Union Bears statement

[Gonzo79 15,294]

No one would be forcing anyone to buy a safe standing ticket.  It would account for a very small section, in relative terms. 

 

I can't stand sitting at the football.  It'd be nice to have the choice.

 

[MacK1950 2,378]

6 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

I was brought up on terraces and I saw the worst of them first hand. I don't welcome them back

6 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

 

 

I too thought I'd miss the terracing but having been seated for along time now,and having experienced the old terracing standard during the "journey" in away games, amhappy now to be seated

[MacK1950 2,378]

3 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

I can't stand sitting at the football.  It'd be nice to have the choice

Conversely it would be interesting if you could sit standing?

[cooponthewing 1,139]

15 minutes ago, MacK1950 said:

I too thought I'd miss the terracing but having been seated for along time now,and having experienced the old terracing standard during the "journey" in away games, amhappy now to be seated

Safe standing is nothing like the old terracing. Much safer.

[917 191]

I thought that wee guy had maybe had his megaphone ? taken off him last night because of the Steve Clarke stuff last week. These boys are our version of the green brigade, and now they’re taking the huff because the club won’t kick other season ticket holders out of their seats so they can take over an entire stand for their particular brand of chaos! Not my cup of tea personally, though I’m sure plenty would disagree with me..

[pete 2,499]

49 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

Well I don't trust Glasgow Council who'd be issuing the Safety Certificate, I don't trust Police Scotland who'd are ultimately responsible for public safety and policing of events and, in truth, I don't trust any football club to put safety over money, not even ours. As you know 66 people didn't come home from one of our matches, it wasn't the first time either. Our ground has been one of the safest in the country since then, I can think of no good reason to start reversing that. 

 

I'm sure when it was first opened it would be pristine and well regulated and under scrutiny, but after a few years it would become part of the furniture, and if money got tight maybe they could do the barrier work every other year, it'll be fine, and perhaps we could fit a few more fans in there and so on. 

 

I was brought up on terraces and I saw the worst of them first hand. I don't welcome them back. 

Is the key word not SAFE standing? I see no problem with people standing if it is safe although the main problem I have with it is it makes it easier for nutters to throw things without being caught on camera.

[Gonzo79 15,294]

28 minutes ago, 917 said:

so they can take over an entire stand for their particular brand of chaos! 

Who said anything about an entire stand?

 

Singing a few songs and clapping in unison is not "chaos". 

[buster. 5,196]

2 hours ago, Tannochsidebear said:

The reason for the club not moving them to BF3 has been well known and discussed for many years. I myself when on the Working Group committee back in 2010-11 spoke to David Martin (head of security at the club) at some length to get UB moved to BF3. The reason is the sight lines for those in the areas beside them. If you are in BF2 or BF4 and wish to watch the match from the comfort of your seat, you cannot see a large area of the pitch due to the UB standing in BF3. This is why they are in BF1, it is the only area where them standing doesnt affect the sight lines of other fans in neighbouring sections. The club turn a blind eye to them standing throughout the game in contravention of the ground rules.

 

A quick question off the top of my head

 

Could you look to convert the whole Broomloan Front to safe standing if there were demand from the UB plus others ?

 

- Grow a partnership/relationship/long-term ST holder base with the younger generation.

 

- Look to curtail at part of the source, damaging songs/add-ons and as a club do as much as possible to get our act together in sight of further measures potentially being taken, eg. strict liability or similar.

 

- At sametime, help support/lobby for our fans (looking for 'cross party union') wrt basic freedoms and over zealous political treatment that ends up with questionable Police methods/targetting.

 

 

 

 

[Big Jaws 570]

2 hours ago, MacK1950 said:

As the Meerkat advert says "simple" i.e. drop the F****n word from singing,forget about "Bobby Sands" as he has been dead a long time, for a start and they might start getting somewhere.

We are in a modern world and should be able to act more responsibley,let the scum from the east sing their filth and see if they will be dealt with,fat chance though.

Seriously?

 

I've read more than enough of this type of opinion across various different platforms in the last few days and its nothing more than a red herring.

 

These are two separate issues and neither of them have anything to do with the other.

 

The two issues being;

 

1) Successfully housing an organised fans group.
2) Cultural/Societal transition and change. 

 

First of all taking point two. Do you seriously think the board/decision makers in this situation simply reacted to the singing of certain words in songs the most recent being the Clark song and decided to punish the UB? If that was the case then who the f^&k do the board think they are? Do they think they are their [UB] parents putting their kids on the naughty step? As far as I'm concerned that's a ridiculous proposition and that also applies to any fans with the mindset that the UB are insolent children. 

 

Its a ridiculous proposition because although the perception is that ALL UB are youths and teenagers the reality is that they are not. Many are youths and some are adults with families. You cant just naughty step adult paying customers who've organized as a collective. The UB at the moment are in a small section BF1 but looking at various mobile phone footage on internet platforms there are many sub 30 year old supporters dotted through out the BF who also take part in the singing when it starts. From that I've formed the opinion they'd be equally likely to join with the UB during matches if the sections were opened up to accommodate more fans. 

 

If we're going for the Holy Wully angle of abstinence ONLY then we ALL need to have a serious look at ourselves because if TBB starts up when we're playing Celtic home or away I can guarantee 90% of the fans are singing it because rightly or wrongly and irrespective of the words it contains it has served as a tribal rallying call for the 48 years I've been attending Ibrox. Thats not just a UB issue!

 

IMO the only way to resolve cultural change in communities is through dialogue. Instead of condemning them older bears, and I include myself in this demographic, should be helping the UB navigate this modern cultural transition.. Yet all I've seen on message boards and forums is a very polarized opinion of UB and there seems to be very little reasoned discussion from people who should know better. While I'm at it dialogue incidentally is a thing which Rangers have been notoriously bad at, with regards to the fan base, since Murray was Tzar.

 

Going back to point one. The UB are no different to any other Rangers fan that attends Ibrox on a match day and should be respected as such by ALL of us including the board.

 

In the 72-73 season my da along with 3-4 of his mates started the Spateston RSC and also ran the supporters bus which is sadly defunct today although some of the members still attend matches from Johnstone. He like many of the UB was under 30 years old at the time was he an upstart too? They organised held dances, dinners and POTY awards liaising with the club on player appearances for a number of years. However, as I understand it, when Murray took over that became a more complicated process as the club became less approachable.From the outside it appears this mode of operation has changed very little in the years that have proceeded Murrays tenure.

 

I was always under the impression that CF was the area that UB had targetted to have set as safe standing? If that is the case then I can see a number of issues arising from it. Legacy seating being just one.

 

Now reading their [UB] statement it appears to me that the clubs position has always been disingenuous as it tabled BF3 as an alternative. To my mind that is at best untenable and the club never intended for the situation to be easily resolved. Siting a safe standing area in that section of the stadium would not have been viable due to various logistics issues and don't forget that area was proposed long before the reduction in away fans ticket allocation. The ticket allocation is a fairly recent development and I urge you to remember that had it not been for the lobbying of  special interest group and one person in particular that would not have come to pass either.

 

Personally I've no skin in the game as far as safe standing is concerned however I am concerned about match day experience, atmosphere, catering and facilities. This isn't the 60-70's where a guy/girl with a strapped on serving tray walked through the terracing crowd shouting to sell their wares, macaroon and spearmint chewing gum, and drunk guys pissed, in empty beer cans, or on each other the contents of which then rolled down the terracing. This is the 21st century and things have moved on and are much more civilized thank f&*k!

 

To those who say that the UB think they are better than the rest of us I'm calling bullshit they don't but they do lack the sophistry of the Main Stand wallers when they are being torn into by folk who really should know better. They're not asking for preferential treatment either but if the organisers of the UB feel that they have outgrown the section allocated to them and have approached the club to discuss the matter then it is entirely up to the club to find a solution with them and rehouse them in an efficient manner, in a suitable position within the stadium, and not string them along and treat them like naughty children as it appears they have. They clearly aren't children as they have enough disposable income to follow the team home and away no matter how far they have to travel, including Europe, which by today's standard isn't cheap.

 

For that reason I'm annoyed by this marginalizing younger Rangers fans for having the temerity to ask!
 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Big Jaws

[Big Jaws 570]

3 hours ago, Tannochsidebear said:

The reason for the club not moving them to BF3 has been well known and discussed for many years. I myself when on the Working Group committee back in 2010-11 spoke to David Martin (head of security at the club) at some length to get UB moved to BF3. The reason is the sight lines for those in the areas beside them. If you are in BF2 or BF4 and wish to watch the match from the comfort of your seat, you cannot see a large area of the pitch due to the UB standing in BF3. This is why they are in BF1, it is the only area where them standing doesnt affect the sight lines of other fans in neighbouring sections. The club turn a blind eye to them standing throughout the game in contravention of the ground rules.

 

I havent been in the loop on this issue since the WG stood down in 2012, but I cant see that the argument has changed a bit as the fact remains the same. UB can move to BF3 if they sit down, which goes against everything they are about so they have to remain at the end of the stand where they dont disrupt everyone else.

 

What is the big deal with this anyway? They can expand into BF2 if they have sufficient numbers, which they have never had.

 

I understand their plea for a safe standing area, and that they would be upset that we are not going to go for that. Personally, I am against a safe standing area, so I am delighted the club have decided against this.

That rules out the point I was making about being disingenuous if this has always been known to those involved. 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Big Jaws