Jump to content

 

 

The Real PapaBear

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,366

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by The Real PapaBear

  1. The Real PapaBear
    Not really. You could have 10 teams full of Peles, but if they are ten teams with nothing to play for, you're still going to end up with a league of 18 where most have nothing to play for, for a large part of the season. The idea died a death 30 years ago for a reason. Even back then when football was the only game in town (sic) people were turning off from it in droves. To reinstate an 18 team league would be to simply hasten the demise of the game.
  2. The Real PapaBear
    The LoI is, in terms of attendances similar to our third tier and their top team has an average attendance of the likes of Falkirk, so I don't think you can use the LoI as an indicator of how attractive the Scottish game would be. Any league with us and them in it is always going to get some level of interest and if we're playing each other when there is no EPL in competition then viewing figure would certainly increase substantially. A bigger league is something we used to have and it was dire come the New Year or February, by which time the bottom two clubs were invariably decided, the championship was between two and the great bulk of teams had nothing to play for. I agree it would improve the quality of football players, but not the quality of the league or competition (if that makes sense).
  3. The Real PapaBear
    I think you do the Conservatives and their paymasters a great disservice. The annihilation of Britain's working class didn't just happen by chance, y'know. These chaps put an enormous amount of thought and effort into our destruction - give them some credit.
  4. The Real PapaBear
    Not really too surprising. Previously, the best any club could hope for was third place. Now, every club and his dog fancies that second place is within their grasp. they were never going to get the league title anyway, but this way they have the chance at serious European money.
  5. The Real PapaBear
    Ach, that's too easy. 1. switch to summer football resulting in increased interest from out Southern neighbours when their league is in hiberantion, better playing surfaces and probably increased attendances. 2. two up, two down and a play off between 3rd top/bottom in every league in a national pyramid system. 3. sell Murray park and whatever celtic call their place to the SFA, implement a national development program independent of clubs and adopt the US system of draft picks; So that the bottom club gets first choice of the top rated youngster from the SFA school and if we or celtic want to get this kid, then we have to pay the bottom club top dollar for the boy. Spreads the financial love but still lets us get the cream of the crop.
  6. The Real PapaBear
    You may be right about the arrival of foreign money into the Bundesliga - time will tell about that- but I think you understimate the German sense of regionalism. The modern day BRD is so strong precisely because of regionalism. In the absense of a capital city, post-1945, power developed in the different regions of West Germany, so that Frankfurt, Munich, Cologne/Dusseldorf, Hamburg all became cities of relatively equal importance and power. This, of course, spread out into their respective Laender - and even Laender which had no super city, such as Baden Wuerttemberg had places like Stuttgart and Mannheim, which are probably equivalent to the GNP of Belgium in themselves. You also underestimate the German sense of doing things properly and, more importantly, of community. They are, in my experience, every bit as motivated as the British by money, but the difference lies in their sense of civic responsibility and an awareness that theirs is a quality-based culture and that they will only lose out in any race to the bottom. The Germans, for all their faults, are not a stupid people. They tend to be very aware of their own history and that of their closest European neighbours and I don't imagine that they will allow themselves to be lead into a thatcherist, nihilistic (is that tautology or redundancy?) cul-de-sac. They tried unthinkingly follwing a strong leader once before with mixed results.
  7. The Real PapaBear
    All very heroicly despondent in a "i've-had-too-much-to-drink-tonight-but-I'll-be-back-in-the-trenches-tomorrow" kind of way. You don't believe that nonsense and nobody else believes you believe that. I'm guessing you have kids, Andy. I'm also guessing that you're teaching them that personal worth and dignity is far more important than financial wealth - and I'm guessing that you don't add the caveat..."oh, by the way, except for footballl".
  8. The Real PapaBear
    I think you're maybe being a tad harsh on the first point. Board members of a board in which the chairman is also the owner seldom, if ever, have a complete picture of the company - unless that chairman choses to share it. So I'm willing to cut anybody who was on a Murray board some slack. Your points 2, 3 and 4, however, do have the ring of truth - particularly the third. The idea of the Alpha male, super rich, leader with a love for the club taking control and propelling us back into the Champions League definitely has its attractions - but, as you say, it does make us vulnerable, too.
  9. The Real PapaBear
    Ah!, but to counter that....who?
  10. The Real PapaBear
    mr English has just been on the radio saying that he believes Rangers are the same Rangers - and that the one sure way to know that this is true is that Celtic fans are still obsessed with us. If Rangers were a new Rangers, would they have spent so much time talking about us at their AGM?
  11. The Real PapaBear
    Any particular reason for that reservation or just a gut feeling?
  12. The Real PapaBear
    At some point morality does come into it - I suspect even for you, andy - the only question is at which point do we, as a support, draw the moral line. Dave King seems to have an issue with the SARS and his relationship with them is entirely adversarial to the point where he is happy to lie and deceive them. At the same time, other sources claim that SARS is corrupt to the core. Personally, I don't know enough about either King or SARS to say which is more trustworthy, but as far as I am aware, his relationship with the SARS is the only part of his operation about which questions of dubious morality and legality have been raised. That being the case, I have no qualms about him taking over. It's not like he is Nestlé or Monsanto.
  13. The Real PapaBear
    If we play this smart, we can turn it into our advantage. Lawell's remark means that his position with the SFA is untenable and we should insist that he resign that position ....unless he makes a public statement retracting the remark and acknowledging publicly that Rangers is the same club that was founded in 1872. That would go some way to shutting Timmy up. However in the absense of a board that can tie its shoelaces with the lights on, I don't expect the opportunity to be taken.
  14. The Real PapaBear
    mate, I'm not your mother - I honestly couldn't care less what you believe and have no interest in trying to convince you of...of...eh...what is it exactly I'm trying to convince you of? It certainly wasn't my intention to try to belittle you (and nor have I insulted you at any time during this exchange) but if you're going to jump into a debate on a subject you yourself admit to knowing little about, be prepared to have your received wisdom questioned. It really, really doesn't do either.
  15. The Real PapaBear
    It's also slightly odd that, although both were Rangers players at the time of the abuse, neither is pictured wearing a Rangers strip. Now, if I believed in conspiracies, I might think this is another example of the portrayal of Rangers as aggressors and Celtic as victims. If a Rangers player or fan is actually the victim, then all steps must be taken to minimise the fact of their Rangerness or Bluenosery. Even the way the report is written could be construed as a Rangers fan attacking his own players.
  16. The Real PapaBear
    if you think that calling someone underhanded is not an insult, well, I can't really help you. So when you said the fight against the Taliban was, and I quote, " a fight against terrorism" you weren't calling them terrorists? Can't help noticing you called them terrorists again. Either that or you're saying that the Taliban radicalised young men into joining AlQueda - which would make no sense. Why would the Taliban recruit men for another organisation? We've occupied a country in order to give it back to the people we took it from? Well, firstly why should they denounce an invented lable that you have imposed on them, particularly when you haven't been able to define the difference between resistance fighters and terrorists? Secondly what part of "they don't want a western style democracy" don't you understand? reductio ad absurdum Then you need to get out more. Except that the north was the north of the United States of America and the south was the south of the United States of America - same country, same language, same president, same people - that's why they called it a civiil war - different States having different laws is fundamentally what the USA is all about, it does not imply each state has a differnet culture. And in any event the Civil war was not about human rights - it was about economics. if you admit to not knowing, why did you claim that fighting the Taliban would result in a reduction of attacks on us? Now you're expanding it to include all Islamic terrorists. You clearly won't believe anything I tell you, so why don't you google to find out the number of British citizens killed in the UK by Al Queda or any islamic organisation prior to our invasions of Iraq and afghanistan? As to whether it would have happened if we hadn't invaded, all we can do is look at the facts. Pre invasion: no attacks, no deaths ; post-invasion: many attacks, many deaths. It's not rocket science to work out the correlation.
  17. The Real PapaBear
    "underhandedness"? Hmm, an interesting, if rather insulting, take on things. My questions were intended to be more rhetorical. You see, when people simply regurgitate received wisdom such as 'we're fighting the taliban because they're terrorists' or 'we're bringing democracy' , we can do one of two things; we can either ignore it or we can challenge it. If we decide to challenge it, we can do so by throwing abuse around and name-calling, or we can ask the person making the statement some pertinant questions which will hopefully lead them to start questioning the statements they are making. In your case you made three statements of received wisdom, all of which I would contest; 1) You said that the Taliban are terrorists. The Taliban, evil, disgusting and barbaric as they most certainly are, cannot be described as terrorists, when it is we who are occupying their country. Hence the question, what criteria would they have to meet before you would consider them a resistance movement? 2) You said that most Afghanis want democracy - what evidence do you have for this? Western style democracy takes time to develop and is not something you can impose on a culture which has had no exposure to it. 3) You said that our being in Afghanistan would reduce the number of attacks on our country. There were no attacks on our country before we invaded them - how could we reduce the figure of zero attacks on us? It would be interesting to hear your answers to those questions.
  18. The Real PapaBear
    Couple of questions for you, mate: 1. Before we attacked and invaded Afghanistan, how many terrorist attacks were there by Afghanis, the Taliban or Al Queda on our country and how many attacks have there been since we invaded? 2. Why do you think that Afghanis want western style democracy - a means of government totally alien to their culture? 3. If you describe the Taliban as a terroist organisation, what criteria would an organisation have to meet before you would describe it as a resistance movement fighting an occupying power? Oh, quite the reverse. The burdon of proof is always on those who contest the official line. The official line is the one pumped out by the MSM, the politicos, the spin doctors and the vested interests - they don't have to prove anything since they control the media. Indeed, although I find that Zappa and Juan have done a great job of illuminating it.
  19. The Real PapaBear
    Turns out the answer to the question was to be found on Gersnet after all
  20. The Real PapaBear
    Well, of course it seems similar But that's only because you've kept the question syntax and simply replaced "The Taliban" for "the IRA". It's the answer that's very, very different. Really? I haven't been able to find the reason we're in Afghanistan from Google, or from HMG or, now, even from Gersnet. Ach, well, i'll keep looking - no doubt somebody will bring me up to speed sometime.
  21. The Real PapaBear
    I'll ask again. Why are we in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban?
  22. The Real PapaBear
    Why are we fighting the Taliban?
  23. The Real PapaBear
    Ben Griffin, ex-SAS, nails it. Pity he's not a good speaker, though.
  24. The Real PapaBear
    I don't think it would be realistic to expect them to step aside for the good of the club. They are after all 'businessmen'. However, everybody has their price. It's just a matter of finding out what the currency of that price is; money or status. If their price is money, it will be easier to get rid of them.
  25. The Real PapaBear
    The point is that had Murray not mismanaged the club, there would have been no opportunity for HMRC to do what they did, nor would Lloyds have had any say in the club whatsoever. Murray's steel business suffered in the economic crisis, for sure - but our well-being should not have depended on the success or otherwise of his other businesses. As for the chart, do you *really* need me to explain why it's embarrassing?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.