Tannochsidebear

Get it pinned up on the wall at Auchenhowie all week long.

But that would be our fault PTB, as they fell out when he was Rangers doctor. 100% us to blame, we should be disbanded and all our titles given to Ra Shellic as compensation. (Note to Spiers; dont go copying that!)

Of course we can keep him, but that will depend on the following 3 factors; 1. None of the really big EPL clubs come in for him. Other EPL clubs could easily meet our valuation, but I am confident McGregor will only want to move to a biggy. 2. We can offer him terms that he is happy with. He will know he can earn more elsewhere, but if he earns a good wage with us, added to the good factors about staying with us, we can be fairly confident about retaining him. 3. He can stay where he is, close to his family, and continue to win things and become a Rangers legend. If he continues to mature with experience, he could, I repeat "could" get his reputation up there with The Goalie. He will see how highly Goram is regarded by bears, over a decade after his last game for the club, and this type of life-long admiration can be a good earner for these guys (not that they should need it) with functions, books etc as a Rangers legend.

I'd agree with that. I thought somewhere around 45,000 and was pleasantly surprised at how few empty seats there were at the game, given the overpriced nature of the tickets.

As a RSC we ordered the total number of tickets for our clubs members that wanted to go to Tannadice, 66, and that is the number of tickets we got. What the Sheriff was saying was that RSC's and by definition any Supporters Club, have no legal identity to sue as a collective as they are an unincorporated body that merely act as ticket agency's for individual supporters. This has been argued against to 3 different Sheriffs on 4 different occassions, and we won the argument every time, including to the Sheriff who ultimately ruled against us at the start of the 2-day hearing. Why he then went back on his original ruling when it came to putting it into writing at the end of the hearing is anyone's guess.

Link to statement: http://www.nithsdaleloyal.com/ Needless to say we are absolutely gutted at the ridiculous verdict, but would like to thank all Bears out there who have supported us on these boards since we started our fight for justice about 11 months ago.

It would be interesting to hear a bit more about this, and what UB are referring to when talking about "poisonous bias and actions against our club and support" I knew the Germans had safe standing areas, but wasnt aware of any upcoming campaign on Oct 30. Any more info would be appreciated.

Didnt realise Number Eight caused so much resentment. Dont know the guy or can remember much of what he posts/writes, just thought that was a decent piece and thought I would share it with Gersnet. I also like the Jan Fable article, but that was posted up later, after I had posted this one.

Pray tell why?

Got a PM from one of the VB guys over on RM as someone had told him about this. He explained the situation re Newsnow and I understand it now. As the info was sent to me by PM, i'll respect the privacy nature of it.

I dont think he regrets leaving us at all, given both he and his close family are all Tims, they would rather not play at all (while earning good dosh) than play for us. Boy did well when asked to play for us and earned his move, I just cant see him being the slightest bit regretful at this time, or in the future.

Number Eight on FF has published this article which I enjoyed and thought the good people of GN would also enjoy. Why do you support Rangers? Why do you commit a significant amount of cash, time and energy to following one football club over all the rest? Be frank; lay it on the line, tell it like it is, don't duck the truth; the real truth, the unadulterated truth, the reason you follow the team in blue and not the club in green and white. This should rank amongst the easiest questions you will ever be asked. Why do you follow the team you do? Some will proudly boast that Rangers is their local team and that their allegiance is therefore natural and legitimate. Can we assume then that those same people would follow Celtic if their home turf was near to that unfortunate edifice on London Road? Somehow, I don't think so. Others will claim a fatherly or even grandfatherly influence rather than spell out the detail of why they attend Ibrox and not Parkhead. If a father or grandad followed Rangers due to religious tribalism, and if a son or grandson is inclined to stand behind the same line, perhaps they should have the good grace to admit the role of religious identity in delivering them to where they are now. If people follow Rangers for "football reasons", what could they possibly be? If it's because Rangers play in a certain way, will these supporters walk away when the team plays in a different way? Again, I don't think so. Rangers FC was chosen by Protestant people to be their preferred football club, and they warmed to It because they were at ease and at home amongst their own. They might have had friends, colleagues and family members who were Catholic, but they could never have settled into the Catholic environment that has long lingered at Celtic. All across the world Rangers and Celtic are defined as being the flagbearers of two groups in Scottish society; Protestants and Catholics, and yet amongst supporters of both clubs, there's a pretence that religion has no bearing on whether a person opts for blue or green. Some people see Rangers as a unionist club, but the Rangers support is no more unionist than a Celtic support which staunchly backs a leading unionist party: the Labour Party. Indeed the unionist vote may be more widespread amongst the Celtic support than it is amongst the Ibrox legions who cast their vote significantly less "en bloc" than their rivals. There can be no denying that society has changed and that active religious allegiance is on the wane in Scotland, but the loyalty to a once-strong family faith doesn't easily get left behind. Our religious heritage still defines us even although many think that a new-age atheism is the enlightened place to be. The enmities of the past are enmities still today as historical tribal allegiances live on despite the growing abandonment of regular worship and Christian belief. Our Protestant and Catholic backgrounds are still as important in defining us - and separating us - as they were when supporters were more inclined to visit Church and Chapel. Celtic has tried to re-invent itself as part of the Irish family, but this Scottish club is waving the Irish banner to mask its one true faith: Catholicism. Rangers waxes on about being open to all, which it is, but is still reluctant to associate itself with the Protestant tribalism which swept the club along at the top of the Scottish game for decades - and still does today. If ever a football club had a Catholic ethos, that club was Celtic, and if ever a club was the standard-bearer for its surrounding Protestant community, that club was Rangers. Irishness, unionism, monarchy, republicanism, Conservatism and Labour are all strands that play a part in making up the identities of fans of Rangers and Celtic, but they pale into insignificance next to an evolving constituency based on religious tribalism. It is a corruption in society that intimidates people into thinking that a free country can't have football clubs whose fans have made a choice based on their faith and the faith of their fathers. If there's bigotry afoot, it comes chiefly from politically correct zealots who have attempted to create a climate where any deviation from the official party line is a dissent that should be crushed. Even when faith is replaced by atheism, football allegiance in Glasgow is still mostly determined by which Christian sect is, or was, most prominent in the lives and backgrounds of Rangers and Celtic fans. Surely only a bigot would have a problem with that?

You've missed my point totally MF. I genuinely haven't a clue (I did say that at the end) but find it hard to believe that they got banned from an independant news organisation for accurate articles, no matter how much Timmy didnt like it. So therefore I am guessing that there must have been either unsubstantiated comments passed off as facts, or language used that could be sectarian or offensive enough for Newsnow to uphold complaints from MOPE's. I was wondering if you knew which way it fell and as you post on VB, I thought you would know. BTW, my bit on legally offensive language is trying to just say offensive, but they chunts find everything offensive, so in order for a complaint to be upheld, I was assuming it would have to be clearly defined as offensive, legally. (Not sure this is any better as an explanation but hope you can get the jist of what I am trying to say)

I agree that in their quest to be autonomous they have not made any ground in 7 years, and that they do follow the official club line on almost everything. There are, like the other organisations, very good Bears at the heart of it on the board, but that underneath the few active guys there is very little going on. As far as representing ALL Rangers fans, while I can agree that there is no actual representative for ST holders as a group, I would guess a large number of ST holders are covered already through RSC's. It would be interesting to see if they have figures for how many of our ST holders are RSC members. There could also be a number of ST holders who are members of the RST, and therefore represented at RSA board level through the RST representatives on the RSA board. Until we see the numbers, we have no idea how many ST holders are not covered by the RSA, it could be significant, it could be minor, it doesnt mean however that they should be ignored either way i'll agree but I am sure whatever number you get to, the majority of them will be of the non-interested category (i'll obviously exclude yourself and Frankie from that list BD!!)

So you are telling us that VB got banned from Newsnow for telling the truth, and the truth alone? If there were no inaccuracies or legally offensive language how can they possibly get banned, even by MOPE's? Is Newsnow not an independant and respected news site? (I genuinely dont know as I dont go on newsnow or VB)

A good article, almost as good as the similar one posted on the FF front page.

More physical as in the players need to be fitter, the game is faster and more physically demanding than the good old days. Not physical as in when tackling was allowed and if someone kicked you, you got up right away to show you weren't hurt and stared at the guy that done it in a "i'll get you back" type way.

I didnt think I had much of one anyway MF, but thanks for your help anyway

Yes he had a poor game yesterday, but show me any winger (apart from Godrup) that has a level of consistency where they continually have MOTM performances, beat the defender with ease every time and set up goals every week. It just doesnt happen every week for that type of player, but as long as you are getting far more good performances than bad ones, you should be able to accept that for what it is. Add in that the boy is only 20 and youthful players are also famously inconsistent as they learn their trade. I was told yesterday that Walter is working him hard on the defensive side of his game, and it is this lack of awareness that has cost him a CL start to date, as we set up as a defensive unit first and need everyone to be aware of their defensive responsibilities. Rather than moan about it, the lad is trying to learn fast in training, and is keen to learn, which is good news. I also heard he is loving it here, and is not ruling out a permanent move, although I fail to see how we could afford a package for him, it is nonetheless positive news.

Unfortunately, the real world is very alien to these pampered prima donnas, and I have no doubt they actually buy into this "too many games, too tired, fixture pile-up" nonsense that the papers produce in spades every year. Not helped by managers who keep banging on about "long hard season" and "need to keep players fresh" and "a squad game now". Yes the game is more physical and much faster than it was in bygone days of yore, but (its on the 12th.....sorry, got sidetracked there!) but I cant buy for one minute that a game where the one sub named was only used in case of injury, and not a wee kick on the leg injury, but a broken bone or torn muscle injury, just 40 years ago, could have changed to one where, like in the last 2 games, I am screaming for the manager to make changes because some of our players, having played less than a dozen games since a 3 month break, are looking "tired".

FFS, agreeing with MF shocker :spl: Exactly my POV on this subject, I dont need to add anything.

I have found over the last few years that the games AFTER the European games are when the players feel it the most, the performances tend to suffer, and points dropped. It is also stating the obvious that away games in our league are still difficult fixtures, whilst home fixtures tend to be easier won. Just my opinion mind, but going to watch the team live every single week, and closely monitoring this over the last few years is where I get my opinion from. With that in mind, of course it would be some small concession if we were allowed to move our games to saturday lunchtime (Friday night anyone?), before Euro games, and Sunday afternoon after Euro games. Wether these games are at home or away is a separate matter, but one I would have no argument with if it was at the very least balanced equally, 3 and 3.

It was aimed at the powers that be at the SPL/SFA, not us who can see through their pathetic attempts to portray neutrality.

The perfect response to the ridiculous arrangement of the fixtures that can see us having back to back difficult away games, with a CL match sandwiched in between, was to go out and win the lot, which we have done. Bring it on SPL, bring it on:box: Still to come in our totally impartial and luck of the draw fixture list are the following fixtures after big CL matches After Valencia at home we play the Tims away After Valencia away we play St Mirren away After Man United at home we play Dundee Utd away After Bursaspor away we play Inverness away Of course our fixtures mirror the tims fixtures, and so therefore if they had qualified for the CL (no laughing at the back) or even the Europa (I said no laughing) they would have had home games to come back to after their Euro games every time from here on. Now while Timmy, Motherwell, United and Hibs all had the Euro campaigns as pre-season games, only one team had definate fixtures planned for the autumn, so surely it would be simple enough for the super-duper SPL mega-computer to work out a fairer call for our representative. I would have been happy with 3 home and 3 away, I dont want special favours from anyone, just a fair and equal playing field, and our talent and desire will do the rest. But please drop all the nonsense that the SPL/SFA want our clubs to do well in Europe, as everything they could do in 2008 to disrupt our campaign was done, and it looks like the same again this season.

The bold bit is the bit that caught my eye over the rest. How many is several?