Rangers v Celtic Ticket Row Explodes

[Bill 13,717]

Where does this crusade come from to have more Rangers fans denied seats at Ibrox?

 

I keep reading it's because without 7000 Celtic fans in the stadium the "atmosphere" will be diminished, despite all the recent evidence to the contrary. I also see some making the case on the basis of "fairness", whatever that is.

 

Is it just possible this is essentially an entirely selfish move by our away supporters to increase the number of tickets available to them at Parkhead, to the detriment of the majority of our match-going fans who attend home games only?

[Tannochsidebear 2,406]

13 hours ago, Bill said:

What you're actually saying is you would be happy for Rangers fans to be denied a seat in our own stadium and for Celtic fans to occupy those seats instead. That might be acceptable if thousands of Ibrox seats were otherwise normally empty at OF games but that's never going to be the case.

 

What I cannot understand is wanting to treat Celtic differently compared with other Scottish clubs ..... because we want to impress a global audience who otherwise couldn't give a stuff about Rangers.

 

If that mob ever get the whole Broomloan stand again then the club will have let down the Rangers support big time.

No its about building a sellable brand to a worldwide market. We moan about the tv deals we get in this country, but then are doing everything we can to diminish the one sellable fixture to a worldwide market that we have to promote. I hated them being there, especially when we didnt win, but I can understand that is what makes the game so attractive to an otherwise passive audience. Would it be worth this sacrifice to gain a much bigger tv contract that in turn allows us to be stronger? Maybe so, maybe not, thats why it is a debating forum. Come Sunday I will be much happier for that two hours not having to see and hear the scum at the other end of the stadium, and if we give them a tanking then even better. But without that poisonous atmosphere then it is just another game between two pretty poor football teams for worldwide neutrals.

[Bill 13,717]

6 minutes ago, Tannochsidebear said:

No its about building a sellable brand to a worldwide market. We moan about the tv deals we get in this country, but then are doing everything we can to diminish the one sellable fixture to a worldwide market that we have to promote. I hated them being there, especially when we didnt win, but I can understand that is what makes the game so attractive to an otherwise passive audience. Would it be worth this sacrifice to gain a much bigger tv contract that in turn allows us to be stronger? Maybe so, maybe not, thats why it is a debating forum. Come Sunday I will be much happier for that two hours not having to see and hear the scum at the other end of the stadium, and if we give them a tanking then even better. But without that poisonous atmosphere then it is just another game between two pretty poor football teams for worldwide neutrals.

Sorry but the idea that 7000 Celtic fans in Ibrox is a prerequisite for a successful Rangers brand is risible. As is the idea that we will somehow get more TV money if we deny seats to Rangers fans ..... how did that work out when they had the entire Broomloan stand? But please feel free to explain how this "much bigger TV contract" will be secured 😆. 

 

As for "poisonous atmosphere", I think you're trying to translate the atmosphere in the stadium to what comes across on TV, even though the two are completely different.

[WorthingBear91 157]

18 minutes ago, Bill said:

Where does this crusade come from to have more Rangers fans denied seats at Ibrox?

 

I keep reading it's because without 7000 Celtic fans in the stadium the "atmosphere" will be diminished, despite all the recent evidence to the contrary. I also see some making the case on the basis of "fairness", whatever that is.

 

Is it just possible this is essentially an entirely selfish move by our away supporters to increase the number of tickets available to them at Parkhead, to the detriment of the majority of our match-going fans who attend home games only?

I am quite happy with none of them getting back to ibrox again, I think if anything their ground has lost atmosphere on old firm match days and ibrox is louder. But if the board makes any agreements and succumb to any deals we should be seeking the whole stand behind the goal at Celtic park let them have the corners. But I repeat if it was up to me they would not get anything again.

[Bluedell 5,625]

23 minutes ago, Tannochsidebear said:

No its about building a sellable brand to a worldwide market. We moan about the tv deals we get in this country, but then are doing everything we can to diminish the one sellable fixture to a worldwide market that we have to promote. I hated them being there, especially when we didnt win, but I can understand that is what makes the game so attractive to an otherwise passive audience. Would it be worth this sacrifice to gain a much bigger tv contract that in turn allows us to be stronger? 

Even if we were to go back to the 7,000 fans, ours couldn't really be seen at Parkhead anyway, so I'm not sure how much it makes it that much more attractive. It's a very one-sided arrangement.

 

To get a better TV deal, the priority has to be getting changes at the SPFL, or it won't matter either way.

[Scott7 6,006]

Rangers are hated by many clubs but only one club and its supporters work relentlessly, in the case of the club, to reduce Rangers’ status, and in the case of their supporters to bring about demise.

 

And do Rangers really want to be associated with a discredited minority brand?

[JohnMc 2,754]

1 hour ago, Tannochsidebear said:

No its about building a sellable brand to a worldwide market. We moan about the tv deals we get in this country, but then are doing everything we can to diminish the one sellable fixture to a worldwide market that we have to promote. I hated them being there, especially when we didnt win, but I can understand that is what makes the game so attractive to an otherwise passive audience. Would it be worth this sacrifice to gain a much bigger tv contract that in turn allows us to be stronger? Maybe so, maybe not, thats why it is a debating forum. Come Sunday I will be much happier for that two hours not having to see and hear the scum at the other end of the stadium, and if we give them a tanking then even better. But without that poisonous atmosphere then it is just another game between two pretty poor football teams for worldwide neutrals.

I'm not sure it makes much difference to TV contracts. I take your point about atmosphere but the TV companies care about viewers, so in some ways no away fans probably suits them. The simple truth is every Rangers/Celtic match is on TV now, so supporters can see it. It's not like my formative days when if you wanted to watch it you had to attend. I feel sorry for the completist Rangers supporter who attends every match, but I can't see any argument for allowing Celtic support the entire Broomloan these days. If they have genuine safety concerns, and I'm not sure they do, then it's police Scotland they want to speak with. 

Edited August 28, 2023 by JohnMc

[Gonzo79 15,294]

The Green Brigade raised that banner on the 66th minute of their match on Saturday.  I'm sure many of you have seen their graffiti references to 66 too.  

 

Anyone who wants to give them more tickets should have a serious word with himself.  Do you like their IRAoke?  Do you like their Palestinian/Papal flags?  Do you like how they're still trying to wriggle out of apologising to and compensating the many victims of the paedophile ring they facilitated?  Do you invite smelly tramps into your house?  

 

I hope none of them set foot in Ibrox ever again.

[Uilleam 5,935]

It seems, to me at least, that, historically, Rangers has always accommodated the fhilth, compromised with it, generally indulged its fads, foibles, and, let's be honest, its self indulgent  tantrums, all the while displaying punctilious courtesy.  By doing so, and by maintaining the infamous 'dignified silence', the Club has merely encouraged its behaviour and, of course has received little (read nothing) by way of quid pro quo. In fact, the fhilth has treated Rangers' position as one of weakness, and acted accordingly. The lesson is clear: to treat guttersnipe like gentlemen is a fool's errand.

That the Club should even consider giving the fhilth X thousand prime seats with a view to receiving a lesser number, perched up in a high corner, with restricted views, in return, is absolute nonsense. The Club was duped into this arrangement before, and I hope it will not get fooled again. 

[Tannochsidebear 2,406]

I’m clearly not explaining myself very well so let me be clear. I hope they scummy chunts never ever get another ticket for Ibrox. Is that clear enough?

 

What I’m saying is I can understand the argument for restoring allocations to boost the profile of the game worldwide. I stopped going to the piggery about 2009 or so when ticket prices went over £40 and I decided to not be ripped off any longer, and my seat is in the Copland, so it doesn’t affect me personally if allocations are to be reinstated. I would be raging if the scum got the corner again and we got the restricted view corner at the piggery. That’s not fair or equal and our club must fight against that. If we give the Broomie we must get the same seating behind the goal over there. That should be our red line. 

We have bigger issues to deal with.