Rangers FC On Field Gossip & Rumour Thread 2017 Mod Note in OP(Updated 14/08)

Dempsey · 21-03-2014 09:38AM

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

And the fact Thimpson himself has suddenly gone quite you don't find that the tinyest bit unusual for a man who believes he is so much in the right about the tickets has lost his voice on the matter after another meeting with his cronies at the SFA

Its not going to be resolved by continued sniping through the media. What made you think it would?

Seems you are lining up a conspiracy theory in the event Thompson gets what he should have got at the beginning. I.e. first option on more sections if needed.

The sfa would never do a dodgy deal behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny...

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 21-03-2014 10:44AM

Dempsey wrote: »

Its not going to be resolved by continued sniping through the media. What made you think it would?

Seems you are lining up a conspiracy theory in the event Thompson gets what he should have got at the beginning. I.e. first option on more sections if needed.

The sfa would never do a dodgy deal behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny...

Really your going to throw conspiracy theory accusations about after your comments about our support and there fans lol enough said

Dempsey · 21-03-2014 10:55AM

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Really your going to throw conspiracy theory accusations about after your comments about our support and there fans lol enough said

Most of that post was tongue in cheek. But again ill say you'll have to clarify then what is apparently unusual about thompson not continuing to do his business with the sfa through the media.

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 21-03-2014 01:16PM

Dempsey wrote: »

Most of that post was tongue in cheek. But again ill say you'll have to clarify then what is apparently unusual about thompson not continuing to do his business with the sfa through the media.

Why not he was happy to put accusations about the SFA and slights on the opposition club when it suited him. I will accept you saying most of your previous post was tongue in cheek but you cannot be surprised when your posts are not always taken that way

Dempsey · 21-03-2014 01:22PM

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Why not he was happy to put accusations about the SFA and slights on the opposition club when it suited him. I will accept you saying most of your previous post was tongue in cheek but you cannot be surprised when your posts are not always taken that way

That doesn't answer my question. Im sure there will be a future statement from the sfa & dutd after they've finished negotiating and decisions are final. I dont see why there should be constant media statements as you think.

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 21-03-2014 03:23PM

Dempsey wrote: »

That doesn't answer my question. Im sure there will be a future statement from the sfa & dutd after they've finished negotiating and decisions are final. I dont see why there should be constant media statements as you think.

Simply he was man enough to start a very public and nasty row hid fight is with the SFA but yet he managed to drag rangers into it surely he should be man enough to see it through to the end and not go quite at the first sign he was wrong or is it because he is wrong.

Dempsey · 21-03-2014 04:18PM

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Simply he was man enough to start a very public and nasty row hid fight is with the SFA but yet he managed to drag rangers into it surely he should be man enough to see it through to the end and not go quite at the first sign he was wrong or is it because he is wrong.

Only the daily mail has insinuated that and it was a fairly lame piece of journalism. If he was wrong, why are the sfa negotiating? Why are they entertaining his side of the story at all after what transpired publicly?

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 21-03-2014 06:49PM

Dempsey wrote: »

Only the daily mail has insinuated that and it was a fairly lame piece of journalism. If he was wrong, why are the sfa negotiating? Why are they entertaining his side of the story at all after what transpired publicly?

It's the SFA you tell me it's an old boys club who really haven't a clue so your guess is as good as mine.

Dempsey · 21-03-2014 08:00PM

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

It's the SFA you tell me it's an old boys club who really haven't a clue so your guess is as good as mine.

I imagine he'll get strict first option agreements on those sections he's on about. SFA are paying for the use of Ibrox and all the overheads so they'll be looking for whatever gets them the biggest return.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/scottish/sfa-defend-decision-to-hand-scottish-cup-venues-to-ibrox-and-celtic-park-due-to-hampden-absence-8913760.html

SFA Statement wrote:

"Stadium rental, insurance, stewarding etc all require planning well before finals and semi-finals. More cost-effective to arrange in advance.

They were over eager to sell all the DUTD options to Rangers because they had a better chance of selling them well ahead of the fixture. Thompson getting upset means they have to work a little harder for their money which in turn upset them!

weldoninhio · 21-03-2014 10:29PM

It should be neutral. Split 50/50. If DUFC can't sell their allocation then the seats should be left empty. How can it be classed as neutral when the full crowd is 70/30 in favour of the team playing in its home stadium.

LiamoSail · 21-03-2014 10:38PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

It should be neutral. Split 50/50. If DUFC can't sell their allocation then the seats should be left empty. How can it be classed as neutral when the full crowd is 70/30 in favour of the team playing in its home stadium.

I think the option should be there for a fifty fifty split, but if one club don't sell their allocation it should go to the other.

You can't justify empty seats at a game where there are fans unable to get tickets, and even if that situation did occur, it wouldn't sOlve the issue as there still wouldn't be a fifty fifty split in the crowd

Edit: no idea how I managed to put a warning sign in the three title!

Dempsey · 21-03-2014 10:44PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

It should be neutral. Split 50/50. If DUFC can't sell their allocation then the seats should be left empty. How can it be classed as neutral when the full crowd is 70/30 in favour of the team playing in its home stadium.

That wouldnt even be done in Hampden tbh In theory, if demand was high enough from both sides, its a 50/50 split but demand is higher on one side here.

The SFA had no contingency for Celtic or Rangers playing these matches at home so its just plain auld short-sightedness from them. The real issue is that DUTD cant get first option on sections earmarked for them because the SFA jumped the gun because they know it would be easier selling tickets to The Rangers fans rather than going through a first option process with DUTD.

TL:DR? The SFA are being lazy & greedy

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 21-03-2014 11:27PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

It should be neutral. Split 50/50. If DUFC can't sell their allocation then the seats should be left empty. How can it be classed as neutral when the full crowd is 70/30 in favour of the team playing in its home stadium.

Really have you ever seen this done before because I certainly have not and never will. Also people on here have to realise Thompson followed by the chairman of the Arab trust have come out with comments about kids and families not being safe it's really a disgrace but ach it was only Rangers they said it about is the attitude many people seem to be taking. They need to have a long look at themselves these two people they are supposed to be responsible adults and creating uncalled for tension is just not needed.

bobmalooka · 22-03-2014 01:05AM

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Really have you ever seen this done before because I certainly have not and never will. Also people on here have to realise Thompson followed by the chairman of the Arab trust have come out with comments about kids and families not being safe it's really a disgrace but ach it was only Rangers they said it about is the attitude many people seem to be taking. They need to have a long look at themselves these two people they are supposed to be responsible adults and creating uncalled for tension is just not needed.

I can't remember the exact wording of his comments but I think it's a fair assumption that given how venemous some of the rangers supporters have been towards DU that the atmosphere will be less than family friendly and not suitable for kids. Not safe is pushing it a bit far at the same time. Tensions would need to keep ramping up for that to be the case but it is possible.

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 22-03-2014 07:01AM

bobmalooka wrote: »

I can't remember the exact wording of his comments but I think it's a fair assumption that given how venemous some of the rangers supporters have been towards DU that the atmosphere will be less than family friendly and not suitable for kids. Not safe is pushing it a bit far at the same time. Tensions would need to keep ramping up for that to be the case but it is possible.

There are many football matches that aren't family friendly but it doesn't follow kids will be hurt which was certainly the feeling I got from his statement and interviews
I have know doubt there will be a hostile atmosphere st the game I will be part of the crowd that day and I am sure it will be very noisy well until they get a couple in front and to be honest the way things are any hostility towards Dindee Utd will suddenly change to hostility towards McCoist and the board.

Jelle1880 · 23-03-2014 02:10PM

Brechin get a penalty denied, Rangers counter and Aird makes it 0-1.

Should be a good one for the conspiracy theorists out there

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 23-03-2014 02:13PM

To be fair its one of those 50/50 ones but these things happen Templeton got booked a couple of weeks ago for simulation and he had been caught so meh

Jelle1880 · 23-03-2014 02:14PM

Think Dallas was right, the Brechin player easily jumped over Bell and then in mid-air decided to go down.

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 23-03-2014 02:57PM

Thompson equalises for Brechin in the 48th minute deservedly so. Rangers punished for sitting to deep

Jelle1880 · 23-03-2014 03:08PM

Shiels is an absolute imposter, no idea how he manages to play professional football.

And Moshni, I like him but ffs he's dreadful

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 23-03-2014 03:12PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Shiels is an absolute imposter, no idea how he manages to play professional football.

And Moshni, I like him but ffs he's dreadful

Honestly they are two of the worst players I have seen wearing a Rangers jersey.

Looks a bad one for Black

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 23-03-2014 03:14PM

And Clark just on the park makes it 2-1 to Rangers after a nice bit of build up play and finished off with a header

Jelle1880 · 23-03-2014 03:25PM

So apparently planting your foot on a Rangers player's chest is 'a bit naughty'.

But they can't shut up about Daly perhaps being offside.

Jelle1880 · 23-03-2014 03:42PM

FT, 1-2.

Bad performance again, another win

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 23-03-2014 03:43PM

Finishes 2-1 but we really need to get our act together for the Raith Rovers game never mind the Dundee Utd game

Jelle1880 · 23-03-2014 04:04PM

McCoist was asked if he wants to sign Boyd, a few laughs about it but Boyd's reaction seemed like it was a done deal

bobbysands81 · 24-03-2014 12:50AM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Brechin get a penalty denied, Rangers counter and Aird makes it 0-1.

Should be a good one for the conspiracy theorists out there

Brechin v "Rangers" in the league.

That puts a smile on my face!

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 24-03-2014 03:21AM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Brechin v "Rangers" in the league.

That puts a smile on my face!

Glad something is putting a smile on your face Bobby

The_Kew_Tour · 24-03-2014 03:25AM

I know its late but congrats on winning the league. I know ye were expected to walk it but still league is league.

The way Hibs are going we might be seeing each other few times next season:pac:

TheBuilder · 25-03-2014 04:15PM

Laxey loan cancelled

Rangers FC On Field Gossip & Rumour Thread 2017 Mod Note in OP(Updated 14/08)

Comments