Born Under A Union Flag : A Response

[simplythebest 0]

In the days of money and sponsorship being so important the club won't have any choice but to have an official neutral stance on the referendum, but I think it's clear what side our club stands for

[Zappa 0]

So, are Celtic a 'Unionist club'? They are closely aligned with the leading and largest 'unionist' party in Scotland after all and count senior members of that party as directors.

 

It's this use of language that causes a lot of these arguments and confusions. What is 'unionism' in the 21st century? Is it defending the NHS or picketing a town hall because it won't fly the union flag everyday?

 

The club haven't been in any way political for decades now. Whilst the flying of a Union flag over Ibrox and the portrait of the Queen in the dressing room suggest old-fashioned 'Unionism' there have been no additions to those 'traditions' that I'm aware of for a long time now. If the club truly was a 'Unionist' one surely it would have spoken out about the upcoming referendum by now?

 

I've also not read the book or chapter in question but to state that short of playing in blue at Ibrox the club don't have any traditions anymore isn't too wide of the mark.

 

Great to see you back posting amms!

 

You're certainly right about the use of language causing confusion, especially certain definitions.

 

For example, technically speaking the 'Club' is the Club itself with it's property, history, traditions, the staff it employs.. etc.

 

On the other hand, there's perfectly good arguments for saying that the Club's supporters are an inherent part of the fabric of the Club itself too, far more so even than a building ridden with asbestos like Edmiston House or fleeting members of staff these days jumping on and off the Ibrox gravy train.

 

That's where this whole subject becomes far more complex because if you regard the supporters as an intrinsic part of the 'Club', then you might not see some of the so-called 'traditions' quite as much during 90 mins of football at Ibrox (depending on where you sit obviously!), but a quick pre or post-match visit to any good Rangers pub or club almost always paints a different picture and a large percentage of supporters buses and RSC nights will too.

 

So basically, it's the definition of the 'Club' which is very much subjective.

 

Even although the technical side of the Club is in no way responsible for songs getting played and sung in Rangers pubs & clubs or on buses & boats, there's a strong case for some of those 'traditions' being part of the Club.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Great to see you back posting amms!

 

You're certainly right about the use of language causing confusion, especially certain definitions.

 

For example, technically speaking the 'Club' is the Club itself with it's property, history, traditions, the staff it employs.. etc.

 

On the other hand, there's perfectly good arguments for saying that the Club's supporters are an inherent part of the fabric of the Club itself too, far more so even than a building ridden with asbestos like Edmiston House or fleeting members of staff these days jumping on and off the Ibrox gravy train.

 

That's where this whole subject becomes far more complex because if you regard the supporters as an intrinsic part of the 'Club', then you might not see some of the so-called 'traditions' quite as much during 90 mins of football at Ibrox (depending on where you sit obviously!), but a quick pre or post-match visit to any good Rangers pub or club almost always paints a different picture and a large percentage of supporters buses and RSC nights will too.

 

So basically, it's the definition of the 'Club' which is very much subjective.

 

Even although the technical side of the Club is in no way responsible for songs getting played and sung in Rangers pubs & clubs or on buses & boats, there's a strong case for some of those 'traditions' being part of the Club.

 

its certainly a valid point Zap - who actually (if anyone) determines the identity of a football club ?

[Hildy 0]

Sadly, the club and its support are two separate entities.

 

The club that more senior fans grew up with probably ceased to be even before our current troubles. The fanbase has some recognisable features and a view on certain political issues, but while there may have been a time when the club was in tune with some of them, these days, Rangers has to produce dubious surveys just to find out what supporters are thinking.

 

When Rangers is owned and run by people who are not Rangers fans, it is fairly obvious why it is not in tune with many of its fans. Celtic has managed to retain its Celtic-mindedness while Rangers has long since moved away from being Rangers-minded.

 

Some people think that it is progress becoming a club run by complete strangers with little or no understanding of the past and the complex relationship that exists between Rangers and Celtic, but I'm not one of them.

 

Celtic is a club that knows the score with regard to how the land lies in the west of Scotland. Rangers, however, is a club that hasn't got a clue how the game is played off the field, never mind on it, in these parts. How could it? It is populated by people who have about as much feeling for Rangers as I have for croquet.

[Zappa 0]

its certainly a valid point Zap - who actually (if anyone) determines the identity of a football club ?

 

Exactly.

 

I think it's difficult to argue against the concept that it's the Club's supporters who form the majority of the Club's identity, especially when we've repeatedly been told over the years by incumbent regimes at Ibrox that as a support we represent the Club and are an intrinsic part of it, so need to act (behave) accordingly.

 

Even in times like these where large swathes of fans feel separated & disenfranchised from the current regime running the Club, those very same fans are every bit as much a part of the fabric of the Club as ever before.

 

If Rangers had ever to move to a new stadium it would still be Rangers. If the Club's crest changed again - which it's done numerous times in our history - it would still be Rangers, but without the fans, there would be no Rangers.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Zappa
typo

[amms 0]

I'd say the club is probably comfortable enough in its associations to Unionism but, nowadays, it's hardly a bulwark of the modern British Establishment either.

 

Yes there are some Unionist/Monarchist traditions related to the club - i.e. the Loving Cup, the Queen portrait, certain songs and Armed Forces celebrations but they're probably not known outwith our fan-base (or Scottish football at least) so perhaps not an overly vital component of the club's fabric going forward. Sure in the context of this argument they're maybe worth 'defending' (and I certainly would do so if they were questioned) but neither are they something which huge numbers of fans will find essential.

 

Nowadays, Rangers and most football clubs have to be careful when it comes to politics and other social niceties. Some aspects of this inclusive, neutral and modern outlook (or is it bland?) are agreeable but that doesn't mean we should be afraid to recognise and/or celebrate our heritage. There's a fine line there and I'd say over the last ten years or so the club have perhaps erred on the side of caution a bit too much.

 

Zappa makes a good point later in this thread about the definition of the 'club'. It's pertinent because it highlights the disconnect between the club and its support. I don't have a problem with the club not making overt political points and accept that taken at face value a lot of the symbolism and songs the support sing have an old-style unionist slant. I'm not sure how much of that is done out of political belief and how much done because that's what you do at a Rangers match. There's a book just out about Celtic's connection to the British army and in particular WW1. It's written by a lifelong Celtic supporter who served 25 years in the army. He admits that when home on leave he'd go to Parkhead and belt out IRA songs without really thinking about it. I've not read the book (and I'm unlikely too) but in a review I read according to him Celtic and their support were as supportive of the British army as everyone else right up to the 1960s. Apparently the Gordon Highlanders used to have recruitment drives at Celtic games and a prominent Celtic player joined up and was later killed in WW1.

 

Now none of us would associate supporting the British army with the Tims or with overt Unionism yet I'd venture more of their support are committed to voting 'No' in September than ours.

 

Celebrating our heritage angle is a funny with me because of this. I don't believe our heritage is linear, right up until the mid-80s we supplied the bulk of the Scotland national side support, we don't now. We used to promote sport as a whole, not just football, with things like the Ibrox sports, we don't now. We were once closely associated with the heavy industry of the city and in particular the shipyards, we're not now. How about Red Clydeside, social agitation, Govan was at the heart of radical left wing politics for decades, many of those involved were Rangers supporters. Should we celebrate that?

 

Why I think I find myself agreeing with the assertion by the person who wrote the article (I've not read!) is that currently we stand for very little accept playing football, and unimaginative football at that. Other than playing in blue I don't think anything else is sacrosanct to our 'club' currently. I think even a lot of the support are fairly apathetic about many aspects of Rangers except the team on the park.

I wish we had traditions to defend but from my perspective we don't. Some of the support project their traditions onto the club but that doesn't make them the club's traditions.

 

I'll almost certainly vote 'no' in September, but that's got nothing at all to do with the football team I support.

[amms 0]

Great to see you back posting amms!

 

You're certainly right about the use of language causing confusion, especially certain definitions.

 

For example, technically speaking the 'Club' is the Club itself with it's property, history, traditions, the staff it employs.. etc.

 

On the other hand, there's perfectly good arguments for saying that the Club's supporters are an inherent part of the fabric of the Club itself too, far more so even than a building ridden with asbestos like Edmiston House or fleeting members of staff these days jumping on and off the Ibrox gravy train.

 

That's where this whole subject becomes far more complex because if you regard the supporters as an intrinsic part of the 'Club', then you might not see some of the so-called 'traditions' quite as much during 90 mins of football at Ibrox (depending on where you sit obviously!), but a quick pre or post-match visit to any good Rangers pub or club almost always paints a different picture and a large percentage of supporters buses and RSC nights will too.

 

So basically, it's the definition of the 'Club' which is very much subjective.

 

Even although the technical side of the Club is in no way responsible for songs getting played and sung in Rangers pubs & clubs or on buses & boats, there's a strong case for some of those 'traditions' being part of the Club.

 

Great point, but it kind of ties in with the point the person who wrote the article was making. The 'club' stands for very little now, the support stands for a multitude of things depending who you speak to and where.

[barca72 440]

For any salesman to be successful, the first thing he learns is 'know your product'. It looks like our investors missed that step.

If as you say Zappa " but without the fans, there would be no Rangers.", then maybe the board and investors should let the fans do what pleases them, i.e. be the kind of Rangers' fans they want to be.

I would ask of any of these fans who make the 'politically correct' argument, and who constantly tell us that there is nothing in the future but doom and gloom, to ask themselves how they would describe the perfect environment for bringing the fans back.

Is it great football every game? Is it a manager that 'they' would be happy with? Is it a support who don't sing anything close to anything that can offend anyone? Some want a board who are fiscally responsible, some want a board to lead us on a campaign of regaining our money and status by taking legal steps to avenge us. Some want new owners, ... ad infinitum.

Nobody seems to know what they do want but plenty are keen to tell us what they don't want. Every time you turn round, as a fan, there are numerous reasons being put forth not to go to the game.

Hildy may be right when he says, 'The club that more senior fans grew up with probably ceased to be even before our current troubles', but if he is then he needs to lead his generation back to what the older fans grew up with.

You see, if I can bend a phrase, I think there are too many indians and not enough chiefs.

If we can look at the investors as using the board as their salesmen, then the first thing they have to do being in the West of Scotland, if I can steal a phrase from the east end, is bring back the thunder. Before we can be a force once again in Europe we must first dominate our own back yard. To do that we need a winning team on the field and a support who are enthusiastic, show pride in their team, and feel that it is their team that they are rooting for.

I remember as a boy being lifted over the turnstiles and the anticipation of the kick off was palpable. We were there to support our team, have an enjoyable experience, and leave the game wishing that next week was tomorrow.

The difference between then and now is we had responsible owners and we left the managing , and politicing, of the club to the board. We just supported the team, with no boycotts or card displays or anything else that would hurt the team.

I realise after all of the turmoil and changes of the last few years things are different and as a support we must be vigilant. However, too many complaints coming from too many sources with too many solutions are cancelling each other out.

If this club is to survive the fans must own the club again, not necessarily in stocks, but at least in their hearts and minds.

In this regard, a return to our roots, or even a new mantra, needs to be encouraged by the leadership of the club. A new accord, and level of respect, between the leadership of the club and the support needs to be established

[Zappa 0]

Great point, but it kind of ties in with the point the person who wrote the article was making. The 'club' stands for very little now, the support stands for a multitude of things depending who you speak to and where.

 

Like yourself, I haven't read her full chapter or section of the book, but even still, I'd argue that the Club should essentially stand for the support and vice versa, perhaps even act as a whole or be 'at one' so to speak, but I think it's symptomatic of developments over the past decade (and more) at Rangers that any divide between the ruling regimes at Ibrox and the supporters which was previously there has grown considerably, maybe even exponentially to the point we're at now.

 

Like I said in my initial reply to you though amms, it's a complex situation we're talking about here (and that was an understatement!), so when you say "The 'club' stands for very little now" I just can't buy into that idea at all. The Club has multitudes of serious problems and it's not in good shape at the moment, but it still is and still stands for itself, Rangers Football Club and it still stands for the supporters (and vice versa!) whether we like it or not.

[Hildy 0]

As amms said:

 

"Now none of us would associate supporting the British army with the Tims or with overt Unionism yet I'd venture more of their support are committed to voting 'No' in September than ours."

 

We make a big deal about being THE unionist club and yet our fiercest rivals stand beside us on this issue and have done so for many decades. They are at least as enthusiastic about the Union as we are.