andy steel

You're a drag, man. Defo not Rangers chat so I'm off.

The polls suggest not at present, but who knows what will happen in politics? Good examples of why we shouldn't discuss politics! Infantile fantasy in both posts. The country at large is against the best supported team in Scotland, that really makes sense. On the other hand, if you're right and if the country at large is against the things you feel the need to shout about at the football, then that must include Rangers fans and might give you pause for thought - but that's expecting this kind of mindset to actually examine what it does and the effect it has on our club, which isn't going to happen. As for the second post quoted, it equates any Rangers fan who voted SNP or joined the party with Gerry Adams and his murderous crew. The poster might want to be careful who he says that to in person as I'd imagine few will take it as a compliment!

Any Rangers fan can be anything they want so long as they support Rangers. Anything else is unhealthy vanity - insisting others agree with you on this, that or the other is narcissism on a worrying level. I reckon this debate will be booted into the Lounge but fwiw in reply to some questions: Rousseau: On balance, the SNP believe Scotland benefits from membership of the EU and so wishes to remain; on balance, it believes Scotland does not benefit from membership of the UK and so wishes to leave. Given the nature of sovereignty (increasingly supranational since WW2) this is hardly a contradictory stance, merely a weighing up of options. I don't doubt that, were the administration of the UK to be altered, many SNP voters would be happy enough to remain within the UK, like those voters who wish to leave the EU but who might be persuaded by reform. It's straightforward enough as far as I can see. Alex: They don't claim to be, they claim to be mildly social democratic. Anyone can see in their policies that they are friendly to business far beyond what any socialist party could be. That may be good or bad depending on your politics, but they can hardly be blamed for not being what others say they are. Rousseau: That's maybe a textbook definition of a nation but the UK has been just about the complete opposite of that in it's lifetime, a polyglot, multi-cultural, pan-racial hotpot which defies and denies almost all the norms listed above, other than the particular area of land bit. It's been a strength of the UK that the doors have usually been open and more often than not accepting of cultural cross fertilisation but it is a sad and disappointing aspect of the current politics that the doors to people and ideas are very grudgingly open only a crack.

My head hurts already but it's Ne'erday! Happy New Year, everybody!!!

Oh for Heaven's sake, it wasn't meant to be taken as my personal opinion. Hopefully this may ease your mind a bit:

A few things in reply, dB. First, it being Hogmanay I won't be able to lay my hands on the books I'm after for a day or so but claiming the Stasi's behaviour has been blown out of proportion is, from my reading, not correct & I'll be happy to bring examples of why I believe that in days ahead. I do think, though, that you are defending the indefensible when you portray the DDR as anything less than a totalitarian state which didn't hesitate to use all methods, up to an including execution, to control its citizens. I have severe reservations about the UK as a political entity but they don't go that far, not even MI6, so your comparison is inaccurate. Second, clearly Scotland is not like East Germany under Honecker, or even the lamentable Egon Krentz - what happened to him, I wonder? However, a popular complaint amongst those who oppose the SNP is that Scotland is a one party state, and although it is plainly moronic the term 'stasi-like' is in frequent use here to describe some of their policies. Hence the mild piss take.

It's traditional at this point to take a look at the year about to end, and perhaps make some predictions for the year to come. But, in truth, the time period of a year is too short to come to any conclusions, about either the past or indeed the future. Anyone interested in history will know that while humans are fated to live like Lena Martell - one day at a time, sweet Jesus - events only make sense over the broad sweep of time - a decade, say, or more usually longer. And even then, what is clear in hindsight rarely feels like a logical, linear progression toward an outcome at the time – for example, Britain's Empire is often described as being accidental, rather than part of some great design, gradually increasing in size and power through discrete and random actions by people who knew nothing of any bigger picture and sought a purely local or temporary advantage. Nothing stands still in human affairs, though, and if we can't provide an accurate summary of why things happened over the last year we can at least look on, sometimes in wonder, sometimes in horror, at how things evolve. Take the unexpected results of the Green movement of the 1980’s. When REM’s Michael Stipe protested against Exxon, I doubt he could have predicted that in 20 years’ time it would be socially acceptable for people to wander the streets clutching little plastic bags of excrement. Yet this offshoot of the environmental movement is evident everywhere, as all types of dog owner, from those who have a mongrel on a string to the proudest pedigree purchaser, think nothing of sauntering along, gaily swinging an evil smelling poke of shite with all the elegance of a model displaying the latest Louis Vuitton handbag on the catwalk. In a subversive sub-plot to this societal change, these little collections of keech can also be found festooning trees and bushes, whence they have been slung by owners responsible enough to pick up their dog's mess, but who can't be bothered lugging it to the nearest red bin. Like an offering to an especially unsavoury pagan God, these manky tributes thankfully degrade pretty quickly in our climate, and are anyway a small price to pay for the removal of the all-pervasive poop on the pavement I remember from my youth. I'd rather (quite quickly) pass a tree bedecked with dog doo, like some malodourous negation of the Christmas tree, than tip toe through the turds on the streets, so ‘well done’ to the dog owners. For they don't really have to do it, this clearing up after Fido. I know there are fines but if you're out at half eleven on a rainy night, the chances are no-one will ever know if you leave Rover's rectal emissions lying around or not. We may live IRONY in a Stasi-like SNP one party state IRONY, but we're not so far down the road that van loads of Dog Wardens appear, all screeching tyres, tartan uniforms and accusing fingers, should you furtively slope off without getting your hands all smelly last thing at night. And in general, if people think they can get away with something, they'll probably try to. Not at the deep end of the offence pool - murder, robbery, hatching conspiracies with Manus Fullerton etc - but the everyday, simple offence, which doesn't break a law but which you know in your heart is slightly wrong, the kind of thing that would make your Mum purse her lips, cross her arms and look at you like she did when you 'had an accident' long after you were supposed to be past that sort of thing. The more boring the situation, the more the temptation must be to pep things up with what seems like a little harmless rebellion. The guy or gal who writes the info for Sky’s TV listings is a case in point - at some point, that company must have advertised for a creative writer to knock out 20 or 30 word precis of every programme which appears on the multitude of channels we are now treated to. What I imagine was fun, then diverting, for about a week would quickly assume the dimensions of a curse, with our hero doomed to repeat the same task over and over as the same programmes re-appear on channel after channel, dragged from their all too justified graves and resurrected, like so many proposals for the restructuring of Scottish football. Plainly, at some point it all got too much for Sky’s demented typist, and the urge to have a little mischief got too much. There is, high in the stratosphere of TV channels, a US import station called Information TV. Primarily existing to stream live greyhound racing of an evening, for reasons which are beyond me they fill up the rest of their allotted schedule with some religious programming, a slot for new comedy, but in the main with US 'B' movies of the 50's onwards. These are usually of such low technical quality that you can't actually hear the soundtrack, which may in most cases be a blessing. It brings back memories of guidance class as school, where 44th generation recordings of Age Concern videos would be stuck on for an hour to keep the kids diverted while the teachers got the quarter bottles out. An alarming hiss of static would build up between dialogue, and God help your eardrums if one of the struggling 'actors' involved opted for a dramatic pause. But the point is that the info guy (or gal) at Sky has found, at last, an outlet for their talent: some of them are quite excellent. Or how about this one. Apologies for the tiny size. And so on. Perhaps this societal change is already underway, up there in the silent regions of cable TV, and in 20 years we will find that slagging the TV shows normally seen as untouchable is as acceptable as waving a biodegradable bag of festering canine effluent around the place. Other, more serious, areas of life are increasingly being questioned: the recent vote to authorise airstrikes in Syria remains a matter of huge division in the country, for while most agree that ISIS are a bunch of nutters without whose prescence the world would be a better place, quite how chucking another level of armament into a mixer which already has Russian, Syrian, Turkish and American missiles whizzing around - to say nothing of, on the ground, Syrian rebels, the other Syrian rebels, the Syrian rebels from a few years ago, the Kurds, and for all I know 101 other groups - quite how this constitutes helping the situation is beyond my ken. But then, making a big song and dance isn’t always as effective as quietly going about your business. It's a little known fact that, proportionately, the country which suffered most as a voluntary participant in World Wars 1 & 2, Korea and Vietnam, was New Zealand. It's also not generally known that the country which provided most soldiers for UN peacekeeping operations (up to the end of the 20th century, at least) was Canada. Both countries proving that states can help as best they can without acting like idiots. While nothing can ever protect a country from attack by loonies, it scarcely helps to paint a giant target over your homeland while creating new generations of enemies every year, as we do all too often. Maybe a change in that attitude would be the biggest societal shift of all. Around our beloved team, questions are also being asked, . Who knows, in 20 years maybe singing certain songs which include certain words will have ceased to be an item of interest for SPFL match delegates. After over a decade moaning about the subject I've little interest left in fighting people who hold their own importance above that of our club. Last Monday’s assault on the Monkees' 'Daydream Believer' probably had more to do with festive bevvying than any great urge to bring back the old days, but even so, anyone who sang along and didn't think Rangers - not them, of course, but Rangers - would have to pay some sort of price for it is beyond stupid and into a whole new level of idiocy, drunk or not. As well as which, it's a gross insult to Neil Diamond. Graham Spiers article on the subject seems to fairly sum things up, which is a shame as it's hard to get on board with someone who has been quite so oleaginous in his relations with celtc. What's sauce for the goose and so on, so it's a bit much to accept the deserved spanking for our mistakes while more favoured groups are treated with sympathy and understanding. Stupidity at the football is stupidity at the football, end of. But essentially, he's right - the decent fans have done all they can, and to remove the people who think they are defending Rangers by harming it is going to require actual, meaningful moves by the club. Not easy, especially at this moment. But if not now, when? Farewell, then, 2015. It may be OK to enthusiastically greet friends while holding dog poo; it may be OK to go quietly mad on TV stations no-one watches; it may even one day become OK not to run round the world smashing up countries when they get a bit uppity. And Scottish football? We might have got the poo off the streets, but not yet out of football. Who knows what the future will bring. While we wait to see, Happy New Year.

Unusually for your posts this intrigued me, so I nipped back and re-read what we'd posted. #132 already explained for those who didn't get it that I was referring to the level of behaviour. I mentioned no specifics. The posts which refer to 'outside actions' and 'everything Easdale has done in the past' are yours. It is, as you say, 'an unnecessary comparison', so much relief all round that I didn't make it. I don't really know what else to say, I've explained my position two or three times and am now faced with someone criticising me for the content of their own posts. I can't imagine my opinion will affect things one way or the other and no doubt the media and celtc fans are loving this, so unless there's something desperate that someone wants to pull me up for I think I'll bail from this topic.

I think that's a better appraisal than the one I've been pushing. That seems a solid argument, for there's no question that he's been stitched up. But it seems like a big ask to ride it out.

I'd like to think there's a way out and that Chris could remain in situ for we should not forget the job he's done in saving - quite literally saving from extinction imo - the club. But this is a major bummer and as you say, in any business it would hard to ride this one out. I suppose you could argue that football is not a business like any other and that offensiveness is part of the gig - in fact I think I have argued that before - but at such a time we could really do without this.

Let's see if words of one syllable will help. This has taken me some time, so I hope you appreciate the effort. When wear-tie man say or do bad thing, man make club look bad. Big not-pay-tax man make club look bad, big daft tweet man make club look bad. Me not like when club look bad, me like it when club look good.

I'm certain you're right, and there's absolutely no doubt that Chris wouldn't do the same again, no-one sane would. But that's kind of shutting the stable door. And it was what, 11 weeks ago? Not exactly a lifetime. My main concern over this, which has got a bit lost amid the offended/free speech mire, is actually the security implications for Rangers fans. I think the reporting is a scandal, inasmuch as if the media wanted revenge (which seems obvious) they could have gone to Police Scotland to alert them they were running with it, who might have 'had a quiet word'. Blasting it out around the world's internet is so irresponsible it's just not real. But there it is, and we have to deal with it. It's just a nightmare.

Since I couldn't care less what your opinion is of me, feel free to put it how you like. For the benefit of other posters who drew the same conclusion as the one above, though, I'll explain that it is the level of behaviour which is the same, in that it shows a lack of judgement. Easdale repeatedly dragged the club into the gutter; this episode, alas, does the same. That bothers me. If it doesn't bother others, that's their business.

Well, we'll see what happens. Bit of a red line for me, though.

I'm not sure if I really want to be a part of this anymore if this is really how we think as a fan base. Stunned.

The difference is that unlike so much media mud flung at Rangers the charge appears solid. A 38 year old man thought it fine to post such an image three months ago, and the same man is now a director at Rangers. If we've fought to get rid of Easdale only to leave the bar at about the same level you have to ask, what was the point? Ah well, it was two months ago. Not sure what the Statute of Limitations is in Berlin but I'd guess that if there is one it's slightly longer than 8 weeks. I'd be astonished if the club were crass enough to countenance this.

Fair enough, I'm wrong. Tweeting such an image would not, in fact, offend any Muslims; nor is the default use of homosexuality to 'make it worse' (why not hetero sex?) likely to worry the LGBT community; Islamic extremists have no record of attacking those they perceive as having blasphemed; and our directors have no duty to behave in a manner suitable to represent our fan base. Now I understand all that I see why he's entirely suitable.

Because it will be seen, rightly, as offensive to every Muslim Rangers supporter; because it will seen, rightly, as casually derogatory to ward homosexual Rangers supporters; because it could conceivably have dire security implications for the stadium; and because it is conduct unbefitting the office. Although that last seems to have been devalued to the nth degree anyway.

There's a Jehannum of a difference between Je suis Charlie and what Chris tweeted. Man, he's 38, not 14.

Jeezo BH, this is grim reading.

Remember someone posting a year ago that replacing the software for the turnstiles would cost a mint. I think we'd be as well installing manually operated jobs and paying people a small wage and if, at some point in the future, we can go over to operator free tech, fair enough. But it would be a lot less to pay 2 or 3 dozen people twice a week than to splash out £x million on a new system.

It's probably just me but whoever edited that article doesn't seem familiar with English.

Disagree, the footprint around the club is, in places, terrible. The walk up from the tube is thru streets with rubbish usually on them (same as most of the town, in fairness), the walk down from Bellahouston past the giant police station is rarely if ever tidied so litter blown in just stays there, the walk down from PRW is on broken pavements and usually burst water pipes, while the old industrial area behind the Govan/Broomloan stands is just plain depressing. Granted we have plenty in house work before we look at the surrounding area, but it's a damning indictment of Glasgow City Council. With a generator of activity like Ibrox in the middle of quite a bit of deprivation, there should have been partnerships set up years ago to encourage investment by restauranteurs and retailers, creating real jobs (not zero hours), shops which would feed off the people who go up to Ibrox just coz it's there. If there were facilities more and more would kick about Ibrox even on non-match days, the aim would be to create a social destination rather than 'just' a stadium. This being Glasgow you'd have to employ stewards or security staff, creating more jobs (not zero hours) and cleaners (not zero hours), and delivery drivers to supply goods, and managers to run shops, and ancilliary shops to feed workers, and maybe a petrol station to provide that service, and the whole area grows and grows. This is all idealistic I know, but even this broad sketch shows how you could be paying maybe 50 people to work, rather than abandoning them to the vagaries of the market or the welfare system. Get some Keynsian economics going down Govan way!

World's most boring thread still going then...