The Real PapaBear
-
Posts
2,366 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by The Real PapaBear
-
Tom English On The Requisitioners V The Current Board
The Real PapaBear replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
you don't know what "that" is because you don't know what the question was, to which MccCoist gave the answer. You are simply taking at face value what the article is telling you to believe. -
-
An(other) excellent piece, amms. In principle I agree with every word you've written, (except for the bit about the national team being a joke) but neither you nor Andy have addressed the core issue; namely, we can be as willing and as ready to 'make peace' as we want to be, but if the other side is still shooting at us, what is the point in trying? First of all they have to recognise that there is a problem and that we are actually as sinned against as we are sinners, then they have to recognise their culpability in that problem, then they have to make amends. Until such time as they are willing to join us at the negotiating table, we should try to make life as difficult as possible for all of those clubs, individuals and organisations who have shown themselves to be, to quote the title of the thread, enemies. Bringing a state of conflict to an end is, as you both say, not only desirable, it is essential. In any conflict where one of the sides is not wiped out there has to be bitter compromise; that's accepted. However, so far They refuse to accept any narrative other that the Huns did wrong/cheated/stole/swindled and until such time as they do accept their own wrongdoing it is unrealistic to expect us to swallow our pride and pretend nothing has happened. To quote someone from these parts, "Even on our knees we're still taller than them". We can all take a period of beingon our knees whilst we recover our strength, but asking us to get onto our belly is a step too far.
-
having read the piece for a second time Andy, I have to say that although I enjoyed it even more at the second time of reading, a couple of things strike me as worth questioning. 1) You mention the wonderfully named lyotard but fail to pay homage to the just as splendidly named "Foucault" How can this be? If ever a name was ripe for the mocking….yet you let it go? 2) The Nazis , although they did have their faults, did not tolerate shoddy PR. They certainly didn't suffer from the same bad press that we do. We have been unfairly mistreated and maligned whilst they, and I don't want to be harsh, but they got no more than they deserved. 3) I agree entirely with the assertion that "understanding can only occur when there is a 'fusion of horizons'", however I disagree with the conclusion that you draw from that, which seems to be that it is we who should make the first moves of rapprochement towards the rest of Scottish football, henceforth referred to as They. They, as far as I can see, have made not the slightest acknowledgement of the kangaroo court justice and downright illegality that was imposed upon us; They have not the slightest awareness that they have done anything wrong at all, whereas they are happy to hold our club accountable for the actions of the criminal who was in charge of us for a few months. A position he was allowed to adopt due to their inability to follow their own rules amongst other things. I can't help but agree with d'Art when he calls for restorative justice, (although a Truth and Reconciliation Committee may be more what we need) and your reply to him kinda glosses over the fact they They have shown no inclination to accept any wrongdoing on their part. How can we, in those circumstances, even begin to talk to them? Until such time as They accept the wrongs that were done to us, there can never be any settlement, resolution or moving on. Agree almost entirely with the rest of what you wrote, though - and the tale of nazi Germany shows what can happen when a proud people feel they have been wronged. I'm not suggesting we're about to invade Poland (which would be pretty pointless since most of Poland is over here now, anyway) but unless a perceived wrong is properly addressed then no good can come of it. Peace at any price is not an option. Better to give up following football altogether.
-
Q.E.D - "appears to be"
-
but the thing is, we don't know what the question was to which he replied, “That would be committing suicide, to be honest with you,” What is "that"? McCoist is in an impossible situation; he can't back the present board because he almost certainly wants the others to win; he can't back the others because he is an employee of the present board.
-
Another outstanding piece of writing. Utterly outstanding. I may pick up on a few things after I get back from work, but for the time being I shall merely observe that your somewhat rosy view of the German language is almost certainly the result of never having studied it. I highly recommend Mark Twain's views on the subject: http://german.about.com/library/blmtwain01.htm
-
As usual, what the headline says he siad, and what he actually did say are two totally different things.
-
Quite so. These people are only interested in one thing. Making money quickly - and I stress the second part of that. They are not interested in making money slowly; they are not interested in a solid, stable and profitable future; they only want to make a fast buck and then slither off to find their next victim. If Laxey and their allies get control of the club, the past couple of years may turn out to be regarded as the good old days.
-
From the website of Celtic Property Developments on whose boards messers Kingsnorth and Pegge sit: "The Company’s activity consists in purchase of lands, on which it constructs apartments or offices, and in purchase of existing real properties with a potential for creation of additional value by change of their intended usage, increase of their standard or optimisation of their area."
-
can't help thinking we're missing a trick here. There's an obvious symbiosis between two of society's most discriminated-against; Rangers fans and the Lesbian and Gay Community -a whole social segment just waiting to be taken into the Rangers family. I mean, the case for a closer relationship is undeniable: Both groups, Bears and Gays, have to fight for the same fairness of treatment readily available to other groups. Members of both groups hold colourful, noisy, in-yer-face parades through the city centre, to the tutting disapproval of Buchanan Street shoppers. Gays are well represented in the media world, and so could offer us the protection we need. Bears are well represented in the Underworld and so could offer them the protection they need. Anyone want to come out of the closet and start another fans group?
-
If you can't find them, fire it over to Andy. He's opening some sort of club apparently and is looking for seed capital.
-
Hearts' hopes not yet bankrupt
The Real PapaBear replied to ian1964's topic in General Football Chat
karma is one lady you don't want to get on the wrong side of, eh? She can be a bitch, eh? -
it's fun once in a while, but you know that stuff's not good for you long term, right?
-
I'm not for a moment suggesting that football lives in a bubble, isolated from other social developments, not in the least. And it is those very social changes that I will refer to to further strengthen my case - not just strengthen, mind you, but *further* strengthen. The biggest social developments which affected football goers, imho in the 1970s were a general rise in living standards (until Maggie's hatchet began to swing towards the end, but still post Premier League), the universal adoption of colour television (except for my granny), the advent of the video recorder and the rise in the concept of 'Home entertainment' - something almost unheard of prior to then. This went a long, long way to changing social behaviour patterns. The pub and the match were no longer the only options. These factors were almost certainly conrtributory to the decline in attendance, but not crucial. The decline had been ongoing for many, many years prior to the advent of the smaller Premier Division, (or as some call it The-Something-to-Play-For-League). The increase in living standards and the change in social behaviour simply helped accelerate that decline. The 70s turned into the 80s, home entertainment grew and grew, as did income levels, and the range of things on which to spend this increased disposable income. One would expect the decline in attendances at football matches, which had been on going for decades to continue. Right? Especially in the face of increased competition from the entertainment industry. And yet a funny thing happened on the way to the ball park. After reconstruction, attendences began to rise. And rise. And rise again. Despite the fact that the economic woes of the late 70s and early 80s followed the introduction of the Premier League, more people started coming to games. "But how can that be?", I hear you ask in bewilderment, "what is this sourcery"? No magic, no trickery - just the removal of a whole raft of meaningless games against vastly inferior opposition and the introduction of....wait for it...something to play for. Average attendances per club over the period 1961-1975; pre-reconstruction 30009 Rangers 26968 Celtic 12480 Hibernian 12279 Hearts 11054 Aberdeen 9278 Dundee 7736 Dundee United 7665 Kilmarnock 7526 Partick Thistle 7142 Dunfermline 7032 St Mirren 5927 Motherwell 5688 St Johnstone 5255 Falkirk 3132 Hamilton Average attendances per club over the period 1975-1998 after reconstruction 32637 Rangers 27729 Celtic 13604 Aberdeen 12750 Hearts 9842 Hibernian 9523 Dundee United 8574 Dunfermline 8039 Dundee 7516 Kilmarnock 7471 St Mirren 7097 Motherwell 6661 Partick Thistle 6411 Falkirk 5968 St Johnstone 4577 Hamilton Not only did reconstruction halt the decline of attendances, it actually seems to have reversed the trend despite increased competition from outwith football. So what was the cause of this rise in attendance in the face of falling incomes and increased competition for the entertainment Pound if it was not the fact that the football was more competitive with more meaningful games?
-
I would agree with most of that; not all, but most. I think the difference between our supports is the social and/or intellectual level at which the bigotry starts or stops. In my experience of Rangers fans, the real bigotry tends to die out fairly soon after you leave the realm of what I used to call knuckledraggers before I got a row from Andy. The bigotry of Celtic fans goes way, way higher up the scale. On a side point, I won't say more than this (cos Frankie doesn't like us bad-mouthing other sites) but if you have never visited other sites, you really should. It would open your eyes. This place is like a gentleman's club in comparison.
-
OK, I understand the point you're making about Ireland - and agree with it to a certain extent. I don't agree that moving to summer football wouldn't help, though. To me summer football is an absolute no brainer. I can rattle off half a dozen reasons for switching to summer football but can't think of a single good reason for playing in winter.
-
Yes, but the soccer the Irish are interested in and watch is English, not Irish. Nobody cares, nobody watches, nobody goes to LoI games; so the point remains - we can't base what we do in theis country because of what didn't happen in a country with a completely different football culture.
-
I would agree entirely with that. However, a big league would also removes any remaining interest. Now, you're being silly. That's a good point but I don't know if it's a good analogy. Rugby is much less tribal than football and I don't know if we would become interested in a mini euro league. But who knows - it may be worth considering. That may turn out to be no bad thing. Imagine the OF + 3 or 4 franchised teams "Manchester Hearts" or "Tottenham Dons" - we may eventually end up with a product worth watching.
-
ok, got you now. But it still doesn't change the fact that the LoI is such a minor league with such low levels of interest and such small teams that you can't really use it as a barometer for what would happen in Scotland. In terms of interest and attendance, it's a minor sport even in Ireland, so just because there was no upsurge in interest when they switched to summer football doesn't really prove anything
-
Second thought is that we really needto find a new name for them. Woodward and Bernstein were Journalists. A reporter is someone like John Pilger. A writer describes Hugh Mcilvanney I'm trying to think of a word which describes the employees of the Record. "Twats" is the closest I've come up with so far, but it has nothing to do with journalism. Mind you, neither do they.
-
^ what he said in a (very big, very comprehensive) nutshell
-
Therein lies the nub of the problem. We are too small for a competitive 18 team league and a 12 team league sees us playing the same teams too often, so I think we either have to get creative with what we have, or go down the Euro league route. The big countries wouldn't be interested (at the moment anyway) and would we really care about winning a league with Feyenoord, Brann Bergen and Xamax Neuchatel? The ideal scenario, to my way of thinking, is if we regard Europe as one big country (calm down ukippers) with Supra-national leagues down to division 4 say, and below division 4 you have your national leagues. So, we could find that Rangers are in Euro league 2 or 3 along with Torino, Benfica, Newcastle etc whereas Hearts and Aberdeen would be in the SPL, fighting for promotion to Euroleague 4 - that kind of thing. We could use some form of coefficient to ensure that the Euro leagues were populated fairly.
-
An 18 team league is exactly what we don't need in this country. We had it before and people were bored rigid before the snow had melted. You're right that surveys of fans have indeed showed a desire for change, but then as we saw last year, surveys of fans can show nothing more than people bumping their gums and claiming to want one thing but failing to act on what they say they want.. I think if you restricted the surveys to people who remember how dull it all was at the end of the old First Division, you'd get a different answer to that given by people who just want change - any change. "Nothing to play for" is nor only not a myth it's a proven reality. Why do you think we changed it the first time round? Attendances were falling, people were bored and the game was dying a not-so-slow death. Before the advent of the Premier division in the mid 70s attendances were plummeting. Despite the fact that we had a plethora of seriously top quality players playing in this country, fans were losing interest; People no longer wanted the ritual slaughter of an Airdrie or Falkirk or Ayr Utd when that fixture could be taken up by playing a much better Aberdeen or Hearts or Hibs. Ok, we played them four times, but so what? At least the games were more interesting than hammering Clydebank one week and Rbroath the next. And the fans of other 'top' clubs had it worse than us. Hearts, to take an example, instead of having 6 big games a season now had 12 - and this shows in their attendances, which 10 years after the introduction of the Premier league had reached the levels of the 1950s and early 60s. The split into top and bottom halves of a 12 team division is, imho, an excellent solution for a country of our size since it means that in a normal year, you'll have two fighting for the title and four fighting for European places in the top half. The bottom half will see at least 4 and possibly all 6 fighting relegation (given a two up two down with one play-off) scenario. This way every team has something to play for, and something for their fans to care about, for every game of the season - and as the season progresses, things become more interesting for all concerned, players, fans and media. Fans don't care about prize money or whether they finish in 7th or 9th position - that's not going to get them off the sofa, away from the EPl on Sky Sports and into the stadiums. However, they will care about a 6 pointer relagation battle or a game that gets them closer to European football or about a match where they could damage either one of the OF.
-
I'm not sure I fllow you here, Amms. You seem to be suggesting that the LoI is a league to which we should look in terms of quality. Yet, the LoI is a 12 team league, same as ours whereas you'd have us move to an 18 team set up?