amms

Mmm, would I rather be kicked in the balls or punched in the face?

I've only seen the fee for McGrandles reported as "up to £1 million" which suggests it'll be a much smaller fee with additions for first team matches, promotions, international call ups or sell on fee etc.

Had things been different we could have had Allan McGregor, Rhys McCabe, Jamie Ness, Greg Wylde and John Fleck in our first team just now. As it is McCabe, Ness and Fleck get to grace the English lower leagues and count their money in their spare time.

I'd be astonished if Lewis MacLoed isn't worth well over £1 million, anyone with eyes can see he's got the ability and attitude to play at a higher level than he does now.

Berliner, whoever drew that diagram thing you posted needs to get professional help. Seriously.

I'd venture that the above statements are totally wrong.

You might be right, it's hard to be exact about these things. Anecdotally most of the RCs I'm friendly with are 'No' voters, but I do know a couple of 'Yes' voters, they're both quite young though.

Statistically Inverclyde has the highest percentage of Roman Catholics of any area in Scotland (37%) then North Lanarkshire (35%) West Dunbartonshire (33%) with Glasgow City (27%) and East Renfrewshire, East Dunbartonshire and Renfrewshire on about 22% each.

At the last elections Inverclyde returned a Labour MP and a Labour MSP as well as three Labour list MSPs and two Tory ones.

North Lanarkshire has 4 MPs all are Labour, it has 2 SNP and 2 Labour MSPs with 3 Labour, 1 Tory and 3 SNP list MSPs.

West Dunbartonshire has a Labour MP and a Labour MSP with 3 Labour, 2 Tory and 2 SNP list MSPs.

Glasgow has 7 Westminster constituencies, all of who have Labour MPs, however it has 5 SNP MSPs and only 3 Labour ones. The list MSPs are a bit of everything.

East Ren and Renfrewshire are all Labour MPs and East Dunbartonshire is a Lib Dem! The MSPs are an even split between SNP and Labour.

Now when you look at where the SNP has polled strongly previously you see Angus (RC population 7%), Western Isles (12%), Moray (7%), Perth (9%) and Aberdeenshire (5%).

Not all the RCs in Inverclyde or North Lanarkshire or Glasgow voted Labour, but a fair number of them must have. A number might have switched since the last elections or might feel this isn't a party political issue.

But statistically, in Scotland, the larger the RC population the higher the vote for a unionist party.

I was speaking with a journalist at the weekend who has asked HMRC under Freedom of Information to provide details of the costs incurred of pursuing this case. They refused stating confidentiality issues (I know, ironic). He's asked again pointing out he's not asking for any individual's information, simply the costs HMRC have incurred. He'll keep asking until he gets something.

Great to see you back posting amms!

 

You're certainly right about the use of language causing confusion, especially certain definitions.

 

For example, technically speaking the 'Club' is the Club itself with it's property, history, traditions, the staff it employs.. etc.

 

On the other hand, there's perfectly good arguments for saying that the Club's supporters are an inherent part of the fabric of the Club itself too, far more so even than a building ridden with asbestos like Edmiston House or fleeting members of staff these days jumping on and off the Ibrox gravy train.

 

That's where this whole subject becomes far more complex because if you regard the supporters as an intrinsic part of the 'Club', then you might not see some of the so-called 'traditions' quite as much during 90 mins of football at Ibrox (depending on where you sit obviously!), but a quick pre or post-match visit to any good Rangers pub or club almost always paints a different picture and a large percentage of supporters buses and RSC nights will too.

 

So basically, it's the definition of the 'Club' which is very much subjective.

 

Even although the technical side of the Club is in no way responsible for songs getting played and sung in Rangers pubs & clubs or on buses & boats, there's a strong case for some of those 'traditions' being part of the Club.

Great point, but it kind of ties in with the point the person who wrote the article was making. The 'club' stands for very little now, the support stands for a multitude of things depending who you speak to and where.

I'd say the club is probably comfortable enough in its associations to Unionism but, nowadays, it's hardly a bulwark of the modern British Establishment either.

 

Yes there are some Unionist/Monarchist traditions related to the club - i.e. the Loving Cup, the Queen portrait, certain songs and Armed Forces celebrations but they're probably not known outwith our fan-base (or Scottish football at least) so perhaps not an overly vital component of the club's fabric going forward. Sure in the context of this argument they're maybe worth 'defending' (and I certainly would do so if they were questioned) but neither are they something which huge numbers of fans will find essential.

 

Nowadays, Rangers and most football clubs have to be careful when it comes to politics and other social niceties. Some aspects of this inclusive, neutral and modern outlook (or is it bland?) are agreeable but that doesn't mean we should be afraid to recognise and/or celebrate our heritage. There's a fine line there and I'd say over the last ten years or so the club have perhaps erred on the side of caution a bit too much.

Zappa makes a good point later in this thread about the definition of the 'club'. It's pertinent because it highlights the disconnect between the club and its support. I don't have a problem with the club not making overt political points and accept that taken at face value a lot of the symbolism and songs the support sing have an old-style unionist slant. I'm not sure how much of that is done out of political belief and how much done because that's what you do at a Rangers match. There's a book just out about Celtic's connection to the British army and in particular WW1. It's written by a lifelong Celtic supporter who served 25 years in the army. He admits that when home on leave he'd go to Parkhead and belt out IRA songs without really thinking about it. I've not read the book (and I'm unlikely too) but in a review I read according to him Celtic and their support were as supportive of the British army as everyone else right up to the 1960s. Apparently the Gordon Highlanders used to have recruitment drives at Celtic games and a prominent Celtic player joined up and was later killed in WW1.

Now none of us would associate supporting the British army with the Tims or with overt Unionism yet I'd venture more of their support are committed to voting 'No' in September than ours.

Celebrating our heritage angle is a funny with me because of this. I don't believe our heritage is linear, right up until the mid-80s we supplied the bulk of the Scotland national side support, we don't now. We used to promote sport as a whole, not just football, with things like the Ibrox sports, we don't now. We were once closely associated with the heavy industry of the city and in particular the shipyards, we're not now. How about Red Clydeside, social agitation, Govan was at the heart of radical left wing politics for decades, many of those involved were Rangers supporters. Should we celebrate that?

Why I think I find myself agreeing with the assertion by the person who wrote the article (I've not read!) is that currently we stand for very little accept playing football, and unimaginative football at that. Other than playing in blue I don't think anything else is sacrosanct to our 'club' currently. I think even a lot of the support are fairly apathetic about many aspects of Rangers except the team on the park.

I wish we had traditions to defend but from my perspective we don't. Some of the support project their traditions onto the club but that doesn't make them the club's traditions.

I'll almost certainly vote 'no' in September, but that's got nothing at all to do with the football team I support.

So, are Celtic a 'Unionist club'? They are closely aligned with the leading and largest 'unionist' party in Scotland after all and count senior members of that party as directors.

It's this use of language that causes a lot of these arguments and confusions. What is 'unionism' in the 21st century? Is it defending the NHS or picketing a town hall because it won't fly the union flag everyday?

The club haven't been in any way political for decades now. Whilst the flying of a Union flag over Ibrox and the portrait of the Queen in the dressing room suggest old-fashioned 'Unionism' there have been no additions to those 'traditions' that I'm aware of for a long time now. If the club truly was a 'Unionist' one surely it would have spoken out about the upcoming referendum by now?

I've also not read the book or chapter in question but to state that short of playing in blue at Ibrox the club don't have any traditions anymore isn't too wide of the mark.

Terrible news, just terrible. Fine words Frankie, not easy to write I imagine.

You know, reading some of the posts on here, we've actually got the club we deserve. It's no wonder we're in the state we're in.

I look forward to the day we appoint a manager who is a cross between Warren Buffet and Carlo Ancelotti whilst also a qualified financial advisor.

Aye, enjoy the close season, time for a break me thinks.

One of my fellow German Bears just noted that both Hibs and Hearts had pre-season friendlies with one of my local teams, Union Berlin these past few seasons. At the start of last season, that other team from Glasgow was also here playing a friendly. Maybe Union's curse will strike again ...

Are Germany and Scotland the only countries in Europe without a side from their capital city in their top flight football league?

Whilst enjoying Hibs implosion enormously they are probably favourites for the title next season. Butcher will have his own players then and has previous experience of getting a relegated side promoted, a new CEO he's worked successfully with before and they are relatively solvent too. Who knows what state Hearts and us will be in come August.

Still, very funny just now though.

Amms

 

Sometimes the naked truth isn't palatable, nor do some people want to see beyond what has become a 'birthday suit'.

McCoist, like everyone else, isn't above criticism, no Rangers manager ever should be. In my opinion he's done so much for us over so long that he at the very least always deserves our respect though. I guess what I'm saying is posters should play the ball not the man.

There's a thread on here where a bluenose is trying to bring fans together so they can agree about how they speak about and to each other, it's a sad but admirable post. I wonder if that same thought might be extended to one of our greatest ever players, certainly our best known, most popular and most successful of the modern era.

A man who almost singlehandedly held our club together as we entered our lowest ebb, who was the only person speaking to players, coaches and administrative staff alike, who spent more time dealing with accountants, lawyers and media than footballers during that period.

A man who even today remains for many of us the only recognisable connection to the Rangers we grew up with and fell in love with. A beacon of light in the darkness of hedge funds, corporate raiders, vicious media and crooked game administrators. A lifelong supporter, a superb goal scorer for club and country, a man who always made time for supporters and is arguably the club's greatest ever ambassador.

A man who despite some obvious deficiencies has managed to steer us to two straight promotions and the brink of a return to the top flight. A man who if he ever did 'walk away' might open us up to God knows who in our managers seat; certainly someone cheap, director pliable and without any currency with the support.

So perhaps those posters who seem unable to discuss any topic on here without directing vitriol at Ally McCoist might like to step back from the hate-filled posts that are becoming ever more noticeable on here and reflect on the language they use when discussing our manager.

Congratulations to the new Mrs McCoist, you have married not only a warm, personable and charismatic man but also a man who Rangers history will mention in the same breath as William Struth, Moses and Peter McNeil, Tom Vallance, Peter Campbell, William McBeath, Willie Woodburn, George Young and Willie Waddell. A true legend, a man who has done as much on the park as anyone in our history and more off it than anyone ever before him. And his story is still not finished.

Think about that please the next time you feel like posting about how much you are sick of seeing his face or when you question if he has our best interests at heart.

Seriously, Celtic fans wouldn't speak about him the way some us do. It shames you, it shames all of us.

The middle-class has always been there, and I'm sure that there has always been a level of disdain shown to those who don't quite 'measure up'.

 

The bigger problem to me seems to lie with the social climbers who like to hide their true roots behind a veil of respectability. The Hyacinth Bucket effect, I suppose. This, coupled with a political elite who are hell-bent on seeing multiculturalism and political correctness foisted upon everyone, leads to a situation where, yes, there will be some who hide their allegiances for fear of being shunned for a Sunday fourball with the club captain, but to achieve that multilayered, multi-opinioned entity that you crave, there will inevitably be casualties along the way.

 

There will also be others, myself included, who yearn for the days when the game was a bit rough around the edges and where passion frequently boiled over for a couple of hours each week. Give me that over the soulless stadium filled with the 2.4 family bedecked in matching bench coats and their six quid gourmet burgers.

 

The socio-political make up of a football crowd has naturally evolved through time and will continue to do so. Engineering it to go a certain way will never work as it will always alienate someone.

That's a bizarre reply. It's nothing to do with being shunned for a sunday fourball and everything to do with not been seen as a bigoted, one-eyed, ranting dinosaur with no grasp of modern Scotland. Still, as the club becomes ever more isolated and friendless you can comfort yourself with the knowledge that you're still getting your 90 minutes of rough once a week.

There's an interesting parallel with Espanyol at play here, or Queens Park. Football is littered with sides who used to be important but didn't move with the times.

Isn't it the case that a lot of the "middle class" (for want of a better expression) who might otherwise support Rangers, tend to be more interested in rugby than football?

That's a generalisation, it's perfectly possible to be interested in both, plus golf.

I made the point once that pretty much every boy in St Aloyious (prominent RC private school in Glasgow) is perfectly comfortable declaring openly an affiliation with Celtic, however if you take say Glasgow High, a comparative non-denominational school, the same cannot be said about Rangers. Those kids come from the same social 'class', the same geographic area, their parents have the same jobs and the preferred sport at both schools is rugby.

In my experience this isn't just a private school thing, plenty of kids at non-denominational schools are shunning Rangers for 'social' reasons now.

I broadly agree with this. I know it's a sensitive issue, but I suspect that Rangers is losing the middle class, and yes, I am aware that there is no definition of middle class which will satisfy everyone, but I'm sure you and others know what I mean.

 

I see Rangers as the most proletariat fanbase in the country, not quite devoid of top professionals and business types, but with a very small number of them given the size of our support. I know terms like 'proletariat' can provoke and annoy, but they help to make the point and hopefully make people think about the issue.

 

Celtic fans don't seem to give up on Celtic when they flourish in society. Indeed some Celtic fans become more Celtic-inclined as they mature and become financially and professionally successful. In my experience, Rangers fans sometimes grow out of the club they once loved when their careers advance.

 

The reputation of Rangers is at an all-time low, and it will not easily recover - especially if the brightest in our community have either given up on the club or are content to keep it at a safe distance.

I agree entirely with this. I made a similar point on here a while ago and got slaughtered for using the term 'middle class' and bemoaning the fact we're struggling to find support there. There was an excellent piece in the Rangers Standard a couple of years back by an ex-editor of the Herald (I think) who made this very point.

Your final sentence is absolutely spot on, it's the biggest issue facing the club long term, assuming we actually have a long term.

Isn't it sad someone needs to suggest we adopt a code of conduct in how we speak to each other. When you actually say that out loud it's an astonishing state of affairs.

Good luck to the OP, civility and respect don't sound like impossible goals.

Mmm, so I guess Scott Gemmill isn't what we need at Rangers after all. Next!

Without us Auchenhowie is worth very little. You can't buy it and build houses it has very strict planning consent. You aren't going to find another football club to take it on, you might be able to turn it into a David Lloyd club or similar but that's about it. It's not worth that much as anything but a professional football club's training facility. Anyone buying it will want us along with it.

Blue Heaven went out in 2003, don't that make you feel old!

With every passing day I become less and less confident about our future. I read an article yesterday about Portsmouth, how hard and how often they had to fall before they rid themselves of the people ruining them is a sobering tale.

Anyone who has made even a basic study of football in the UK since the turn of the century can only see one conclusion for us. We're owned by hedge funds people, wake up. We are in grave danger of becoming a footnote in history, seriously, I'm of the opinion now there is no way back for us, we'll limp along for a while yet but that's only going to increase the pain and prolong the agony. Death, I'm afraid, is inevitable now.

The ones that make the most noise online will either be too scrawny or too slow to worry about anyway.

 

As an indication of what we're dealing with, one of them started listing Rangers "enemies" in separate txts, among whom he included Imran Khan......

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pakistan's one day kit is green, perhaps he misunderstood why!

Have you not got an indie parade to attend?

See i've got this impression of people walking down a street to music from the Soup Dragons and Half Man Half Biscuit now. Got to say I'd be up for that.

The person who didn't give him a chance is to blame.

 

No wonder he is leaving, anyone with any sense would do the same in those circumstances.

How do you know what conversations were had, what stage he's at in development, who is coming up behind him who might be an even better prospect, what his attitude is like around the club? With respect you're default position of McCoist is to blame might not be the case here, it suits you to blame him without any evidence that it's the case.

No I don't and I'm one of the very few who do think that way it seems. They did what they saw fit to do for themselves....they weren't fans, they were employees under contract and when that contract became worthless they were entitled to walk away. Rather than point fingers at them, I'd be happier looking at the reasons behind the situation getting to that point at all.

 

In regards Telfer, it's a whole different set of circumstances but the basic premise remains... if the conditions and prospects for staying at Rangers were there he wouldn't need to consider signing for another club.

Hah, I'm one who thinks that way too, I thought I was the only one!

Telfer leaving might be symptomatic of the problems around the club, it might be the impetuousness of youth or it might be all parties feel it's the right thing to do. In the end it seems clear to everyone that Rangers need to reduce their wage bill so anyone, no matter how promising, might be allowed to leave for that pragmatic reason alone.

I can't bring myself to criticise the kid Frankie, he's only doing what's best for him and his career and that's the worrying part. If it's better for a young player to leave Rangers for a club in a higher league in order to get game time then there's a problem. If, as Efideldo is accurate, "broken promises, opportunity and the type of football he was expected to play" are the reasons then our football coaching has failed.

Do you think Naismith, McGregor, Whittaker etc deserve criticism for only doing what's best for them and their career?