andy steel

Apologies for not making myself clear; I was talking about overt non-footballing actions by the club, and whether or not you agreed with them. But I think the answer would be the same anyway, so thank you for that. I'll have a go in the Bluenose Lounge.

I didn't mean the move itself, I meant talking about it. Having seen debate on it go down...poorly elsewhere, I thought I'd ask first.

I don't recognise the bleak wasteland you're describing, Maine Flyer. I think you're overegging the pudding, there.

To be fair, Shroomz, if you believe that the army in Afghanistan is actually defending Britain (something I have an issue with), you're going to consider comments such as this as a bit above petty. Can I ask in passing, what's the mood on Gersnet regarding debating the club getting involved in such gestures? Is it taboo?

It is a tough one, mind you. Mancini....McParland.....Mancini.....McParland.....

A bit angry for me, tbh. Something like this; Dear Sir/Madam/Tai g Could you tell me, please, whether the opinions of Graham Spiers on your phone-in programme of 15/10/09 are reflective of station policy on the 'tickets for soldiers' story, and if not whether you intend to issue a statement distancing yourself from those opinions? Given the sensitive nature of the subject - which I feel sure you will agree, goes beyond mere football banter, and can't be dismissed so lightly - I would be most interested in your reply. Yours sincerely, a portly gentleman They can ignore vitriol, but if you ask a question they are bound to reply. If that reply is an empty, standard response you know where you stand, and have ammo to use against them.

I haven't seen anything in Scottish football that justifies a price higher than about 15 quid, and even that seems high to me.

Graham, stop digging.

Fair do's, he's reached a good level of living with absolutely no ability whatsoever. The idea, prevalent amongst media types, that it's hard to press a few buttons and listen to two voices at the same time, doesn't hold much water in these days of media training; but it serves the listening public right for continuing to tune in. Clyde bit the dust for me when Jimmy Sanderson passed away.

It comes and goes. What affects me might not affect you, so these reasons could be miles wide of the mark; but the main thing that has jaundiced my supporting these last 4 and a bit years (a novice, compared to you) has been internet interaction. Before, I'd be pretty much talking about and going to the game with my friends, and as is normal in your circle of friends, you're mostly on the same wavelength. Not on everything, but mostly. But going online I've been debating in a most dispiriting way with people who oftentimes lurch into name calling, or conform to the worst media stereotype. I've got to the stage where I'd rather not be associated with such people, and that inevitably affects the strength of my committment. So coming from a different direction, you maybe get to the same place: with you, it's the younger fan, with me, it's culturally driven agenda. I might have missed it had I not been online. Seems kind of stupid to be posting online, talking about how posting online has pushed me further away from the Rangers than I have ever been in my life. But that's how it is.

Let's not forget that although the EPL is awash with cash atm, it might not always be thus. I doubt many people foresaw the European ban following Heysel; you just don't know what's round the corner. It has to be said, though, that the Scottish football model has had it's day, and is in drastic need on an overhaul. I can't see any way you can re-arrange the current teams into something interesting, so I guess it will have to be some kind of pan-Euro thing. I worry, though, that we'll be emphatically in the secon tier at best.

They don't suffer me on RM. I don't post there anymore, and when I do I notice the posts get pulled. Not something I can change so I'm not going to start whining about it. Superally is off on one again. If you know me, would you mind introducing yourself? If you don't, would you mind refraining from ascribing to me certain characteristics? Levelling charges of this or that at anonymous internet posters may let one let off some steam, but it achieves nothing. To your one point in the post: I am a fan of Spiers. I certainly used to like him, he was a breath of fresh air. But that was about 10 years ago, probably more, and indeed I have stopped taking the Sunday Times since (unannounced) they started carrying the 'best' of his column from the week in their Scottish edition. With fans like me, his future is assured! Or you could be mistaking disagreement with you for agreement with Spiers. Shroomz is quite right, the club MAY ban Spiers, so I was wrong to say it isn't going to happen quite so definitively. But does anyone think there's even a 10% chance of it? Maybe with a new owner. No, I'm saying the RST/RSA and such groups, should issue dismissive statements rather than ones which allow Spiers to surf a wave of controversy. He gets off on it, so why help him? I'm trying to think of a stance which conveys our contempt for Spiers view on sectarianism, which displays our maturity and weariness. I think that would bring fans and club into a joint position, which wouldn't require a ban (he'd just love to be a martyred historical figure, which is unsurprising in a Baptist) but which would push Spiers into the margins as far as possible. If the subject of sectarianism is raised in a context that isn't infected with pious pseudo-outrage, it can be discussed and hopefully dealt with - that's not possible with this writer. We certainly aren't dodging the issue, we want to dodge Spiers. That's my take on it. I don't argue with that; I say, though, that there's no sign of trying having any impact on the board at Rangers. McNee wasn't banned, and if he was afforded press priviledges I can't see anyone else being barred. Again, taking a different approach is equated with doing nothing. Even if, as seems likely, both courses of action achieve the same end. I don't buy any paper Spiers writes in; I don't listen to any radio show he takes part in; I don't watch any TV show he is on; I avoid as far as possilbe any link to his work; I explain at every opportunity to people where he is mistaken, and why I believe his motive is pernicious. Other than that, yes, I bury my head in the sand.

Pressing someone to accept your argument because more people agree with you doesn't do it for me. It's neither fortunate nor unfortunate for me, it's irrelevant. Suggesting I'm not humble is equally pointless; I'm used to it after four years on RM, but it doesn't get us anywhere. If you only want posters who meekly proffer some accepted line, decided who knows where, your debates ain't going to be very strong, are they? Spiers: to ban or not to ban? That's where I check out, because he isn't going to be banned. It's not a case of 'Andy doesn't want to ban him' it's a case of 'he's not going to be banned'; therefore, what's the point in rattling on about it? I wasn't aware accepting reality was arrogant, but then you learn something new every day. I forget which poster said I was saying two things at once, my apologies. You can't claim dismissing Spiers with a 'yes,yes' type release is giving him the attention he craves. The Marcotti example is a good one. He has some previous in Scottish football, but he's 'national' now and only very rarely dips a toe in our chilly Caledonian waters. Why, then, is he commenting on Spiers and his one man crusade? Could it be to introduce the wider, UK audience to the hotbed of bigotry that is Ibrox? Could it be because, as an Italian, he is outraged by the disrepec' shown to the 'oly Pappa? Or is it because he has seen the spike in interest in an otherwise marginal writer from the regions and fancies a bit of that himself? Offhand comtempt is my way of dealing with him. If you don't want to do that, I'm not forcing you to.

I don't feel any need to be agreed with by thousands. Neither do I consider weight of numbers to be an indicator of the strength of an argument. So if I'm in a minority of one, I won't lose any sleep over it. He won't be banned. Not this year or next. Given what he's written before, without being banned, there's just no chance of it happening. Far better, I reckon, to issue something in a tired and resigned voice, saying 'yes, we've heard it all before from this guy. We notice he's at it after Celtic lose, what a coincidence.' Destroy him through denying him the attention he clearly craves.

I don't see why we need any body at all to 'represent' us: it's too big an ask. Neither the RSA nor the RST represent me in any way other than we're all bluenoses, and I can tell people that myself. If the RSA was there to deal with logistics like tickets, travel, what not, I can see a role for it. It's when bodies start to take on issues such as media bias, club ownership, anything in fact outwith the team - and tbh even there, no two fans hold exactly the same views - that they take on an impossible task. Given the size of Rangers fanbase, it's an even more impossible task.

Stuart Munro...I contacted him for RM a while back, and he said he'd do an interview. Then he never! I no likee anymore.

Aaaarrgh!! That's a link to the dread BBC! I clicked it! Dirty! Dirty!

I really am sorry to disagree with everyone else again - I'm not just saying that, I'm fed up being odd man out - but this part of the statement would be an open goal were it to be implemented. In particular the line 'this guy is out to damage us' can be swiftly turned on it's head to 'no, YOU are damaging Rangers, you just don't realise it.' I can't say I agree much with that sentence I've written, but it's what I would say were I GS. And the part about reporting only on the match is a bit thin; anyone who goes anywhere has a perfect right to say what they like about it, whether it be the weather or the half time cuppa. Spiers choses to concentrate on his milch-cow, namely driving sales and hits by writing mildy controversial nonsense. We can't tell people what to write, whether we like their effluent or not. It's easy for me to sit here and criticise, I just wish we could get out some watertight chastisement of yer man rather than what sounds a bit like whinging. He's an easy target, let's hit him! That apart, well done to them for trying. That sounds mean and patronising, it isn't meant to be.

Well, there's always the other side to that coin, Andrew, which is that when I introduce myself as a Rangers fan I can destroy all his arguments in about 30 seconds flat. Were they based in reality it would be more of a problem, but if someone is willing to give you a few minutes to hear you out - and normal people do, although that rules out journos and tims - his rubbish lies discredited, wrapped around the fish supper of irrelevance in the chippy of cyclopia. I did enjoy a frisson of pleasure in a Manchester pub, when, being hailed as 'another Nazi!' (in a jovial manner, if that's possible) I recounted at some length the Communist Manifesto to an increasingly desperate and bored group of regulars. Their luck was out, though...the way to the door was blocked by a sea of blue. So even if Spiers had a constituency in England (which he doesn't) and even if he had some influence in Scotland (which he doesn't) the simple answer to his misinformation is the truth.

I broke the habit of recent years on Sunday and took in the game. Previously, I've been of the view that if I ignore the game we will get a result, and it's worked quite often. Upon hearing we were a goal up, I bestirred myself to a neighbours house in order to ponce off his Sky TV; the first thing I saw - the VERY FIRST thing - was Papac bringing down an Oriental type. I am a curse.

I heard the end of Nevin's contribution last night, and couldn't make up my mind what he was getting so hot under the collar about. I assume he was offendedeth by some singing?

Firstly, I don't think there's any chance of points deduction. Outwith the wildest dreams of a 20/20 MD addled Tim, that is. The progress that has been made on this subject is protection against any such sanction; in business terms, we can show due dilligence. Secondly, and this is the tricky bit, how do we eradicate the ammunition? I'm perfectly happy to use the word ****** in regard to Celtic fans - just because they consider it sectarian doesn't mean it is so. It's the references to the Pontiff which are indefensible in a football context. Doesn't matter if every tim fetches up at the next OF game dressed as a bishop, we absolutely have to ignore it. There's no defence is law, in this day and age. And bluntly, there's no defence in morality either. Regardless of how you or I view the current Vicar of Rome, and I must say I don't regard him with a kindly eye, he's got nowt to do with us. Let them wrap themselves in the cloak of catholicism if they wish; it's a dying religion, in a world of dying religions. Concentrate on their cretinous obsession with the Emerald Isle, concentrate on their unattractive personal habits, concentrate on their aversion to basic education. There's 1001 areas where we can twist the kinife in timmy. The pope has to be one area we leave well enough alone.

Plus ca change. If you really want to, of course you can find fairly odd religious types at an Old Firm game. But why would you want to constantly target what is, and is steadily becoming, a sizeable minority? Anyone would think there was an ulterior motive!!!

Good of them to put it on in a prime time slot, too. The old 11:20PM niche, target of advertisers the world over.

You can't plan for the future if your LB is only good for half a season (and that's generous). I like Smith a lot, but his luck is dreadful.