JohnMc

I've no particular dog in this fight but I do think you're being harsh on Ajax here. Feyonoord didn't make it to the Champion's League semi-final playing some sensational football whilst defeating Juventus and Barcelona along the way. That's what makes Ajax so appealing to old duffers like me who are hacked off how a handful of Spanish and English sides can simply buy anyone they want and dominate football. It's great to see a side we can realistically hope to emulate doing that. Also, when you add in former Ajax players like Eriksen, Alderweireld, and Vertoghen being in the side that put them out as a neutral you have to say as a club they're pretty impressive. I'm sure it pisses off some Dutch (and Scots apparently) but Ajax have a mystique about them, since the 70s they consistently produced world class footballers, even when they themselves weren't doing anything on the international stage, their alumni were. Plus that banner when they last played Celtic, clearly not fancying a 'special relationship' and letting them know it made me laugh. 

Nah, you're all wrong so far. POTY is Connor Goldson, the most under-rated player in our side. 

He's the defensive colossus the side's been built around, that's transformed our 'goals against' column this season. He's had to work with 3 different centre-half partners, yet has maintained a level of consistency that we simply now take for granted. He's been almost ever present, playing 54 matches. His discipline is exceptional, only 10 bookings all season and no red cards, unusual for a centre half in modern football, particularly when playing for Rangers. 

Most importantly he didn't give the ball away at Parkhead in the last minute for no explicable reason.  

BTW No Candieas in the poll? His stats are better than Kent's, he just does it with less fuss.

Burt held a lot of promise at one time, but he's been unlucky with injuries and that seems to have hampered his progress. I suspect they'll all find clubs at some level, who knows what still might happen for them. 

1 minute ago, buster. said:

Quick detour

Flanagan and Katic have made us more solid at the back.

No coincidence that they were both in a successful defence at the start of the season.

 

Am I joking ? 

 

I think the improvement in our midfield is the reason our defence is looking better, but I'll concede you might have a point. Being charitable to Flanagan he needs a run at right back before I can fully right him off as the Scouse Kevin Muscat. 

1 hour ago, buster. said:

Is it just Keef/sports dept. ?

 

-----------------

 

Latest on Celtic from the DR

 

Celtic FC cleared Boys' Club bosses over 'scurrilous' abuse claims in 1986

 

Victims, families and lawyers call for action after Daily Record reveals statement printed in The Celtic View after a club investigation.

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/celtic-fc-cleared-boys-club-16158020

 

 

 

Having read the Record's front page and the following double page spread inside I think the writer involved must have missed Peter's call because the article is damning, probably the most damning piece as yet published on this scandal in Scotland so far. 

13 hours ago, ranger_syntax said:

Who needs enemies?

I mean Flanagan's rubbish and I dislike him as a player and as a person, but you still took me a little too seriously. I'll put winking emojis on in future.

I know he's been better recently but the longer Flanagan is banned for the better as far as I'm concerned... 

Also, I think we need to bear in mind that if anyone is an expert on looking ridiculous it's Keith Jackson. An expert speaks, we should all listen. I quite liked the "rhyming slang" line though. I'm happy for the club to point out the constant inconsistencies and to do it publicly, at some point maybe a journalist will start to look into them instead of slagging us for pointing them out. 

2 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

Apparently Wim Wenders took her under his wing in the early 2000s.

Early 2000s? That sounds more like Roman Polanski.

You really need to start listening to the podcast dB, both Mexer and Milner were mentioned... 

In my limited experience the legal wheels do indeed turn slowly, very slowly at times, but they do turn. Whatever we think of politicians when an MSP writes to a public servant they need to respond in a satisfactory way, they can't just ignore him or palm him off. 

Was Defoe not a doubt before the Aberdeen match? If Defoe is playing with an injury we should start Morelos, but if Defoe is fit he should keep his place and Morelos should be on the bench. What a great dilemma to have. 

1 hour ago, Gonzo79 said:

It's important we focus on each organisation that demonstrates continually negative actions when it comes to Rangers.

 

The SNP and BBC Scotland are the main two at the moment.  Anyone who doubts that or keeps asking for evidence either has an agenda or is completely ignorant.

 

Do other Scottish clubs fly the Union Flag over their grounds?  Do other Scottish clubs fans wave lots of Union Flags?  Do other Scottish clubs fans sing Rule Britannia, GSTQ and a plethora of other Unionist songs and chants, including many about Ulster?  It is no wonder the SNP and their voters dislike us.  Particularly in light of their ranks being swelled by people who sympathise with and support Irish Republicanism.

Don't you think many people can separate those aspects of Rangers from the rest of their lives? I'm old enough to remember going to Ibrox on a Saturday and singing GSTQ then going to Hampden on a Wednesday for a Scotland match and booing GSTQ when it was played as the Scottish national anthem. That probably sounds ridiculous today, and for good reason, but I wasn't alone in that. The bulk of the Scotland crowd was made up of Rangers supporters in those days and they could sing and boo GSTQ without having an identity crisis, l suspect a lot of them still can. 

I accept the point you're making and agree the more hardline Scottish nationalists probably do find the trappings of Ibrox anathema to them. However, there are thousands of 'soft' nationalists, people who now vote SNP because they tired of Labour, they felt their lives weren't improving or they bought into Salmond or Sturgeon over McConnell and Dugdale. For a lot of them, and I know quite a few like that, they are Rangers supporters at the same time. 

10 hours ago, D'Artagnan said:

I'd say John both Murdo Fraser and Adam Tomkins have made their Rangers allegiances quite clear, but its symptomatic of the point you make that in recent times it was Ulster politicians such as Jeffrey Donaldson who could be relied upon to further Rangers interests in the political forum

It's also telling that Tomkins is English and Fraser from Inverness, rather than the west of Scotland where the bulk of the population actually live, both are 'list' MSPs rather than constituency elected too. 

There will probably be a couple more if we really looked but it's a poor return from a possible 188 MPs and MSPs. 

2 hours ago, Bluedell said:

Nobody is saying it hasn't, but it seems to be getting worse and it's the SNP who are doing it at the moment.

 

It may not address or solve the issue but it at least identifies it and who the current problems are, rather than ignoring it. It's then up to people's own conscience as to who they vote for.  

 

There's also a difference between ambivalence and actively working against us.

My point Bluedell is that no one is working for us, the best we get is ambivalence, and the worst is people who clearly dislike us and make it quite well known. Why is that? Why are there no votes, or at least why is the perception there are no votes, for politicians in being publicly pro-Rangers? 

To me, these threads come across as some posters using it to have a go at the SNP, to underline their own political beliefs. The SNP didn't invent it, it's been around for a couple of decades now across all political stripes. 

For me you're not identifying the problem at all, the issue isn't Susan Aitken being a dick on Facebook chat, it's why someone like Susan Aitken feels that's acceptable, indeed maybe desirable. In the end she's doing what the people in power before her also did, and they had a very different political belief. For me, if you want to fix this, you need to address why we have no political capital no matter who is in power. 

You're making this about the SNP, it's not about them, it's much bigger than that.

2 hours ago, D'Artagnan said:

It wouldnt surprise me John if this had been "leaked" deliberately.  A cynical attempt to woo voters of a particular mindset - a hatred of all things Rangers

It's possible, I doubt it'll do Ms Aitken much harm politically. I'm not conscious of a Labour revival in Glasgow, but I suppose the SNP might fear Labour somehow harnessing some sort of grassroots 'Catholics as victims' to rebuild their vote. Certainly some people have been very keen to play up the 'sectarianism is alive' trope recently, despite most evidence to the contrary. 

2 hours ago, Bluedell said:

It's just all part of the demonisation of Rangers.

 

Would the same "joke" have been made about a Rangers fan attending Parkhead? Absolutely not, because the SNP don't see anything wrong with that. They are encouraging the view that attending Ibrox has negative connotations.

 

It's more to do with having any positive involvement with Rangers as being something bad, than a Celtic fan watching a game with their rivals.

 

You can say that you refuse to join in, which just gives the anti-Rangers SNP further free reign to refuse us a fanzone, build ugly housing around the environs etc, but to dismiss it as a joke is giving encouragement to the enemies of our club.

 

 

This 'demonisation' didn't start with Susan Aitken, or even the SNP, it's been going on for a lot longer than that Bluedell. It happened when Labour controlled Glasgow, it happened when Labour controlled Scotland, it happens when Tories are strong or when Tories are weak. For me you saying "anti-Rangers SNP" misses the point, almost all mainstream politicians in Scotland are at best ambivalent towards Rangers. So making this about the SNP and the inevitable polarising of opinions that brings neither addresses the root of the problem or solves the specific issue at hand. The fanzone debacle last summer was annoying and unfair. However, it wasn't a huge surprise either and it didn't happen in a vacuum. I'd contend the same thing would happen no matter who was in power in George Square. 

I'm not dismissing it as a joke I'm telling you how I thought it was meant. Tell me, how come the political landscape in this city and this country completely changed, moved from Labour domination to SNP domination to SNP with a Tory resurgence, and yet our friends across the city remain largely in vogue and we remain outsiders shouting at the gates with almost no political capital or influence? Do you think that's down to people like? 

23 hours ago, Bluedell said:

It's a joke when a political party who have proven to be anti-Rangers tries to use attending a Rangers game in a negative context? Sorry, but I don't find any humour in it and it's just another attempt by the SNP to paint Rangers as bad.

 

Edit - it may have been funny if they said something like "Look at McAveety. Thought he was a Celtic fan. Haha." However they are talking of using it against him which is at best sinister and indicative of a larger agenda at play. I honestly fail to see anything humorous in this.

I said it was meant as a joke, I didn't say it was funny. Anyone who thinks Frank McAveety could ever be portrayed as being pro-Rangers has clearly never met him. 

Look, politics is a blood sport. They almost always play the man not the ball, particularly at local level. Do we really feel the politicians who've spoken out against Aitken on this are doing it through altruism or because they think it might damage her and her party and gain them some support? I know what I think. I also think if the shoe was on the other foot they'd happily say the opposite. 

The fact that our politics seem to be fracturing along 'identity' lines depresses me. Having lived in Northern Ireland I can say that type of politics is not healthy or conducive to getting good public services or indeed good politicians. It's my opinion based on my experiences. Seeing Scotland gradually head down that road too exasperates me. I refuse to join in, I won't cheerlead any particular party simply because I'm a 'bluenose' or a 'Prod' or whatever label I'm supposed to be. Susan Aitken saying she intends to impose restrictions on Orange parades just days after the spitting incident is the least surprising thing I've read on here. I'm disappointed that Rangers remain political kryptonite despite the seismic changes in our political landscape in the last decade. But I'm not surprised and I long ago gave up hope I can influence any change on that.  

I've concerns over some of the decisions being taken by Glasgow council, this isn't one of them. 

I've no inside knowledge but the McAveety post is clearly a joke. McAveety is a massive Celtic fan and this isn't any secret, I suspect the post is meant to be funny. 

As for the first post, is anyone really surprised that councillors find Orange parades at best an inconvenience and at worst an embarrassment? That was posted 4 days after the priest was spat on. The media were all over the story and there was genuine revulsion from people like me. It doesn't surprise me that the head of Glasgow council was on a war footing about it. 

12 hours ago, craig said:

I simply don't have the time to listen to the pod, much as though I would like to.

 

Amortisation has no bearing on cash, so not sure how that would help the funding of any deal.

 

Just as well I am an accountant then

Apologies Craig, I was trying to be funny. There was no talk of finance or how we could afford it, I just made that bit up. 4Lads explained he understood Armstrong was being offered to clubs, ours included, rather than it being someone we were actively pursuing. 

And for the avoidance of doubt I don't have the inside track, I'm only on to make the others sound good. 

1 hour ago, craig said:

How would we afford him ?

If you listen to the pod the finances of the deal, how it's structured, the dates and points of repayment and how amortisation will play a part are all explained in forensic detail. It's a chartered accountants wet dream to be quite frank... It's mainly me who has the inside track, the others are just there for colour. 

2 hours ago, Bluedell said:

While agreeing with the point you're making to an extent (a section of the followers annoy me too), how do the OO do that? They generally provide stewards but they can only have limited powers and can't stop someone half cut from causing a bit of hassle.

I don't have an answer either, but I agree with those who say they need to find a solution.

The Notting Hill Carnival in London resulted in serious rioting for a number of years. Yet they were able to work with police, the local council and the community to transform it into a global tourist attraction. They could perhaps speak with the people who run the Donegal Orange Walk which passes off peacefully every year and has also turned into something of a tourist attraction. Somehow they're able to hold a decent sized parade in the Republic Of Ireland without any problems. 

It doesn't strike me as impossible to turn the spectacle of a parade set to music from marching bands into something people with no association or connection might actually enjoy watching. I'm not Chinese but I've watched and enjoyed their New Year parade with the big puppet dragons and drums. 

It was Stuart Armstrong dB. But you need to make time to listen to the pod now!

I was really surprised at just how negative Aberdeen were yesterday. They'd no creativity or invention in their side and were relying on set-pieces, you didn't even fear them on the break yesterday. 

That said they were without McKay-Stevens and McGinn two relatively creative attacking players, and Shinnie. As someone said last night Shinnie is a big player for them, he's their leader and one of their best players and they'll really miss him next season. 

I'm delighted with how Gerrard has us playing and his first season has gone pretty well. I doubt we'd be as entertaining had McInnes taken the job. Yet I still think McInnes is a decent manager, doing what he can with what he's got. I'm not sorry he didn't take the job with us, but I'd be happy if he took the Scotland job for example. 

For those interested in transfer news and some background on Barasic, Grezda and Lafferty you really should have listened to last night's Gersnet podcast. Just as well you can listen to it again today. How would we all feel about signing an ex-Celtic player...?