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

Intifada wrote: »

Why are the Bears so furious about having to pay the old/same club's fine if they are so adamant they are the same? Up til now ye have all gone to great pains to stress how the bastions of integrity that are footballing authorities also claim you are the same, so why the rage in their consistency?

Nobody is 'furious', if the fine is justified so be it.

If anything, it enforces the fact even more that this is the same club.

Now to wait for the SPFL to release the price money they owe Rangers...

I'm talking about the money owed to Rangers from years ago, I believe it was around £2m that was witheld ?

Part of that was used to pay clubs like Hearts, Celtic,... I believe but not all of it.

Some great choice cuts from RangersMeeja

Absolutely gutted! Was looking forward to saturday under a new manager, what is there to look forward to now?
If Ally is holding out for money and effectively holding us back as a club then he joins the list of 'Rangers men' who dont give a toss about us.
I'm starting to wonder if he's playing games with King etc to bring the club to it's knees

Simple really....Rangers are now f**ked.

So a REAL Ranger wouldn't hold us to randsome?

Like f**k he wouldn't..He's a mercenary b'tard.

There should be a massive 'McCOIST OUT' protest,outside the front doors,on Saturday.

Ally is a taig

Well Ally ex rangers legend number one Spiv of the club very sad never thought I would be writing these words, but his true colours are now on show its about the money.

P.s cant go and watch this pish on saturday under him ST paid for but cant see me turning up for many games now.

I've been an emotional wreck for months.
When will this shambles end?
Horrible rumours of administration are bad enough but the idea of Ally staying makes
the chance of enjoying Christmas very unlikely

Wonder will there be cracked crests in the papers, or are they too worried about a flare in Croatia :pac:

Dempsey wrote: »

I find it amusing that every time any rangers supporters opinion, be it former director or fan on a website has an opinion other than your own, you spout nonsense like you don't care what they think, it doesnt matter what they think or what they think isn't any near the thinking of the majority!

Did you do a red sea poll to gauge what public opinion is?

OK I will agree when people spout crap there I agreed with you

FFs Rangers Media is known for the idiots who use it. Considering many on there were still backing the board or am I supposed to agree with people just please you sorry that's not how it works

Dempsey wrote: »

Idiots or not, agree with them or not they are fans of the same club you support. .

This is interesting.
Are you suggesting all supporter bases (Or any arbitrary grouping of people for that matter) should be judged on the lowest common denominator?

Eirebear wrote: »

This is interesting.
Are you suggesting all supporter bases (Or any arbitrary grouping of people for that matter) should be judged on the lowest common denominator?

They should be judged by the majority, and I'd extend that to when the majority tolerates what a large minority do. For example I think it's quite obvious that most Celtic fans do support the IRA and sing about them, and that most Rangers fans are anti-Irish bigots. Absolute nonsense to pretend otherwise and in all fairness it was that combination that fuelled what was one of the most intense derbies in world football.

Intifada wrote: »

They should be judged by the majority, and I'd extend that to when the majority tolerates what a large minority do. For example I think it's quite obvious that most Celtic fans do support the IRA and sing about them, and that most Rangers fans are anti-Irish bigots. Absolute nonsense to pretend otherwise and in all fairness it was that combination that fuelled what was one of the most intense derbies in world football.

(Although not entirely related to the McCoist situation..)
The issue of tolerance is an interesting one, to an extent i agree that you could argue that the majority of both sets of support are implicit due to non-action.
I do think that not only is your wording clearly showing a sense of bias - which i don't particularly take issue with, just feel it doesn't help in such situations - that it also serves to over simplify a little.

Inaction is a problem throughout society, we don't like to upset the apple cart as it has a knock on effect.
In terms of football it's often harder to do anything about, there is an intimidation factor created by the vocal minority which leaves the average fan feeling helpless. There's little that can be done when faced with a large group who happen to be going against your own sensibilities as an individual, or as a group of individuals lacking the "gang" mentality of some of the sections within any teams support.

Intifada wrote: »

If, for example, enough people at Ibrox took objection to anti-Irish racism, they could have easily booed out the Famine Song, Billys Boys etc but they didn't, they joined in. Similarly if enough people at Parkhead objected to "IRA songs" they would boo them out, but they don't. I have however heard other songs booed out/smothered the same way I've heard fans in pubs get told to wrap it over certain songs.

Its very rare to hear anything like you've suggested within a stadium context. Within pubs its a different story, different power structures and controls, I'd argue the fact that often sings that may be deemed 'offensive' are dealt with in pubs and clubs tells another side to the story.
Its far easier to deal with your surroundings in a bar, than it is in a 50k seated stadium, much less when standing alongside said vocal minority in the away end when they hold even more power.

Intifada wrote: »

So you've never heard anything stamped out at a game? To give an example, Roamin in the Gloamin hardly ever takes off because of the cringey religious triumphalism underpinning it. There's a reason you don't hear Ibrox Disaster songs either. At Ibrox I don't really know where the line gets drawn. There are videos on YT of your entire stadium (back when it had >20k ) singing the Famine Song. Not a vocal minority. Your supporters trust even defended it. That is the sort of thing that can't be swept under the rug as a minority opinion, just the same way I wouldn't pretend our fans don't support the IRA. Some might not but most do, so it's a perfectly fair statement.

Of course I've heard things stamped out within a stadium context, but as i stated for the above reasons it's a much rarer occurrence than the example of things being shouted down in a pub - which in itself, as you well know, will be variable from pub to pub.
One thing I'd suggest in terms of the difference between rangers & Celtic supporters is that as a whole our support is historically far more fractured than that of Celtic, which may change the structures within the stadium quite a bit. The RST is a good example seeing as you bring them up - they have around 5000 members, even if they were all in the stadium last week, it still leaves them as a minority.
You also bring up the Ibrox disaster, which brings us back to my original point - Should the majority of the Celtic support be held accountable for the actions of the ridiculously named "Style Mile Vandals" graffiti mocking the "66 Dead" at Tynecastle a few weeks ago?
I don't believe they should, yet if we are to follow the inaction logic to it's end, they should be.

Intifada wrote: »

How is the issue of inaction relevant to that? The person who wrote it didn't do so in front of thousands of our fans, there was nothing for our support to act/inact over. The only action can come in the aftermath, and the criticism of it is pretty much unanimous, including amongst the Green Brigade. Compare to the Famine Song which was repeatedly sung by tens of thousands of your fans with pretty much zero significant criticism. Maybe the fractured support you mention is the reason why self policing has been almost non existent at Ibrox, but has played a role at Parkhead.

It's relevant because it's unlikely that no one seen it happen, or that no one knows who done it.
And yes, there is no doubt that the fractured support plays a part in it - but that only goes to serve my point, it's impossible to judge any support on such simplified logic.

bobmalooka wrote: »

Fair enough, I accept it was a genuine question. The reason I commented was because I felt you weren't being genuine,

I think it was clear Dempsey was referring to BBE's regular dismissal of any opinion which deviates from his own as irrelevant. I'm sure he's right sometimes (including this time) but sometimes I feel it's a convenient way to avoid awkward debate.

Anyway like I said at first I felt like your comment was a little bit of a distraction from the point that was being made by Dempsey but rereading I accept you were genuine.

Dempsey is fond of using pop-psychology to bring down others points, in this case it is the suggestion that BBE "projects" his own opinion onto the apparent majority and is therefore not reliable when it comes to talking about the Rangers support at any given time.
He may very well believe that, but in doing so it leaves the debate open as to whether anyone can truly give their opinion on any grouping of people without canvassing each and every one of them and therefore leaving any debate on their behaviour with only the lowest common denominator to go on.

it is something i;m generally interested in from a point of view far wider than football, it;s just that football provides us with a unique situation for the discussion.

Intifada wrote: »

lol come on, that is absolutely desperate. How many people do you genuinely think witnessed some wee boy scrawling on a door somewhere inside Tynecastle? Graffiti by its nature tends not to be the most overt of 'pastimes'.

It's not desperate at all, I think i've been fair and even handed in this discussion as i'm not trying to portray an "Us v Them" situation in the slightest.
If we follow the inaction idea to it's logical conclusion, all it takes is one person to see it happen, or one person to know who done it and we have inaction.
I'm not suggesting, and have never tried to suggest that it is in the same scale as the Famine Song point - but you already know that.

All i'm trying to say is that it's a little bit more complicated than the logic we're trying to apply here suggests.

Intifada wrote: »

No. The matter of inaction was raised as a (justified) means of placing blame on the majority for the behaviour of a (large) minority. You've then tried to extend that to suggesting the Celtic support are responsible because 1 or 2 people did not report a single individual's vandalism. It simply does not work on that scale.

Rangers fans are complicit in the Famine Song because tens of thousands of them sang it and tens of thousands were ok with it.

Celtic fans are not responsible for one individual writing something on a Tynecastle door and a couple of people who may or may not have witnessed it remaining silent.

I've already said I don't believe that Celtic fans should be held responsible, twice.
But if we're holding the majority responsible for actions of the minority then we must follow through to logical conclusions, be that songs, banners or actions within a stadium.

Again, you know that its more complicated than that and I can't help but feel that if we were talking about any other two arbitrary groupings of people you'd be able to discuss it a little easier.

Intifada wrote: »

Don't patronise me. You are the one failing to adhere to logic here.

A Celtic fan is responsible for the graffiti at Tynecastle. Celtic fans as a whole are not, as they were not complicit in it happening. I've already explained to you why the buck stops there, and why in other cases it does not. Citing inaction does not work on such a small scale. If I go to Tannadice on Sunday and boot the locks off the toilets, that isn't on the Celtic support as a whole. If half the away support start singing about killing Prods and the other half stand idly by, that is.

So where is this cut off point that you're suggesting? Without defining that the conversation clearly goes nowhere.
It also takes me, once again, to my original question and the context for it - Should the Rangers support be judged on a few 'choice cuts' from a forum with a reputation for being full of idiots?