fans, look how miserable our 'journey' has been. Any player getting a better offer would have been daft to reject it to stay at a club whose future - even now - is still in doubt. If any of us had been in Naismith's position, would we really have hung around when the English Premiership was an option? Every bit of advice he received would have been to get out, and this was good advice. The press conference, however, was a disgrace. -
Thanks for posting the highlights. That could be one of the most important results of the season - for Rangers.
-
A fee-based membership is fine but a membership scheme which is not about ownership and not about electing a proper club president is a waste of space. This scheme is tokenism of the worst kind. It pretends to be a meaningful democratic structure but it will actually be about safe, peripheral and mostly uncontroversial issues with the club carefully orchestrating its behaviour. It will be influential in the detail of official merchandise; it will do a bit of charity work to make it seem caring and compassionate, it will be given credit for winning, for example, increased ticket allocations for particular games, and it will be the perfect tool for the club to tell us that it is doing what 'we' want it to do. The club will use the power of leading Rangers personalities to sway the group when the going gets tough. If the sale of Auchenhowie is going to happen, expect this fan group to be muted in its opposition - or given the credit for stopping something that was not going to happen anyway. The club hierarchy has a new plaything and it will manipulate it carefully to do exactly what IT wants. For a club board eager to reward itself with generous financial packages and inclined to pull the wool over the eyes of the gullible in our midst, a dubious membership scheme is the perfect way to exert greater influence and retain control.
-
It's important to keep asking questions of the board - and demanding answers of it too. The issue of Murray Park is important to all of us. The RST is right to keep it to the fore.
-
If people want to have a season ticket, and if they strongly disapprove of this scheme, they should be given the option to be excluded from it. I don't see the club offering £25 off the price of a season ticket but the option not to belong should be on the table for every season ticket holder.
-
I wonder if season ticket holders can get exemptions from belonging to this latest scheme?
-
You could set up a small committee from members of this site and they could run Rangers better for expenses and a modest honorarium.