Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Celtic FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2011/2012

1…137138140142143…241

Comments

  • #4172
    PauloMN
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 10,886 Mod ✭✭✭✭PauloMN


    Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »
    The wha???:confused:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76397474&postcount=4010


  • #4173
    lubo_moravcik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,623 ✭✭✭lubo_moravcik


    PauloMN wrote: »
    Did anything ever happen with the sectarian singing thread idea? :confused:

    Hope not.


  • #4174
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    PauloMN wrote: »
    Did anything ever happen with the sectarian singing thread idea? :confused:

    No reply from the mod I PM'd. I'll PM another one.

    lubo_moravcik wrote: »
    Hope not.

    If you have a better idea, lets hear it.


  • #4175
    bobbysands81
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭bobbysands81


    Dempsey wrote: »


    If you have a better idea, lets hear it.

    The better idea is to leave the things the way they are.

    These songs discussions are cyclical by their very nature and they're just big news at the mo. Anyone can come ignore the posts and anyone can redirect posts back towards purely soccerball issues should they want.


  • #4176
    ColeTrain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭ColeTrain


    Celtic have signed Polish defender Jaroslaw Fojut on a pre-contract deal

    http://www.celticfc.net/newsstory?item=2018
    CELTIC are delighted to announce the signing of Jaroslaw Fojut from Polish league-leaders, Slask Wroclaw, on a pre-contract agreement.

    The highly-rated defender has penned a three-year deal with the club which will commence this summer.

    Having represented his country at Under-20 level, the 24-year-old has been on the verge of full international honours in recent months.

    The stopper spent his youth career with several clubs in his homeland, before joining Bolton in 2004. He moved to Slask Wroclaw five years later and has been instrumental in their rise to summit of the Polish top flight this season.

    Neil Lennon revealed that Fojut was someone he’d been tracking for a long time and was delighted to acquire his services.

    Speaking exclusively to the official Celtic website, the manager said: “I actually played against him when he was on loan at Luton for Nottingham Forest and often wondered what happened to him, as he was on loan from Bolton at the time and I was really impressed by him.

    “So John Park and myself got talking, and his name came up again. We did a bit of homework on him since then, and I think he’s been in excellent form for his club this year and on the verge of international recognition. To get him on a pre-contract is a good bit of business again for the club.

    “He’s strong, technically good, quick, and he’s very good in the air. At 24, he’s at a good age. He had a bad injury and was out of football for around a year but it looks like he’s come back stronger than ever, and I’m pleased with the signing.

    “I think his all-round game is very good. He has been playing at a decent level of football from a young age but what I like about him is his physical qualities. He already knows the British game, so I don’t think it will take him too long to adapt to the rigours of Scottish football."


  • Advertisement
  • #4177
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    Looks increasingly likely that Celtic wont be renewing certain player contracts


  • #4178
    PauloMN
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 10,886 Mod ✭✭✭✭PauloMN


    bobbysands81 wrote: »
    The better idea is to leave the things the way they are.

    These songs discussions are cyclical by their very nature and they're just big news at the mo. Anyone can come ignore the posts and anyone can redirect posts back towards purely soccerball issues should they want.

    C'mon Bobby, it's hard to ignore pages upon pages of the stuff if you haven't logged on in a couple of days.

    Why are you against having a dedicated thread for it?


  • #4179
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    bobbysands81 wrote: »
    The better idea is to leave the things the way they are.

    These songs discussions are cyclical by their very nature and they're just big news at the mo. Anyone can come ignore the posts and anyone can redirect posts back towards purely soccerball issues should they want.

    At this stage we are all just reiterating what we have said before and we are only doing this because snipes in either club thread and then what you have alot of bickering and it often spills over into the other thread and the result is concurrent discussions on the same topic. Yes they are cyclical but thats not a good thing in terms of having a good debate on the issue as its repetitive, long winded stuff that normally derails both threads away from football for several pages at a time.

    Its not possible to get a proper football discussion going whilst any issue around perceived sectarian/bigotry is ongoing. Its usually when people are sick of going round in circles that football gets a foothold again.

    I've PM'd another mod, he acknowledged the PM stating that he'll discuss the idea with the other soccer mods and give feedback after that.


  • #4180
    lubo_moravcik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,623 ✭✭✭lubo_moravcik


    Dempsey wrote: »
    PauloMN wrote: »
    Did anything ever happen with the sectarian singing thread idea? :confused:

    No reply from the mod I PM'd. I'll PM another one.

    lubo_moravcik wrote: »
    Hope not.

    If you have a better idea, lets hear it.
    Ok, why not have a new thread on the rangers tax case, on who we are and aren't signing in transfer window, one for Scottish posters and another for Irish ones. Say I'm being silly, another thread imo is also silly, and it won't stop that chat in here or next door


  • #4181
    the realpigiron
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭the realpigiron


    ColeTrain wrote: »
    Celtic have signed Polish defender Jaroslaw Fojut on a pre-contract deal

    http://www.celticfc.net/newsstory?item=2018

    This lad is a centre half. The signing of him and Lustig, points to an exodus of players like Dan and Cha at full back as well. The squad is a bit top heavy with lots of players - particularly on the fringes - that are much of a muchness. As long as these lads are better than what we have, that's what matters.


  • Advertisement
  • #4182
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    lubo_moravcik wrote: »
    Ok, why not have a new thread on the rangers tax case, on who we are and aren't signing in transfer window, one for Scottish posters and another for Irish ones. Say I'm being silly, another thread imo is also silly, and it won't stop that chat in here or next door

    A copy and paste from when I first brought up the idea.
    The common denominator in the bickering is the talk about fan behaviour & perceived sectarian/bigoted behaviour. Very subjective stuff and its a topic where alot of posts will be trying to find a middle ground. A thread to handle all that is the best/most workable solution unless someone has a better idea?

    The Rangers tax case could be a separate thread although the volume of interest in it at the moment does not warrant it. It could yet spring into a separate thread when the details of the case enters the public domain.

    People that follow the EPL created a thread for the subject of racism because there was several incidents involving several clubs and concurrent conversations in the relevant club threads is not a good way to discuss the subject. Same thing applies here.

    We are looking for the moderators to be actively involved to keep the subject in its own thread so it will stop 'that chat in here or next door'.


  • #4183
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    the realpigiron wrote: »
    This lad is a centre half. The signing of him and Lustig, points to an exodus of players like Dan and Cha at full back as well. The squad is a bit top heavy with lots of players - particularly on the fringes - that are much of a muchness. As long as these lads are better than what we have, that's what matters.

    Loovens, O'Dea and Wilson's contracts expire at the end of this season also.

    The club has the option to extend Cha's & Wilson's contract by one year if they like.


  • #4184
    lubo_moravcik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,623 ✭✭✭lubo_moravcik


    Dempsey wrote: »
    A copy and paste from when I first brought up the idea.



    The Rangers tax case could be a separate thread although the volume of interest in it at the moment does not warrant it. It could yet spring into a separate thread when the details of the case enters the public domain.

    People that follow the EPL created a thread for the subject of racism because there was several incidents involving several clubs and concurrent conversations in the relevant club threads is not a good way to discuss the subject. Same thing applies here.

    We are looking for the moderators to be actively involved to keep the subject in its own thread so it will stop 'that chat in here or next door'.

    Who posted the quote you copied and pasted? Celtic and Rangers fans have been bickering for years and will continue to do so. Why not start a poll on it, options of 'yes' 'no' and 'couldn't care less' and i'd say the latter will far outweigh the others. The majority don't care/couldn't give a toss about us and them, plus another thread is just going to require extra 'modding'.
    I'm just wondering what it will achieve.
    What do you think? Will you put up a poll on it??


  • #4185
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    lubo_moravcik wrote: »
    Who posted the quote you copied and pasted? Celtic and Rangers fans have been bickering for years and will continue to do so. Why not start a poll on it, options of 'yes' 'no' and 'couldn't care less' and i'd say the latter will far outweigh the others. The majority don't care/couldn't give a toss about us and them, plus another thread is just going to require extra 'modding'.
    I'm just wondering what it will achieve.
    What do you think? Will you put up a poll on it??

    I was quoting myself, forgot to make that clear when posting.

    We dont need a poll, many of the regulars seemed to support the suggestion at the time by thanking the post. A poll thats open to many people that dont contribute to either thread would be pointless, the etiquette of Celtic/Rangers superthreads should be up to its regular contributors imo.

    When did you become so concerned by the moderating aspect of things. Its the regulars that bring up sectarian issues, it wouldn't be long before everyone would know about a separate thread for such issues.


  • #4186
    lubo_moravcik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,623 ✭✭✭lubo_moravcik


    Dempsey wrote: »
    I was quoting myself, forgot to make that clear when posting.

    We dont need a poll, many of the regulars seemed to support the suggestion at the time by thanking the post. A poll thats open to many people that dont contribute to either thread would be pointless, the etiquette of Celtic/Rangers superthreads should be up to its regular contributors imo.

    When did you become so concerned by the moderating aspect of things. Its the regulars that bring up sectarian issues, it wouldn't be long before everyone would know about a separate thread for such issues.

    Sorry, didn't realise only 'regular contributers' had an input on things, how do I become one of those??
    Am not concerned in the slightest about the moderation aspect of things, I'd say the reason no Mod got back to you is because they don't want the hassle of such a thread.
    When the Rangers Thread was started the person who started it said it was so all the Rangers fans could go in there, and the Celtic fans could stay in their own thread and enjoy that. That hasn't happened, and starting another thread on sectarianism among Celtic and Rangers fans isn't, again IMO, going to stop the talk happening here or next door.

    Why do you have such an urgency for this thread to be started??


  • #4187
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    lubo_moravcik wrote: »
    Sorry, didn't realise only 'regular contributers' had an input on things, how do I become one of those??
    Am not concerned in the slightest about the moderation aspect of things, I'd say the reason no Mod got back to you is because they don't want the hassle of such a thread.
    When the Rangers Thread was started the person who started it said it was so all the Rangers fans could go in there, and the Celtic fans could stay in their own thread and enjoy that. That hasn't happened, and starting another thread on sectarianism among Celtic and Rangers fans isn't, again IMO, going to stop the talk happening here or next door.

    Why do you have such an urgency for this thread to be started??

    The Rangers thread was created to discuss Rangers and to keep related topics to Rangers that have nothing to do with Celtic out of the Celtic thread. I dont think segregation was the objective of creating that thread even if you did.

    Why would I open a poll where people that offer absolutely nothing to the Celtic thread or Rangers threads can have a say? Should I care what they think? I wouldnt expect my opinion to be considered in a superthread where I dont post.

    As for the bolded, I did get a response to a moderator within a minute today of contacting him. I PM'd someone last week that doesnt seem to be as active at the moment. I've no doubt that he'll PM me once he is online, regardless of whether he agrees with the idea or not.

    Several people said to me to put things in motion and I followed the idea up with moderators. I did that and waited. Today, PauloMN asked if any progress was made. There wasnt so I contacted another mod to get the ball rolling. Urgency wouldnt be the word that I would use to describe what I'm doing.


  • #4188
    lubo_moravcik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,623 ✭✭✭lubo_moravcik


    Dempsey wrote: »
    The Rangers thread was created to discuss Rangers and to keep related topics to Rangers that have nothing to do with Celtic out of the Celtic thread. I dont think segregation was the objective of creating that thread even if you did.

    Why would I open a poll where people that offer absolutely nothing to the Celtic thread or Rangers threads can have a say? Should I care what they think? I wouldnt expect my opinion to be considered in a superthread where I dont post.

    As for the bolded, I did get a response to a moderator within a minute today of contacting him. I PM'd someone last week that doesnt seem to be as active at the moment. I've no doubt that he'll PM me once he is online, regardless of whether he agrees with the idea or not.

    Several people said to me to put things in motion and I followed the idea up with moderators. I did that and waited. Today, PauloMN asked if any progress was made. There wasnt so I contacted another mod to get the ball rolling. Urgency wouldnt be the word that I would use to describe what I'm doing.

    You already mentioned the poll in your previous post, why bring it up again? This could go round and round Dempsey, I don't agree with it is all I'm saying and don't want to keep getting into it here. An example of why not is:
    The likes of the Chef and the carry on he's found himself in at Rangers, this is an example that could either be put in the Rangers Thread, or the Sectarian Thread. Who decides it is or isn't sectarian or not??? It's a matter that involves Rangers, so why shouldn't that be brought up in a Rangers Thread, and if I do post it in a Rangers Thread but someone decides "hold on, this is a sectarian matter", is it then moved to the Sectarian Thread, is my post reported or do I get a slap on the wrist because I posted it in the wrong place???

    I thought it was someone who was/is a regular poster who initially started the Rangers Thread, my mistake.


  • #4189
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    lubo_moravcik wrote: »
    You already mentioned the poll in your previous post, why bring it up again? This could go round and round Dempsey, I don't agree with it is all I'm saying and don't want to keep getting into it here. An example of why not is:
    The likes of the Chef and the carry on he's found himself in at Rangers, this is an example that could either be put in the Rangers Thread, or the Sectarian Thread. Who decides it is or isn't sectarian or not??? It's a matter that involves Rangers, so why shouldn't that be brought up in a Rangers Thread, and if I do post it in a Rangers Thread but someone decides "hold on, this is a sectarian matter", is it then moved to the Sectarian Thread, is my post reported or do I get a slap on the wrist because I posted it in the wrong place???

    I thought it was someone who was/is a regular poster who initially started the Rangers Thread, my mistake.

    Because you made the ratty remark about what constitutes a 'regular poster'. I clarified what I meant. I thought that was obvious.

    The remit of the thread wasnt set in stone but the general idea of keeping perceived sectarian/bigoted issues to one thread got alot of support. Getting moderator feedback is only the 2nd step.


  • #4190
    lubo_moravcik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,623 ✭✭✭lubo_moravcik


    Dempsey wrote: »
    Because you made the ratty remark about what constitutes a 'regular poster'. I clarified what I meant. I thought that was obvious.

    The remit of the thread wasnt set in stone but the general idea of keeping perceived sectarian/bigoted issues to one thread got alot of support. Getting moderator feedback is only the 2nd step.

    Ratty remark? No need to start getting nippy because I'm not agreeing with you Dempsey.
    What thread would you put the scenario in that I mentioned there?


  • #4191
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    lubo_moravcik wrote: »
    Ratty remark? No need to start getting nippy because I'm not agreeing with you Dempsey.
    What thread would you put the scenario in that I mentioned there?
    Sorry, didn't realise only 'regular contributers' had an input on things, how do I become one of those??

    How else was I suppose to perceive it? Certainly wasnt constructive criticism.

    You not agreeing with me doesnt bother me, nor am I looking to change your mind.

    IMO the rule with the thread would either be, a) all issues relating to perceived sectarianism/bigotry which would include that scenario or b) you have a rule about perceived sectarianism/bigotry during matchday and incidents relating to fans in or around the stadium (stuff that usually sparks the biggest problems in the superthreads)

    For me, solution a) would be the easiest to implement and easiest for posters to follow. Again, this hasnt been discussed as the first step is to see if the moderators are going to allow it.


  • Advertisement
  • #4192
    lubo_moravcik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,623 ✭✭✭lubo_moravcik


    Dempsey wrote: »
    How else was I suppose to perceive it? Certainly wasnt constructive criticism.

    You not agreeing with me doesnt bother me, nor am I looking to change your mind.

    IMO the rule with the thread would either be, a) all issues relating to perceived sectarianism/bigotry which would include that scenario or b) you have a rule about perceived sectarianism/bigotry during matchday and incidents relating to fans in or around the stadium (stuff that usually sparks the biggest problems in the superthreads)

    For me, solution a) would be the easiest to implement and easiest for posters to follow. Again, this hasnt been discussed as the first step is to see if the moderators are going to allow it.

    Maybe i should have put a wee smiley face so you could see the sarcasm in the post then. :rolleyes:

    The same word repeated a few times in this is 'perceived'. It's taken long enough for so called experts and jobsworths to decide what is and what isn't sectarian over in Scotland just now, and many of them are still at a loss. Think as far as they've got so far is don't call each other huns and fenians, (though you can call yourselfs it if you want) and to be fair I think that has followed suit in the threads which is a compliment to all the posters in here and next door :) So apart from me calling someone a 'hun', how else will you or someone else decide that what i'm saying is bigotted or sectarian?? If i decide to talk about Celtic's history and heritage and roots in Ireland, will that be termed in the good or bad? Not everyone will agree with it and say well you're a Scottish club. If someone comes back and says your a 'plastic Paddy', is his response to my post going to be moved to the other thread???

    You mean well and good luck Dempsey, we'll agree to disagree though.

    PS, This isn't just to you Dempsey, I'm asking this to anyone else who might be able to give some clues as to where a new thread for such a matter will take us. If everyone else is all for it then I understand wholly.
    Is everyone else for it???


  • #4193
    blahfckingblah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,666 ✭✭✭blahfckingblah


    just when were on that point do rangers fans ever use the term "hun" about themselves, only asking because i know a lot of celtic fans will call themselves "fenians" like "paddy mccourts fenian army" etc.


  • #4194
    Broxi_Bear_Eire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,704 ✭✭✭Broxi_Bear_Eire


    blahfckingblah wrote: »
    just when were on that point do rangers fans ever use the term "hun" about themselves, only asking because i know a lot of celtic fans will call themselves "fenians" like "paddy mccourts fenian army" etc.
    Of all the Rangers fans I know two will use that term about themselves the vast majority and I reckon well into the 90 odd percent don't and will not use the term about ghemselves or any other bear most despise it
    We don't have any songs or chants about being Huns for example in fact along with Fenian it's now regarded as sectarian in Scotland


  • #4195
    Broxi_Bear_Eire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,704 ✭✭✭Broxi_Bear_Eire


    Just like to say Dempsey we may not agree on a lot but well done on taking the initiative on getting a seperate thread set up hope it works


  • #4196
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    lubo_moravcik wrote: »
    Maybe i should have put a wee smiley face so you could see the sarcasm in the post then. :rolleyes:

    The same word repeated a few times in this is 'perceived'. It's taken long enough for so called experts and jobsworths to decide what is and what isn't sectarian over in Scotland just now, and many of them are still at a loss. Think as far as they've got so far is don't call each other huns and fenians, (though you can call yourselfs it if you want) and to be fair I think that has followed suit in the threads which is a compliment to all the posters in here and next door :) So apart from me calling someone a 'hun', how else will you or someone else decide that what i'm saying is bigotted or sectarian?? If i decide to talk about Celtic's history and heritage and roots in Ireland, will that be termed in the good or bad? Not everyone will agree with it and say well you're a Scottish club. If someone comes back and says your a 'plastic Paddy', is his response to my post going to be moved to the other thread???

    You mean well and good luck Dempsey, we'll agree to disagree though.

    PS, This isn't just to you Dempsey, I'm asking this to anyone else who might be able to give some clues as to where a new thread for such a matter will take us. If everyone else is all for it then I understand wholly.
    Is everyone else for it???

    Ah, I see!

    It takes quite a few posts for people to establish what they believe to be sectarian/bigotted and by then several people can be posting and 20-100 posts could go by without a mention of football. I just think a thread to facilitate that discussion properly rather than it happening across 2 threads would be better.

    Again, all of that hasnt been discussed or thrashed out. It hasnt gotten to that stage yet. But my thinking would be:-

    If a discussion descends into discussing sectarianism/bigotry, a moderator can use his discretion whether to lock the thread whilst moving the conversation over the other thread, let it run its course then move it, or in some cases just leave it be. A mod will know the minute he looks at where the conversation is going.

    People that attempt to 'snipe' in either of the the superthreads about sectarian/bigoted incidents rather than going to the thread would be the ones that would get the moderators wrath imo.


  • #4197
    PauloMN
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 10,886 Mod ✭✭✭✭PauloMN


    blahfckingblah wrote: »
    just when were on that point do rangers fans ever use the term "hun" about themselves, only asking because i know a lot of celtic fans will call themselves "fenians" like "paddy mccourts fenian army" etc.

    Lubo, see above for a prime example of why I am for a specific thread. Here we are on the Celtic thread discussing "huns" and "fenians". Again.

    No disrespect blahfckingblah, I've no problem with people discussing those things, I just think this is the wrong thread for it.


  • #4198
    bobbysands81
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭bobbysands81


    Dempsey wrote: »
    Its the regulars that bring up sectarian issues

    I'm against this new "sectarian" thread for many reasons... The name of it for one our songs are not sectarian, the lumping of our songs in with their songs, that we're as bad as each other etc...


  • #4199
    dartbhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,328 ✭✭✭dartbhoy


    I have to agree with Dempsey and PauloMN about the setting up of a new thread on non football matters concerning Celtic and Rangers. Issues like sectarianism and politics concerning the old firm will crop up from time to time and if individuals want to comment on these matters a separate thread is better for discussing these matters IMO.


  • #4200
    Broxi_Bear_Eire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,704 ✭✭✭Broxi_Bear_Eire


    bobbysands81 wrote: »
    Dempsey wrote: »
    Its the regulars that bring up sectarian issues

    I'm against this new "sectarian" thread for many reasons... The name of it for one our songs are not sectarian, the lumping of our songs in with their songs, that we're as bad as each other etc...
    Oh Bobby I am sure we could get a name that suits and the last time I looked using the term Orange bastard or Hun are both sectarian


  • Advertisement
  • #4201
    PauloMN
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 10,886 Mod ✭✭✭✭PauloMN


    bobbysands81 wrote: »
    I'm against this new "sectarian" thread for many reasons... The name of it for one our songs are not sectarian, the lumping of our songs in with their songs, that we're as bad as each other etc...

    The thread name hasn't been agreed on, sure the thread hasn't even been agreed. But I'm sure we could come up with something suitable.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement