JohnMc

It's a great idea but the wrong person doing it. That's not meant as a slight to Mr Dingwall who've I've never met, simply that his profile is too high. I really don't think Ashley's lawyers will have a lot of difficulty convincing a judge that letting the owner of Follow Follow have a full list of SD shareholders might constitute a potential threat to them. Now I don't think for two seconds it actually does, but finding a series of posts from some unhinged or simply angry poster on FF to demonstrate shouldn't be that hard and a home counties judge might agree they constitute a potential threat. Had he got someone 'unknown' to do this it might have got a bit further. Shame, as it's a really good idea.

So important I had to say it twice...

Jeez, it's like an Albanian blood feud on here. In the grand scheme of people who've fucked Rangers over in the last few years Naismith's name doesn't even make the top ten, yet the antagonism he generates suggests he personally destroyed the club before ripping the picture of the Queen off the dressing room wall and defecating on the disaster memorial on his way to Merseyside. So, honesty time. When we failed to leave administration I didn't know how I felt about the 'new club' either. For a week or so it was all up in the air and so were my feelings about the club. Would it really still be my Rangers, was the liquidation actually the end and the 'new club' simply wouldn't engender the same feelings as before? I didn't know, it had never happened before. It wasn't until that first game when I saw Ally McCoist (another who draws hatred from a section of our support so out of proportion) standing on the touchline that I knew we were okay, everything was going to be alright, we were the same. I was wrong to question it but there you go, I've made mistakes before and I'll make them again. People go on about the press conference Naismith gave, he's pilloried for it. Here's the thing, the guy told the truth as he saw it at that time. Naismith was/is also a supporter, it was his view at the time, his view might well have changed but because he decided to explain to the support his feelings and his decision he's become a pariah. No wonder players only speak in platitudes and cliches the rest of the time, if supporters don't like your views they'll hate with a fervour normally reserved for child molesters. Bloody hell. I also think the anger towards Naismith is partly because we recognised ourselves in him. Local boy, boyhood supporter, articulate, thoughtful and probably our most effective player. We all wanted to be Naismith, we could see the side being built around him for years to come. So when he left it hurt. It hurt far more than Whittaker leaving, he can leave everyday if he wants the useless Hibee tosser (sorry, was that anger over the top?). We're like jilted lovers, unable to get over the beautiful girl (boy, whatever) who decided to move on. Do you carry this anger and pain around forever, do you badmouth her whenever her name comes up? Or do you let it go, write it off to experience, remember the happy times and accept that perhaps that person also knows they made a mistake. I'd take Naismith back in a heartbeat, he's the best Scottish player of his generation, nothing else matters. He can make it up to me by scoring a hat-trick against Celtic.

I certainly don't feel like celebrating and don't think of myself as being on any lunatic fringe. I'm not surprised he's resigned, if a professional PR company was consulted I'd be astonished if they'd have suggested anything else. I've no insight into his reasoning, but until you've actual been in the centre of a media storm you shouldn't judge those involved. Most of us have absolutely no idea what it's like to suddenly become public property and have every aspect of our lives scrutinised, none at all. What pressure that puts on an individual, his family and friends is considerable. This wasn't going away and it wasn't going to blow over, he's done the right thing for himself, his family and his sanity in my opinion.

He may have been and I might have misunderstood him. Chris Graham is going to feel heat from the media because he's made a number of enemies there in recent years. I don't see it as part of anything more than that. Paul Murray gets a fairly easy ride from the media because he's cultivated a number of friendships over the years. It's not rocket science.

I didn't accuse him of Islamaphobia nor do I think he is only that sending that tweet directly to a muslim cleric demonstrated a lack of judgement. That he wasn't a director of Rangers at the time isn't really the issue but it didn't happen 20 years ago. I'm assuming he doesn't know the imam in question, in which case he chose to send something he knew would be offensive to someone he dislikes and with who he disagrees even though he's never met them. I'm sorry but how can that be viewed as anything other than inflammatory and aggressive? I was as horrified by those killings as Chris Graham but somehow I managed not to send offensive pictures to imams I've never met. I don't feel it is a weak point, it's fairly well known that drawings of Mohamad cause varying degrees of offence to muslims, in that one he's giving someone a hand-job. That's not satire or a making a clever social point, that's just done purely to offend. How anyone can see that as anything but a lack of good judgement I don't know. I'm not drawing any parallels between that cartoon tweet and someone making fun of the Ibrox disaster, simply making the point that claiming freedom of expression needs more thought. Aberdeen fans sing about it because they know it causes offence and outrage, exactly the same emotions that cartoon is intended to stir in an awful lot of people.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Chris Graham is being criticised because he now has a high profile position and as far as the media are concerned that makes him public property and fair game. I'm not condoning that I'm just telling it like it is. He wasn't criticised at the time because it wasn't 'newsworthy'. Rest assured had you been given the director position your Twitter feed and posts would have received heavy scrutiny. This is only 'news' because of his position. The issue isn't what he tweeted on it's own it's that combined with his new role. Had he remained a vocal supporter alone this would never had made the light of day. We need to be careful not to conflate two issues. Defending the cartoon and the retweeting of it directly to a muslim cleric and defending Chris Graham. Graham has made enemies in the media, that's the reality, he might be able to ride this one out but they'll come for him again if he sneezes the wrong way. I don't accept that that tomorrow it'll be all of us, most of us have never made any enemies in the media.

Is Chris Graham getting some 'payback' for his stance towards many in the media? Undoubtedly in my opinion. When you've been as strident as he's been about reporting standards and quality you set yourself up as a target. There's revenge at play here and those who offered him the position should have seen that coming. However that doesn't make this story on him wrong. It was an insane thing to 'tweet' and demonstrates a staggering lack of judgement, that alone should throw a question over his new role. Every right thinking person was horrified and disgusted by the Charlie Hebdo attacks but most of us didn't choose to draw something crude and deliberately provocative and send it to a Muslim cleric, whatever our view of his 'beliefs'. There are an estimated 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, the vast majority of who would have found that drawing deeply offensive, that after all was its aim. It's all very well championing freedom of speech but that doesn't take away personal responsibility. Had someone drawn a crude cartoon deliberately mocking the Ibrox disaster how would we feel if two months later that person was made a director of a senior football club? I've a feeling we wouldn't be defending his freedom of expression. I've no idea what Chris Graham's views are on Islam and I'd have little difficulty accepting this was a knee-jerk reaction done in the heat of the moment and with perspective he might now regret it. But he needs to say that and see what the fall out is. Either way if (and I think it highly likely) an intelligent and reasonable muslim commentator criticises him for this he'll come under huge pressure to step down.

This thread has gone from hugely depressing to very, very funny.

I'm pleased with this. We get an experienced manager a new voice in the changing room and training pitch, new ideas and hopefully the 'bounce' every new manager gets. McCall also knows the club and the support, he gets what it's about. If he does well then great, his hat's in the ring for the gig permanently if he wants it, if he doesn't we're no worse off and it gives the board a few months to source and sound out a long term management team. Welcome back wee man and the very best of luck to you.

You could, or you could face the fact that a section of our support have no clue what's really important and are determined to show that. We've a lot of problems, the Daily Record are miles down that list.

Jeez, it didn't take long for some to find something to have a go at Paul Murray about, did it. Rangers have been fucked sideways by people actually inside the club for years and some couldn't bring themselves to criticise them. Day one and Paul Murray get's his collar felt for speaking to a newspaper. Good to see you've got your priorities right...

Isn't Sandy Easdale still on the football board? The tide might have turned but the ship hasn't sailed just yet, we won a battle yesterday, an important one at that, but the war's not over yet. Anyway, I've never met McMurdo junior but I met his dad an he was (is?) certainly a big bluenose, gave me two tickets free of charge once at Macdairmid Park in the old days of going to away matches with no tickets and trying to buy them from buses on the A9.

Yip, fair point, it's not low cost forever. But until the summer it might not cost us much.

Whilst I also think Llambias and Leach are playing games and doing their masters bidding I'm less concerned about it now. If it was me and I found £10 mil in the bank come Friday evening I'd use it to rebuild the club. It's a very low cost loan as long as we meet the repayment terms, and I doubt anyone else is going to lend us money as things stand even with new directors in place. If that means keeping Llambias and Leach on the board so be it, they'll be out voted if they oppose anything. The future success of the next group of directors will be predicated on their ability to generate income for the club, how difficult that'll be we'll find out in the coming months. If having Llambias and Leach on board proves problematic then pay Ashley what he's owed and get rid of them. But I'd call their bluff on this one just now.

You probably need a new broadband provider...

If Miller and Simonson leave in the summer they'll in all likelihood be the last players born in the 70s to play for us. I guess that means I'll finally have to accept I'll never play for Rangers... I'd be sorry to see Jim Stewart leave, he's highly regarded as a specialist goalkeeper coach. When you see that list you realise the scale of the job the next manager has. We're literally looking at signing a whole new team, that's considerably harder than most realise.

Wow, they still have Teletext in Germany! No wonder the Greeks are revolting.

18% of children in Australia attend a 'catholic' school, either private or public funded, RCs make up 25% of the Australian population. So that's fairly similar to Scotland. In England 12% of children attend an RC school so a bit lower than here. Neither country have any significant issues similar to Scotland. I've tried to make it clear in this thread that I don't actually support RC schools or any specific religious school if state funded. Scotland already has two Jewish primary schools and three Episcopalian schools in the state sector and will almost certainly have a Muslim primary in the near future. I'm not in favour of them and don't support their growth. However, I don't believe they are the biggest factor in the existence of 'sectarianism' in Scotland. Churches should provide religion and schools should provide education, parents can decide how much of either their children should partake in. I only posted in this thread because one of the first replies said they "gave up at it's not the schools" followed shortly after by other posters describing RC schools as "apartheid". Apart from feeling quite strongly that it's an inappropriate term to use I also feel too many Rangers supporters use this excuse to explain why some in our support and in society at large still cling to sectarian songs, chants and attitudes. The report in the opening post was compiled by academics over a period of time using resources probably not available to most Gersnet posters. The report makes some interesting points. Firstly that 'sectarianism' isn't that big a problem despite most people thinking it is and that you are far more likely to experience prejudice if you are black, Asian or gay. Blacks, Asians and gays don't have separate schools so I'm assuming we're not explaining those prejudices on schooling. I'll try and reply to everyone who replied to me, but it'll be later tonight or tomorrow before I'll have time.

Well now this is an unexpectedly pleasant start to a sunny Glasgow morning. The news of the recent share sale to the RST coupled with this suggests we're now in the end game. Excellent.

My point is why don't these countries have the same problem as Scotland does? You said this on the first page of this thread You were the 3rd poster to highlight schools, nearly half of all replies at that point. My point is that the existence of RC schools in Scotland isn't the reason we have sectarianism. RC schools exist in comparable societies where no sectarianism exists. RC schools don't cause sectarianism, there is no evidence to back that up. The paragraph quoted above says focus groups think it's the case, that doesn't mean it is the case. Focus groups are simply sounding boards for commonly held beliefs, they don't provide empirical evidence. The people who chose to sing 'No pope of Rome' on Friday night don't get to blame RC schools for that. That's a dereliction of personal responsibility. Fans of Thistle, who went to the same schools as us, managed to get through their match at the weekend without a blast of that song. As did every other club from the west of Scotland, except us.

This thread was depressing until two posts ago. The Gow article is excellent.

Hah, good line. I'm not advocating them, I just don't think they are to blame for sectarianism. Whether it's the state's job to provide them is a different argument and one I don't think we'd be miles apart on.

A childhood suspicion of people who go to a different school is fairly normal. Retaining that suspicion into adult life isn't. The argument that because a small number of people aren't able to evolve their thoughts from that of a 14 year old isn't a good enough reason to abolish an entire schooling system. That's the kind of thinking that has woman wearing burqas because some men might not be able to prevent themselves from carrying out rape. I'm convinced there would be far less violent crime if we banned all alcohol. Assaults and murder rates would plummet, A&E departments would see admissions drop and some families would benefit from having sober parents in them. But I amn't advocating prohibition because a number of people are incapable of knowing when they've had enough. I know you aren't saying any of the above, but the argument is the same.

Here's my problem with this. RC schools are fairly commonplace in many countries fairly equivalent with Scotland. England, Australia, Canada, the US, New Zealand for example all have RC schools yet don't seem to have that cultural tension we do. These places aren't utopian societies though, they have issues regarding race for example, often quite serious ones. Similarly gay people will experience prejudice in society despite full integration. Woman will generally experience significantly more prejudice and discrimination during their life despite schools being co-ed and all of us having mothers. I've an acquaintance to attended Shawlands Academy at a time of significant racial tension, culminating in a riot along race lines after school that made the national news. I've yet to read any actual evidence that proves separate schooling has a significant influence on this subject. Poor education does though. Poverty and unemployment are often factors, economic issues are usually at the heart of much social tension. I just think the school thing is an easy blame, it suggests the perpetrators are somehow victims of circumstance.