Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 13-04-2012 08:23PM

blahfckingblah wrote: »

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Not acknowledge it you clearly are reading what you want I have never denied it I just said it was not official. I also said we had both had skeletons in our cupboards the difference is we as fans admit to many of you deny it now we are never going to agree on this

yes but maybe we could confirm or deny if you told us what we should be denouncing exactly rather than a vague statement

If you don't know I am certainly not going to explain it to you

the realpigiron · 13-04-2012 08:30PM

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Not acknowledge it you clearly are reading what you want I have never denied it I just said it was not official. I also said we had both had skeletons in our cupboards the difference is we as fans admit to many of you deny it now we are never going to agree on this

It was official in the sense that Rangers operated a sectarian policy with regards to employing staff, stop your mealy mouthed playing with words.

In the event that a newco is formed, I'm sure there are some Rangers fans who will see the benefit of a break from the sectarian baggage that the club administration engaged in in the past. You are clearly not one of them.

Dempsey · 13-04-2012 08:40PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17708159

Rangers' three potential owners want to speak to the Scottish Premier League about proposed rule changes before progressing with their takeover bids.

What are they looking for, an official statement on exactly going to be voted on and make sure that nothing gets slipped in at the last moment?

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 13-04-2012 08:47PM

the realpigiron wrote: »

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Not acknowledge it you clearly are reading what you want I have never denied it I just said it was not official. I also said we had both had skeletons in our cupboards the difference is we as fans admit to many of you deny it now we are never going to agree on this

It was official in the sense that Rangers operated a sectarian policy with regards to employing staff, stop your mealy mouthed playing with words.

In the event that a newco is formed, I'm sure there are some Rangers fans who will see the benefit of a break from the sectarian baggage that the club administration engaged in in the past. You are clearly not one of them.

Mealy mouthed not at all like every right minded Rangets fan I was overjoyed but if it's at all possible I don't see why Rangers should give up 140 years history for a 50 year wrong doing that's been over for many years. It's in the past and it's only people like you who want to keep it going

the realpigiron · 13-04-2012 08:53PM

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Mealy mouthed not at all like every right minded Rangets fan I was overjoyed but if it's at all possible I don't see why Rangers should give up 140 years history for a 50 year wrong doing that's been over for many years. It's in the past and it's only people like you who want to keep it going

I am talking about the possibility of a newco being formed and the potential benefit of a new Rangers being divested of that murky part of their history as outlined by Jim Traynor in his article. I'm not keeping anything going I'm simply pointing to a potential sideline benefit for a new Rangers set up if that was to happen, stop twisting and turning and putting words in my mouth. You've made it fairly clear where you are coming from anyway, that's there for all to see.

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 13-04-2012 08:58PM

the realpigiron wrote: »

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Mealy mouthed not at all like every right minded Rangets fan I was overjoyed but if it's at all possible I don't see why Rangers should give up 140 years history for a 50 year wrong doing that's been over for many years. It's in the past and it's only people like you who want to keep it going

I am talking about the possibility of a newco being formed and the potential benefit of a new Rangers being divested of that murky part of their history as outlined by Jim Traynor in his article. I'm not keeping anything going I'm simply pointing to a potential sideline benefit for a new Rangers set up if that was to happen, stop twisting and turning and putting words in my mouth. You've made it fairly clear where you are coming from anyway, that's there for all to see.

Is that right seen as you know where I am coming from would you care to enlighten me as far as I can see I have made it clear that that part of Rangets history has been ovef for some time but some people like yourself want us to keep paying. Now over to you where am I coming from I await your reply with interest

Jelle1880 · 13-04-2012 08:58PM

Didn't Celtic play Bilbao in a friendly, who to this day discriminate in their signing policy ?

Or is that the good kind of discrimination ?

the realpigiron · 13-04-2012 09:04PM

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Is that right seen as you know where I am coming from would you care to enlighten me as far as I can see I have made it clear that that part of Rangets history has been ovef for some time but some people like yourself want us to keep paying. Now over to you where am I coming from I await your reply with interest

When it was put to you that a sideline benefit of a newco would mean Rangers could divest themselves of their murky past in relation to a sectarian employment policy, you refused to see the benefit in that and engaged in mealy mouthed nonsense about it not being official blah blah blah.... Yeah, I'd say it's fairly obvious where you're coming from alright. Sweep, sweep.......

the realpigiron · 13-04-2012 09:08PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Didn't Celtic play Bilbao in a friendly, who to this day discriminate in their signing policy ?

Or is that the good kind of discrimination ?

Don't be ridiculous. Athletic Bilbao do not have a sectarian policy, they have a policy of playing footballers who are born in The Basque Country, like a national side would. They are unique as a club side, but in the absence of a Basque Country national side they've taken it upon themselves to operate like a national side in that regard.

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 13-04-2012 09:13PM

the realpigiron wrote: »

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Is that right seen as you know where I am coming from would you care to enlighten me as far as I can see I have made it clear that that part of Rangets history has been ovef for some time but some people like yourself want us to keep paying. Now over to you where am I coming from I await your reply with interest

When it was pu to you that a sideline benefit of a newco would mean Rangers could divest themselves of their murky past in relation to a sectarian employment policy, you refused to see the benefit in that and engaged in mealy mouthed nonsense about it not being official blah blah blah.... Yeah, I'd say it's fairly obvious where you're coming from alright. Sweep, sweep.......

Oh I love it I am the mealy mouthed one but you can't give a straight answer you are wrong in what you say you pointed out that Celtic did not have a sectarian policy I merely pointed that the same could be said of Rangers. You said that it would be of some sort of benefit if Rangers started as a newco so this past sectarian policy could be put aside I disagreed as it was already in the past there was no reason if it could be avoided for a newco to be the best thing. So once again I will ask you where am I coming from try and give a proper answer this time

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 13-04-2012 09:20PM

the realpigiron wrote: »

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Didn't Celtic play Bilbao in a friendly, who to this day discriminate in their signing policy ?

Or is that the good kind of discrimination ?

Don't be ridiculous. Athletic Bilbao do not have a sectarian policy, they have a policy of playing footballers who are born in The Basque Country, like a national side would. They are unique as a club side, but in the absence of a Basque Country national side they've taken it upon themselves to operate like a national side in that regard.

Of course it's a sectarian policy sectarian doesn't have to be about religion
The crux of matter though is they are not a national side they members of the Spanish league

the realpigiron · 13-04-2012 09:21PM

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Oh I love it I am the mealy mouthed one but you can't give a straight answer you are wrong in what you say you pointed out that Celtic did not have a sectarian policy I merely pointed that the same could be said of Rangers. You said that it would be of some sort of benefit if Rangers started as a newco so this past sectarian policy could be put aside I disagreed as it was already in the past there was no reason if it could be avoided for a newco to be the best thing. So once again I will ask you where am I coming from try and give a proper answer this time

You are just going to talk around and around in circles aren't ya? I raised a point from the Jim Traynor article, which I think was a fair point. You reject the point that was made and seek to deflect and distract from the original core point that Traynor made in the piece I quoted. We can all see where you are coming from pal, no amount of mealy mouthed blubber will hide it. Blather and more blather, clearly that's all we are going to get from you.

Dempsey · 13-04-2012 09:23PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Didn't Celtic play Bilbao in a friendly, who to this day discriminate in their signing policy ?

Or is that the good kind of discrimination ?

The thing is they are proud of their cantera policy which has been in place for 100 years. Rangers are ashamed of their Protestant only policy and want to everyone else to forget about it and never speak of it again.

the realpigiron · 13-04-2012 09:23PM

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Of course it's a sectarian policy sectarian doesn't have to be about religion
The crux of matter though is they are not a national side they members of the Spanish league

More blather:rolleyes:................snore.

Jelle1880 · 13-04-2012 09:32PM

Dempsey wrote: »

The thing is they are proud of their cantera policy which has been in place for 100 years. Rangers are ashamed of their Protestant only policy and want to everyone else to forget about it and never speak of it again.

It doesn't matter that they're proud of it, the issue is that they are using a signing policy that in one way or the other discriminates.

It may be positive discrimination aimed towards Basque people, but that doesn't change the fact it's still discriminating.

This is a pretty good view on what I'm trying to say:

http://leftbackinthechangingroom.blogspot.de/2012/04/when-is-discrimination-acceptable.html

the realpigiron: If you don't like the fact that BBE or someone else disagrees... You know the way to the Celtic thread.

the realpigiron · 13-04-2012 09:39PM

jelle I know the way to the Celtic thread thanks. I was simply alluding to a Jim Traynor point in his article that BBE obviously disagrees with. It's not that BBE disagrees with the point Traynor made per se, it's the way that he seeks to deflect or undermine the point with mealy mouthed comments like it wasn't "official" policy etc. when we all know in the real sense of the word it was "official" policy blah blah:rolleyes:

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 13-04-2012 09:46PM

the realpigiron wrote: »

jelle I know the way to the Celtic thread thanks. I was simply alluding to a Jim Traynor point in his article that BBE obviously disagrees with. It's not that BBE disagrees with the point Traynor made per se, it's the way that he seeks to deflect or undermine the point with mealy mouthed comments like it wasn't "official" policy etc. blah blah:rolleyes:

What a load if crap I have never deflected anything I have plainly said I disagree with what Traynor is saying I don't believe Rangers becoming a newco is needed we have been vilified for tha policy and that policy has not been in use for years so no if we can keep our history including the bad bit then so be it

Now why do 't you give a straight answer. Where exactly am I coming from I have made my stance clear enough in this post and it's certainly not the first time so come onyoh seem to think you know all about me where amo coming from. Awaits a round the houses answer that will say nothing but somehow you will think you have

blahfckingblah · 13-04-2012 09:49PM

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

If you don't know I am certainly not going to explain it to you

well if you're talking about sectarian policies in the club then I am not aware of any. If you are talking about sectarianism among fans then thats a different story, every club has and has had its fair share of idiots. I dont call people orange or any of that ****e and i equally dont get offended by being called names. The best way to fight idiots is to rise above it.

On the other hand its impossible to rise above it when your faced with institutionalised sectarianism.

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 13-04-2012 09:51PM

blahfckingblah wrote: »

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

If you don't know I am certainly not going to explain it to you

well if you're talking about sectarian policies in the club then I am not aware of any. If you are talking about sectarianism among fans then thats a different story, every club has and has had its fair share of idiots. I dont call people orange or any of that ****e and i equally dont get offended by being called names. The best way to fight idiots is to rise above it.

On the other hand its impossible to rise above it when your faced with institutionalised sectarianism.

Well good for you mate I object to being called an Orange Bastard on the grounds I am neither and The OO wouldn't let me in

Dempsey · 13-04-2012 10:02PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

It doesn't matter that they're proud of it, the issue is that they are using a signing policy that in one way or the other discriminates.

It may be positive discrimination aimed towards Basque people, but that doesn't change the fact it's still discriminating.

This is a pretty good view on what I'm trying to say:

http://leftbackinthechangingroom.blogspot.de/2012/04/when-is-discrimination-acceptable.html

the realpigiron: If you don't like the fact that BBE or someone else disagrees... You know the way to the Celtic thread.

Still they are proud of their policy with regards to players and dont hide that fact, they dont have this policy with managers or anyone else that works for the club or in the region around Bilbao. They dont try to ostracise anyone, just pick Basque people from the Basque Region.

Rangers on the other hand ostracise the minority Irish community, pretended that their policy didnt exist despite it being obvious to everyone. Frowned upon the catholic players they did sign from public expressions of their faith whilst playing for the club. Only dropped it because the world became a most diverse place and realised that it was more of hindrance to their attempts to buy titles under Murray.

The big difference is how both clubs implemented their policy and why they are/were doing it. The reasons why Bilbao have their policy can be commended and only the PC brigade have a problem with it, the reasons why Rangers had theirs was absolutely shameful and dont bother trying to tell me that they were/are the same thing.

Jelle1880 · 13-04-2012 10:45PM

Dempsey wrote: »

Still they are proud of their policy with regards to players and dont hide that fact, they dont have this policy with managers or anyone else that works for the club or in the region around Bilbao. They dont try to ostracise anyone, just pick Basque people from the Basque Region.

Rangers on the other hand ostracise the minority Irish community, pretended that their policy didnt exist despite it being obvious to everyone. Frowned upon the catholic players they did sign from public expressions of their faith whilst playing for the club. Only dropped it because the world became a most diverse place and realised that it was more of hindrance to their attempts to buy titles under Murray.

The big difference is how both clubs implemented their policy and why they are/were doing it. The reasons why Bilbao have their policy can be commended and only the PC brigade have a problem with it, the reasons why Rangers had theirs was absolutely shameful and dont bother trying to tell me that they were/are the same thing.

Thanks for proving my point that you're perfectly ok with one sort of discrimination.

Oh, and since when does 'not signing catholics' mean 'ostracising the Irish community' ?
Did you forget that we have offered contracts to players from the RoI, who then turned them down due to fear of reprisals back home ?

As for your line about frowning upon Catholic players showing their faith:

That's untrue, and I'm pretty sure you know it.

Dempsey · 13-04-2012 10:58PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Thanks for proving my point that you're perfectly ok with one sort of discrimination.

Oh, and since when does 'not signing catholics' mean 'ostracising the Irish community' ?
Did you forget that we have offered contracts to players from the RoI, who then turned them down due to fear of reprisals back home ?

As for your line about frowning upon Catholic players showing their faith:

That's untrue, and I'm pretty sure you know it.

Well done for not understanding the english language, AGAIN

As for the bolded, you have a fantastical idea of what Glasgow was like to live in whilst this policy existed.

As for "reprisals back home", you do know that Neil Lennon has a letter from Rangers explaining that they wouldnt sign him because of his background?

As for ROI players, they wouldnt want anything to do with Rangers because of their history. They would rather be a trainee at Walsall.

Jelle1880 · 13-04-2012 11:14PM

Dempsey wrote: »

Well done for not understanding the english language, AGAIN

If you're not comparing the signing policy to ostracizing the Irish community, why bring it up in the first place ?

As for the bolded, you have a fantastical idea of what Glasgow was like to live in whilst this policy existed.

As for "reprisals back home", you do know that Neil Lennon has a letter from Rangers explaining that they wouldnt sign him because of his background?

As for ROI players, they wouldnt want anything to do with Rangers because of their history. They would rather be a trainee at Walsall.

[img]http://i41.tinypic.com/291dji8.jpg]/img] Maybe you could also look up Alan Maybury. I'll even help you, an article in the Irish Herald from 2008:[/img]

"Over a decade ago, Dubliner Maybury had a trial at Ibrox and was offered a contract by the club, when Smith was also the manager, but he turned down the chance as he decided it would place too much pressure on a young Dublin lad to become the first southerner to sign.

"I went over on trial with Rangers and met the then manager Walter Smith a couple of times and I could have signed. But it just wasn't worth the hassle," Maybury later said.

"It can be hard enough to leave home at that age without any extra pressure. I was just 14 or 15 at the time and I didn't need all the problems that would have gone with a Dublin boy signing for the 'wrong' team in Glasgow. It would have been hyped up a lot. From being over on trial I had Rangers training gear and I used to wear it up to St Kevin's or Home Farm, wherever I was playing, but I got a lot of stick.

"I felt I wasn't ready to deal with it. There was going to be a lot of scrutiny if I played for Ireland and Rangers and I didn't want that. Maybe now that I am more mature, I could, but I was too young then," added Maybury.

Feel free to post that letter to Lennon by the way, because I call bull****.

Dempsey · 13-04-2012 11:28PM

Alan Maybury speaks for Alan Maybury, nobody else. But you'd know the opinion of Irish people more than I would :rolleyes:

He says he has a letter but I suppose he's lying? :rolleyes:

Jelle1880 · 13-04-2012 11:50PM

That's some arguments there.

And if that mysterious letter has never been shown then yes, he's lying imo.

Maybe he can send another nice text to his ex, maybe she knows where he left it.

Dempsey · 14-04-2012 12:07AM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

That's some arguments there.

And if that mysterious letter has never been shown then yes, he's lying imo.

Maybe he can send another nice text to his ex, maybe she knows where he left it.

Why, because you cant google it?

Lennon was scouted by a Motherwell scout, that scout moves to Rangers, scout recommends him to the club, Rangers invited Lennon to Glasgow and showed him around Ibrox. Lennon says he was turned down by Rangers because of their anti Catholic signing policy and he still has the letter.

If Lennon was lying, surely couldnt Rangers sue him for libel?

Jelle1880 · 14-04-2012 01:57AM

You're the one claiming something, and I should back up your point ?
Pull the other one.

My Google skills must be rusty, since I can't find any proof of what you're talking about.

Dempsey · 14-04-2012 02:04AM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

You're the one claiming something, and I should back up your point ?
Pull the other one.

My Google skills must be rusty, since I can't find any proof of what you're talking about.

im not claiming anything, just stating a fact. never asked you to back anything up. maybe you think im making this all up!

Jelle1880 · 14-04-2012 02:12AM

You claimed Lennon was turned down by Rangers because he is a Catholic, you have zero proof apparently so I wouldn't exactly class that as 'fact'.

But hey, anything's good to have a pop at Rangers I guess.

So forgive me if I think you're talking crap until I see otherwise.

Dempsey · 14-04-2012 02:21AM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

You claimed Lennon was turned down by Rangers because he is a Catholic, you have zero proof apparently so I wouldn't exactly class that as 'fact'.

But hey, anything's good to have a pop at Rangers I guess.

So forgive me if I think you're talking crap until I see otherwise.

neil lennon stated this in his autobiography and he stated it again on a chatshow on national tv in ireland last year. you seem to be the only person that doesnt know! im getting a kick out of you continually fishing for a link to believe this is true!

Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

Comments