Jump to content

 

 

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 28/02/19 in all areas

  1. The reason for the club not moving them to BF3 has been well known and discussed for many years. I myself when on the Working Group committee back in 2010-11 spoke to David Martin (head of security at the club) at some length to get UB moved to BF3. The reason is the sight lines for those in the areas beside them. If you are in BF2 or BF4 and wish to watch the match from the comfort of your seat, you cannot see a large area of the pitch due to the UB standing in BF3. This is why they are in BF1, it is the only area where them standing doesnt affect the sight lines of other fans in neighbouring sections. The club turn a blind eye to them standing throughout the game in contravention of the ground rules. I havent been in the loop on this issue since the WG stood down in 2012, but I cant see that the argument has changed a bit as the fact remains the same. UB can move to BF3 if they sit down, which goes against everything they are about so they have to remain at the end of the stand where they dont disrupt everyone else. What is the big deal with this anyway? They can expand into BF2 if they have sufficient numbers, which they have never had. I understand their plea for a safe standing area, and that they would be upset that we are not going to go for that. Personally, I am against a safe standing area, so I am delighted the club have decided against this.
    12 points
  2. I don't think there has been any violence as such but there is a sinister tone adopted IMO. Why walk behind such a violent banner (image of fan kicking a Celtic fan). Why cover your face? The fact that they actually did this outside the marvellous facade of Ibrox on Edmiston Dr still makes me sick tbh. I wouldn't be seen dead in this sort of protest. To me it's the same "look at us" headline seeking nonsense that happens across the city with GB. Just support your team ffs.
    7 points
  3. As the Meerkat advert says "simple" i.e. drop the F****n word from singing,forget about "Bobby Sands" as he has been dead a long time, for a start and they might start getting somewhere. We are in a modern world and should be able to act more responsibley,let the scum from the east sing their filth and see if they will be dealt with,fat chance though.
    6 points
  4. Here's my latest reply from the BBC complaints w.r.t. them being bangers. Editorially fair is the latest party line.
    4 points
  5. I reckon, in total, there have been about 15 balaclavas worn by UBs in the last decade - all outside Ibrox. What a lot of fuss about nothing. They wear them so the Police don't turn up at their doors in a few weeks and lift them for this, that or the next thing. It would only be sinister if violence was likely and it never has been. The issues here are safe standing and their location within Ibrox.
    3 points
  6. Ok list individually how each member of TIG voted in the Iraq War vote in the House of Commons and perhaps explain how Berger, Leslie, Shuker, Umunna, Smith, Wollaston, Allen and Soubry all managed to vote for the Iraq War when they weren't even MP's? Why do you post such downright lies, do you assume the rest of us are too stupid to notice?
    3 points
  7. Second £1000.00 payment sent to the club today
    3 points
  8. Made a late decision to travel through last night and glad I did as some of the football was a joy to watch at times. Yes, with personnel and system changes throughout the second period, we got a bit sloppy at times after half-time but some passages of play were still superb and only a combination of bad luck and poor finishing stopped us scoring a few more. Great to see us go on a good run of scoring form and look solid at the back as well. Aberdeen next, hopefully!
    3 points
  9. It's not about being intimated. Why would anyone want this type of masked protest associated with our club? If people think this is acceptable then God help us?
    2 points
  10. It's fine. Wanting to kill someone due to political beliefs is all well and good...as long as you're on the correct SNP/Sinn Fein side. However, if you want to stick a nasty word about people who want to break up the UK into a song then Steve Clark will have a mental breakdown and the Knights of St Columbus (or Spiers, McLaughlin, English, Leckie and Haggerty, as you and I know them) will be springing out of their traps quick smart.
    2 points
  11. I have to disagree with this mate. They are not the same, and I won't respect them when I see them on marches with balaclavas. It is sinister and it brings the club into disrepute. That's something that should be challenged, not respected.
    2 points
  12. Notwithstanding the obvious error in the petition, I've also signed it. I've just been sent a tweet showing Celtic fans singing about killing Brendan Roges with a bullet from the IRA and yet not a single mention of this from Dornan or Humza. Both of them are corrupt hypocrites who will jump up and down because Steve Clarke received some abuse, and yet not a peep about Boyd, Morelos or Rogers. Why? We know the answer to that, and it's a national disgrace.
    2 points
  13. I thought that wee guy had maybe had his megaphone ? taken off him last night because of the Steve Clarke stuff last week. These boys are our version of the green brigade, and now they’re taking the huff because the club won’t kick other season ticket holders out of their seats so they can take over an entire stand for their particular brand of chaos! Not my cup of tea personally, though I’m sure plenty would disagree with me..
    2 points
  14. The UBs ironically hold the key to solving the problem of the dark side of the songbook. Surely the club could grant them some privileges on the basis of an agreed set of rules, with basically a type of strict liability. The UBs are in a unique position in that they largely dictate what is sung in the stadium, the club should be using that to their advantage surely.
    2 points
  15. As Bluedell says the style and fashions of the 'young' are for them to decide, there would be something wrong with them if someone closing in on half a century like me could relate far less approved. Great post by Tannochside Bear. I'm also firmly against 'safe' standing and glad it's been rejected by the club.
    2 points
  16. The club have to think about the future and attracting enough support to fill the stadium. Many of those who might prefer 'library atmosphere' won't be around for ever. Bluedell refers to balance and whilst the UB need to respect certain lines in todays environment, the club shouldn't take them for granted and need to cater to what are paying customers. I think you have to look at the UB and what they want as an opportunity to make something special and have it grow. At the sametime the club can look to tackle certain issues wiith the songbook together with the UB.
    2 points
  17. Fair enough statement but I feel if the UB want backing from the Rangers fans as a whole they need to ditch the ski masks and balaclava during marches/protests. It's sinister and does not help their cause and turns a lot of fans off IMO.
    2 points
  18. Further down the line, imagine a whole Broomloan Road End that was a UB section with safe standing installed ! Would surely capture the imagination of a lot of the younger generations, attract new attending support and create a notable atmosphere.
    2 points
  19. We need them to drop points and us to win all our matches, a wee bit too much to ask!!
    2 points
  20. 5 games and 5 clean sheets. We are starting to click into gear at the right time. After seeing them grab another injury time winner - I think it’s too little too late though.
    2 points
  21. I find it hard to believe the sheep played a deep 'defense' at home against Hamilton. Anyone who thinks the sheep put in the same effort against Hamilton and Rangers is deluded. We have stuffed two crap sides and a decent side that played most of the match with 10 men. Don't get carried away...
    2 points
  22. Going on their websites is literally wasting away one’s life. You’ll never get that time back.
    1 point
  23. Here we go again. "It's not the SNP, it's only a couple of bigots who just happen to be SNP MP's." "You can't blame an entire party because some of its officials are anti-Rangers bigots. OK, most of them. OK, all of them but you won't find anything written down in policies." "There are lots of Rangers fans who vote SNP. Just because the SNP would like to see Rangers dead and buried doesn't mean you can't wear two faces hats." *???????
    1 point
  24. It's not just Dornan and Humza though. There's a much bigger list of SNP officials who have been anti-Rangers including O'Hara, McEleny, Hanley, McKenzie, Aitken, McDonald and Grant.
    1 point
  25. It does appear to be an over-reaction. I'm guessing sooner of it may be due to their politics which some may not like, so they're focusing on the wearing of balaclavas, even though it's done when marching behind police.
    1 point
  26. There is not a single person who would defend the obvious hypocrisy (and in my opinion, corruption) exhibited by these three, however what I remain unconvinced about is that the SNP as a party cares one iota about football, Rangers, Celtic, or any other club. These three attention seekers are clearly pro Celtic and definitely anti Rangers, but I don't think it does our cause any good when we divide our own support with these party politics. I have however gone down this route before and it gets us nowhere. I will however take the opportunity once again to say that the SNP does itself no favours by failing to address this matter with two of its members who are damaging the image of their party. By failing to address it, it does turn away potential voters. I know a few Rangers fans who voted SNP and who will never vote that way again. This is 100% as a result of the behaviours of Dornan and Humza. It is either because the party leaders agree (which I doubt), or because they are unaware of the effect they're having. Either way, it's a poor way to run a party, and in my opinion demonstrates weak leadership.
    1 point
  27. Humza. Dornan. Michael Stewart. Pure paranoia, so it is.
    1 point
  28. I suppose it's symptomatic of our recent history that we feel the need to explain something like this. In any other business this would just be normal and far from newsworthy. The directors should be using credit lines like this, rather than funding end of season cash flow challenges from their own investments. That would be crazy. As 917 said, we should always be vigilant to how it's used because that can be an indicator, but if it's agreed or extended it's just smart business.
    1 point
  29. So Celtic condemn it when it is about Brendan Rogers. Have Celtic ever condemned it when it is about Nacho Novo?
    1 point
  30. You're entitled to your opinion but as has been said already I find the political reaction to their fliers far more sinister. Its clear that the targeting of them by various politicians is why they've felt the need to cover up while marching to the stadium. From the arguments I've seen you make on these very boards playing with emotive language and argument is beneath you.
    1 point
  31. So, if they attend the march on 16th, should I expect them (and you) to cover their face? If so, I (and many others) will not go. I cannot be associated with that. If that happens, we will not gather the wider support we need and that's going to be damaging. I am against the intrusion of privacy also, and hate the CCTV big brother state, but I will not bring my club into disrepute by acting in a sinister manner, just because the police state does.
    1 point
  32. As far as I'm aware the UB are a very visible and public group and not as you seem to be implying a proscribed organisation. I don't recall their name being attached or involved in crowd disturbance or violence. They stand in the same place every home game unmasked if you want to look at their fizzogs. If I were a young man and inclined to march in protest and/or political action I too would cover up my face and any other easily identifiable markings. When these UB cant go to the football together because they are monitored, filmed and photographed at every opportunity all done under the guise of security intelligence gathering when they've done very little of a threatening nature towards well anyone really other than write a couple of poorly worded fliers. When we take into account the modern fascination with facial recognition and the propensity of authorities to photograph and film its population at will, which I find far more invasive and sinister, then I have some sympathy. You're speaking to the wrong person if you think that you can find parity with me via that line. I'm still of the mindset that it is my, your and everyone elses right to anonymity and to go about our business without interruption or having to identify ourselves even when marching to a football stadium.
    1 point
  33. I signed this petition, probably should have checked it out first. However, modern politicians often like to be seen getting things banned before they even exist. So it’s probably not as pointless an exercise as it seems.
    1 point
  34. Brilliant stuff mate - a job well done!
    1 point
  35. Is the key word not SAFE standing? I see no problem with people standing if it is safe although the main problem I have with it is it makes it easier for nutters to throw things without being caught on camera.
    1 point
  36. I too thought I'd miss the terracing but having been seated for along time now,and having experienced the old terracing standard during the "journey" in away games, amhappy now to be seated
    1 point
  37. @JohnMc @Tannochsidebear What are the arguments against safe standing?
    1 point
  38. I can just visualize you sat there with your stop watch, notepad and specs....
    1 point
  39. Not really. I think the general populace are sick of the Labour Party. The fact they're not shooting ahead of the Tories in the polls, despite their shambolic handling of Brexit, says it all.
    1 point
  40. That hasn't been in power for nearly a decade and with Jeremy at the helm that looks unlikely to change.
    1 point
  41. It would be interesting to know the club's reasons for this. Is it a reaction to the Steve Clarke song? Have they asked the UBs to tone down the songs and been ignored and this is the reaction or are there other reasons behind this? Moving the UBs to BF3 seems a reasonable thing to do. On the safe standing issue, is it due to cost? The UBs do need to realise that that the relationship with the club has to be a two way thing and that may mean losing a couple of songs from the repertoire if they want the club to meet them half way.
    1 point
  42. Had a look around and FF had a link to a site which in turn contained another link (supplied below) In this article there are indeed quotes from Alfredo where the aforementioned claims are made. https://gol.caracoltv.com/colombianos-en-el-exterior/no-todo-es-color-de-rosa-para-alfredo-morelos-en-rangers-evito-salir-la-calle-por-los-hinchas-del-ie22789 @ian1964 @Frankie
    1 point
  43. I've just listened to the original interview (link below) and it doesn't mention anything about harrassment by Celtic fans. Unless interview has been edited or above tweet refers to a different interview, the claim is inaccurate. http://www.wradio.com.co/amp/nota.aspx?id=3869470&__twitter_impression=true
    1 point
  44. She's all the woman she's ever going to be at 16 as for voting you should be 21 and born in the country to deserve a vote .
    1 point
  45. Brilliant post pete..unfortunately it has one line too many ?.
    1 point
  46. In to the bullring came the matador looked at EL Bufaló n'ran oot the F'íng door. ?
    1 point
  47. Morelos can only leave for a transfer fee that we agree to.
    1 point


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.