Darthter

11 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

Proper channels? You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here but there's always a get out when the SNP are concerned. Facts were asked for and supplied and now the excuses come out.

If you don't report a problem or complaint....how do you expect anything to change???

Take the thread topic for example.....Club1872 have officially reported the incident to the correct body.  Therefore, the report & incident should get dealt with properly & an outcome reached.

To many folk happy to moan about problems, but all to often can they be bothered to actually do anything about it.

7 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

You're really desperate for someone to say it, aren't you?

It's already been said, several times over.

3 hours ago, buster. said:

Fine, but from a football perspective

 

We can only pick 4 Association Trained Players......

Would you put Wallace ahead of Arfield, Jack, Halliday and Dorrans ?

 

After Barisic and Flanagan, Halliday offers cover at both LB, DCM and potentially more. SG has used him and trusts him.

 

That leaves Dorrans, he gets ahead because he offers something we are short of and if he could be available for the second half of the group, it would IMO provide a better option than LW, with three options in already for Left Back.

Is it not that we must have at least 4 association trained players???

7 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

Silly question.  Why shouldn't Scottish nationalism be viewed dimly on a Rangers forum?

Have you ever heard the songs at Ibrox?  

Why should it...Rangers are a Scottish Club - Founded in Scotland, by Scots, play in Scotland, Represent Scotland (UEFA & FIFA), and play under the Scottish FA.  WE ARE A SCOTTISH CLUB.

But again, are you confirming that SNP/Independence supporters are not welcome to support Rangers?

9 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

The fact that there are no SNP MPs, MSPs or Councillors who are Rangers fans (or are willing to admit to be Rangers fans)?

The fact that Rangers MSP never attends Ibrox or gives the club any support even though it is arguably the biggest institution within her constituency?

The fact that the SNP leader tweeted her support for Hibs fans as they were assaulting Rangers players and refused to condemn the Hibs fans and just shamefully issued a general statement days later through a spokesman.

The fact that little or no action is taken whenever SNP members/candidates/MSPs make sectarian slurs or accusations of racism about Rangers or their fans?

The fact that a SNP MSP can call the Rangers captain a "grass" and no action is taken?

 

It's inherent in the SNP. the SNP supporters on here just stick their heads in the sand.

Not a single thing mentioned suggests that the PARTY is anti-Rangers.....individuals potentially, but not the party.

Out of curiosity....how many of these incidents were formally reported through the proper channels???

28 minutes ago, BlackSocksRedTops said:

Sorry to sound like a broken record but beyond the a few misguided tweets by a few councillers, can anyone provide evidence that the SNP (the party, not individuals) have an agenda against Rangers fans or Rangers the club It's stated on here like it's a fact.

Good luck with that.  I've been asking for evidence on that very point for ages...still waiting.

10 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

Erm, you're on a Rangers forum.  

 

A more pertinent question might be, why are there Scottish nationalists on these pages?  

erm....Because we're Rangers fans.....

1 hour ago, buster. said:

Yes, it is.....just a different flag.

 

In Scotland, you have Celtic fans with Irish flags and Rangers fans with Union flags 

 

 

So why is Scottish nationalism deemed bad, yet British nationalism is good (certainly on these pages...)???

19 hours ago, cooponthewing said:

I have never met a pleasant nationalist anywhere in the world; be it Scotland or anywhere else (some of the guys on here exempt) . It’s the politics of division and separatism. Nationalism can’t be compromised or diluted, there is no relenting until their goal is achieved. Anyone in their way must be eliminated. 

Is being proud to be British/Unionist not nationalism as well???  It's exactly the same, just a different nation.

10 minutes ago, Bill said:

I think the basis of your obvious and frankly amusing frustration is your constant reduction of opinion into pedantry. This isn't a court of law or a PhD thesis. Neither are you, or anyone else, sitting as judge in these matters or entitled to demand and set standards of "evidence". Many things are substantially true without the need for evidential backing. One of them is that Rangers has long been a focus for unionism in Scotland. You don't like this being true but it's no less so for your dismissal. 

 

Here's a thought. Why don't you now assert moral superiority by claiming failure to provide your "evidence" is categoric vindication of your position? I'm sure that would make you feel less frustrated.

Talk about back peddling....

The source of my frustration is constantly being told that as a Scottish Independence & SNP supporter, I can not possibly be a Rangers fan.

YOU were the person who mentioned "decades of evidence" to support the claim that Rangers are a Unionist club.....now it would appear that Rangers have been a "focus for unionism in Scotland" - That's 2 completely different things and doesn't support the claim that Rangers ARE a unionist club.  

You are also the very person that demands evidence in plenty other threads, to support particular points....and rarely provide anything other than opinion.

I can happily provide evidence to support the claim that the Club is a Royalist supporting club....

I support Rangers, not because of Religion, and not because of politics.....but because I want to - I don't need any other reason.

1 minute ago, Bluedell said:

Yes. I couldn't name anyone on here whose political views dictate which football team they want to support.

plenty of folk have told me that I can't be a Rangers fan if I support the SNP...

13 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

So who does that?

You REALLY need to ask???

I have been told on many occasions on here that my political views are not compatible with the team that I support....

14 minutes ago, Bill said:

You can only support both Rangers and Scottish independence by re-inventing Rangers as something other than the unionist club it long has been. To do this you have to ignore decades of evidence and pretend that "your" Rangers is somehow different. In this dreamworld of fiction and invention that you can align your support for Rangers with all kinds of other shit rattling round inside your head. Luckily it doesn't affect anything in the real world.

Is that the rules then???  What a crock of shit!!!

I have asked for this before & never had an answer:

Can you please provide specific examples, given the "decades of evidence", that proves beyond any doubt, that Rangers Football Club (not the fans) are officially a Unionist club.

Obviously you will take into account the difference between a Unionist & a Royalist (where there is lot of evidence of the club being).

I await with baited breath your examples from the "decades of evidence".....shouldn't take you long.

3 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

So if procedure is followed they can't be biased? What a naive view.

If correct procedure is followed....how do you prove that personal bias was involved...

18 minutes ago, Walterbear said:

Quite a few Rangers fans I know do not belong to the SNP but they do want a looser relationship with a Westminster govt (of whatever colour) because they believe that Scotland has been let down by Labour and Tory on more serious issues than football. The SNP seems the only vehicle to get more control. The behaviour of some within the SNP needs exsmined however as it is clear the trust has gone from a large number of people in this example. 

 

I dont think for one minute Labour running Glasgow will see pro Rangers or even handed behaviour (just look at the land favours they gave Celtic) but if any politician of any colour is harming my club for reasons of bias I want them exposed. If the SNP politicise the Rangers support in Glasgow against them I suspect they will pay a heavy price. That doesn’t mean they should be seen to be bullied by Rangers but it does mean they need to respond in a far more measured way than Aitken and they need to demonstrate no bias has been applied by McDonald and Dornan in the fan zone situation.

 

What they don’t seem to understand is that the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate fairness, it’s not on us to demonstrate bias - we vote them in or out depending on our perception and nothing more. 

 

 

 

acutally...it kinda is.  It is The club, Club1872 & the supporters that are making the accusation of bias.  The councillors simply need to show that they followed procedure.

If you make an accusation against anyone, in any situation, you are required to provide the proof.

8 minutes ago, Soulsonic5791 said:

Can I ask Darthter, how do you feel when elected representatives like Brendan O'Hara and Julie McKenzie openly and flagrantly refer to Rangers supporters using the'H' word?

 

Does it make you question your political allegiance? Or do you see support for the party as merely a means to an end and reluctantly accept that there will be members with vastly differing cultural standpoints (some of which hate your kind) to yours as a necessary evil?

It does not change my political views or allegiance one little bit.  To me, the SNP are the ONLY political part that are working for the benefit of Scotland.

I have no issue with elected representatives voicing personal opinion...but they should NOT be doing it via any official Party connected accounts - and that goes for ANY political representative.  None of them should be voicing personal opinion via official accounts.

The best way to combat that is for their own constituents to complain - they are the people who hold the most power.  I have been considering for a while contacting the Party over members voicing personal opinion via party accounts, but haven't got round to collating specific examples.  There are processes in place to deal with complaints - folk should use them more.

17 minutes ago, Frankie said:

I'd agree that in general there's definitely two sides to every story and we're often quick to avoid the other side.

 

However, with regard to this story and others (such as their imbalanced behaviour on social media) then I can see why some of our fans are fed up.  The party leaders certainly don't do much to change the perception.

With regard to this story, one side is saying it was the council leaders intervention (based on bias against the club) that blocked the application.....the other side is saying that not enough was done by the club to persuade the objection to be withdrawn & that proper procedure was followed.  Which side is correct???  I would very much doubt that anyone on here will be privy to the real information.

4 minutes ago, Frankie said:

Have any of the SNP supporters on here written to their party leaders on some of the disappointing stuff we've seen linked to Rangers of late?

 

I know of a couple that have written concerning SNP members posting personal views from Official accounts.

The main problem is knowing where the truth sits in many of the stories.  Without knowing facts, it makes things VERY difficult.

15 hours ago, Little General said:

The strategy will be to use Rangers to oust SNP and replace them Labour councillors. And as you said politicians are opportunistic.The cynic in me says they are not doing it for Rangers.

That's a very risky tactic.  As JohnMc points out, local council elections are decided on pretty small margins.  What happens if the local voters start thinking that Rangers are trying to throw their weight about (politically)....you may then find that that local SNP majority goes up - especially if they are doing others things that the voters like.

11 hours ago, the gunslinger said:

Join club 1872 and dont vote snp.

Simples.

what if your already a member of both...is that not allowed??

5 minutes ago, buster. said:

Big clubs wouldn't hoover up so much of the talent at such a young age.

 

ie. they'd spend more time with the 'original' club.....As used to happen.

but how is that making the game MORE competitive???

It simply mean more youngsters staying at small clubs, receiving "small club" training & development.

How would it help our youngsters???  Those that are not quite ready for the 1st team.....we tend to send them out on loan so that they can learn the "trade".  The fact that there is no reserve league is a major hindrance in young player development IMHO.  Players get too old for the youth, but not quite ready for 1st team - what do they do???

SO, how exactly is the loan system NOT allowing the game to be more competitive????

How is it better for players to be sitting around, not getting games, not developing in any way.  EVERY player that we have either brought in on loan or sent out on loan will have learned and developed as a player....which can only be good for the game as a whole.

Just now, ranger_syntax said:

Does it make football more, or less, competitive though?

 

Perhaps in a system without loans better players would sign for clubs like us instead of being hoarded by richer clubs.

I would say it makes us more competitive...we have been able to bring in higher quality players, which has helped us into the EL group stages.

Will our loanees make the teams more competitive...I would hope so.

It allows fringe or young players to get games & improve.

10 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

Does anybody else think that the loan system is to the detriment of football in general?

 

I think that it makes things too easy for rich clubs.

 

Would football be more competitive without it?

When used correctly, it allows teams access to a level of player that they wouldn't normally be able to afford.

Think of the number of promising players that we have put out on loan....hopefully they gain regular playing experience & come back ready to play for us...