match thread (image) Celtic v Rangers: Becoming the real deal...

[The Shed 29]

29 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

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.

I don't think it's selfish Gaffer. I think what has happened is another example of football in Scotland being diminished because of short sighted self interest, and we should know about that, Just think how others acted as we were forced to play our way through the divisions, does anyone think that Scottish football overall benefited or got stronger because of that? A few towns and grounds I hadn't been in for years got a temporary financial boost maybe, but the real winners were, of course, our city rivals. Thing is, while they were totting up titles and cups virtually unopposed,  and perhaps to anyone who didn't know the background that suggested strength, the reality in actual fact is the opposite. That has been demonstrated over and over in Europe which is the real testing ground. What was already a poor product was made even poorer by others acting in a short sighted self interested way.

 

Regardless of what anyone else thinks Rangers v them is the only thing of real interest to the outside World of football, and probably  those who don't know anything about football will know us and them, and that will be it as far as Scottish football goes. So to diminish the only thing it has going for us, and that's what removing a pretty unique atmosphere does, is short sighted. Of course there's tit for tat, and on it goes. Rangers as the country's biggest and best supported club should be doing everything they can to strengthen not only themselves, but Scottish football. The bottom line is, if Scottish football is weak then by definition so is Rangers.

[Bill 13,717]

There's an increasing tendency to mislead this issue. Rangers reduced Celtic's allocation at Ibrox for the benefit and convenience of Rangers supporters, not to deny Celtic or to reduce "atmosphere". This had been called for over many year by Rangers fans and became a no-brainer when demand for season tickets passed a certain level..

 

As for diminishing the fixture in the eyes of the football world by reducing the number of away fans, this is complete tosh. The world watches this fixture on TV, where the "atmosphere" is controlled by a bloke in a studio, with volume turned up or down to suit. The average neutral punter watching an old firm game has never attended one and is enticed primarily by the hype from SkyTV or other outlets. It's about selling the OF brand, not about focusing on how many Celtic fans are in Ibrox. It's an utter irrelevance to the reputation of the fixture.

 

The vast majority of football viewers across the world knows diddly about the Scottish game and couldn't give a stuff how many away fans are in the stadium on match days. To see an increasing number of people now calling for fewer seats to be made available to Rangers supporters is almost beyond belief and it's difficult to understand what motivates this bizarre behaviour.

[Darthter 542]

1 minute ago, Bill said:

There's an increasing tendency to mislead this issue. Rangers reduced Celtic's allocation at Ibrox for the benefit and convenience of Rangers supporters, not to deny Celtic or to reduce "atmosphere". This had been called for over many year by Rangers fans and became a no-brainer when demand for season tickets passed a certain level..

Whereas Ceptic reducing Rangers allocation was an act of "tit-for-tat".  Their decision was not taken to benefit their own fans.

[Bill 13,717]

5 minutes ago, Darthter said:

Whereas Ceptic reducing Rangers allocation was an act of "tit-for-tat".  Their decision was not taken to benefit their own fans.

I have absolutely no interest in what they do.

 

But you're right.

Edited September 4, 2018 by Bill

[ian1964 10,761]

 

 

[buster. 5,257]

2 minutes ago, ian1964 said:

 

 

As I said before, after the Naismith decision, there was no way they could take action against McGregor without the process being laid bare as not fit for purpose.

 

 

[Uilleam 5,960]

I think that, to prosecute Mcgregor, you would have to look at what rasellik's long streak of piss was up to, also; and that would certainly mean going completely off piste. 

 

For your interest, Patick Nevin suggests, today, that the aforesaid, and rather easilty toppled, centre back is, or will soon be, an £18M player. 

Bernie Madoff got gaoled for poromoting guff like this. 

Edited September 4, 2018 by Uilleam

[Darthter 542]

It's a lucky call for McGregor - he clearly lashed out with his foot.

However, given recent, similar decision there would be some explaining if he was punished.

 

The East end will be up in arms....

[der Berliner 3,803]

... and all that only to prevent Brown from getting a retrospective punishment in the very same Hearts vs Scum game. Shame that ... (cynical mode off)

Edited September 4, 2018 by der Berliner

[Gaffer 1,665]

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.