Darthter
-
Posts
5,245 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Darthter
-
-
On 03/11/2018 at 12:03, the gunslinger said:
After whats happened to us over the last 7 years this is just about the stupidest thing ever posted on the internet.
Bill has a wonderful talent for posting stuff like that....he excels at it
0 -
Not knowing the legal ins & outs....I would assume that we may be made to stump up some kind of compensation to SD & the deal is effectively declared null & void as a result. Everyone moves forward.
If that is the case, could it have been a "calculated risk" from RFC??? in that the compensation may prove to be less that lost revenue as a result of a SD deal.
4 -
Sources have finally managed to get hold of the "dick" pick that Lafferty actually sent....
4 -
On 29/09/2018 at 19:00, BEARGER said:
This now gives the following;
Shareholder No of Ordinary Shares held % of issued share capital
New Oasis Asset Limited 21,068,594 14.57%
Club 1872 Shares CIC 13,372,254 9.50%
George Alexander Taylor 13,445,768 9.30%
Borita Investments Limited 11,132,500 7.70%
Douglas Park 8,875,094 6.14%
Barry Scott 8,645,000 5.98%
New Trace Limited 7,500,000 5.19%
George Letham 5,856,701 4.05%
John Bennett 5,300,000 3.66%surely those numbers can't be right???
Been a while since I did maths @ school, but I'm sure those number are wrong - how can C1872 have less shares than G Taylor, but a higher percentage???
0 -
1 hour ago, DMAA said:
Not really, we've loaned out Rudden and Hardie.
I'm sure in an emergency, one of them could be recalled....
0 -
23 minutes ago, Bill said:
It’s all about grievance and any old grievance will do for a separatist. When there isn’t any, they make it up. They don’t care.
says the guy complaining about an SNP publicity event....??
0 -
1 minute ago, RANGERRAB said:
Any Rangers supporter who votes SNP should ask themselves some serious questions. These people are our enemy. They detest us & don’t hide it.
As I have said...I will not be picking my political allegiances based on my favoured football team & vice versa.
I will also not allow ANYONE to try & tell me otherwise.
0 -
Ryan Jack is out - calf issue
Hopefully Grezda will get some game time late on.
1 -
29 minutes ago, Walterbear said:
I didn’t express myself well gonzo. All I meant is I suspect the club were founded purely for football and sports reasons so people are entitled to support them for those reasons.
They are also entitled to support Rangers because they were born close to the ground, because they like blue, because Ibrox was the first ground they visited, because their dad or big brother supported Rangers and for all sorts of non political reasons. They are also entitled to support Rangers because they can express political identity amongst many like minded people and watch their favourite sport at the same time.
No one group or person who supports Rangers owns the identity of Rangers (obvious copyright issues excepted).
Going back to your question unless someone can point out that the club was set up as an exclusive club for a particular theme other than sport then all are welcome imo. Because a significant number choose to take the club identity in one direction doesn’t invalidate the support of those who support Rangers for their own personal reasons and who may have different politics. They may think it makes those folk less of a supporter but I would challenge that for the reasons given.
If the 4 lads had specified Rangers can only exist in a specific political or idealogical context then that would have been the single biggest threat to the existence of the club as politics, identity and ideologies change through time.
The reason I referred to the founders rationale is its clear some who support Rangers on here and have leanings towards independence feel as if they are being valued as less than Rangers fans. If I have picked that up wrong apologies.
Good post....
Regarding your point at the end....it's not the Independence supporters that feel we are being valued as lesser Rangers fans - we are being told that we are. Where as, we know we're not.
I come onto this forum to talk about Rangers....not religion or politics - there's other places I can go for that. However I will defend my thoughts, personal beliefs & my right to support whatever football team I wish. I really couldn't care what anyone else's political or religious thoughts are, but don't bring them into the football world - somethings are just not compatible.
The more footballing folk want to get involved in politics & religion, the more division there will be - across the board, not just within Rangers.
As a support, I am getting a distinct impression that we are getting extremely paranoid & convinced that EVERYONE is against us. For example:
- BBC
- SFA
- SPFL
- Scottish Govt
- SNP (at all levels)
- Police Scotland
- HMRC
- Ibrox & Cessnock Community Council
- Glasgow City Council
- All teams within the SPFL & many out with
- All Referees
- Tartan Army
- Scottish Print media
- Scottish TV media
- Scottish Radio media
I'm sure I've missed several off the list....but it's a pretty long list!!!!
0 -
From a recent PanelBase opinion poll....a example of the Independence "split" within Rangers supporters...not a lot in it.
1 -
12 hours ago, MacK1950 said:
From what I can gather it started on the cancellation of a proposed fan zone at Ibrox by the actions of Glasgow Councilors
The cancellation was actually due to the objection by the Local Community Council.....
0 -
1 minute ago, pete said:
i am afraid I can't take people who cover their faces serious. Different in a dictator land but not in Britain.
....but these are good Unionist Rangers fans - seemingly the best kind!!!! They are soooo Unionist that they include it in their name.
0 -
6 minutes ago, buster. said:
You can have 25 Association trained players (locally trained) but you'd lose 4 slots and be limited to a 21 man squad.
There is a link to the rules a few posts back.
yes...coz at least 4 HAVE to club trained. You could have 25 club trained.
So, surely Wallace could still have been included, as he will satisfy both Club & association trained requirement.
0 -
2 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:
People who want to go on walks in order to express themselves should probably do a bit of soul searching.
So these fans should do a bit of soul searching???
As should these guys...
0 -
Just now, Gonzo79 said:
People who want to go on walks in order to express themselves should probably do a bit of soul searching.
I wouldn't ban them, personally but won't lose much sleep if someone else does.
Do you think Independence marches should be banned???
0 -
Just now, Gonzo79 said:
I do.
and I'm sure you believe that the Queen actively follows Rangers.
What's you take on the HMRC pursuit of Rangers??? Surely there is open bias there, and since HMRC report to the UK govt, then that must show that the UK Govt is Anti-Rangers as well.....
0 -
Just now, Gonzo79 said:
Don't go on divisive marches if you don't want to annoy people, is my advice.
So the same logic will obviously apply to Orange walks as well then???
2 -
1 hour ago, buster. said:
No
You must have 8 Locally Trained players (ATP and CTP)
That includes a maximum of 4 Association Trained players
Hence if you only have 1 Club Trained player, you lose 3 slots in the squad.....As per us with only McGregor.
What if your squad is all Locally trained???
Hence the squad must have at least 8 locally trained....if you don't have the required 8, then you lose player spots.. You won't get penalised if you register more than 8 home grown/locally trained players
0 -
18 minutes ago, Bluedell said:
What about some example to prove that they aren't anti-Rangers?
I was actually about to pose a similar question....
What other parties (not individuals) openly back or support Rangers or at the very least not Anti-Rangers??
I don't believe, as a party, they are anti or pro ANY football team. I honestly don't think they give two hoots.
1 -
3 minutes ago, Bluedell said:
I'd expect any organisation to take action against members who make bigoted comments publicly that are reported in the press. I wouldn't expect them to wait for an official complaint but would expect pro-active action to be taken. I'd also expect them to publicly discourage others from taking the same action.
As for these numerous complaints, perhaps you can prove that there were no complaints by official channels and that it wasn't the case of these many examples being swept under the table.
I have no idea if there was or not....you'd need to ask the Party
0 -
or the alternative....
0 -
Yeah...looks very depressing
0 -
4 minutes ago, Bill said:
What a dour, humourless existence it must be in the ScotNat world. But I think you've made that abundantly clear to everyone.
You'd fit right in then...if that was the case. but unfortunately it's not....
0 -
1 minute ago, Bill said:
But but but ... where's your "evidence"? Show me where in the official SNP constitution it says you're not allowed to stick your head in the sand - and if you can't you're a unionist bigot.
Not a single person or comment has claimed that...your simply making (more) things up now. However, I'm sure you will claim otherwise.
Still waiting on your "decades of evidence" (your words, not mine) with regard Rangers Football club being a Unionist institution......
0
Yet another attack by the Anti-Rangers Party (SNP)
in Rangers Chat
Posted
A very interesting & rather worrying view point.....So you actually endorse SNP supporting Rangers fans being attacked???? by whom...other Rangers fans???