Gaffer

As usual, great job on the pod. I always enjoy them, but especially when it's after some cracking results. Great content again. Keep em coming.

5-0, Kent as FGS

He needs help and support. His team mate who posted the video needs a good kicking though.

As Rangers supporters, do we need the BBC? (We all know we deserve coverage because we pay for it, but do we really need it?) Should Rangers be doing something to end the issue with the BBC? With perceived boardroom failures (the saga over strips, the Wallace/Miller issue, our PR failures in changing the narrative in the press), do we need different/stronger executives? Would 55 be the greatest success in our club's history? And if you fancy breaking the world record for the length of a podcast, is the SNP anti-Rangers? And why are so few politicians open about their support for Rangers? Although maybe save this until you've got Gonzo and Darthter on the panel. ?

This is a non story - yes, another one. His injury was well documented and Gerrard has even spoken about how we get him back to fitness. I think that it's quite normal for a player to go with the squad, to be assessed by the national team's doctors and then returned. It happens all the time but once again the press is trying to portray a negative slant on an exciting signing. Same old, same old. Next!

This may be true Darther but it doesn't answer the questions raised by the club. Why was the hearing cancelled? If there were objections, the whole point of a licensing hearing is to air those objections from the community council (and others) and allow a response from the applicant. This didn't happen. Why did Dornan intervene? They asked if he had prior examples of intervening in such a manner. And Why did Dornan misrepresent (to the Community Council) the fanzone in such an outrageous fashion (in my opinion) with use of language such as "booze and burgers"? On what basis did Cllr Aitken then accuse Rangers of sectarianism? Why did GCC not fulfil simple FOI requests from Club 1872? Why did Cllr Aitken release private information and then only selected emails onto Twitter and the press? There may be good explanations for all of these, but I have yet to see them. That's why I keep saying that the perception I have at the moment is that there is something dodgy going on which suggests a bias (at the very least).

I think that shows a big difference between us and them. It shows that the Rangers support is almost exactly representative of the country as a whole, whereas Celtic's support seems to be more polarised. Do you think that's a fair assessment?

This is why I vote for "none of the party options" because it's all about scoring points no matter what party you are in. Party politics is killing debate and progress in my opinion. I wish there was an alternative option but for me there isn't yet. On this point though, I think McAveety is enjoying being in this position. It does appear (to me at least) that there has been an unusual intervention here and until the questions (asked by Rangers and then Club 1872) are answered, the perception will be one of bias. To be honest, I can accept that bias creeps in now and again, but when it happens and is called out, it needs to be corrected. Surely, this could be cleared up quickly. I'm just hoping that the councillors and Rangers reps are now speaking directly about this instead of using Twitter.

That's interesting because we have both read this thread and interpreted it differently. Those that have expressed any sort of SNP affiliation appeared to be condemning some of the actions of the elected officials (before the thread was derailed), but were trying to explain that it wasn't a party decision. They were claiming it was individuals in the party rather than a party view. As someone who is truly independent (if you pardon the pun) in this debate, I can understand them making that distinction. I really wish we could get back to th original issue because these officials need to be held to account. In my opinion, this Cllr Aitken has demonstrated poor judgement in using Twitter to express inflammatory accusations and these must be tackled. I'm just glad Club 1872 has taken this on because now I'm hoping that clarity will be provided. If this is all above board, then answering the questions asked should be straight forward. Until they do that, my suspicion is heightened. We can't reduce the pressure on these people because my current perception is that they have indeed intervened in such a way that suggests bias.

In my opinion this is one of the most dillusional posts I've read on here in some time. Congratulations! This is mostly made up in your mind. Thankfully the minority you belong to is just that, and will disappear with a little more time. Most of us have no problem with our fans having support for specific issues, political parties, the orange order, or other groups. That's because most us recognise that the Rangers support is so large that it covers such a diverse section of the population. That's a good thing, contrary to your belief. For the vast majority of Rangers fans, they too follow but only focus on their team and beating their rivals. There are NO conditions attached to supporting Rangers. I accept that this is impossible for you to accept, but that's the facts. Its the majority of us that will keep this club going in the future. You can thank us later.

Yes, I know other supports are divided on political issues, but we appear to be a supporters group that puts political conditions on who else can be a real Rangers supporter. On your second point, I agree. I actually thought we were debating some of the more important points until this became totally derailed by some mindless nonsense.

On post #300 in this thread I tried to make some sense of what I was reading. I'm assuming from the lack of reactions to it that either it was a poor piece of writing (won't be the first time) or it just didn't help the argument that many on here want to have. What I've read since just demonstrates that our club is heading downhill fast and that is so disappointing and worrying to me. What some people have written on here about their fellow fans actually disgusts me. I wish I hadn't read it. What is apparent is that our support is completely divided. For most clubs around the world, beating their rivals is what it's all about. It would appear that this isn't enough for many of our fans. There are now apparently conditions to supporting Rangers and therefore our ability to attract fans in other countries is limited, and although it won't put me off supporting my club, it certainly makes me wary about instantly forming a bond with others who are Rangers fans. It is likely however to put off others. If I was a young guy looking for a team to support and I read this thread, I would quickly realise that I don't meet the conditions and would then look elsewhere. Is that what we'd want? In fact, I think we've reached the root cause of our earlier question about why politicians don't shout about being Rangers supporters. I'm proud of my club but utterly embarassed by some of my fellow fans. Maybe politicians feel the same way. I now can't blame them. The hypocrisy on here is unlikely to be rivalled. I thought about pointing it out but as with post #300 I've realised there's no point. This thread is not about logic or debating that a point of view is right or wrong. This thread is now about strong beliefs, not facts or rationale. People are so entrenched that debating this is impossible, despite the best efforts of some members earlier. This is now just a slagging match. Maybe that's why some people come on to Gersnet, but it's not for me. To quote many of our managers in the past "this has been a bad day at the office".

I seem to remember reviewing the output of a survey which showed that only 18% of Scots now expressed a religious affiliation. Initially I found that surprising, given that the 2011 (I think) census had 60% of people in the U.K. opt for "Christianity" as their "religion". However, on reflection it made sense to me. I know that when I was at school, it was common to be asked "are you a proddy or a cafflic" (that's how I heard it anyway), whereas now I'd be surprised if the younger generation (now in their teens or early twenties) would even contemplate asking that, or even knowing what it meant. Is that a clear enough sign that religious affiliations are dead as you say? Could be. I no longer live in the west of Scotland so I don't know if it's still like that there. If it's then true that people affiliate with political, cultural, or moral issues, how can we have one for our supporters? I can't imagine what it is. What we may think is important these days is also likely to change. When many on her talk of unionism they think of the Union in the GB or U.K. context. If you ask the younger generations, they think unionism is about the European Union. To some extent I think our entire support is currently united around this feeling of injustice over the past few years and want to give a massive GIRUY to everyone when we win 55. But what then? What unites us after that, and do we really need something to fill that political/cultural vacuum? I don't see the younger generations being at all interested in many of the things that we seem be heated about on here, so what next? When I listen to those in their late teens and early twenties now, they use different language from us. They don't talk about affiliations with political parties, or being right or left wing, or being pro union, or pro nationalism. They talk about specific moral issues (like you suggested John). When deciding who to vote for in the last elections regarding independence, BrExit, etc, their talking points were "it isn't fair that we should we be governed by unelected people", or "we should all stick together and splitting up is not the right thing to do". At no stage were they taking of "isms". It was individual moral points they discussed and their voting reflected their feelings on that specific issue. I am very mindful of ensuring that we have a long term stability at the club, assured because we have new generations of bears coming through. I want that because I love my football team, not because I feel it has a moral purpose to fulfill. However I do accept that having a more uniting objective can be powerful. I just don't know what that is. Maybe that's something we (as the current group of supporters) need to think hard about. Maybe it's something the club needs to think hard about. I really don't know. What I do know however is that many of the biggest clubs (excluding Barcelona of course who openly support independence for Catalonia) in the world don't appear to need such a moral/political/cultural issue to unite around. For them, beating their rivals is good enough. Maybe that should be enough for us too?!?

I must admit that I don't spend much (if any) time considering politics in relation to supporting my football club. Some aspects of this thread though did get me thinking about it. I accept that there would be a reluctance to be seen to be supporting a club which has fans who sing apparent or perceived bigoted songs (for fear of branded as one yourself). That makes sense. However what surprises me is that some politicians seem comfortable in displaying their allegiance to a club which has fans who sing about support for the IRA. I don't know about you guys but I could hear it clearly on TV during the game on Sunday. So what I've been thinking is how (and when) did it become acceptable to associate with a terrorist group? I do accept that Celtic (the club) has taken steps to disassociate itself with that, but so has Rangers in its statements about singing certain songs. What's the difference?

This is disappointing. I can only assume that the club hasn't followed correct procedures. I hope the facts of this come out though, because if they don't, the conclusion most people will come to is that these players did not do anything inappropriate. Murty must be seething tonight. But equally, Caixinha will feel somewhat vindicated because once again Miller appears to have further demonstrated why Pedro wanted him out by leaking yet another story (possibly).

Or maybe it's quite simply because almost every other football club and it's fans are so jealous of our success that they despise us and want to see us fail. Why would any politician associate with that? If I was a politician (please no), I don't think I would disclose my allegiance for this reason. I feel I'd be rejected by any constituent who supported another team.

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.

Bill: I think it will be interesting to see your response to JohnMc's questions. I know you have strong views on this and I don't think anyone would argue with your right to hold such a position. The problem I have is when someone (like you) tries to create a set of conditions with which any supporter must comply. Maybe I've picked you (and others) up incorrectly, which is why I refer to John's points. I'm really interested in your thoughts on what he asked.

I have to do that every night at home ?

I'd like to think that Gerrard will be punishing the players for things like that. It could have cost us, albeit the kick out was stupid and not dangerous, and we need to keep our heads better in that environment.

True, but what's that got to do with this thread? What CN said is still correct.

Excellent work from Club 1872. I was critical of this organisation in the early days but they are performing well in instances like this now. Nice! Maybe they just didn't know where they fit in and what role they should be adopting, but this is exactly the type of instance to intervene. As for this issue, I sense that these people are in some trouble over this. And from what I can tell, this was a molehill that's become a mountain. If they had just been open in their discussions with the Rangers board, this could all have been smoothed over, even if some people did intervene against policy. However, it's the subsequent attempts to misinform and misdirect that is the issue now. As you guys know, I have no affiliation with any party so I don't really care how this looks for those involved, but if I was a senior leader in the SNP I would move quickly to address this internally, and then perhaps privately with Rangers' execs because even if it turns out they have acted properly, the perception is very different. It's the perception that will have the political impact on them. What is factual to me though is that Cllr Aitken was irresponsible when she wrongly accused Rangers of sectarianism and that in itself is grounds for a disciplinary review.

Great job again guys. I couldn't have done this after the game on Sunday so I think it deserves special recognition and praise for this one. Really enjoyed the chat and opinions as usual. You've created a brilliant format and output so well done to all involved in these.

I know it's great for those bears that can't get a ticket normally, and they'll be delighted that the Broomloan is available again. For me though, and I know this is selfish, I just don't think the atmosphere is as good when we don't have a stand with them in it. That'll be an unpopular opinion but it is how I feel about it. Again being selfish, I don't care about our allocation at their place because I won't go anymore. As I said, I accept this is a selfish viewpoint and can understand the point others are making.

If our fans are so easily provoked, they shouldn't be going to these games. If someone throws a coin, they should be arrested and charged. For me it's that simple. Their players can tie scarves to posts, celebrate in front of our fans, and fist pump all they want. They won and deserved the right to do that. I hope Gerrard shows our players their reaction though because there are two things it proves: this game meant so much to them; and this is what happens when you let them win (so use it as motivation and don't let it happen again). If we win, I'd be equally fine with us fans doing it back to them, although I'd like to think our players would show a little more class than they do. We are upset at losing, but we can't be upset at things like this. It's sport. It's emotional. It's not serious.