Cuellar Fee Agreed with Villa - �£8million

[Yieldshields loyal 0]

If you are happy for our club to not sign players who have played for celtic then that is your opinion and I respect that, but I find it totally narrow minded and gives the wrong impression on the subject of bigotry.

 

This is also my opinion, and the vast majority of our fan base, it may be narrow minded to you, however having a rivalry is nothing to be frowned upon.

So called "bigitory" is being removed at Ibrox, which i have stated many a time on here - having a massive, worldwide known rivalry with a club is healthy.

Do Milan and Inter, River and Boca, Real Madrid and Barca all try and play down their rivalry?

 

 

For me football and the football club is more important than any rivalry. I am a football supporter and I support my team, I am not a celtic hater who supports Rangers, I am a Rangers supporter full stop.

 

I think we all are football fans, but to have no local rivalries makes for a pretty dull season to look forward to and as far as commercial oppertunities go, you would be pretty limited.

The thing about having ex celtic players is the obvious fact that their hearts are not in playing for Rangers, talent or no talent.

I have to say tho, that i am a Rangers fan who has grown to hate celtic and all that they purvey

[Yieldshields loyal 0]

My heart is broken. Can we sink any lower? This is unbearable. I'm on holiday FFS. Wish I'd stayed away from the internet.

 

Haha, at least you can go and get hammered guv, us poor sods have to bear it at work!

[calscot 0]

thanks for your criteria on what counts as extremity.

 

My point was that if most other rivalries are moderate enough to allow players to be transfered between them, then those that don't are by definition more extreme.

 

Not signing players that have played for your rivals before is logically even more extreme.

 

"Extreme" is pretty much a relative word. I can't see how I used it incorrectly especially as I have explicitly qualified it as my humble opinion.

 

I don't think many OF firms would disagree with our rivalry being "extreme" with many seeing that as the beauty of it.

[bmck 117]

i've got no real objection other than that i could twenty different people and they'd all come up with a different definition, equally rational. it's hard to take the charge of "extremity" seriously.

 

extremity is death threats and violence for me. anyone else got a definition?

 

there's no logical objection to saying a rivalries extreme when you can pick examples to measure it against.

 

ours is timid when compared to boca's say. pointless.

[calscot 0]

This is also my opinion, and the vast majority of our fan base, it may be narrow minded to you, however having a rivalry is nothing to be frowned upon.

So called "bigitory" is being removed at Ibrox, which i have stated many a time on here - having a massive, worldwide known rivalry with a club is healthy.

Do Milan and Inter, River and Boca, Real Madrid and Barca all try and play down their rivalry?

 

"Sporting" rivalries can be seen as healthy, but often they can be diseased by social factors.

 

There are quite a few unhealthy rivalries around the world which result in prejudice and often violence.

 

I would find it difficult to agree with the OF rivalry being labeled as wholly, "healthy".

 

 

I think we all are football fans, but to have no local rivalries makes for a pretty dull season to look forward to and as far as commercial oppertunities go, you would be pretty limited.

The thing about having ex celtic players is the obvious fact that their hearts are not in playing for Rangers, talent or no talent.

I have to say tho, that i am a Rangers fan who has grown to hate celtic and all that they purvey

 

I think Mo Johnson, Stephen Pressley and Kenny Miller are typical examples of how the "heart not in it" theory is not a very strong one. It's fine to have a rivalry, but to me it's seems unhealthy and ineffective to let the rivalry RULE all your decisions.

 

I don't know the last time Rangers bought a player from Celtic or vice versa, if ever. That seems to me to be enough of a testament to a rivalry without having to dig a lot deeper.

 

Right now we have an ever decreasing choice of players to bring to Ibrox that could do a job and also want to come. Let's not limit it too much.

[Guest ackbar]

dont speak out both sides of your mouth mate. you don't respect someone's opinion by calling it narrow minded and bordering on bigotry.

 

 

 

 

the rivalry's part of the football club. i'm not a celtic hater either - stop trying to lump the world into two categories that you've suggested to make yourself look good.

 

there's not two groups rangers-lovers (like you) and celtic-haters (like me). you don't have to be more-of-a-celtic-hater-than-a-rangers-supporter to be animated by rivalry. it's part of the game.

 

 

 

it isn't. rivalry is irrational, but it's part of the game. no-one's dismissing rationality as nonsense.

 

 

You should read what I said again mate, I said that whilst I respect someones opinion and realise what he is trying to say I feel that it gives the wrong impression in relation to bigotry, a point which I never introduced to the debate I would hasten to add.

 

I am not trying to make myself look good mate, I was merely trying to understand the rationale of limiting your own teams horizons to suit petty agendas, nothing more, nothing less. one wonders what your intentions are in answering a post that was not even intended for you? Are you trying to make yourself look good in a similiar but polar fashion?

 

A question, if rivalry is irrational and therefore without sense then how can you dismiss my opinions on it as nonsence?????

 

Finally your point about Celtic haters etc summed up my point entirely. In my opinion too many people are bothered about them. If they put all the hard work they put into hating Celtic as they did positively supporting their own club then maybe the atmosphere would be a lot better at home SPL games.

 

I am not trying to advocate the 'two camps' mentality as you state, just a tad sad that we feel the need to define ourselves relative to them. We are a proud club, nay more than a club in our own right. Quite why we have to keep one eye on them is beyond me?

 

I am sorry I suggested that we should have tried to get Maloney in the process of losing our best player, a positive from a negative if you will. I will desist from such 'nonsence' in the future.

[bmck 117]

ach, no man. sorry. i'm in bad spirits. you're right.

[calscot 0]

i've got no real objection other than that i could twenty different people and they'd all come up with a different definition, equally rational. it's hard to take the charge of "extremity" seriously.

 

extremity is death threats and violence for me. anyone else got a definition?

 

Sorry, that's not a definition that's a subjective interpretation of an instance where behaviour can be seen as "extreme" - it's just an example, like when someone asks you to put "extreme" in a sentence. Your definition is probably not extreme in the lives of mafia families...

 

I was using extreme for it's actually meaning rather than any metaphor. Think of say a normal distribution of intensity of rivalry and the tail ends at each side could be describes as the extremes of rivalry. I would put Rangers and Celtic in the upper extremes in this graph. Teams without much rivalry would be in the lower extremes.

 

Lets think of the middle 80% as the mainstream - ie they have a moderate amount of rivalry with a nearby team or with a team that they challenge often for a position in their league.

 

The upper decile could then be seen as the upper extreme and the lower decile the lower extreme. Of course I'm choosing these figures arbitrarily and subjectively - and measuring the rivalry is also subjective.

 

However, I think most people would subjectively put the OF into the upper extremities of intensity of rivalry.

 

In the end I think you're too busy arguing about the semantics of one word, rather than assessing the validity of the semantics of my actual point.

 

there's no logical objection to saying a rivalries extreme when you can pick examples to measure it against.

 

ours is timid when compared to boca's say. pointless.

 

Yes, it's subjective, but I think many people have enough information to make a reasonable assessment.

 

Perhaps in this we could measure this by counting all the rivalries that have not transferred a players between them and calculate that as a percentage of all of them. We then need to decide what percentage constitutes "extreme".

 

I can see all this is a bit messy but if we break down the words of everyone's points to make them some kind of absolute, no-one would be able to make many points and our debates would be more like lawers' contracts.

[bmck 117]

yes, you're actuallly right too. my only point is, if we start becoming too sensible about all this then we might as well call the whole thing off.

[Gribz 745]

1) Surely a footballer should be signed and judged on his qualities alone, not from where he has played?

I agree with that aswell. If we were to go out and sign Scott Brown direct from Celtic tomorrow id be happy with it. For me this wouldnt affect the rivalry at all.