JohnMc

Right, so because RC schools exist a few hundred drunken neds belted out 'No Pope Of Rome' at a football match in Kilmarnock on Friday? I'm sorry but that's nonsense, total nonsense. The people who sung the songs in question on Friday are arrogant, bigoted, morons who are so out of touch with reality it beggars belief and who don't care what damage they do to the club and its support. Why does anyone make excuses for these pricks? Why don't we have four pages of utter condemnation for these arseholes who once again feel the best way to support Rangers is to sing about near hundred year old razor gangs led by fascists and fantasy songs about the Pope? It's not the BBC's fault these dicks sung that song. It's not the fault of the Roman Catholic church, or the SNP or the police the fault lies firmly at the feet of the cretins who sung it. Nowhere else. If you don't like the fact the song is banned, if you feel you should be able to sing 'no chapels to sadden my eyes' in public whenever you want then take it up with your MSP and your MP, lobby parliament, crowdfund a campaign, occupy George Sq, stand for election on this argument, pay for advertising explaining your views. But please, please stop fuckin singing it at Rangers games. It's 2016.

Dundalk are in the Europa League this season so they've probably got a bit more cash than normal, plus his Dad is managing Derry City so he'll know the standard involved. Can't be many players have left Rangers and joined an League Of Ireland side. He was a frustrating player Shiels, you could see flashes but never consistently. He was very highly rated as a teenager, another one who looked like a potential star at 15.

By my reckoning only three of our likely starting line-up will have played at Parkhead for us before, that's a big disadvantage. A hostile, full Parkhead gives them an advantage and I worry some of our players might freeze. I expect Celtic will come at us from the first whistle, close us down and put us on the back foot, if we can weather that and keep moving the ball we'll silence their support. But if a few of our players freeze and Celtic get an early goal I expect a long, difficult afternoon. They're a momentum team, geared up to attack and if we let them it might be horrible. I also don't think they're that much better than us, but home advantage really helps them and our form has been patchy, but the match is still a few weeks away and a lot can happen between now and then. Rodgers sides were never good defensively and his player recruitment was patchy at best, but he can motivate players and he can get the best out of attacking players, so we'll need to be careful.

That's great news, well done. From being banned by the West End Festival to international travel awards, quite the journey. I did the tour with my Dad a few years ago and would wholeheartedly concur with the sentiments above, something every bluenose should do and indeed of interest to any real football supporter.

Yeah probably a couple at most, certainly nothing like last nights Hezbollah-a-thon. You're right it's no more prevalent than the American or Canadian flag or indeed the Bosnian flag. I've never seen a Palestinian flag, we've never had a Palestinian player though.

Well I've certainly seen the Israeli flag in the Rangers support at matches, I once took a photo of the Star of David flag in the Copland and sent it to a Celtic supporting Scottish Jewish Zionist I know, indeed I was thinking about him last night, he must have been squirming as the Hamas-fest took place. I think it's ridiculous that there's even any suggestion the Celtic support should be censured for this though. It was impolite, childish and reeks of the needy 'look at us' culture that permeates a section of their support, but that's it. I noticed a few years ago that as Irish Republicans started flying Palestinian flags from lampposts in West Belfast that Israeli ones appeared in Loyalist areas so it was only a matter of time before it showed up in Glasgow football too. I've a lot of sympathy with the Palestinian people, they've been treated pretty badly by a variety of countries and peoples but using it as some point scoring, right-on, aren't we all hipster intellectuals bullshit should be mocked. The holier than thou strain in the Celtic support is cringeworthy. The complex issues of the Middle East are unlikely to be influenced by barely reformed football casuals from Coatbridge. Tossers.

So just me then that thinks we over-react to this? I can see from his biog that he's the programme editor and so has some sort of official role, but really, c'mon, he's taking the piss. The very fact that's the game he's looking forward to is surely all the confirmation we need that he's attempting to be humorous. We need to grow a thicker a skin about this, we're going to get this and the zombie stuff for a few years more, laugh it off, poke fun back, deal with it in a mature way. dB, if he's a Thistle fan then rest assured he meets bears in real life, he's probably got several in his family, he's highly unlikely to live in some Thistle supporting only ghetto. He's kidding us on, playing on a sore point with our support, making his own fans laugh. Jeez, we react like he's personally stripping titles. How does writing that make someone a bigot Tb? Come our next visit to Firhill expect a lot of 'you're not Rangers anymore' because clearly it irks us and opposition fans can see that, best solution is to put five past them and they'll soon realise we're exactly the same Rangers they know and love.

Realistically Celtic are still favourites. In Griffiths they've a striker who can score against anyone in Scotland, if they can keep him fit they'll challenge all season. However, they're very dependent on him, he scored more than a third of all their league goals last season, and if he picks up an injury or loses form they've got a big problem, of course they might sign someone else before the season starts. We're different, our top scorer only contributed 18% of our goals, that's unlikely to change this season. Unlike Celtic our goals come from all over the park so losing Waghorn for example whilst a blow isn't as difficult for us. Again we might also have signed another forward before the season starts. Half the SPFL are of the same quality as we faced last year, they're no better than Falkirk, Hibs or Raith Rovers and we should be able to deal with them home and away. The other half will pose us different challenges. Hearts are a big strong physical side, they'll be an interesting side to face, they're direct and robust and will be unlike any side we've played under Warburton so far. We're a small, light team, some of the new guys will add some height and strength but we're still built for speed and movement and sometimes in Scottish football you need to win the physical battle first. Aberdeen are also a big side but I feel are more of passing team. They'll compete with us toe-to-toe at first, at least at home, but they're good on the break and have experience in their team, I'd expect to drop points to them over the season. There'll be a couple of other SPFL sides who'll put a run together, there always is. As St Johnstone showed us early last season a well organised, disciplined defence combined with the ability to counter-attack can cause us problems and we can expect to face that from a few sides. If we don't get an early goal sides will be happy to sit deep and wait for their chance. As for Celtic, well who really knows. I can't decide if Rogders is a good manager or a balloon. He's done well at some clubs and not at others, he tries to play passing football and keep possession and Celtic to have some good players. They have a huge squad though, too big, and a little unbalanced in my opinion. But they have height and strength and that will cause us problems. So, yeah, we can win the league but it will be difficult and we'll need some luck along the way.

I don't think Kranjcar should start the season, he doesn't look fit enough to me, he should be on the bench. In the games he's played you couldn't have asked for more from Windass, he'd start ahead of Kranjcar. I'd also start with O'Halleran before Forrester although I don't think there's much between them. McKay, Waghorn, Wallace, Tavernier, Fotheringham, Halliday, Wilson and Kiernan should start the season, that's the core of the side that got promotion and should get first crack at the league this season. I'd include Holt in that list if he was fit. I'd add Windass, O'halleron and probably Barton (through gritted teeth) to them for the starting 11. Injuries and suspensions apart my concern this season is keeping McKay, if he starts this season like he finished last season I think our directors will be tested in the January transfer window.

Well one of the people elected used to have a season ticket for Ibrox a few years ago now.

Durrant didn't decide his salary, someone else is to blame for that. If he was offered a new contract on a lower salary and refused it that's one thing, if he was simply not offered a new contract that's quite different. Is it Warburton that makes decisions on youth coaches then? Is that his remit too? As has been said above who knows what goes on behind the scenes, I just hope he was treated with some respect.

I'm really disappointed to read this, I was under the impression Durrant had been doing a good job and was a popular and respected coach, particularly of younger players. My total love of Durrant the player means I've a blind spot where it comes to him. Durrant was the first genuinely international class player we produced in over a decade, an elegant yet highly effective player capable of winning matches on his own. I recently watched the Skol Cup Final against Celtic from the mid 80s and Durrant was just sensational, we forget just how good a player he was before his injury. I'm sorry no other role could have been found for him at the club, as someone who has been with us literally since childhood it feels like he could have been treated a little better.

Is this the thread to remind us all to take a summer holiday? I've never seen such a mish-mash, car crash of a thread on Gersnet, did someone really accuse Martin Luther King of brainwashing? Aye, he brainwashed all those American blacks into thinking they had rights, the monster. Roll on July so we can all debate Orange Walks again...

I don't believe the SNP are inherently anti-Rangers, no more than any other Scottish political party are. Rangers are not fashionable in political circles, as such there's little to be gained from politicians of any stripe publicly supporting them. That is an issue but i'm not sure that's the fault of the politicians. When you say the SNP didn't support us in the current situation, what did you expect to happen? I mean Hibs fans have been arrested and charged it's not like nothing has happened. I personally would be against government getting involved and putting pressure on independent bodies.

But two wrongs make a right Frankie, surely? I'm as annoyed about Rangers players being assaulted as the next person but I'm fairly sure I don't want the government to intervene. Fas involved should be charged, the SFA should hammer Hibs and the police should be forced to review future policing. But do we want politicians involved? To what purpose, what do you want them to achieve?

I've not made much of a contribution to the cup final aftermath for reasons of time and not being able to add much to the debate. However the way the 'debate' is now going is puzzling me a little. Why do we want politicians to become involved? There seems to be some sort of clamour for that and it baffles me. Hibs, the SFA and the police should be dragged over the coals and heavily criticised. A small amount of our support unfortunately should be too, whatever provocation they shouldn't have gone the pitch. But is this really something that needs to be taken to a governmental level? The assault on the players was inexcusable and I suspect Hibs will pay for that in one way or another, whatever their failings I can't see how the SFA can ignore it, I don't believe Rangers will let them either. But should this really go any further than those organisations? I'm not a Scottish nationalist and I don't want independence, let me say that at the outset. But I have voted SNP at local, Scottish and Westminster elections in the past and may do again. I look at who is standing and choose the person I think best for the job, sometimes that's been the SNP candidate. So yes, some Rangers supporters vote SNP, some support independence. I guess many don't associate the football team they want to win with other parts of their identity or belief system. Some people seem to find this concept difficult, I don't know why. I've lived in Northern Ireland, I spent three years there and have a big affection for the place and the people but let me assure you there is nothing about their politics or political parties we should be contemplating bringing here, nothing. We could spend all summer analysing why Rangers supporters and the club are viewed differently and treated differently from other clubs. But if anyone wants to say it's because we've an SNP government they are wildly wrong in my opinion. We, the supporters, have allowed our club to become unfashionable in some circles and viewed with genuine horror in others. How did that happen? What did 'we' do to contribute to that? We can ask 'how many SNP politicians are bluenoses' or whether a 'Unionist Party will emerge' but it kind of misses the point. We touched upon this a few months ago when the prospective SNP candidate for Glasgow Pollock held a meeting in a Celtic theme pub. Why would a young, intelligent, aspiring politician of Pakistani origin who received an expensive education choose to support Celtic? We can keep focussing on who messed up on Saturday or we can lose that focus and start to kick out in all directions. That might be why we keep being marginalised you know.

No he doesn't, and as someone pointed out he was punished and so should be allowed to get on with his life. However, and I accept I seem to be the only person who feels this way, I just don't think he should be a Rangers player. I'm not some Victorian moraliser, far from it, I just think there should be certain standards expected of Rangers players. Anyway, he's signed now so it doesn't really matter much what I think anyway and if he scores the winner against Celtic I'll be cheering him as loud as anyone.

Before joining us? Did he, I don't recall that but you might be right. I know he certainly was reported to have done that when he was with us and we should have kicked him out there and then.

No problem. I just don't feel someone with his past and his record should be considered for Rangers. The on-field stuff I'm actually relaxed about but his off-field past is too much for me. He is/was a ned, pure and simple and I don't know if I buy the Twitter philosopher reimagining he's got going on now. He'll be a lightening rod here and attract undue attention. He might well have turned over a new leaf, I just would prefer he wasn't a Rangers player.

Were you a professional footballer Pete? I didn't know that. A poor disciplinary record is usually a sign of a poor professional but to be honest that side of him doesn't worry me, he's a decent footballer I don't think there's any doubt about that. There's surely a scale on these things, no? I doubt Gavrilo Princip thought millions of people would die following his assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand, some consequences are unseen. However stubbing a cigar in someone's eye has fairly clear consequences, beating up a fellow player has fairly clear consequences and attacking someone in the street also has fairly clear immediate consequences. I'm not suggesting he shouldn't be allowed to play football ever again, just not with us.

When we signed Gazza he was playing Serie A, the best league in the world at the time, was the fulcrum of the England side, and had never been to jail or seriously assaulted a team mate or a youth player. He was known to be impetuous on the pitch and had the highest media profile of any British footballer ever but he didn't have anything like the reputation of Barton. I wish we hadn't signed Barton and I'm disappointed someone like him is going to pull on our shirt. But, whilst he does I'll support him and the side and hope his time with us passes off without incident.

I'm sorry but I don't think someone who has spent 6 months in prison for multiple assault convictions should be anywhere near Rangers. I don't care if he's a reformed man he shouldn't ever pull a light blue jersey on. I kept hoping this was just a paper story but as it's clear it's genuine I'm appalled. I don't care how good a player he is, he should never be a Rangers player.

I notice he was warming the bench last night along with that other wunderkind Charlie Telfer. Stranraer stuck five goals past Livingston last night and they couldn't get in the starting 11? Livingston are in genuine danger of going out of business, again, so you wouldn't think they'd be too hard to do a deal with.

I wasn't trying to make any political points in the original post, I was simply getting angrier and angrier as Tuesday went on and the day and its aftermath were discussed and analysed again and was moved to write about it instead of ranting about it to my bewildered wife and children. I'm actually ambivalent as to the causes of the disaster, it was a different era and things have now, thankfully, improved. People made mistakes, didn't do their jobs properly or didn't understand the consequences of their decisions. That's the case with almost all disasters and as we can't turn back time we can only learn from them and ensure they don't happen again. My anger is aimed at those who chose to cover up the causes and who perpetuated the lie over who was responsible. That's unforgivable. As others have said much of the culture that allowed that to happen was created by the government of the time. Freedom of Information requests have proved that Thatcher was misled as to the disaster's causes, she was lied too by senior policemen and accepted their version without question. She seemed to find it inconceivable that the authorities might be wrong or that she might be lied too, despite testimony to the contrary from junior officers and appeals from the Secretary of the Merseyside Police Federation. Thatcher had no feel for sport and disliked football, her governments response to Hillsborough was to try and introduce compulsory ID cards, an Orwellian reaction that fundamentally misunderstood the problem. I'm probably more angry at her predecessor John Major. Major was a football fan, and a genuine one too by all accounts. He should have understood better, he should have empathised if, as we're led to believe, he'd attended Stamford Bridge regularly. Successive governments have, thankfully, dealt with Hillsborough differently, through to the current one and that should be welcomed. However, for me, the mind-set that allowed Hillsborough to happen still exists, football supporters are not treated in the same way as other members of society. What i'm not sure is if the culture that allowed lies and cover-ups to flourish is still as prevalent. Here's hoping we never find out.

With respect you've got your timelines all wrong. Thatcher was replaced by John Major, not Tony Blair. When Labour, led by Blair, came into power in 1997 one of the first things the new Home Secretary Jack Straw did was order a new enquiry into Hillsborough. This second report, the Stuart-Smith report, found along very similar lines as the original enquiry did in terms of blame. The Labour government was split on the findings, with Jack Straw accepting them and indeed defending them and Lord Falconer, the Justice Minister, criticising them publicly. In 2009, Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnston, ordered the formation of the Hillsborough Independent Panel to oversee all aspects of the documentation relating to Hillsborough. It was this panel that first uncovered the truth of the cover up. Whatever faults Blair and Brown had, and they had plenty, the governments they were in did bring us to where we arrived yesterday.