Club Statement: UEFA charge

[ranger_syntax 4,752]

19 minutes ago, Sutton_blows_goats said:

But they should not be surprised that by eroding the major tie the vast majority of us have with the club, that we lose interest not just with hearts and minds, but with our wallets.

The word plastic comes to mind.

 

The club will be as plastic as any other.

 

Maybe it already is.

[Bluedell 6,039]

31 minutes ago, Sutton_blows_goats said:

Our club has a rich cultural and identity-driven history, deeply intertwined with Scottish and British traditions. The club is historically associated with Unionist political views, which is reflected in the prominent display of Union Jack flags by many supporters. This connection stems from Rangers' strong base within Glasgow’s Protestant community, which has traditionally held Unionist beliefs and valued ties to the United Kingdom.

 

From recent evidence it seems the club wants to distance itself from this, and align with other, newer cultures to this country. The club isn't owned by us, the owners can do whatever they want. But they should not be surprised that by eroding the major tie the vast majority of us have with the club, that we lose interest not just with hearts and minds, but with our wallets.

Part of the Protestant community have difficulty in celebrating their identity in a positive manner without it being anti-something, generally the RC religion. The club understandably don't want to be associated with anything that's negative towards a section of the community.

 

They probably don't have much issue with the unionist/royalist side of things, but when songs like Flute for 50p or FTP add-ons emerge then it's understandable that the club are wary of embracing anything associated with that.

 

There needs to be a lot more discipline and positivity.

[L72 30]

15 minutes ago, buster. said:

You or whatever particular group don't represent the fan base as a whole. I am neither Loyalist, Unionist or do I play the flute. 

 

That said, there are many Loyalists and Unionists in our support. But I doubt that the majority need the club to arrange 'Orange Cultural' days.

 

If it boils your pish to see Muslims celebrating the breaking of a fast at Ibrox, then it is you that has the problem.

 

Rangers FC have apparently chosen a 'wider path', but you are always free to get off. .... I doubt significant numbers of our support will disappear if we don't dress Ross McCausland up in orange.

 

 

Ps.

As far as I am concerned, I am glad that you are free to say how you feel. I welcome it, then people can communicate with each other, even if it is doubtful that it will resolve any issues.

 

 

 

Again, haven't said anything of the sort in all my posts on here - I've stated my problems with foreign ideologies trying to be brought into the West.

 

I don't think I've even mentioned the iftar at Ibrox? 🤔 

 

But if you want my opinion on it, they embrace all aspects of our supporters and players' religions, including any Protestant and Catholic players, or don't bother. That's my opinion. Everyone anyone, surely?

[Yorkie Bear 740]

1 hour ago, L72 said:

First cousin marriages, is still incest, and although in the UK there are no laws explicitly stating that these marriages can't take place, the marriages act of 1949 prohibits close relations from marriage.

 

So not sure what your point was pal 👍🏻 lounge isn't open to me. But I'll not carry on this discussion in here, that's no worries.

Section 1 of the Marriage Act 1949 sets out that any marriages that take place within prohibited degrees of relationship are void. Under the legislation, prohibited degrees of relationship for marriage include marriages to a sibling, parent or child, but not marriages between first cousins. 

[buster. 5,546]

15 minutes ago, L72 said:

 

I don't think I've even mentioned the iftar at Ibrox? 🤔 

 

But if you want my opinion on it, they embrace all aspects of our supporters and players' religions, including any Protestant and Catholic players, or don't bother. That's my opinion. Everyone anyone, surely?

I prefaced the sentence about the Iftar with an "IF".

 

However, your answer above confirms that it does indeed, "boil your pish".

[L72 30]

16 minutes ago, buster. said:

I prefaced the sentence about the Iftar with an "IF".

 

However, your answer above confirms that it does indeed, "boil your pish".

Doesn't at all boil my pish bud, I'm not entirely arsed either way, but the club has made a point of trying to keep religious stuff away from the club, for obvious reasons.

 

But now cherry picks which religions to embrace and which not too, I've merely made the distinction that if they're not going to have events for all and make such a fuss every time, then it's not exactly everyone anyone is it.

 

Open a can of worms by doing this. Protestants, Catholics, all entitled to be embraced by the club, and nothing saying they shouldn't be after this precedent has been set.

 

I dunno how you take someone saying, do it all, or none at all, as being raging 🤔😂

[JohnMc 3,143]

For the first 40 or so years of our existence Rangers were no more Protestant a club than Partick Thistle or Falkirk or Arbroath were. The later arrival of that Protestant identity was down to a number of factors.

 

Rangers rise from being simply another football club to being recognised as one the most attractive to watch and the success that brought.

 

Queen's Park's decision to remain amateur and not embrace professionalism. Queen's Park were one of the most famous clubs in the country, hugely influential and successful in football's formative years. By the turn on the 20th century they were already struggling to attract the calibre of player they were used to and losing support. 

 

Partick Thistle moving from Partick to Maryhill. Glasgow was a city of 'incomers' in the early 20th century. Family allegiances to clubs didn't yet exist in the way we see them today. Men, and it was almost exclusively men, would finish work on Saturday and many would go and watch a game close to them. Maryhill was a lot harder to get to from Partick and the west of the city, Govan had great transport links and an attractive and successful football team. So thousands of men went to watch Rangers and a habit was formed. Rangers started to attract supporters from all across the city. 

 

Not being Celtic. Celtic were successful almost from the day they first played. They had lots of money and were clearly looking to attract the Irish Catholic population of the city, something they did successfully. Many of those not from that background didn't see Celtic as the club for them. Irish home rule became increasingly divisive politically and increased a feeling of 'them and us' in cities with big Irish populations, like Glasgow. 

 

Protestant immigration from the north of Ireland. Around a quarter of all the Irish who came to Scotland were Protestant. Many brought with them their culture, for some that included Orange institutions, with numbers swelling during the late 19th and early 20th century. 

 

So Rangers changed as it's support changed. We became the 'Protestant' club and the unionist club. We didn't set out that way, it was simply that the city changed around us. 

 

The city is changing again, those of us who live in Glasgow can't help but notice. At the same time our players are changing too. My formative years watching Rangers the entire starting 11 were Scots. Robert Pryrz and John McClelland were seen as exotic. My son's heroes are Columbian, Moroccan, Nigerian and Cameroonian. Whether some like it or not our support is changing too. I know supporters who have no religion, indeed strongly dislike organised religion. I know supporters who are strong Scottish nationalists. Supporters who are Marxists. I know practicing Roman Catholics who support Rangers, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and or course Muslims. 

Many of these people have no attachment to loyalism, Orangism, even Unionism. But I've yet to hear one of them say they want to see Red Hands and Union flags banned from Ibrox, or loyalist songs banned. 

 

If your culture is so threatened by our club welcoming a small number of its supporters to enjoy a cultural and religious ceremony then maybe it's got bigger problems. 

 

 

[L72 30]

27 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

For the first 40 or so years of our existence Rangers were no more Protestant a club than Partick Thistle or Falkirk or Arbroath were. The later arrival of that Protestant identity was down to a number of factors.

 

Rangers rise from being simply another football club to being recognised as one the most attractive to watch and the success that brought.

 

Queen's Park's decision to remain amateur and not embrace professionalism. Queen's Park were one of the most famous clubs in the country, hugely influential and successful in football's formative years. By the turn on the 20th century they were already struggling to attract the calibre of player they were used to and losing support. 

 

Partick Thistle moving from Partick to Maryhill. Glasgow was a city of 'incomers' in the early 20th century. Family allegiances to clubs didn't yet exist in the way we see them today. Men, and it was almost exclusively men, would finish work on Saturday and many would go and watch a game close to them. Maryhill was a lot harder to get to from Partick and the west of the city, Govan had great transport links and an attractive and successful football team. So thousands of men went to watch Rangers and a habit was formed. Rangers started to attract supporters from all across the city. 

 

Not being Celtic. Celtic were successful almost from the day they first played. They had lots of money and were clearly looking to attract the Irish Catholic population of the city, something they did successfully. Many of those not from that background didn't see Celtic as the club for them. Irish home rule became increasingly divisive politically and increased a feeling of 'them and us' in cities with big Irish populations, like Glasgow. 

 

Protestant immigration from the north of Ireland. Around a quarter of all the Irish who came to Scotland were Protestant. Many brought with them their culture, for some that included Orange institutions, with numbers swelling during the late 19th and early 20th century. 

 

So Rangers changed as it's support changed. We became the 'Protestant' club and the unionist club. We didn't set out that way, it was simply that the city changed around us. 

 

The city is changing again, those of us who live in Glasgow can't help but notice. At the same time our players are changing too. My formative years watching Rangers the entire starting 11 were Scots. Robert Pryrz and John McClelland were seen as exotic. My son's heroes are Columbian, Moroccan, Nigerian and Cameroonian. Whether some like it or not our support is changing too. I know supporters who have no religion, indeed strongly dislike organised religion. I know supporters who are strong Scottish nationalists. Supporters who are Marxists. I know practicing Roman Catholics who support Rangers, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and or course Muslims. 

Many of these people have no attachment to loyalism, Orangism, even Unionism. But I've yet to hear one of them say they want to see Red Hands and Union flags banned from Ibrox, or loyalist songs banned. 

 

If your culture is so threatened by our club welcoming a small number of its supporters to enjoy a cultural and religious ceremony then maybe it's got bigger problems. 

 

 

Give it time 👍🏻 people already say that the Union Flag is a symbol of racism.

[ranger_syntax 4,752]

43 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

If your culture is so threatened by our club welcoming a small number of its supporters to enjoy a cultural and religious ceremony then maybe it's got bigger problems.

How about a culture threatened by a banner?

[Sutton_blows_goats 6,046]

12 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

How about a culture threatened by a banner?

We have already been cucked by foreign cultures threatened by hurty words in songs. I suppose this is the next logical step.