JohnMc

Hopefully will reach a favourable and mutually beneficial conclusion soon. 

I see this morning's Record is giving a less than subtle clue that it was indeed Reid who made the call. 

Pesky facts. Let's promote this new version of the truth, we live in post truth times, embrace it gentlemen. 

Thomson was pretty high profile at the time too. He was on the SPL board and loved a press release and interview and had Jim Spence operating as his personal fluffer. I don't think he was Dundee Utd Chairman though, think he was MD or similar. 

Look, Celtic had the most to gain from our fixture congestion and were clearly at it as the fabled trip to Japan proved. I just think of Reid as being a cannier operator, I assume he'd get someone else to do his dirty work for him, arms length deniability and all that. But it would hardly be a big shock if it was him. 

11 hours ago, Walterbear said:

Apart from one thing John. The decision was made at the top of the shop in the organisation in Scotland not by a department. 

What makes you think that WB? MacKinnon didn't take up the role until late 2016 yet but BBC Scotland have been boycotting Ibrox since January of that year. Everyone I speak to says it's a Sport department decision and is being left to them. 

14 hours ago, JohnMc said:

 

We're in a strange period just now, one I think will be studied by future historians. The demise of the written press in much of the Western world has created a vacuum that's not been adequately filled in my view. There has never been a better time for politicians or powerful entities and individuals to to do harm, because there are few organisations powerful enough to bring them to book. When I was born there were two daily evening papers in Glasgow, as well as the plethora of morning ones. This ensured councillors were scrutinised, decisions reported, individuals held to account. Not today, The Evening Times now barely functions as a newspaper, the Herald isn't much better. Nobody is watching closely at the City Chambers. That's the case across towns and cities the length of the country. 

 

Bloggers and websites haven't filled this void adequately. Very little 'reporting' is actually done online, few can afford to put the resources and time required. That's not changing anytime soon either. 

 

Which is why I'm reluctant to criticise the BBC when they do some things right and very keen to point out when I feel they are falling below their remit. We currently need them more than ever. We need an independent, powerful, credible media, both locally and nationally. Our club was almost destroyed in full view of everyone. Sir David Murray's words were accepted without scrutiny by too many in the media for fear of falling out with him (his only dissenting voices were from Rangers supporters) and Craig Whyte was likewise allowed to buy our club without real media scrutiny. By the time he was scrutinised it was too late. 

 

 

I was speaking to a friend last night who told me that the BBC have in fact very recently appointed around a dozen 'Local Government' reporters with the remit to monitor and report on political and social happenings on a local level. So I stand corrected. Just the local sport guys to criticise then. 

Funnily enough I didn't think of Celtic when I heard of this story, my first suspicion was Dundee Utd and Thomson. The fact it could have been anyone of half a dozen tells it's own story. 

To be fair to Peat he was trying to assist the Scottish club in a European Final, like a normal football person would. Ironically if it's ever revealed who it was they'll probably lionised by their own support. 

A public celebration of ignorance is surprisingly in vogue these days. It's eye-opening just how many presenters, journalists and former players are willing to publicly proclaim they don't actually know the rules of the sport they're being paid to comment on. I can easily excuse supporters not keeping fully abreast of law changes but not people whose very livelihoods surely depend on understanding and explaining football to simpletons like me. 

You wonder when a BBC Scotland Sport producer might suggest, forcefully, that the pundits they employ go on refereeing courses so they can understand the rules of the sport? Maybe even the journalists too. The fact that Aberdeen and Kilmarnock are unhappy one of their players didn't get a red card rescinded for a clear breach of the current rules isn't reason for a full blown investigation. Go learn the rules, it's completely clear why Naismaith and McGregor weren't sited and Killie and Don's hammer throwers weren't cleared. You might not like the new rules but you shouldn't be ignorant of them. 

You can't help but feel that had it not been the current Rangers keeper and a former Rangers player involved we might not be hearing quite as much about it. 

I actually think Richard Gordon is an accomplished broadcaster, but he doesn't even try to hide his personal animosity towards Rangers now, knowing it is not only tolerated but welcomed by many around him. 

Good performance and most importantly a great reaction to the Tims defeat. How we react to set backs, and we will experience set backs through the season, is the measure of how good a team we have. Coulibaly returning makes a big difference to our midfield, he's a find and a half, I'd have given Candieas man of the match though, as both Coulibaly and Kent went off. Candeias does the simple things well, his crossing is accurate, his work rate superb and his consistency overlooked by many of us. Like Halliday he's another player who is benefiting from better management and better players around him. 

Popped onto Twitter yesterday to be greeted by a lot of notifications. Clearly my spoken views are about as popular as my written ones ?? 

Sorry if we've lost you listeners! 

I require musical accompaniment wherever I go. If I'm ever invited back I'll invest in a better mic! 

I loved Naismith when he played for us. He's a clever player, he sees angles and runs many other players don't, he's hard working and he's got a nasty streak too, he doesn't get taken advantage of on the park. At the same time he comes across as a decent human being off it too. His press conference when he left was a monumental mistake. I've more sympathy for him than most, we forget that none of us knew what Green was planning, none of knew what team we might or might not have, it was a difficult and emotional time. All that being said he'd have been better saying nothing. It hurt and angered more coming from a bluenose, from a player a lot of us could relate to. 

However, if we can accept Kevin Kyle, Ian Black and Michael O'Halleron, if we can take back Kenny Miller, twice, if we can take back McGregor and Lafferty we can surely take back Naismith. However, I'd like to see another 6 months at Hearts, injury free and in good form before then. My only reservation on Naismith is around his ability now, can he still play to the same level. 

He was a youth coach at Morton for a while. He'd a good playing career, has his 'badges' and lives locally, plus no compensation to pay to another club, that's what Morton are looking for in a manager. Hope it goes well for him.  

1 hour ago, Walterbear said:

All I meant is I suspect the club were founded purely for football and sports reasons so people are entitled to support them for those reasons. 

 

 

 

 

 

Rangers were on the go for 40 years before we started to be associated with Protestantism and Unionism. There's a big argument to be made that if Queen's Park had decided to embrace professionalism they'd have become the 'Protestant' team in Glasgow. But it wasn't until the 1910s that Rangers started to be clearly identified that way, and that was largely down to be us being the only side strong enough to regularly best Celtic. Thistle moving away from Partick helped with that too. The creation of Celtic, and Hibs to a lesser extent, meant almost every other side was by default 'Protestant', but it was decades before it became something clearly associated with us. 

2 hours ago, Darthter said:

From a recent PanelBase opinion poll....a example of the Independence "split" within Rangers supporters...not a lot in it.

 

 

I know opinion polls need read with a bit of caution but as a snapshot it's fascinating. It suggests what many believe, namely that our support is far more representative of the general public than some of us believe or we are popularly portrayed. 

14% of SNP voters don't support independence! It also suggests the majority of 'Unionists' are Brexit voters. That's ironic. 

As an aside, whilst there have been some bad tempered posts (guilty), some offensive posts and some clear trolling on this thread, there have also been some very good posts. Stewarty's post 471 being particularly good. 

3 hours ago, Blue Moon said:

I was speaking from personal experience when I said I was in the minority.  I lived in a well known mining village and we were one of a very few families who displayed Labour posters at election time.   For the rest it was an identity thing and they voted Tory.  The same was true in the supporters club I was a member of.  

 

I will leave it there as I have to go out.

 

 

That's really interesting. My father's from an Ayrshire mining village and my Granny used to tell me her mother put red ribbons on her on May Day just to annoy her mother-in-law who was a Tory. But that was the 1930s, I thought by the 1970s that Tory/Unionist vote in mining communities had largely disappeared. Happy to be corrected. 

11 hours ago, Blue Moon said:

There have always been divisions and majority and minority opinions.  I used to be in the minority as a left wing socialist and fought my corner like a lion.  It makes no difference to the fact we are all Rangers supporters, nor should it.

I found this post interesting, mainly because you described yourself as being in the minority. Yet even a cursory glance at voting in West Central Scotland from the late 60s onwards clearly showed that the majority were at least left leaning, and voting, if not out right socialists. Despite this you clearly felt you were in a minority when mixing with Rangers supporters. Even though we pulled our support from inner-city, post industrial Glasgow, mining villages across Lothian, Ayrshire and Lanarkshire, the steel and mill towns of Renfrewshire and Lanarkshire and the docks and yards of Clydeside. 

So did none of the people who voted Labour throughout the 70s and 80s support Rangers? Of course they did, in their tens of thousands. I don't think you were in a minority. There have always been some people for whom supporting Rangers is an expression of their belief system. They see supporting Rangers as a box to tick along with being Orange, Unionist and right of centre politically, sometimes very right of centre. They feel all these things are interconnected, and they can be quite vocal about it. 

You can see it on this thread too. The thought that someone could passionately and loyally support Rangers whilst rejecting all the other aspects they feel are connected to it puzzles and angers them. You can see it in some of the posts on this thread. Comments like 'never hear SNP supporters near me at Ibrox' and 'only know a couple and they're fair weather supporters' all help fill this narrative. Only 'real' Rangers supporters need apply. 

I actually think it's that mindset that's in the minority now. I think @pete nailed it; 60% don't care. They only care about who is playing upfront this weekend and who we might sign in January. They care about football, and only football. 

Whether people like it or not the Scottish society I was born into has changed out of all recognition. The SNP are the most popular party currently. Scottish independence is a distinct probability now, one that grows daily as Labour and the Tories veer further to the extremes and the UK heads towards huge, unclear social and economic change. There is a real possibility that a united Ireland and an independent Scotland could happen in my lifetime. Neither of those events will make me support Rangers any less.

5 hours ago, Bluedell said:

I know officials/representatives in other parties that are happy to say they're Rangers supporters but there don't appear to be any SNP. The Westminster Supporters Club had members from 4 separate parties IIRC but none from the SNP. Again I'll ask why it that?

 

Perhaps it's the intolerance of the SNP towards Rangers fans that prevents them rather than the wider societal issue that you're suggesting (not that I'm denying that doesn't exist to an extent).

I'm not a member, or even a supporter, of the SNP so I'm not sure I'm the best person to answer this. I do know SNP members, and SNP politicians, who are Rangers supporters. I noticed the SNP MP for Glasgow South, Stewart McDonald said publicly he was a Rangers supporter as a boy but took very little interest in football these days. But overall I think many politicians, particularly those in power (as opposed to ones trying to get elected) aren't in a rush to shout about their love of the 'Gers. I think this was as big a 'problem' with the Labour party when they controlled Scotland as it is with the SNP now. 

I do think the blood and soil 'cybernat' probably does see support for Rangers as incompatible, but most SNP supporters I know aren't like that. Rangers supporters are under-represented among elected politicians in this country full stop. We have been for decades now. Whatever the issue it's not new. In my opinion. 

10 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

Have you seen our attendance figures recently?

I have, it's around 1% of the population of Scotland. But it's the people who don't attend matches that we're having problems with, isn't it? I mean I don't think Ms Aitken and messers McDonald and Dornan are regulars in the Derry choir, and as long as a sneaky 'No Pope Of Rome' get's a regular airing it makes it harder for people who weren't born and raised to hate us to defend us. 

I'm surprised you think there's any doubt over who lost that 'debate'. 

It's a non-story for me, a last hurrah. I felt at the time, and I still feel now, that the club handled it badly. Miller's contract was up in a matter of weeks, fining him that heavily was always a risky strategy and one with very little upside for the club. Wallace stuck by us when most others didn't, yes he was handsomely paid and he probably had personal reasons for staying, but stay he did. We should have handled this better.  

It's done now, whether Wallace's recent rehabilitation will continue or he'll be banished until his contract runs down I don't know. 

2 minutes ago, Bill said:

You keep asking it and somehow it's hard not to just enjoy the indignation. Cheers ?

Whatever works for you, but you're being shown up for what you are on this thread. 

9 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

You're suggesting Rangers is anti-RC and anti-foreigner.  History would suggest otherwise.

 

We're suggesting Rangees is pro-Union.  History suggests this is the case.

 

For the record, I don't consider myself a Royalist (nor a Republican) and I have Bear mates who regularly moan at me about this.  

 

The SNP voting Bears seem easily upset when queried, even if in a reasonable fashion.  One wonders if they realise how conflicted they are and thus it is a continually touchy subject for them.

No Gonzo, I'm not suggesting that. Read it again. 

Bill used pretty emotive language earlier in this post to describe SNP supporters. I'd be touchy if someone called me a collaborator. 

13 minutes ago, Bill said:

There you are. You mention, not me.

I apologise Bill, I hadn't realised English wasn't your first language. You keep avoiding the question Bill.