JohnMc
-
Posts
1,991 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
23
Posts posted by JohnMc
-
-
Gary Mackay-Steven??! You've got to be at the wind-up dB.
0 -
I agree Stensaas wasn't as good a player although I quite liked Vidmar. Maybe we'll do a podcast on that season and why we fell just short. For me the issues around Gascoigne, Laurdrup signing a pre-contract with Chelsea, key players like McCoist and McCall knowing they were leaving as well as John Brown retiring that summer were much bigger factors. The biggest issue was Smith basically being sacked half way through, no way that didn't affect him and the team. I also think losing Amo to injury for most of the season was key, for all his faults he'd have made a difference to our defence that season, Gough returned and did a job but he wasn't the same player. Of course if Negri had just kept scoring goals they could have played me at left back and won the league!
2 -
4 hours ago, 917 said:
Can’t agree with that. The first 3 seasons Laudrup wasn’t there, & he won 7 out of 9 trophies, not to mention going 10 matches unbeaten in the inaugural Champions League. From 94 - 97 we won a ‘mere’ 5 trophies out of 9, and in any case Laudrup was hardly stuck on the left wing.
I agree Numan was a better player, but which foreign LB exactly did Davie Robertson replace in the team in 91? That is like saying we only signed Andy Goram because of the 3 foreigners rule..
I think that's exactly why we signed Robertson. That's not to say he wasn't a decent player, he was fine, I just think he benefited from playing in an exceptional side. I certainly don't think selling him played any major part in us not winning the league.
0 -
Got to disagree with most of the posts. Robertson was an SPL quality full back who had the good fortune to have a magician playing in front of him for most of his time with us. I can't understand how anyone can favourably compare him to Numan, Numan was a much higher calibre player in my opinion. I liked Robertson, but he benefited from the '3 foreigner' rule.
0 -
3 minutes ago, MacK1950 said:
Doesn't concern me at all due to little green eyes Strachan being obviously manipulated by Liewell and players like the lego cruncher deciding for him.
While I would like to see a Rangers team full of home talent I am more than happy to see one with none as long as we are successful.
For our continued survival it makes sense we're able to develop our own top class players. We can't buy top class ones anymore, so we'll need to create our own. Sure, they won't stay for long if they're genuinely good, but that's also a financial necessity these days. This is about more than someone's like or dislike for the Scottish national side. Rangers will always be a real pull for young Scottish players, so the better they are the better we'll be. Lifting the quality of player is in our short and long term interest.
0 -
There's no link to the original story in the opening post for me so I'm guessing the gist of it from the replies. Aside from any hyperbole or sensational nonsense he's spouted I actually do think that Rangers and Celtic, as well as the other leading sides in the league are largely to blame for the quality of player Scotland produces. We've been through this before on Gersnet over the years, but for some reason we're able to field highly competitive sides with some real standout individual players at youth level, yet for some reason these same players don't develop in the same way as they get older. We used to blame a 'booze and diet' culture but that's not it, sure some might but most young players are surprisingly focussed and aware of things like that. The issue is how we play football in this country and how young players are developed. We need to take our share of the blame for that.
I remember a few seasons back Hamilton brought through MacArthur and McCarthy, both went onto to have international careers and play at the highest level in England. Hamilton were then relegated. This, for me, is part of the problem, any side that focuses on youth development will be punished in our current league. Our league is set up to reward managers who bring in journeymen from the English lower leagues who can fight, scrap and run all match, that keeps you in the league and keeps the manager in a job.
In the end Rangers and especially Celtic are the most powerful and influential clubs in the country, until we demand changes this decline will continue.
While following Scotland lost its appeal a long time ago, I still don't want to see us horsed by countries with fewer resources and little footballing culture. No disrespect to Kazakstan but we should be beating them. In the end Scotland hasn't produced a player of genuinely international ability in a long, long time, that should concern all of us.
0 -
Great show, well worth a listen, just the right amount of despair, frustration and realism with a little sprinkle of hope.
3 -
I've not heard much of them recently so it might not have been mentioned but where does Cosgrove sit with the up coming "The Rise and Fall of Anti-Catholicism in Scotland" by Professor Tom Devine? From the previews and interviews I've read it seems the eminent Professor is playing down 'sectarianism' and saying it's really not much of an issue anymore. Indeed the quote I read he said the issues at football aren't sectarianism but simply hooliganism. Seeing as he's widely recognised as the leading historian in the country just now he might even know what he's talking about. I can't imagine that's going to sit well with some.
0 -
48 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:
Two Rs should be remembered when it comes to East Gers vs West Gers banter. Reformation and Referendum.
Ah, now c'mon, Patrick Hamilton was a Glaswegian, when he went to the East coast you lot martyred him. Maybe he asked for vinegar on his chips?
Now Gonzo, you know the one thing that unites east and west coast Scotland was the referendum, we all voted to remain in the EU, remember? ?
3 -
17 minutes ago, buster. said:
Two Ibrox stands named after sons of Edinburgh with another sat in the Directors Box with the title of Greatest Ever Ranger.
Edinburgh Rangers ??
It must give you all heart to know that despite your funny voices and, I assume, many genetic problems, you can come west and not only survive but indeed thrive among normal people.
I feel particularly proud this Friday afternoon.
2 -
38 minutes ago, buster. said:
Where would Rangers be without East Coasters ?
Wallace
Baxter
Greig
Jardine
Johnstone
Forlanssister
etc
Glasgow has always welcomed refugees into our bountiful arms, just don't speak...
1 -
"Bairns"? I demand all supporters go through a Govan elocution lesson! You'll be slipping 'ken' into articles soon if we don't intervene Frankie, this is for your own good...
Great stuff, eastern patois apart, enjoyed it.
4 -
Finally got round to listening, good stuff guys and gal. Sorry to hear about Ross, hope everything is okay there.
1 -
This is on the BBC website today. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-47459485
"The safety of fans at Scottish football stadiums is to be highlighted as a key concern in a review on match policing, BBC Scotland has learned.
The report, due to be published on Wednesday, says inconsistencies in stadium checks by local authorities could leave fans at risk."
The authors and their chosen 'fans' contributor aside the pertinent point is alleged inconsistency from local authorities over stadium security. It's sort of relevant to the thread I thought.
0 -
Rudden's doing well in a poor Falkirk side it seems, that's a great goals to games return. All the academy players will benefit from playing first team football but is their much to be learned playing at Lowland League level?
I really hoped Hardie would push on and become a first team regular at Livingston, but it doesn't seem to be happening. Shame.
0 -
3 hours ago, ranger_syntax said:
No.
You are arguing against a straw man in your posts.
If you want to argue against safe standing then tell us about some of the problems that safe standing actually has. It's not as if there aren't any.
They're hardly strawmen. The biggest problem "safe standing" has is the people who'll use it and the people charged with managing it. How's that a strawman? There are simply too many previous examples of the people in charge of football supporters not doing their jobs properly. If you've not experienced being treated like an animal by stewards, police or other clubs then you've been very fortunate.
0 -
8 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:
That can't happen with safe standing.
It wasn't supposed to happen in terraces either, but it did. I understand that the design is different and the 'barrier' for every row is meant to reduce the possibility of surges, usually the most dangerous aspect of terraces, but my concern remains not so much with the design but with the humans who'll be managing and using it.
As Pete says I think it's inevitable at some match somewhere more people than are meant to will get access. It's simply harder to police and to manage than seating is.
0 -
2 hours ago, DMAA said:
John, I'm too young to comment on terracing but having a look on google images I have to say the two do look very different. Terracing looks dangerous, "safe standing" looks far more like what we already have than terracing. Everyone has their own assigned seat (whether they use it or not), and every row is separated by metal barriers. I'm not overly fussed by the issue but I honestly don't see a safety problem, I think practical implementation in the stadium is a bigger deal and keeping any "hooligan culture" in check.
As I said above it's all safe until you cram too many people into it or you don't maintain it correctly. My experiences have led me to mistrust organisations charged with keeping football supporters safe.
0 -
2 hours ago, ranger_syntax said:
Why so many key presses if you don't want to engage with the point of substance?
Are you confusing engaging with agreeing?
0 -
9 hours ago, ranger_syntax said:
Your responses to the questions about the council, police and Rangers can all apply to the status quo.
As for your anecdotes I'm sad to say that they are all irrelevant to the point of substance. I'll remind you that you waded in to argue against safe standing. None of the points you make, nor the anecdotes you share, are about safe standing.
There was a nuclear reactor in England called Windscale, there was a fire there in the late 1950s causing a level 5 radioactive leak into the atmosphere. It was a big scandal, not only around the danger to health but also accusations of Government cover up and ongoing concerns around nuclear power. You might not have heard of Windscale because when the nuclear industry did research into public opinion some 20 odd years later they discovered many people distrusted it and whenever they heard the name Windscale they immediately associated it with nuclear leaks and safety concerns. The nuclear industry in the UK did what all clever businesses do when faced with this issue, they changed Windscale's name. So instead of Windscale today we say Sellafield. It's the same place with the same history but for anyone under the age of 35 the name Windscale means very little and Sellafield is a place where schools go on trips. Changing the name is a great marketing trick, it's surprising how many people accept something is different just because the name is.
You call it 'safe standing' if you want, it's terracing, pure and simple, that's what it is whatever you choose to call it today. It's a tiered standing area with concrete steps and crush barriers, that's a terrace RS, same as it ever was. I don't think terraces are intrinsically dangerous, but people can be, and as long as people are involved in their upkeep, policing and management it's a hard no from me.
0 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
10 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:Theobald Wolfe Tone was a Protestant.
He was, almost all of the United Irishmen were including a number of clergymen. Wolfe Tone was dead nearly 60 years before the Fenian Brotherhood was formed though, he had nothing to do with it.
This is the problem with words, their meanings change. I suspect many people who use that word use it as a derogatory term for RCs, some use it to simply mean Celtic supporters, others use it refer to violent Irish nationalists and lastly some use it as a term to describe anyone they see as anti-Rangers. If we look at Steve Clarke it's hard to argue those calling him a "sad Fenian bastard" were referring to his strong views on historical Irish history, because as far as I know he's never spoken publicly about these views. So maybe not everyone who uses that word is as concerned with its origins, just what it means to them today.
I was in Belfast yesterday, my first visit for pleasure for a while. I used to live there back in the 90s and it was interesting to see the changes since then. I went full tourist and did the did the bus tour, it was cold and wet but still interesting. The tour guide explained that he couldn't describe the various paramilitary organisations as terrorists, because the bus went through areas where they were still quite prominent and they didn't like that word. So he called them "combatants", they were okay with that word he told us. Now some people I know would be furious at that, they're terrorists pure and simple and no other word should be allowed to dignify them. I know others who see them differently, indeed they perhaps even view some of them honourably.
Words matter and how people take their meanings matter. Whether you mean it or not, indeed whether those singing it mean it or not, the word 'Fenian' is taken to mean Roman Catholic by many, many people, that's just a fact. On that tour yesterday, towards the bottom of the Crumlin Road there was republican graffiti. Amateur stuff, not the organised murals, just spray paint marking territory. It caught my eye because it contained the short three letter phrase "KAH". That's an abbreviation for "Kill All Huns" and you'll see it throughout Republican areas of Northern Ireland. There are people here who'll tell you that the word 'Hun' isn't sectarian, they'll give you some convoluted meaning, saying it can't be sectarian because they use against Novo and McCann. But be sure that the guy who wrote that phrase on that wall in that particular area meant it to be sectarian, he meant 'Protestants' when he wrote it. The meaning of words changes, and there's very little any of us can do about it, accept it and move on.
7 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I'm guessing here but I think the club has decided it's time to publicly address this as part of a new strategy to eradicate it or, be seen to be trying to. I think this statement, if it's ignored, will be followed up by 'action'. I expect persistent offenders will find season tickets being cancelled, perhaps parts of the ground might be closed, very public acts by the club to demonstrate their anger around this issue.
There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly I genuinely think the directors are deeply embarrassed by it. King in particular must scratch his head and wonder how this can still be happening in 2019. I doubt the Park family are comfortable with it either.
Secondly it's commercial kryptonite. Nothing repels possible sponsors like an MSP publicly criticising the club for sectarianism. Steve Clarke's recent press conference where him and Boyd spoke about this had one very telling point I thought. The revelation that he was approached by Rangers, or by an intermediary, about the managers job last season was interesting, what was disappointing for me was that he felt he had to ask if he'd be accepted by our support as manager because of his religion. Now I genuinely don't know any Rangers supporter who would reject the signing of any player or manager on the grounds of their religious upbringing. Had Clarke been appointed our manager I think it would have been largely welcomed on the back of what he'd done at Kilmarnock, and any criticism of it might be around his style of play or perhaps not being a big name. But I can genuinely say I doubt anyone on here would have mentioned him being a childhood RC as an issue. Yet he felt it still might be and then a couple of weeks ago he was vindicated in thinking that by the singing of that song at him. That kind of negative publicity gives sponsors sleepless nights.
Thirdly nobody in the media or business world has the stomach to get involved in a 'free speech' debate around this. That fight was lost a long time ago, whether people like it or not. If you want to shout obscenities about the Pope in public then society has already decided you've lost any possible counter argument you might make in mitigation.
Fourthly, and most importantly, I believe this no longer represents the support as a whole. Most of us left this stuff behind a long time ago. The Roman Catholic church is no threat to our way of life today (if it ever was), like most organised religions here it's struggling to engage with people and it has systemic issues around child abuse, treatment of woman and abuse of power. It's slowly killing itself, it doesn't need someone tanked up on Buckfast belting out about Fenians to push it over the edge.
Be under no illusions though, if we want the club to stick up for the support when we're unfairly treated by the media or politicians, we need to accept that the club will also have to criticise and punish those who still indulge in the FTP bollocks. The club has recently shown a willingness to take on our enemies, it would be good if us as a support recognised what we can do to help them, rather than hand a loaded gun to those who hate us and paint big targets on our backs.
7 -
12 hours ago, ranger_syntax said:
Does Glasgow City Council issue the safety certificate for the stadium as it is?
Is Police Scotland responsible for public safety and policing of events at present?
Do Rangers put money over safety just now?
Do councillors ever change? Do council priorities ever change?
Does policing ever change? Do police treat football supporters the same as other parts of society?
As for Rangers, well I hope not and have no reason to suspect they are. However, I wouldn't have trusted some of the people who've 'controlled' us in the recent past and none of us know what the future holds.
I spent my formative days watching football from terraces. I had a season ticket for the Enclosure whilst it was still terraced, I get the nostalgia trip some have for it but it doesn't change the fact that seated stadiums are safer than terraces. The day of the Hillsborough disaster I was at Parkhead watching Rangers in a cup match. We were in the 'Jungle' as it was called, an infamous terrace frequented by Celtic's hardcore support. It was my first visit to that end of the ground. The place was a death trap, how nobody died accessing or leaving that place I'll never know. That day, when 96 football supporter's were crushed to death because the police viewed them as sub-human, and because the people whose job it was to ensure safety were, at best incompetent, at worst negligent, I saw Rangers supporters literally punch each other to try and escape a crush leaving Parkhead. The worst of it RS is it wasn't a big surprise, I'd seen that before and I saw it again after. At Brockville I was in a crush that saw people hospitalised, I've no proof but I'm fairly sure turnstyle operators were allowing more people in than they should have, people can be greedy without thinking of the possible consequences. I was in a crush at East End Park at half time where a woman broke her leg. I can still hear the snap sound, everyone within 20 feet of her heard it, followed by her cry of pain. Ambulance staff couldn't reach her and she ended up being passed down over supporter's heads. I saw crushes at Easter Road on one of our very first matches on the 90s, we greeted the new decade with a return to the 1940s complete with police who didn't even try and hide their contempt for us far less help.
The irony is once the danger passed, you laughed about it, shrugged it off, cursed the shithole ground you were at and walked back to the bus or train, adrenaline and camaraderie doing their jobs on your mindset.
Yip, I know, it's different now. It couldn't happen today, things have changed, standards are higher, people are different. Well I don't buy it. Football fans, ours in particular, are still viewed as sub-human by some people, people in positions of power too.
The thing I always keep in mind is there were 25 people killed at Ibrox when a stand collapsed in 1902. We changed the ground after that, at great expense to the club both on and off the park. Yet, despite that it happened again, and more people died. I'm fairly certain those in charge said this can never happen again after that incident, I'm sure they meant it too. I'm not inclined to find out if it could happen.
2 -
11 minutes ago, DMAA said:
What are the arguments against safe standing?
Well I don't trust Glasgow Council who'd be issuing the Safety Certificate, I don't trust Police Scotland who'd are ultimately responsible for public safety and policing of events and, in truth, I don't trust any football club to put safety over money, not even ours. As you know 66 people didn't come home from one of our matches, it wasn't the first time either. Our ground has been one of the safest in the country since then, I can think of no good reason to start reversing that.
I'm sure when it was first opened it would be pristine and well regulated and under scrutiny, but after a few years it would become part of the furniture, and if money got tight maybe they could do the barrier work every other year, it'll be fine, and perhaps we could fit a few more fans in there and so on.
I was brought up on terraces and I saw the worst of them first hand. I don't welcome them back.
2
GN Pod - Last episode of season 2018/19 now available
in Rangers Chat
Posted
I've got to be honest I wasn't looking forward to the pod last night, it was the last thing I felt like doing. But it was cathartic and the time flew in and as Pete says Stevie Clinton helped lighten the tone.