JohnMc

3 hours ago, Gaffer said:

I don't know but let me get it kicked off with some hypotheses that we can tackle ...

 

1.  Rangers fans tend to have no need to shout about being fans of our club.  We are quietly confident that our success speaks for itself.  Others shout more because they feel they need to for some reason.  You're asking me to enter the mind of one of "them" and gladly I'm unable to.

 

2.  We are widely regarded as a bigoted support.  By stating their allegiance to our club, they fear being branded a bigot.

 

3.  They are embarassed at being associated with a club that is perceived to have cheated by lots of other clubs' fans.  Has the number of politicians claiming allegiance to our club diminished since the admin fiasco?  Were there many open about it before?

 

4.  Good and smart politicians don't create division where it is unnecessary.  If there's no need to disclose their football allegiance, why do it?  Maybe Rangers fans are just smarter.

 

I really don't know the answer to this but as Stewarty and John said, this is a good discussion for us to have.  I think that it would be incredibly enlightening to reach a conclusion on it.

The bigotry thing is at the heart of the problem in my opinion. I don't think being large and successful is a reason for politicians and thought leaders to desert us, Man Utd and Barcelona have no shortage of prominent influential supporters. 

I don't think the issue is with the club but rather with elements of the support. Organisations like Orange Order have lost support and popularity, the singing of songs about the Pope and Northern Ireland is seen as bigoted by some and anachronistic by many. That we seem unable to drop these songs has alienated many people who might otherwise have been sympathetic to Rangers. 

Society has changed yet, for some, our support hasn't. 

The fight over those types of songs has been fought and those who think they're freedom of speech related have lost to those who think they've no place in society. As long as people can beat us with the 'bigots' stick we're not going to find many politicians or media people willing to stick their heads above the parapet and help us. 

I think we've been slow to adapt to changes in Scottish society. Much slower than Celtic, who are much savvier politically and socially than us. 

5 hours ago, Bill said:

Thanks for biting. Before I answer your question, can you help me out ... have any of the organisations or nationalities you mention been guilty of the same antagonism against Rangers and its fans as the SNP. I'm not aware they have and have no issue with any of them but since you choose to name them here, in the context of this topic, I suspect you have some knowledge I don't. Once again thanks for biting.

22 minutes ago, Bill said:

I admit I've only gone back to April but I can see nowhere that I even mentioned Roman Catholics. Only you did.

You're trying to be smart ... and failing. Try it somewhere that's more receptive ?

Read the thread Bill, read your own words, the ones you actually typed. I'll help you. You said "have any of the organisations or nationalities you mention been guilty of the same antagonism against Rangers and its fans as the SNP". Yes Bill, both Ireland and Roman Catholics, have, at times "been guilty of the same antagonism against Rangers and its fans". But you know this Bill, you're being obtuse because you'd rather not answer the question I think. 

So what's it to be Bill, shall we call RCs and non-Brits who support Rangers collaborators too? Are they living "a contradiction" too Bill? 

Thing is Bill it's entirely possible to want Rangers to beat every other side in the world and at the same time not give a flying fuck about the Act Of Union. These are two entirely compatible points of view, held by many, many people.  

14 minutes ago, Bill said:

No, why would you think I was?

Well, mainly because that's literally what you asked me. 

39 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

The SNP's decisions are all taken by individuals, many of which have shown anti-Rangers feelings.

 

On the flip-side, I can't think of one SNP official either at SNP or local level who admits to being a Rangers supporter. Why is that?

I had lunch with one yesterday, but you're right that he doesn't shout about it. Now, this isn't something that's peculiar to SNP politicians though.

As Stewarty asks in the post above you, figuring out why that is might be a worthwhile discussion. 

41 minutes ago, stewarty said:

We will not find any political party expousing a position on what football team to support so thats a dead-end argument.   

 

What is more interesting is the pervasive culture whereby a fledgling politician might deem it prudent to their career to keep their Rangers allegiance to themselves.

This, this, this! This is the debate we should be having, this is the question we should be trying to answer. 

1 hour ago, Bill said:

Thanks for biting. Before I answer your question, can you help me out ... have any of the organisations or nationalities you mention been guilty of the same antagonism against Rangers and its fans as the SNP. I'm not aware they have and have no issue with any of them but since you choose to name them here, in the context of this topic, I suspect you have some knowledge I don't. Once again thanks for biting.

Are you asking me if any Roman Catholics or Irish have been guilty of antagonism towards Rangers, Bill? 

44 minutes ago, Bill said:

You're clearly desperate to be a victim here but it won't flush and no descent into pedantry will help your case. No one has ever said you cannot be a Rangers supporter and vote SNP. What has been said is that it represents a contradiction that's difficult to resolve and the only way you can accommodate these two things is by reinventing Rangers traditions. I don't ever see separatists reinventing the SNP as a pro-Ranger party.

 

Try to calm down a little. I have no problem if you go on living your contradiction. I'll go on calling it a contradiction, which I believe it is.

Ok, I'll bite. So can you be a Rangers supporter and a Roman Catholic, or a Muslim? Are those things a "contradiction that's difficult to resolve"? Does that require "reinventing Rangers"? We're all Proddies Bill, a bit of July marching, some sneaky FTP when no one's listening, eh? 

What about if you're not British, say you're Irish or Turkish or German? Or are those things not aligned either. Are they a big contradiction too? Do they require some more reinvention? Is dB living his contradiction then? I mean c'mon, we're the quintessentially British club after all, are we not? 

One thing any organisation that's 146 years old has had to do is reinvent itself and move with the times. If it doesn't it'll die Bill, nothing surer. 

I'd an enlightening if simultaneously depressing conversation with someone involved in local politics recently. He himself is a Scottish nationalist and there are a number of councillors in his area who are Tory. He tells me they're all socially liberal and centralist politically. Apparently though they'll freely admit that when canvassing no one asks them about decentralisation of government, incentives for the free market or lower taxation rates, policies normally associated with Tories, instead they're being voted for as 'Unionists'. 

I've lived in Northern Ireland, 3 years full-time, several more part-time. Much as I love the place the thought we might be heading in the same direction as them politically I find profoundly depressing. Voting for local councillors along constitutional lines instead of who is most likely to balance the budget or enhance local schools and services is madness to me. Clearly it's already happening though, on both sides. 

I worry Rangers have a difficult path to walk. Traditionally supported by 'Protestants' we also used to provide the bulk of the Scotland match going support. That stopped a couple or decades or so ago. At the same time like most European countries church going has fallen dramatically. Only 37% of the population describe themselves as 'Protestant' now, a number that will most probably fall even lower come the next census. That's the same percentage of people who describe themselves as having 'no religion'. Old allegiances, particularly among the working classes, have changed. I clearly recall going to Ibrox on a Saturday and belting out GSTQ then going to Hampden mid-week and booing the same song as it was played prior to a Scotland international match. It's not played at Scotland games now. 

Clearly a lot of people still conflate being a Rangers supporter with being a 'unionist' and being a 'Protestant'. Also a good number of our support see these three things as being intrinsically linked too. Indeed for some their support of Rangers is clearly a way for them to proclaim this political and religious identity, as there seems to be a lack of other outlets for it available. Yet just as clearly many, many Rangers supporters make no connection between they team they support and where they go on a Sunday morning or vote for in elections. Gersnet's own poll during the Independence referendum showed an intention to vote along very similar lines to the general population. 

What I do hope is more of 'us', whatever our political affiliation, will become more involved politically in the country. 

19 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

Does anybody else think that the loan system is to the detriment of football in general?

 

I think that it makes things too easy for rich clubs.

 

Would football be more competitive without it?

It's completely changing the 'business' model for football. All the big English sides now view their academies as an income stream rather than a place to get players. So few of their young players will become first team regulars there is no argument to having them. However, with vast numbers scooped up very young, from all over the world, then loaned out all they need to do is sell a few of them for a few million each season to make the whole exercise profitable. Chelsea sold Jeremie Boga and Johnathan Panzo (no, I've never heard of them either) for over £5 million this summer. We bought almost an entire new starting 11 for that. Al the big clubs are doing this now, instead of smaller clubs developing players to sell to big ones, big ones are developing players to sell to smaller ones. 

It's not right. 

8 hours ago, Bill said:

You're the one who mentioned white men, there must have been a reason. How about this version instead ....

 

If anyone wanted to understand why we're voiceless and powerless in our own city a read of this thread is instructive. What started as frustration around a fanzone has morphed into angry black men yelling 'slavery' into the void whilst dreaming of rimming Jeremy Corbyn. No wonder Muslims run rings round us politically.

 

Bill, go look in the mirror, you're white, deal with it. 

Now your version only further underlines the point I was making. So far no black Muslims have come on and mentioned slavery but when they do I'll be sure to call them out for it too. Happy? 

No councillor is going to vote against their own community council's wishes without a very good reason. It's electoral suicide. Local council elections have low turnouts, majorities are measured in tens or hundreds. The local councillor, whatever their personal views, isn't going to risk alienating politically engaged residents over a topic like this. Dornan was elected on second preferences, he's not sitting on a comfortable majority. 

Rangers, and Rangers supporters, need to deal with this type of thing in a clear headed and pragmatic way. As well as questioning why the community council were against a fanzone for reasons that seem spurious at best we should also be asking what more the club could do to behind the scenes with the community council to change their mind. The current situation where we're descending into trench warfare helps no one but opposition politicians. It certainly won't get us a fanzone any faster. 

Lastly I read somewhere that Alasdair Morrison, a former Labour MSP, is advising the club. Anyone know if that's true? Morrison is very friendly with Frank McAveety, and McAveety's statements on this has always struck me as surprising. All politicians are opportunistic I suppose. If we are being advised by Morrison I'd love to know what the strategy is. 

The only thing I know for sure won't help Rangers on this issue, or the many more that'll come up in the future, is supporters describing fellow supporters as the enemy. It would be good if people could see why that's both insulting and inaccurate. 

39 minutes ago, Scott7 said:

There’s something wrong with being white?

That's what you took from that post? Brilliant. 

If anyone wanted to understand why we're voiceless and powerless in our own city a read of this thread is instructive. What started as frustration around a fanzone has morphed into angry white men yelling 'brexit' into the void whilst dreaming of rimming Boris Johnston. No wonder Tims run rings round us politically. 

3 minutes ago, stewarty said:

They live near Ibrox stadium.  For the sake of argument you could just call the stadium footprint an extended fan zone for every home game.  To object to having a specific family friendly entertainment zone would suggest to me that they have another agenda at play.

 

 

I'd a friend who lived in a flat on Copland Road. She'd no interest in football but very quickly developed an intolerance for football supporters. As far as she was concerned Rangers supporters were responsible for urinating on her close door, littering her street and stairwell and preventing her from parking outside her own home on match days. She was right too. However, Rangers were there before she moved in and are still there after she moved elsewhere (she didn't move because of Rangers), it's not like the stadium appeared overnight. Anyone living locally needs to accept the stadium and the people who visit it are part of their community whether they like that or not. Rangers do a lot too in terms of paying for cleansing after matches, policing and generally trying to be good neighbours. As the fanzone isn't going to increase the number of people visiting during matches and it will house them very close to the stadium away from residents you can only conclude something else was influencing the objection. 

1 hour ago, Bluedell said:

It doesn't seem unreasonable to describe those who are attempting to split up the UK and cause irreversible damage to the country as the enemy. It's not just a decision that can be reversed in 4 or 5 years.

 

No, I'm not a member of my local community council because

a) don't have the time

b) don't care enough about the issues.

c) the council will just decide to do what they want anyway.

I'm not debating a political viewpoint, simply explaining why calling someone 'the enemy' then feigning surprise that people are sensitive to that seemed a little disingenuous.  

My wife is on our local community council and it can be time consuming but it's not constantly so, it ramps up as 'issues' arise, calms down as they are solved/ignored/go away. I guess they are all different though. 

Local issues can be trivial, but sometimes they're not. We'd a big issue with a planned incinerator which created a lot of local interest and concern, likewise with proposed telephone masts. I also live near a sport's stadium and resident parking is always an issue as is crime and policing. What I would say is you're dead wrong on point 'c'. Local council take a real interest in what's going on at that level. Two local councillors attend most meetings, and can become quite involved in what happens. I've actually been impressed by how much a city councillor can achieve and influence. 

My last observation on this. Most people take no notice of their community council or residents association unless there's a single issue that rouses them. Because of this it is very easy for one or two people to exert significant power and sway in these type of organisations. If we all took more interest in politics/issues on this level we'd see a difference in decisions made at council level. In my opinion.  

6 minutes ago, Bill said:

There’s no need to talk about “inferring” or “general tone”. I’ve already made it clear I think it IS colluding with the enemy. No ifs or buts. I don’t expect everyone to agree with this but I don’t understand why this is such a sensitive issue for you. 

Really Bill? You don't understand why someone might be sensitive to being described as "colluding with the enemy"? C'mon. Hold whatever views you want but words like colluding and enemy are totally loaded.

On topic, is there anything in what Clr Aitken says? 

I asked before, is anyone on here a member of their local community council? If not why not? 

Also noticed an interesting Tweet from Dan Walker, presenter of BBC's Fooball Focus. In reply to a question he explained the lack of a preview of Sunday's match or mention of our Europa League qualification in the following way "We will talk about it later but there is a long standing issue between Rangers and the BBC. Hopefully it’ll be resolved soon." 

I was interested by the last sentence. Whether that's a personal 'hope' or an insiders knowledge of goings on behind the scenes, I don't know. But Gerrard is still a big name 'down south' and interest in how he's doing 'up here' would normally have led to a few interviews and features on national BBC Sport by now. There will be some frustration over this in Manchester BBC Sport headquarters, whether enough to put pressure on Pacific Quay to resolve it or not only time will tell. 

I was driving during the 1st half of yesterday's match and was delighted to discover a commentary was on Five Live. Lee McCulluch and Pat Nevin were assisting an Irish commentator who rather amusingly kept calling our defensive midfield lynchpin "Jack Ryan". I listened for 20 minutes an no one corrected him. It's no wonder we struggled in midfield yesterday, what with shadowing runs from Rogic and McGregor whilst saving America and Western civilisation from countless terrorist and domestic threats. 

I realise my over-whelming sense of disappointment about yesterday is largely down to my feelings of optimism about our team as August progressed. Not since our first match against them since promotion back up to the SPFL have I gone into a game against them actually believing we could win it. It's the hope that kills you and all that... It's not the result that's so disappointing, rather it was the performance. It feels like an opportunity lost, clearly Celtic were having issues behind the scenes whilst we were on something of a roll. In my opinion we got our tactics wrong, particularly in the first half. 

However, most of our players will get a break now and that can only be a good thing. It was a difficult start to the season, with a brand new side and brand new manager. Dropping 7 points from a possible 9 away from home is poor by anyone's standards, but, there's some mitigation with our European matches and our over-achievement in them. 

How we bounce back from this first set-back will be revealing. That's how we'll know what kind of team we now have. Full league points for the rest of September please. 

Ooh, that's an attacking side. I'd have played Candeias myself, I think he's a better all rounder than Kent and has more experience, however Kent gives us pace. I also think Tav needs a player in front of him who'll track back and provide cover allowing him to push on, and Candeias is better at that then Kent in my opinion. Kent is direct though. 

I'm too old to be this nervous before a match!

Do they Rab? I'm not sure that's true actually. Most nationalists I know are convinced Pacific Quay is filled with MI5 agents spreading interference. 

BBC Scotland have a number of issues but I'm not convinced they've got an imbalance along those lines.

In my opinion they've issues around getting working class people into broadcasting and there's a disproportionate number of Gaelic speakers. 

I hear you Rab, Hearachs need watching. 

11 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

What date will the game in Vienna be?

 

I really fancy that one.

It means nothing to me. 

I've a confession to make, I've met Donalda MacKinnon, and I quite liked her too. ? Never met Stuart Cosgrove though, so I'm not compelled to say anything nice about him! 

I caught the last half hour of our match on the tranny. Dodds and Thomson were pretty enthusiastic about us, even Rob McLean was complimentary. Surely the BBC can cover our away matches? Why didn't they have someone in Ufa commentating? I also turned on to hear the Celtic score, although the lack of pings on my phone had already told me they must have won. Pat Bonnar and Scott McDonald were the most rational and realistic of the people on the programme at that time, which tells you the level of cheerleading the others were engaging in. When Richard Gordon built up this Sunday's match as being fascinating "for neutrals" Bonnar's instant retort of "no one is really neutral" made me laugh. Big Pat clearly knows his BBC colleagues pretty well now. 

You'd fancy us against Spartak at home, away might be different. Likewise Vienna I'd expect to be on a similar level to us. Villareal should horse us if they're taking the tournament in any way seriously though. 

I'm just delighted we're even in this draw, let's not lose sight of that.