Britney Strikes Again !!!

[ian1964 10,720]

Graham Spiers

 

Another away trip, another bout of trouble. Cue feeble excuses ââ?¬â?? yet again. Maybe this time they will face the music.

 

If you are one of the legions of decent, fair-minded Rangers supporters then maybe you shouldn�t read on: you will only find the subject wearying, aggravating, a further embarrassment for your club.

 

In fact, your only conclusion might be this: the humiliations that sections of Rangers supporters continue to heap upon their club appear to be limitless.

 

Villarreal, Pamplona, Manchester, now Bucharest. Why is it that, when Rangers FC and their spineless supportersââ?¬â?¢ spokesmen start groping around for excuses, the common themes of ââ?¬Å?heavy-handed policingââ?¬Â or ââ?¬Å?these are not real Rangers fansââ?¬Â are forever trotted out? Canââ?¬â?¢t any club official, or any supportersââ?¬â?¢ representative, ever come clean on this? Will someone at Rangers finally find the guts to say: ââ?¬Å?We have a major problem with our support and it is ruining this clubââ?¬Â?

 

The scenes in Bucharest last Wednesday night at Rangers� Champions League tie against Unirea were tediously familiar. But almost as bad, in the context of accountability, was Rangers� feeble response to it. It was Manchester and the Uefa Cup final riots of 2008 all over again.

 

Do you remember what happened there? The big TV screens in town went blank so the Rangers fans started rioting. The very next morning, amid some of the quickest gathering of intelligence I have ever come across, Martin Bain and Rangers hosted a press conference at which it was established that this was just ââ?¬Å?a small minorityââ?¬Â of fans who had been involved, and that the miscreants were people who ââ?¬Å?donââ?¬â?¢t normally attach themselves to our supportââ?¬Â.

 

This was about 30 minutes before Sky TV began to broadcast gruesome footage of hundreds of ââ?¬Å?not real Rangers fansââ?¬Â drunkenly setting about anything in sight in Manchester. And it was about 10 months before ââ?¬Å?not real Rangers fansââ?¬Â were humiliatingly strung up like felons on the BBCââ?¬â?¢s Crimewatch programme, as the quest to track them down went on.

 

After the Manchester riots, just like after Bucharest four nights ago, Mr Bain and Rangers revealed an uncanny habit of placing more emphasis on defending, rather than condemning. Literally within half an hour of the aggro in Bucharest, Bain was issuing a 78-word statement, the first 21 of which said this: ââ?¬Å?Obviously, the behaviour of some of our fans in the stadium tonight is not acceptable ââ?¬â? no one likes to see that.ââ?¬Â

 

And the rest of it? Well, wasn�t it simply dreadful the way the Rangers fans were treated. I mean, come on, four turnstiles should have been operating, but instead there were only two. And all that CS gas being used on our poor fans.

 

Note the different tone in Bainââ?¬â?¢s statement. The fact that Rangers fans rioted ââ?¬Å?was unacceptableââ?¬Â and ââ?¬Å?no-one likes to see thatââ?¬Â. But the fact the Romanian police used CS gas to subdue them? Why, this was ââ?¬Å?totally unacceptableââ?¬Â.

 

The response of Andy Kerr, of the Rangers Supporters Assembly, was even worse. Kerr actually had the temerity to state: ââ?¬Å?I wouldnââ?¬â?¢t say the Rangers fans did anything wrong. The organisation was very poor.ââ?¬Â And on the very same night we had the official Rangers website stating that ââ?¬Å?our fans suffered heavyhanded treatment by the police.ââ?¬Â Ah, yes, the old ââ?¬Å?heavy-handedââ?¬Â policing line. This is an old Rangers favourite.

 

There is almost an indecent haste, as there was in Bucharest, to soft-soap some of this Rangers loutishness with anodyne utterances about policing, stewarding, whatever. I do not doubt for a moment that the situation in that Steaua stadium was unsatisfactory. One supporter I spoke to who was there testified to crumbling terraces and a bottleneck at the turnstiles, where Rangers fans were attempting to gain access to the ground. But is this a licence for thuggishness? Do decent human beings, in finding themselves in such a situation, start fist-fights, throw seats around, and brawl with stewards, as Rangers fans did the other night?

 

Denial, denial, denial. It does Rangers FC no good. And it assumes that the rest of us are too dim-witted to recognise the cold, hard evidence that is staring us � and the governing body of European football � in the face.

 

In the expansive canon of excuse-making for Rangers and their fansââ?¬â?¢ antics, one of the great farragoes that is used is this ââ?¬Å?heavy-handed policingââ?¬Â line. In Villarreal in 2006, when the bigoted chanting by Rangers fans and the attack on the Spanish clubââ?¬â?¢s team bus occurred, there was, if you were prepared to believe certain Rangers supporters groups, ââ?¬Å?heavy-handed policingââ?¬Â which only served to worsen the situation.

 

Then we moved on to Pamplona a year later where ââ?¬â? how unusual ââ?¬â? some Rangers fans chanted bigoted anthems and fought with stewards. The Rangers supporters bodiesââ?¬â?¢ reponse? ââ?¬Å?Really, we cannot condone some of the heavy-handed policing that we saw ... ââ?¬Å?

 

Then we got to Manchester in May 2008. Now, before I go any further here, can I just confirm one thing? The Greater Manchester Police ââ?¬â? have they a reputation for aggression or heavy-handedness? No, I thought not. So we had these garish TV images of hundreds of Rangers supporters fighting, rioting, overturning cars. And what was the supporters clubsââ?¬â?¢ response? ââ?¬Å?While we cannot condone some of the antics of our supporters, we really believe that heavy-handed policing ...ââ?¬Â Yes, yes. I think weââ?¬â?¢ve heard enough.

 

Rangers are the sick man of British football. They cannot gouge out the bigots and the undesirables from their support. There is something of the white underclass about a section of this club�s support which only guarantees intermittent but perennial embarrassment for Ibrox.

 

It is as if a previously arrogant attitude around Rangers FC, now being overwhelmed by a more modern, multi-ethnic, ecumenical society around it, cannot cope with these changes and feels threatened by them.

 

On Thursday Uefa quite rightly stepped in, cut through all the obfuscation around the events in Bucharest, and opened yet another prosecution case against Rangers. For the long-term good of Rangers, I hope Uefa throw the book at them, and I believe they will.

[ian1964 10,720]

The first thing our new leaders,if there is such a thing, should do is tackle this cretin and ban him from Ibrox.If we do get a new leader,or even if we don't, someone from Rangers FC should put this reptile back under the stone he came from. Stand up Mr Bain

[maineflyer 0]

The fact is that, in the name of his particular morality, Spiers is actively campaigning for Rangers to be punished. That should definitely have him banned sine die from Ibrox or Murray Park. Martyrs are seldom heard from again.

[stewarty 2,008]

Do we really expect anything else from Mr Spiers? No doubt he wasn't there and is relying on second hand information. Quality journalism!

[calscot 0]

What I want to know is why Rangers always have any trouble highlighted and repeated ad finitum.

 

For example with regards to the riot in Manchester, there were about 200,000 fans their to see the most important game for years even if just on a giant screen. Now with that kind of number from any part of society is it not reasonable to expect it to contain a certain amount of undesirables? Add the combustible mixture of drinking from the morning of the match, poor organisation meaning too many people in a small place, aggressive policing and then the ignition of a failing screen at kickoff and we get a few hundred fans out of 200,000 rioting. The fact is the football had nothing to do with as they hadn't even seen the game and it could be argued that most of them would have preferred to watch the game seeing as they had travelled to the city for that purpose.

 

That's a maximum of one in five hundred fans causing trouble. Now with those provocative circumstances in a situation where people don't even need a ticket, how can Rangers actually be responsible for behaviour of the worst 0.2% of our population?

 

Now contrast this with the Chelsea fans who rioted in Fulham after the Champions League final. There were "several hundred" of them in the pubs. They had been drinking for a few hours, had no failure of screen, they all got to watch the game, and yet about 200 of them rioted for the sole reason being that their team lost.

 

This was at least 20% of their fans in that area. 0.2% compared to 20% suggests that with no provocation they are 100 times worse than our fans with provocation.

 

Now even though the order of the number of fans rioting was similar, and considering the contrasting circumstances, which incident gets high exposure 18 months after the game and which gets absolutely nothing?

 

There is trouble at English games every week that is far, far worse than any at what should be a combustible atmosphere of an Old Firm game. English fans cause trouble every time they go abroad, yet we are the ones singled out every time for about 90% of all the media exposure.

 

I condemn the behaviour of our misbehaving fans but the lies and propaganda in portraying it as only a Rangers problem is a crime against society in itself.

[ian1964 10,720]

What I want to know is why Rangers always have any trouble highlighted and repeated ad finitum.

 

For example with regards to the riot in Manchester, there were about 200,000 fans their to see the most important game for years even if just on a giant screen. Now with that kind of number from any part of society is it not reasonable to expect it to contain a certain amount of undesirables? Add the combustible mixture of drinking from the morning of the match, poor organisation meaning too many people in a small place, aggressive policing and then the ignition of a failing screen at kickoff and we get a few hundred fans out of 200,000 rioting. The fact is the football had nothing to do with as they hadn't even seen the game and it could be argued that most of them would have preferred to watch the game seeing as they had travelled to the city for that purpose.

 

That's a maximum of one in five hundred fans causing trouble. Now with those provocative circumstances in a situation where people don't even need a ticket, how can Rangers actually be responsible for behaviour of the worst 0.2% of our population?

 

Now contrast this with the Chelsea fans who rioted in Fulham after the Champions League final. There were "several hundred" of them in the pubs. They had been drinking for a few hours, had no failure of screen, they all got to watch the game, and yet about 200 of them rioted for the sole reason being that their team lost.

 

This was at least 20% of their fans in that area. 0.2% compared to 20% suggests that with no provocation they are 100 times worse than our fans with provocation.

 

Now even though the order of the number of fans rioting was similar, and considering the contrasting circumstances, which incident gets high exposure 18 months after the game and which gets absolutely nothing?

 

There is trouble at English games every week that is far, far worse than any at what should be a combustible atmosphere of an Old Firm game. English fans cause trouble every time they go abroad, yet we are the ones singled out every time for about 90% of all the media exposure.

 

I condemn the behaviour of our misbehaving fans but the lies and propaganda in portraying it as only a Rangers problem is a crime against society in itself.

 

Agreed with all of that Cal,the problem is anyone can write anything they want,unchallenged

[Guest ScottishThistle]

Speirs is a tit but some people need to remove the blinkers and look at some of the shite that follow Rangers that need to be weeded out and quick

[Gers4Life 0]

Speirs is a tit but some people need to remove the blinkers and look at some of the shite that follow Rangers that need to be weeded out and quick

 

Agreed and quick style.

[gisabeer 409]

what is going on unhindered is the heavy handedness of certain police forces (always seems to be catholic based countries) and the lack of action taken against them.

 

time our euro mps stood up to be counted.

[franker 3]

What I want to know is why Rangers always have any trouble highlighted and repeated ad finitum.

 

For example with regards to the riot in Manchester, there were about 200,000 fans their to see the most important game for years even if just on a giant screen. Now with that kind of number from any part of society is it not reasonable to expect it to contain a certain amount of undesirables? Add the combustible mixture of drinking from the morning of the match, poor organisation meaning too many people in a small place, aggressive policing and then the ignition of a failing screen at kickoff and we get a few hundred fans out of 200,000 rioting. The fact is the football had nothing to do with as they hadn't even seen the game and it could be argued that most of them would have preferred to watch the game seeing as they had travelled to the city for that purpose.

 

That's a maximum of one in five hundred fans causing trouble. Now with those provocative circumstances in a situation where people don't even need a ticket, how can Rangers actually be responsible for behaviour of the worst 0.2% of our population?

 

Now contrast this with the Chelsea fans who rioted in Fulham after the Champions League final. There were "several hundred" of them in the pubs. They had been drinking for a few hours, had no failure of screen, they all got to watch the game, and yet about 200 of them rioted for the sole reason being that their team lost.

 

This was at least 20% of their fans in that area. 0.2% compared to 20% suggests that with no provocation they are 100 times worse than our fans with provocation.

 

Now even though the order of the number of fans rioting was similar, and considering the contrasting circumstances, which incident gets high exposure 18 months after the game and which gets absolutely nothing?

 

There is trouble at English games every week that is far, far worse than any at what should be a combustible atmosphere of an Old Firm game. English fans cause trouble every time they go abroad, yet we are the ones singled out every time for about 90% of all the media exposure.

 

I condemn the behaviour of our misbehaving fans but the lies and propaganda in portraying it as only a Rangers problem is a crime against society in itself.

 

You are correct to highlight the Chelsea fans that night and you could have added the Barcelona fans in May with over 100 arrests and riot police having to fire rubber bullets to quell the disturbances. Throw in the Man Utd fans who have run into trouble off the pitch in Rome. 3 examples of trouble outside the stadium with three different clubs. The difference in treatment to these clubs and Rangers is this. There is no constant campaign by English or Catalan journalists calling for a European ban for these clubs unlike in Scotland where today Tom English stated the following "UEFA washed its hands of the Manchester business. Shame on it for that. A city centre under siege and Michel Platini and chums turned and looked the other way. By rights, Rangers should have been banned from Europe for what happened down there."

 

Whatever the rights and wrongs of our support and we do have problems like many clubs, i would like to know why Scottish based journos would want us in effect treated more harshly by footballs authorities than other clubs, because that is the reality of the situation.