Celtic FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2014/15 Mod Warning post #6011

Hagar the Nice. · 29-11-2013 10:49AM

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Maybe so but these people are remembering there dead in there own country.
The simple fact is it is a song about members of proscribed organisations it is illegal under the law of the land to show any form of support it is also in the rules of the SFA / SPFL to show support in words etc of proscribed organisations under the Terrorism Act

SPFL regulations say action can be taken if a person present at a match uses "words or conduct or displaying any writing or other thing which indicates support for, or affiliation to, or celebration of, or opposition to an organisation or group proscribed in terms of the Terrorism Act

Aye.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...d-6257416.html

I turned on the television in my Damascus hotel room to witness a dreary sight: all the boys and girls of BBC World wearing their little poppies again.

Bright red they were, with that particularly silly green leaf out of the top – it was never part of the original Lady Haig appeal – and not one dared to appear on screen without it. Do these pathetic men and women know how they mock the dead? I trust that Jon Snow has maintained his dignity by not wearing it.

Now I've mentioned my Dad too many times in The Independent. He died almost 20 years ago so, after today, I think it's time he was allowed to rest in peace, and that readers should in future be spared his sometimes bald wisdom. This is the last time he will make an appearance. But he had strong views about wearing the poppy. He was a soldier of the Great War, Battle of Arras 1918 – often called the Third Battle of the Somme – and the liberation of Cambrai, along with many troops from Canada. The Kaiser Wilhelm's army had charitably set the whole place on fire and he was appalled by the scorched earth policy of the retreating Germans. But of course, year after year, he would go along to the local cenotaph in Birkenhead, and later in Maidstone, where I was born 28 years after the end of his Great War, and he always wore his huge black coat, his regimental tie – 12th Battalion, the King's Liverpool Regiment – and his poppy.

In those days, it was – I recall this accurately, I think – a darker red, blood-red rather than BBC-red, larger than the sorrow-lite version I see on the BBC and without that ridiculous leaf. So my Dad would stand and I would be next to him in my Yardley Court School blazer at 10 years old and later, aged 16, in my Sutton Valence School blazer, with my very own Lady Haig poppy, its long black wire snaking through the material, sprouting from my lapel.

My Dad gave me lots of books about the Great War, so I knew about the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand at Sarajevo before I went to school – and 47 years before I stood, amid real shellfire, in the real Sarajevo and put my feet on the very pavement footprints where Gavrilo Princip fired the fatal shots.

But as the years passed, old Bill Fisk became very ruminative about the Great War. He learned that Haig had lied, that he himself had fought for a world that betrayed him, that 20,000 British dead on the first day of the Somme – which he mercifully avoided because his first regiment, the Cheshires, sent him to Dublin and Cork to deal with another 1916 "problem" – was a trashing of human life. In hospital and recovering from cancer, I asked him once why the Great War was fought. "All I can tell you, fellah," he said, "was that it was a great waste." And he swept his hand from left to right. Then he stopped wearing his poppy. I asked him why, and he said that he didn't want to see "so many damn fools" wearing it – he was a provocative man and, sadly, I fell out with him in his old age. What he meant was that all kinds of people who had no idea of the suffering of the Great War – or the Second, for that matter – were now ostentatiously wearing a poppy for social or work-related reasons, to look patriotic and British when it suited them, to keep in with their friends and betters and employers. These people, he said to me once, had no idea what the trenches of France were like, what it felt like to have your friends die beside you and then to confront their brothers and wives and lovers and parents. At home, I still have a box of photographs of his mates, all of them killed in 1918.

So like my Dad, I stopped wearing the poppy on the week before Remembrance Day, 11 November, when on the 11th hour of the 11 month of 1918, the armistice ended the war called Great. I didn't feel I deserved to wear it and I didn't think it represented my thoughts. The original idea came, of course, from the Toronto military surgeon and poet John McCrae and was inspired by the death of his friend Lieutenant Alexis Helmer, killed on 3 May 1915. "In Flanders fields the poppies blow/Between the crosses, row on row." But it's a propaganda poem, urging readers to "take up the quarrel with the foe". Bill Fisk eventually understood this and turned against it. He was right.

I've had my share of wars, and often return to the ancient Western Front. Three years ago, I was honoured to be invited to give the annual Armistice Day Western Front memorial speech at the rebuilt Cloth Hall in Ypres. The ghost of my long-dead 2nd Lieutenant Dad was, of course, in the audience. I quoted all my favourite Great War writers, along with the last words of Nurse Edith Cavell, and received, shortly afterwards, a wonderful and eloquent letter from the daughter of that fine Great War soldier Edmund Blunden. (Read his Undertones of War, if you do nothing else in life.) But I didn't wear a poppy. And I declined to lay a wreath at the Menin Gate. This was something of which I was not worthy. Instead, while they played the last post, I looked at the gravestones on the city walls.

As a young boy, I also went to Ypres with my Dad, stayed at the "Old Tom Hotel" (it is still there, on the same side of the square as the Cloth Hall) and met many other "old soldiers", all now dead. I remember that they wanted to remember their dead comrades. But above all, they wanted an end to war. But now I see these pathetic creatures with their little sand-pit poppies – I notice that our masters in the House of Commons do the same – and I despise them. Heaven be thanked that the soldiers of the Great War cannot return today to discover how their sacrifice has been turned into a fashion appendage.

Hagar the Nice. · 29-11-2013 10:55AM

Celtic are looking at Aaron Taylor Sinclair who plays for Partick Thistle.

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 29-11-2013 11:17AM

Hagar the Nice. wrote: »

Aye.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...d-6257416.html

I turned on the television in my Damascus hotel room to witness a dreary sight: all the boys and girls of BBC World wearing their little poppies again.

Bright red they were, with that particularly silly green leaf out of the top – it was never part of the original Lady Haig appeal – and not one dared to appear on screen without it. Do these pathetic men and women know how they mock the dead? I trust that Jon Snow has maintained his dignity by not wearing it.

Now I've mentioned my Dad too many times in The Independent. He died almost 20 years ago so, after today, I think it's time he was allowed to rest in peace, and that readers should in future be spared his sometimes bald wisdom. This is the last time he will make an appearance. But he had strong views about wearing the poppy. He was a soldier of the Great War, Battle of Arras 1918 – often called the Third Battle of the Somme – and the liberation of Cambrai, along with many troops from Canada. The Kaiser Wilhelm's army had charitably set the whole place on fire and he was appalled by the scorched earth policy of the retreating Germans. But of course, year after year, he would go along to the local cenotaph in Birkenhead, and later in Maidstone, where I was born 28 years after the end of his Great War, and he always wore his huge black coat, his regimental tie – 12th Battalion, the King's Liverpool Regiment – and his poppy.

In those days, it was – I recall this accurately, I think – a darker red, blood-red rather than BBC-red, larger than the sorrow-lite version I see on the BBC and without that ridiculous leaf. So my Dad would stand and I would be next to him in my Yardley Court School blazer at 10 years old and later, aged 16, in my Sutton Valence School blazer, with my very own Lady Haig poppy, its long black wire snaking through the material, sprouting from my lapel.

My Dad gave me lots of books about the Great War, so I knew about the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand at Sarajevo before I went to school – and 47 years before I stood, amid real shellfire, in the real Sarajevo and put my feet on the very pavement footprints where Gavrilo Princip fired the fatal shots.

But as the years passed, old Bill Fisk became very ruminative about the Great War. He learned that Haig had lied, that he himself had fought for a world that betrayed him, that 20,000 British dead on the first day of the Somme – which he mercifully avoided because his first regiment, the Cheshires, sent him to Dublin and Cork to deal with another 1916 "problem" – was a trashing of human life. In hospital and recovering from cancer, I asked him once why the Great War was fought. "All I can tell you, fellah," he said, "was that it was a great waste." And he swept his hand from left to right. Then he stopped wearing his poppy. I asked him why, and he said that he didn't want to see "so many damn fools" wearing it – he was a provocative man and, sadly, I fell out with him in his old age. What he meant was that all kinds of people who had no idea of the suffering of the Great War – or the Second, for that matter – were now ostentatiously wearing a poppy for social or work-related reasons, to look patriotic and British when it suited them, to keep in with their friends and betters and employers. These people, he said to me once, had no idea what the trenches of France were like, what it felt like to have your friends die beside you and then to confront their brothers and wives and lovers and parents. At home, I still have a box of photographs of his mates, all of them killed in 1918.

So like my Dad, I stopped wearing the poppy on the week before Remembrance Day, 11 November, when on the 11th hour of the 11 month of 1918, the armistice ended the war called Great. I didn't feel I deserved to wear it and I didn't think it represented my thoughts. The original idea came, of course, from the Toronto military surgeon and poet John McCrae and was inspired by the death of his friend Lieutenant Alexis Helmer, killed on 3 May 1915. "In Flanders fields the poppies blow/Between the crosses, row on row." But it's a propaganda poem, urging readers to "take up the quarrel with the foe". Bill Fisk eventually understood this and turned against it. He was right.

I've had my share of wars, and often return to the ancient Western Front. Three years ago, I was honoured to be invited to give the annual Armistice Day Western Front memorial speech at the rebuilt Cloth Hall in Ypres. The ghost of my long-dead 2nd Lieutenant Dad was, of course, in the audience. I quoted all my favourite Great War writers, along with the last words of Nurse Edith Cavell, and received, shortly afterwards, a wonderful and eloquent letter from the daughter of that fine Great War soldier Edmund Blunden. (Read his Undertones of War, if you do nothing else in life.) But I didn't wear a poppy. And I declined to lay a wreath at the Menin Gate. This was something of which I was not worthy. Instead, while they played the last post, I looked at the gravestones on the city walls.

As a young boy, I also went to Ypres with my Dad, stayed at the "Old Tom Hotel" (it is still there, on the same side of the square as the Cloth Hall) and met many other "old soldiers", all now dead. I remember that they wanted to remember their dead comrades. But above all, they wanted an end to war. But now I see these pathetic creatures with their little sand-pit poppies – I notice that our masters in the House of Commons do the same – and I despise them. Heaven be thanked that the soldiers of the Great War cannot return today to discover how their sacrifice has been turned into a fashion appendage.

If you had ever read my post about wearing the Poppy you would no I don't but I also don't care who does.

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 29-11-2013 11:34AM

Lennonist wrote: »

Yes we know that and we know it's a load of nonsense, that's why there is continuing to be tedious boring arguments around these issues.

On the one hand we have this indulgence in an annual poppyfest for a month - if it was a one day event there would be little or no objections to it - which seems to be getting bigger every year. Then at Ibrox a few months ago we have the spectacle of British armed forces servicemen parading around on the pitch while the crowd chants fck Bobby Sands and other things besides and they pose for photos with UVF banners. In contrast to this there is a zero tolerance approach to a few fans singing a song about IRA men who died on hunger strike 21 years ago. There is nothing sectarian about the Roll of Honour song, it's a commemorative song about volunteers who were members of an organisation - The PIRA - that is no longer active.

Like I said before I tend to agree with the viewpoint of the journalist Alex Massie, that bringing in laws like the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act", is a complete overreaction, doesn't appear to be even handed and makes a bigger deal out of it and excacerbates the issues. Any chance that there might be a bit of maturity applied around these matters some time soon?

If you believe that Pira no longer exist then your being very naive but no matter the law is in place not only in Scotland but the UK as whole it is there for a reason. Also the UVF banners were I believe about the orgina UVF and that is why no action was taken also again I don't like it when Rangers gans sing about Bobby Sands but it is not sectarian. It amazes me that you think that the majority in a country should have to put up with nonsense about terrorist groups

premierstone · 29-11-2013 11:39AM

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

If you believe that Pira no longer exist then your being very naive but no matter the law is in place not only in Scotland but the UK as whole it is there for a reason. Also the UVF banners were I believe about the orgina UVF and that is why no action was taken also again I don't like it when Rangers gans sing about Bobby Sands but it is not sectarian. It amazes me that you think that the majority in a country should have to put up with nonsense about terrorist groups

Am I reading this right?? When Celtic fans sing celebrating Bobby Sands and his comrades it is sectarian but when Rangers fans sing songs condeming them it is not??

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 29-11-2013 12:01PM

premierstone wrote: »

Am I reading this right?? When Celtic fans sing celebrating Bobby Sands and his comrades it is sectarian but when Rangers fans sing songs condeming them it is not??

No when Celtic fans are singing about Sands and others its about terrorism nowhere have I said it is sectarian. Singing about such groups is in no way sectarian you know that though

Eirebear · 29-11-2013 12:15PM

premierstone wrote: »

Am I reading this right?? When Celtic fans sing celebrating Bobby Sands and his comrades it is sectarian but when Rangers fans sing songs condeming them it is not??

Personally, I wish the whole lot would be consigned to history, but we have to think logically here.

Bobby Sands was at war with the UK
Whether you agree with his reasoning or not that simple statement is true.
Would it be sectarian if the line was "**** Osama Bin Laden, He's Deid"?
Because at the end of the day, they are both 'terrorists' in the eyes of the UK.

I wonder how the Serbian population would react if thousands of Croatians, or people of Croat descent living in Belgrade, stood en-massse to sing songs about Ante Gotovina? He may have been acquitted of War Crimes, narrowly, but I don't think that has meant that all is forgiven in that region of the world.
Yet going by the GB's rationale, it is their right to sing these songs without fear of reaction from the Serbian people, anyone who decided to shout "**** Ante Gotovina" is committing a crime in their eyes.

Lets start applying a bit of common sense to things guys, I understand and agree with people's issues over what might be termed "Poppy Fascism", but that doesn't give you a god given right to sing songs praising aggression towards the country you're standing in.
And it's certainly not the be all and end all of Irish Culture, that idea sickens me greatly.

premierstone · 29-11-2013 12:49PM

Eirebear wrote: »

Personally, I wish the whole lot would be consigned to history, but we have to think logically here.

Bobby Sands was at war with the UK
Whether you agree with his reasoning or not that simple statement is true.
And it's certainly not the be all and end all of Irish Culture, that idea sickens me greatly.

Agree with all of that and I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise tbh, however you have also conveniently excluded the fact that Bobby Sands was an elected member of the governemnt of said country and infact ammussingly garnered more votes than a certain Magaret Thatcher, if there was a song been sang that celebrated Sands as an elected MP and/or published writer would that be acceptable?

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 29-11-2013 12:57PM

premierstone wrote: »

Agree with all of that and I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise tbh, however you have also conveniently excluded the fact that Bobby Sands was an elected member of the governemnt of said country and infact ammussingly garnered more votes than a certain Magaret Thatcher, if there was a song been sang that celebrated Sands as an elected MP and/or published writer would that be acceptable?

To be honest it wouldn't have bothered me. Let me make this clear I have nothing agsinst republicanism I have against terrorism though my own politics is republican. I was making points about the law in the UK as it stands and that is something that is factual.
I also notice you say Sands was at war I really wish people would make their minds up it seems to me it was a war when it suited certain agendas

Lennonist · 29-11-2013 01:04PM

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

If you believe that Pira no longer exist then your being very naive but no matter the law is in place not only in Scotland but the UK as whole it is there for a reason. Also the UVF banners were I believe about the orgina UVF and that is why no action was taken also again I don't like it when Rangers gans sing about Bobby Sands but it is not sectarian. It amazes me that you think that the majority in a country should have to put up with nonsense about terrorist groups

As I said any chance that there might be a bit of maturity applied around these matters some time soon? Instead of continuing this juvenile game of one upmanship. Obviously a lot of growing up needs to be done still.

When was the last time the PIRA were linked to any action of any kind anywhere? The UVF banners that the British army personnel were standing in front of were the old UVF he says. The hypocrisy is amazing and tedious in the extreme.

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 29-11-2013 01:11PM

Lennonist wrote: »

As I said any chance that there might be a bit of maturity applied around these matters some time soon? Instead of continuing this juvenile game of one upmanship. Obviously a lot of growing up needs to be done still.

When was the last time the PIRA were linked to any action of any kind anywhere? The UVF banners that the British army personnel were standing in front of were the old UVF he says. The hypocrisy is amazing and tedious in the extreme.

I said I Believe they were in my post frankly if they were not then action should be taken so please stop changing what I said. It makes no difference when they were last linked to any kind of action where do you think all the dissidents sprung up from the terrorist fairy.
I will not go into my own beliefs with you as frankly they are none of your business but I love how because of the team I support I am put in a box that says loyalist etc.
Even I know that Celtic supporters who support Irish terrorism are in a minority

Eirebear · 29-11-2013 01:11PM

premierstone wrote: »

Agree with all of that and I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise tbh, however you have also conveniently excluded the fact that Bobby Sands was an elected member of the governemnt of said country and infact ammussingly garnered more votes than a certain Magaret Thatcher, if there was a song been sang that celebrated Sands as an elected MP and/or published writer would that be acceptable?

I've not really - I mean, Sands' MP status and literary career isn't really what's being sung about in general, is it?

And to be fair, you asked the question as to why Rangers fans singing songs condemning Sands wasn't deemed sectarian.

premierstone · 29-11-2013 01:14PM

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

I also notice you say Sands was at war I really wish people would make their minds up it seems to me it was a war when it suited certain agendas

Of course it was a war, I have certainly never said otherwise, but like all wars they cannot exist without at least two opposing parties, so it is also fair to say that the British governement was at war.

premierstone · 29-11-2013 01:21PM

Eirebear wrote: »

I've not really - I mean, Sands' MP status and literary career isn't really what's being sung about in general, is it?

And to be fair, you asked the question as to why Rangers fans singing songs condemning Sands wasn't deemed sectarian.

Whether it is sectarian or not, that definition seems to change more often than the owner of Rangers

, is a cyclical debate, however it to my mind certainly falls under the ''Offensive Behaviour at Football act''

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 29-11-2013 01:30PM

premierstone wrote: »

Of course it was a war, I have certainly never said otherwise, but like all wars they cannot exist without at least two opposing parties, so it is also fair to say that the British governement was at war.

No you never have and I agree with you but it pisses me off when I see it from both sides saying it wasn't.
So therefore if it was a war singing about Sands isn't sectarian it is singing about an enemy of the state
And once more I will say I don't like the lines about Sands one bit

dublinbhoy88 · 29-11-2013 01:39PM

premierstone wrote: »

Whether it is sectarian or not, that definition seems to change more often than the owner of Rangers , is a cyclical debate, however it to my mind certainly falls under the ''Offensive Behaviour at Football act''

it used to be illegal to be Jewish in nazi germany, doesnt make it right because its the law,celtic fans are not going to bend the knee to this law

Eirebear · 29-11-2013 01:58PM

Do we stop talking about it once Godwin's Law kicks in?

It's not illegal to be a Celtic fan in Scotland, It's not illegal to be Catholic in Scotland, It's not illegal to be Irish in Scotland.
What's terrifying is that you seem to be implying that all three are the same.

Also, is "Bend at the knee" the buzzword at the moment or what?

dublinbhoy88 · 29-11-2013 02:08PM

Eirebear wrote: »

Do we stop talking about it once Godwin's Law kicks in?

It's not illegal to be a Celtic fan in Scotland, It's not illegal to be Catholic in Scotland, It's not illegal to be Irish in Scotland.
What's terrifying is that you seem to be implying that all three are the same.

Also, is "Bend at the knee" the buzzword at the moment or what?

No but its illegal to sing about an irishman fighting against British oppression , but ok to sing about a scotsman slaying the English ie Flower of Scotland, its illegal to sing the sash which I have no problem with rangers fans singing , but its quite legal for the British army to set fire to other countries and slaughter innocent people, this law is madness and is a pile of hypocrisy

blahfckingblah · 29-11-2013 02:18PM

cant we all just get along? seriously though I've been pretty much avoiding this thread for the recent past due to the sheer amount of bull**** going on

RoryMac · 29-11-2013 02:21PM

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

No but its illegal to sing about an irishman fighting against British oppression

Could you not just hum it? :cool:

dublinbhoy88 · 29-11-2013 02:23PM

blahfckingblah wrote: »

cant we all just get along? seriously though I've been pretty much avoiding this thread for the recent past due to the sheer amount of bull**** going on

Relax its just a debate, just a load of blahfckingblah...jaw jaw is better than was war isn't it?

Hagar the Nice. · 29-11-2013 03:59PM

Beram Kayak out for 6 weeks,never rated him tbh.

premierstone · 29-11-2013 04:03PM

Hagar the Nice. wrote: »

Beram Kayak out for 6 weeks,never rated him tbh.

Its Kayal and I'm sure he is gutted to hear you don't rate him :rolleyes:

Eirebear · 29-11-2013 04:22PM

Hagar the Nice. wrote: »

Beram Kayak out for 6 weeks,never rated him tbh.

You could say he's up a creek without a paddle....

PauloMN · 29-11-2013 04:48PM

Lennon on the banner nonsense:

Of the political banner displayed by a section of the crowd during the Milan match Lennon said: "My heart sank when I saw it. It wasn't the time or the place for a display like that.

"It should have been a celebration rather than people having a grumble about something.

"When I came in here I tried to bring the club together again and I think we have done that, certainly with the performances over the last three or four years, so it is disappointing that some people want to bring cracks to the club.

"I don't know what we can do. It is not welcome within the stadium, we understand they may have legitimate complaints over some of the laws brought in but Celtic Park is not the place to display that."

The Scottish Professional Football League has confirmed it has begun initial enquiries into a banner against Aberdeen last Saturday while UEFA, who has a zero tolerance over fans using grounds to make political statements, has opened disciplinary proceedings over what it calls an 'illicit banner' on Tuesday.

Lennonist · 29-11-2013 05:27PM

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

I said I Believe they were in my post frankly if they were not then action should be taken so please stop changing what I said. It makes no difference when they were last linked to any kind of action where do you think all the dissidents sprung up from the terrorist fairy.

There is little or no public support to speak of for the dissidents and that would be true among Celtic supporters as well.

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

I will not go into my own beliefs with you as frankly they are none of your business but I love how because of the team I support I am put in a box that says loyalist etc.

I didn't put you in any box, I'm just arguing a point of discussion with you.

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Even I know that Celtic supporters who support Irish terrorism are in a minority

I'd safely say it is the case that Celtic supporters by enlarge certainly don't support any current Republican paramilitary activity.

My point on this thing is that I think the Scottish government are mishandling this issue and making a big deal out of it with the legislation they passed. I also think there seems to be double standards in relation to the legislation and the general culture when you see events like that army day at Ibrox and all the carry on that went with it. Outlawing a song like Roll of Honour just gets more attention for said song, if they ignored it they'd probably find that they'd stop singing it anyway after a while. Celtic fans in general are more concerned about the club going out of Europe last Tuesday than banners and songs.

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 29-11-2013 05:38PM

Lennonist wrote: »

There is little or no public support to speak of for the dissidents and that would be true among Celtic supporters as well.

I didn't put you in any box, I'm just arguing a point of discussion with you.

I'd safely say it is the case that Celtic supporters by enlarge certainly don't support any current Republican paramilitary activity.

My point on this thing is that I think the Scottish government are mishandling this issue and making a big deal out of it with the legislation they passed. I also think there seems to be double standards in relation to the legislation and the general culture when you see events like that army day at Ibrox and all the carry on that went with it. Outlawing a song like Roll of Honour just gets more attention for said song, if they ignored it they'd probably find that they'd stop singing it anyway after a while. Celtic fans in general are more concerned about the club going out of Europe last Tuesday than banners and songs.

In general maybe but not in the GB's case all but one of the few I know in it are obnoxious in the extreme. Its easy to see where their beliefs lie in the last line of the statements they put out. Honestly you would think they were on the front line.

Maybe you don't put myself or other bears on here in a box but I can assure you theirs enough who do that makes it laughable

Antifa161 · 29-11-2013 06:06PM

I think if the majority of Celtic fans do not want political expression in the stadium than that is the road we'll have to take. I do keep hearing that it's the majority who feel this way even though 90% of people I speak to are the complete opposite - maybe it's a case of the vocal minority idk.

I'm just about done with Celtic and modern football in general anyway. I think the new breed of fan (no, not the GB) are an absolute disgrace and I'm embarrassed to be associated with a lot of them. The "self styled ultras group" (as the media seem to love calling them, self styled wtf?) should just pack it in and let the club become just another sterile corporate entity like every other team left in the UK. As long as the majority are happy and nobody is offended. Croppies lie down :pac:

PauloMN · 29-11-2013 06:21PM

Antifa161 wrote: »

I think if the majority of Celtic fans do not want political expression in the stadium than that is the road we'll have to take. I do keep hearing that it's the majority who feel this way even though 90% of people I speak to are the complete opposite - maybe it's a case of the vocal minority idk.

I'm just about done with Celtic and modern football in general anyway. I think the new breed of fan (no, not the GB) are an absolute disgrace and I'm embarrassed to be associated with a lot of them. The "self styled ultras group" (as the media seem to love calling them, self styled wtf?) should just pack it in and let the club become just another sterile corporate entity like every other team left in the UK. As long as the majority are happy and nobody is offended. Croppies lie down :pac:

Sums up why I dislike the arrogance of the GB in general really. The notion of "if you're not with us, you're against us" is not a surprising reaction. Lots of people don't want to see republican banners in CP, it's as simple as that. If you have a point you'd like to make - fine - but do it outside the ground as requested numerous times by the club before.

And just because people might not want political banners does not mean they want a sterlile environment. That's a childish defense tbh.

Mind you, I've been called a "disgrace" on here before by another poster for something I said.... can't even remember for what. Maybe it was you!

RoryMac · 29-11-2013 06:28PM

Antifa161 wrote: »

I think if the majority of Celtic fans do not want political expression in the stadium than that is the road we'll have to take. I do keep hearing that it's the majority who feel this way even though 90% of people I speak to are the complete opposite - maybe it's a case of the vocal minority idk.

I'm just about done with Celtic and modern football in general anyway. I think the new breed of fan (no, not the GB) are an absolute disgrace and I'm embarrassed to be associated with a lot of them. The "self styled ultras group" (as the media seem to love calling them, self styled wtf?) should just pack it in and let the club become just another sterile corporate entity like every other team left in the UK. As long as the majority are happy and nobody is offended. Croppies lie down :pac:

You have a point and I agree with a lot of what you said especially about the sterile nature of modern football. The only part I disagree with is the need to have political expression as part of it, I don't feel this belongs in football stadiums, we have fans from all walks of life covering every political view and one section of fans pushing their political ideals only leads to divisions amongst fans.

I see no reason the GB can't make as much noise and colour while promoting the club and players as they have done so well on many other occasions

Celtic FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2014/15 Mod Warning post #6011

Comments