The Real PapaBear

it's a question of dignity. Rangers is a major name in European football and thus, we should be associated with either a major established brand (nike, adidas, puma, maybe umbro) or with a new, upcoming but 'cool' brand. being associated with a no-name brand is a no-no. A gentleman, in straightened times, may swap the Bentley for a Toyota or a Volkswagen - he would never consider a Fiat or a Lada.

couldn't agree more. Two things that should never bee seen at Ibrox; socks with white tops and a manager in a tracksuit

Maybe I'm more cynical about the BBC than you, but to me this article was a non-event. It boiled down to some financial expert saying that Rangers are in a better position now than last year, we have a greatly reduced cost base, we may or may not be running at a loss, Green will be fairly happy because of the money he's made and the fans have been turning out in numbers. Yes...? And...? The point is...? Again, I can't agree that it was a change from their norm. It was exactly their norm. This article is, at best, neutral - it certainly wasn't positive - and that's the way the BBC works. They pump out 9 negative, biased pieces and then one neutral piece so that they can claim 'objectivity and balance'. Apart from Radio Scotland of course, where they long ago gave up any pretense at objectivity and just decided to turn it into a Rangers hate fest.

ummm I know that. dB suggested that the 'Reporter' would have been annoyed by the responses given by Patey. My point is that the responses would have done nothing to annoy the hack because nothing of importance was asked of Patey so nothing of importance was said in reply.

You think so, dB? There is a process which Japanese companies use when they want to get to the real core of a problem; it's called a "5 Why Analysis". It invariably gets to the source of the problem. This 'reporter' didn't even ask the first of the five Whys. Why didn't he ask the first of the 5? Because he knew the answers would never be published Why would they never be published? Because the Publishers don't want a story to show Rangers as victims. Why do they want to pretend Rangers were not victms. That way there's no victimiser; no conspiracy. Why do they want to ignore the conspiracy? Because they are part of the conspiracy. ...sometimes, it doesn't even take 5 Why questions; sometimes you can get there in 4. At various times in our history? Really? When, outside of Whyte's reign were things "not done right?" When did we ever not pay tax? When did we ever screw creditors? No, dB, can't agree which you on this one, bud. This reporter will now be able to feed back this anodyne piece of vanilla-flavoured, nothingness to his editors, who will be able to hold it up as 'proof' of their 'balanced and objective' coverage of the story.

Tell you why I am minded to believe JT on this, amms. JT never was, until he signed on the dotted line, a friend of Rangers. Neither was he an enemy to us (as some round these parts will have you believe). Neither was he a friend of Celtic. In journalistic terms he favoured nobody and was afraid of nobody. Sometimes his attacks on people on Sportsound were 18 certificate - he took no prisoners but he was almost always fair. He had that pugnacious combative streak that good journalists have to have. JT was the best sports journalist in Scotland (aye, ok, where's the competition?) by a country mile - and the mhedia know it. They know that if he comes for them, he'll take a few of them out. So what's the standard plan when you need to weaken the enemy? You discredit their PR machine. They will be - nay, have begun - launching pre-emptive strikes on JT. These will come from different sources at different times and at different intensities. The object is to make him fight on numerous fronts while the opposition strike and retreat. They'll want to discredit him and wear him down. Green has said that Rangers can't fight a war on all fronts against the media and that they will only retaliate when provoked. This is that provocation - and the response should be such that the mhedia will think long and hard about having another go. We can't fight everybody, so we should choose one of them and make an example. Pour les autres.

To be completely objective, I agree with your original statement. Celtic should have had 3 penalties. The first was in 1954 away to Hearts. Then there was that one in 73 against Airdrie. And then a stonewaller in the pre-season friendly against FC Helsinki in 2002. Take your blue tinted specs off once in a while!

UEFA's Referee A Undiano Mallenco: "I'd like to ask the Neil Lennon what the fuck were you doing playing Elsie Ambrose? Every time he touched the ball, they scored. Do managers manage differently in Scotland?" "Ya twat" He added.

You're spot on there, Kuz. It was a 0-3.

that cannae be much fun. Getting fucked by Juve in front of a worldwide audience - and then having nowhere to go to drown yer sorrows.

Can I just point out, that if somebody sold them then somebody else bought them - and that 100k shares @ £75k is chickenfeed. If it had been ten times that amount, it *might* be mildly curious.

You're a hooker?

No. You saw two planes hitting the towers. Then, a bit later, you saw the two towers collapse. The two events had *nothing* to do with each other. Two pigeons could have struck those buildings and they were coming down. I'd be more than happy to explain to you over in the Lounge what happened, if you're interested - and ready to have your world view turned upside down. In the meantime, at least Gascoigne has *some* hope - but to be honest, I think it's just postponing the inevitable. A footballer is all he is and I don't think he's equipped for life without football. I'd love more than anything to be wrong, but nothing I've seen or heard leads me to believe he'll make it.

no, it was not. two words; Building 7.

it's just a pity they can't both lose

Important and famous? Kuz? Have you ever actually met anyone from abroad? 95% of the world's population outside of Europe have never heard of Scotland and 99% have no idea it's a country. Most Europeans could probably find us on a map, but outside of bagpipes, tartan and whisky they know nothing about us and care even less. And that 'fanbase' disappeared like snow off a dyke as soon as he left them. The last Tokyo CSC club awards was in 2009 and the last picture, of two guys holding a pint, was two years ago. The Tokyo CSC, membership: 5, probably consists of a couple of English language teachers and their better students. Utter fantasy. There were possibly 7 million Nakamura supporters. But then, there were 7 million supporters of Nakata - a player I'll almost guarantee you know nothing about without googling. And that's not a pop at you, just saying that 7 million Japanese are not interested in the slightest about Celtic or whichever team Nakata played for (clue, it was a minor Italian outfit which had more fans in Japan that it did in Italy - and as soon as Nakata left, so did any Japanese interest) - they are interest solely and entirely in the Japanese player - and if he's not playing, they are totally disinterested in the game. And like all OF supporters clubs they consist of workers there on a temporary basis or middle aged ex-pats and a loose collection of their pals up for a drink and a bit of something different. The number of real local supporters of Rangers or Celtic can be counted without taking your socks off. Contrast this to ManU, Barca, Real etc - where there are *real* local supporters in their hundreds and thousands. See above. And if Honduras is excited about a left back in a Mickey Mouse league in a country nobody has heard of, they must be peeing themselves about Wigan Athletic and Stoke city, where there are players playing who people *have* actually heard of in the world's top league. So, one seventh of the size of their Japanese fanbase of two guys and a pint, then? 9 million worldwide fans; 7 million of whom are Japanese who have forgotten that Celtic exist, one million coffin dodgers in the Americas and one million unnamed 'others'. You really would have to have had too much Guiness to believe that nonsense. Now contrast that with estimated 700 million fans of Man Utd worldwide. Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept that Celtic had 9 million fans, that still makes them 1/70th the size of Man U. Now, what was that you were saying about their potential?

Really? And upon what is this potential based? Nobody outside of Europe has ever heard of Scotland (and most of them are only vaguely aware of where or what it is), far less Glasgow and especially not the city's second team. So what, other than the Janefield Street marketing department, would make you think they would become the new Man Utd?

I get totally, where you're coming from Amms - totally. Some of the criticism of McCoist on these boards has been utterly shameful. People can criticise his team selection, his tactics, his motivational skills or his coaching - but when they start attacking the man with some of the invective we have seen here, they can hand in their scarves at the door on their way out and fuck off, because they are not real Rangers fans. My favourite Ally moment, wasn't a moment as such, but rather a period of time, where he was dropped by Souness in favour of Mojo. Ally had been the fans' favourite and the 'star' of the club and this was a fairly public slap in the face, with Souness telling the world that Cosity wasn't as good as Mojo. Any other player would have gone away in the huff, thrown the toys out the pram and done a number on the manager behind his back to the press. McCoist's reaction was to get the head down keep doing what he was doing and keep being a team player, keeping the spirit in the dressing room high. One time he even took a teapot out to the bench. That says it all about McCoist. Quality, dignity and class from top to bottom. The jury may still be out on his managerial ability but even if he doesn't turn this present shambles around, he is and will always be Super Ally, the Greatest Ever Ranger.

Well, let me do the leg work for you, ya lazy sod Comparing average attendances this year to last: Hearts static Hibs up by 900 Aberdeen up by 1200 DUtd static M'well down by 1100 Killie down by 600 StMirren static ICT static StJ down by 400 Only the introduction of Dundee and the Dundee derby - and of course, the dishonest figures from Celtic - make it appear that the attendance figures are similar to last season. In reality, they are nothing of the sort. Hearts are begging their fans to turn out in force for every home game to ensure the survival of the club - and yet they still have exactly the same numbers as they did last season. Aberdeen had an early season attendance bump when they looked like they might challenge for second. As that challenge disappeared, so did their attendance figures. Ditto Hibs. As they fade, so will their fans, like snow off a dyke. Motherwell, St Johnstone and ICT are battling neck and neck for a Champions league spot and all their attendances are actually DOWN on last season! Replace Dundee with Morton or Thistle next season and include the real figures from Parkhead and we'll see that the SPL will have lost about 20% of its non-Rangers attendance, i.e take us out of the equation and attendances are down by about 15% this season, with things only getting worse for next, with the disappearance of the Dundee Derby and Dundee being replaced by a team with half its support. I don't think there can be any club chairman or manager so stupid as to think that losing us is no big deal, no matter what rubbish they spout for public consumption.

excellent post, buddy - I reckon you speak for most of us.

And that would prove what, exactly? That, had we not been there last year, then the SPL would have been f****d a year before it was? The point is that we've been told that Scottish football doesn't need us; that Armageddon is a figment of our imaginations; that the fans of the diddy teams would make up the gap. The fact is that they do, it isn't and they won't. The SPL is, I'm happy to say, dying a slow and painful death and it's making very entertaining viewing. Popcorn anyone?

average SPL attendance last season: 13,800 average SPL attendance this season: 10.200 - and that includes the cooked figures from parkhead. If you counted the numbers that really turned up at the meccanodome , the true attendance average for the SPL would likely be under 9,000. Which looks to me like a 30% fall in the attendance figure for the SPL. Crisis? What crisis?

They have a legal duty of care to those people who enter their ground. It could easily be argued that given the atmosphere around this fixture Dutd were acting negligently in selling tickets to people that they could not reasonably be sure were real Rangers fans. There are 40 gazillion guidelines which become redundant once the basic one of not selling tickets to non-supporters has been breached.

Although, in fairness, it should be

Don't worry about it, Jodrell Bank couldn't have heard the punishment handed out to them.