maineflyer

I don't get too excited about the national team these days but I watched the game today anyway and thought all the Rangers players did well. In particular I thought Stephen Whittaker can take a lot of confidence from his performance.

Sorry TB but none of that alters the fact that the club allowed everyone to understand that TBB had to be banned because of specific directives from UEFA. Which simply wasn't true. UEFA even went into print stating that it was a matter for the Scottish authorities to deal with. If the club also mobilised supporters groups to help eradicate the song on the basis of SPL/SFA directives then show me those directives as well. Were SPL/SFA policies on the specific matter of TBB song presented by the club at the meeting you mention? If so, what were they and where can we see copies? As I've said above, I have no difficulty understanding why the club might have wished to pursue the outcome it did. But why base that pursuit on the policies of other organisations that I'm finding it hard to see ever actually existed. I think we can see that UEFA never actually asked the club to ban TBB and never threatened any sanctions based upon this particular song. I could be wrong but I don't recall the SPL or SFA ever making threats that if Rangers fans sang TBB they would deduct points or fine the club. If they did then I'm wrong and I'll accept it. There has been enough double-speak about this matter from the press and broadcast media, from elements within government and from our disaffected Oirish community, Rangers didn't have to be part of that too.

One thing is for sure. If we don't pursue that truth there is absolutely no hope of ever finding it.

As I've said already, I've no problem with the club taking that stance for whatever reason or principle they felt was involved. I might not agree with it but the club is perfectly entitled to hold a view and act upon it. If the club didn't feel it could allow us to continue singing TBB then all it needed to do was say so and explain why. It's not difficult or complicated. My issue is that the club did not deal with the support in an open and honest manner. Also, that those who propose to "represent" the various factions in that support could not do so either. Worse than that, when subsequently questioned on the matter, the reaction has been one of intentional cover-up or willful negligence...... sometimes known as lies. All of which shows a distinct lack of respect and a belief that the end alone justifies the means. For me, this is an ugly and unacceptable expediency. It infects and underpins the entire relationship between club and supporter and, in my own opinion, has eroded the proud principles that Rangers once stood for. It is what I have never been able to accept about David Murray and why I have long been keen to see him go.

That just about sums up my view on it. Very well put. Including The Billy Boys?

Fair enough. What are you convinced of in this matter ... and why?

That's a valid perspective. So try applying it from another direction..... There is a clear belief amongst the support that the song was banned by UEFA, that much is beyond debate. Yet there is no evidence that this is the case, despite all the time that has passed and all the requests for clear corroboration. Why then is it OK for supporters representatives to have stated that it was "plain to see" that the song had been banned by UEFA. By the nature of the beast, nothing is plain ..... or clear ..... or obvious in this matter. But in the absence of evidence to back up the established wisdom, I think it is entirely acceptable for me to challenge that position. If I am wrong then let my detractors bring on the evidence - but what I won't be accepting is the same old string of suggestions, inferences and convenient conclusions. If it is indeed plausible that UEFA did ban the song, then show me the beef. Otherwise, we all need to look elsewhere for the truth.

Shroomz, The one very clever aspect of this is that the club did not claim UEFA banned the song. They got a group of fans' representatives to do this for them. The club was extremely careful to act at arms length at all times but the effect was clear - to get the wider support to believe that UEFA had banned the song without the club actually having to make a direct claim that could not be supported under investigation. Even more cunningly, this gave the police and governmental bodies in Scotland a reasonable platform from which to attack the club on the basis of a "known" sectarian practice. Thus further consolidating the club's aims while again placing the club in the background. We, my friends, have been had. And because of our loyalty to the club, the only way to expose this nonsense would be for us to risk damaging the club in the process, something they rightly calculated we would never do.

Frankie, Of course I read the links and I very much appreciate what is suggested. However, I'd like to examine this beyond the level of suggestion and at no time do UEFA state in any of THEIR directives that the Billy Boys song is to be banned as a result of a UEFA decision. Not once, even though they have had at least two opportunities to do so. Why not? Why only skirt around the subject unless they wanted to leave the door open for someone else to take that decision? It is plain that the only decision to ban this specific song came from the club and, while the club may very well have chosen to conclude this was UEFA's wish, this does NOT justify the club claiming via its surrogates that UEFA have banned the song. It is equally clear that the club wished to attribute the banning to UEFA in order to distance itself from the decision and to lend a definitive credibility that the club itself could not provide. Now I don't particularly have a problem if that is the outcome the club wished to achieve and I'm not going to war to re-instate the song, but I'm not going to put two and two together to come up with five. All I've ever argued is that UEFA did not ban this song. No evidence has ever been produced that shows they did and, if it existed, it would surely have been easier for the club to parade it for all to see. If the club wanted to ban the Billy Boys then the club should not have hidden behind the apron of UEFA to do so. In fact, in contrast to the club's charade, UEFA even indicated that this was something that lay beyond it's particular gift. In the final analysis, this is about honesty and the unwillingness of those running the club to deal with the ordinary supporter in and open and frank manner. Those who attended the meeting may well have been used to convey the club's subterfuge and in turn either passed on what they believed to be an honest expression from UEFA, or they knowingly colluded with the club. I don't know which and I hope it was the former. What disappoints greatly is that in two years of asking this question, those who returned from that meeting never chose to seek full corroboration or to question the absence of it. The facts as I can see them are that.... 1. The Billy Boys song was banned by the club and not by UEFA. 2. The club deliberately asked fans to believe that they were acting at the specific and direct instructions of UEFA. 3. Almost certainly, elements of some supporters organisations colluded with the club in this respect, either knowingly or by neglect. 4. This was an act of gross dishonesty that has never been properly judged.

That's just it though. I see the inference but I do not see the fact. It is most definitely not specific, unless someone can show me where. Nothing posted here or elsewhere makes the specific connection between the UEFA sanction and The Billy Boys song. UEFA says "sectarian". The club says we know not what. Those attending the meeting with the club say that the club specified TBB. But where is the direct, categoric statement that UEFA ever specifically banned or even referred to TBB song? As far as I can see, it was the club alone that made the connection between UEFA's "sectarian" and this one particular song ........ and then alluded to a specific UEFA directive on TBB that was never actually made. The allusion became reality when those attending the meeting returned to report the club's directive as back-to-back with that of UEFA. Now the club may well have thought the connection was entirely valid and justifiable and I'm not saying they weren't entitled to do so. But it remains a fact, in my eyes at least, that UEFA did NOT ban TBB song as has been widely assumed and reported. The fact that the club chose the hide behind UEFA and pass the buck for banning the song really irritates me and seems typical of how the club has chosen to communicate with the fans for many years.

How much do you earn?

You're joking about the US surely. I've had a business there for a number of years and regularly travel widely in that country. I can tell you that, for all its faults and obvious diversity, I've usually found it to be a more civilised, caring and concerned society than this one. On many of the social issues you mention, the US was actually well ahead of us and hardly deserves the tabloid image so many here are keen to foster with words like greedy, arrogant and selfish. Of course you may know more than I do about it.

You could bet on it........... travel, accommodation, meals, entertaining, "sundry expenses".

Of course, get him out now! What's he ever done for us? :devil:

It couldn't be more blatant. Time to speak out Mr Johnston.

The SFA annual report is deliberately obscure about personnel costs but a wee bit of digging shows that the annual accounts filed for the year to 31 December 2008, wages and salaries come to �£5,075,854 including director emoluments. Which is a hell of a figure considering the size of the operation and the work they actually have to do - and the fact that a great deal of other personnel costs will be hidden away under cost of sales. The sheer number of people involved in the SFA council and the board of directors is staggering. And that's not including the office and other staff employed at Hampden. By comparison, the SPL wages and salaries for the same period came to only �£470,000 although much of the cost here is probably borne by the member clubs.

Do you have any idea what these people are paid? I imagine it's way more than they're worth.

I meant it was another example of the culture of governmental interference in the life of the individual in this country. You know, the "we know what's good for you" syndrome. It doesn't make much difference whether you consider that to be Britain or Scotland but the latter seems particularly reluctant to allow people or companies to seek their own direction. Personally, I could do with less authoritarian guidance and a lot more untrammelled capitalism. You have to wonder what makes Gordon Smith think he or any other football administrator is best placed to pronounce on what players should earn, or what clubs should decide to pay them. Socialist twaddle. Maybe we should advise Gordon Smith what he and George Peat are worth?

Thanks Frankie, I look forward to digesting that lot.

Hi Frankie, D'you mean a Rangers directive or a UEFA directive? I can well believe the former but I'm strugglig a bit with the latter, given that it appears not to have been reported anywhere but that meeting.

Yes, you're probably right......sorry I've been here a few times before myself. One day the truth will out.....I hope.

I mention the Trust only because I was a member and looked to that organisation for representation and information. I think it was about then that I finally realised that the RST was essentially a dud.... or at least part of it had interests at heart other than those of the membership. Nuff said. I've no doubt that a letter was produced but I've yet to meet anyone who can confirm in solid terms that it was actually from UEFA and that it left the club no choice but to endorse it. I'm not suggesting I know otherwise but it was very strange indeed that no such clear corroboration was ever forthcoming. I thought at the time some of those who attended from supporter organisations went to extraordinary lengths to convince rheir audience of the need to comply with the club's directive but were never able to confirm (at least not in answer to my questions) that is was clearly a UEFA ultimatum. For that reason, I've always been extremely suspicious of the circumstances surrounding the "banning" of TBB and I know I'm far from alone in this.

Interesting post TB. What would you say the bears actually got in return for abandoning The Billy Boys? Are you sure this was the deal because I always understood the club announced that TBB had been banned by UEFA and that they (Murray) had no option but to ask the supporters not to sing it. I didn't know the club had hung out a quid pro quo relating to addressing the anti-Rangers media - and to be frank, I've yet to see anyone at Rangers ever come out and actually take on the media bias against Rangers. In which case it wasn't really much of a deal at all. The so-called UEFA position on The Billy Boys has never been clearly and unambiguously confirmed and there remain deep suspicions that the club deliberately manipulated the situation (invented the UEFA banning) for the sole purpose of meeting Murray's personal aspiration to kill off what he perceived as a sectarian anthem. I'd love to know the truth of it all but that's a commodity in scarce supply these last few years. I felt the role of the RST via it's FF mouthpiece was particularly regretable in pushing the club's message rather than seeking proper confirmation before falling so obediently in line ...... in return for what look like empty promises.

All we ever needed was a Rangers man running the club and we certainly have one now. Unfortunately, his responsibility is to the shareholders and we all know who that is. Everything I've heard or read says that AJ is his own man however and I do expect a different approach in respect of the media. Can you imagine what it would be like to be congratulating a Rangers chairman instead of despising him? I very much look forward to it.

If Alistair Johnston came out and criticised the Scottish media, either specifically or generally, it would electrify the entire Rangers community and create a cohesion between club and supporters overnight. The reaction of the local hacks would be predictable but ultimately no Scottish newspaper can afford to be excluded from Ibrox. Well, you can always dream I suppose.