Big Jaws

4 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

So, if they attend the march on 16th, should I expect them (and you) to cover their face?  If so, I (and many others) will not go.  I cannot be associated with that.  If that happens, we will not gather the wider support we need and that's going to be damaging.

 

I am against the intrusion of privacy also, and hate the CCTV big brother state, but I will not bring my club into disrepute by acting in a sinister manner, just because the police state does.

You're entitled to your opinion but as has been said already I find the political reaction to their fliers far more sinister. Its clear that the targeting of them by various politicians is why they've felt the need to cover up while marching to the stadium. From the arguments I've seen you make on these very boards playing with emotive language and argument is beneath you. 

49 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

I have to disagree with this mate.  They are not the same, and I won't respect them when I see them on marches with balaclavas.  It is sinister and it brings the club into disrepute.  That's something that should be challenged, not respected.

As far as I'm aware the UB are a very visible and public group and not as you seem to be implying a proscribed organisation. I don't recall their name being attached or involved in crowd disturbance or violence. They stand in the same place every home game unmasked if you want to look at their fizzogs.

 

If I were a young man and inclined to march in protest and/or political action I too would cover up my face and any other easily identifiable markings. When these UB cant go to the football together because they are monitored, filmed and photographed at every opportunity all done under the guise of security intelligence gathering when they've done very little of a threatening nature towards well anyone really other than write a couple of poorly worded fliers. When we take into account the modern fascination with facial recognition and the propensity of authorities to photograph and film its population at will, which I find far more invasive and sinister, then I have some sympathy.

 

You're speaking to the wrong person if you think that you can find parity with me via that line. I'm still of the mindset that it is my, your and everyone elses right to anonymity and to go about our business without interruption or having to identify ourselves even when marching to a football stadium. 

1 minute ago, MacK1950 said:

I am not and have not marginalised younger fans,I have made a point regards the offensive and needless words in songs and have lived through the times you have mentioned.

If safe standing is to be approved eventually,it should not be to the detriment of seat holders so in my vieww very hard for the club to help implement.There is no way I would give up my seat to entertain this if I was asked to do so  and there are probably thousands like me.

You may not feel/think you are but you are marginalising them. As I said in my post I've no skin in the game as far as safe standing goes but in saying that there is a further rub in your post in that for example I no longer hold a season book but when I did there was nothing and I mean absolutely nothing that lead me to believe that I was entitled to keep the same seat over multiple seasons.

3 hours ago, Tannochsidebear said:

The reason for the club not moving them to BF3 has been well known and discussed for many years. I myself when on the Working Group committee back in 2010-11 spoke to David Martin (head of security at the club) at some length to get UB moved to BF3. The reason is the sight lines for those in the areas beside them. If you are in BF2 or BF4 and wish to watch the match from the comfort of your seat, you cannot see a large area of the pitch due to the UB standing in BF3. This is why they are in BF1, it is the only area where them standing doesnt affect the sight lines of other fans in neighbouring sections. The club turn a blind eye to them standing throughout the game in contravention of the ground rules.

 

I havent been in the loop on this issue since the WG stood down in 2012, but I cant see that the argument has changed a bit as the fact remains the same. UB can move to BF3 if they sit down, which goes against everything they are about so they have to remain at the end of the stand where they dont disrupt everyone else.

 

What is the big deal with this anyway? They can expand into BF2 if they have sufficient numbers, which they have never had.

 

I understand their plea for a safe standing area, and that they would be upset that we are not going to go for that. Personally, I am against a safe standing area, so I am delighted the club have decided against this.

That rules out the point I was making about being disingenuous if this has always been known to those involved. 

2 hours ago, MacK1950 said:

As the Meerkat advert says "simple" i.e. drop the F****n word from singing,forget about "Bobby Sands" as he has been dead a long time, for a start and they might start getting somewhere.

We are in a modern world and should be able to act more responsibley,let the scum from the east sing their filth and see if they will be dealt with,fat chance though.

Seriously?

 

I've read more than enough of this type of opinion across various different platforms in the last few days and its nothing more than a red herring.

 

These are two separate issues and neither of them have anything to do with the other.

 

The two issues being;

 

1) Successfully housing an organised fans group.
2) Cultural/Societal transition and change. 

 

First of all taking point two. Do you seriously think the board/decision makers in this situation simply reacted to the singing of certain words in songs the most recent being the Clark song and decided to punish the UB? If that was the case then who the f^&k do the board think they are? Do they think they are their [UB] parents putting their kids on the naughty step? As far as I'm concerned that's a ridiculous proposition and that also applies to any fans with the mindset that the UB are insolent children. 

 

Its a ridiculous proposition because although the perception is that ALL UB are youths and teenagers the reality is that they are not. Many are youths and some are adults with families. You cant just naughty step adult paying customers who've organized as a collective. The UB at the moment are in a small section BF1 but looking at various mobile phone footage on internet platforms there are many sub 30 year old supporters dotted through out the BF who also take part in the singing when it starts. From that I've formed the opinion they'd be equally likely to join with the UB during matches if the sections were opened up to accommodate more fans. 

 

If we're going for the Holy Wully angle of abstinence ONLY then we ALL need to have a serious look at ourselves because if TBB starts up when we're playing Celtic home or away I can guarantee 90% of the fans are singing it because rightly or wrongly and irrespective of the words it contains it has served as a tribal rallying call for the 48 years I've been attending Ibrox. Thats not just a UB issue!

 

IMO the only way to resolve cultural change in communities is through dialogue. Instead of condemning them older bears, and I include myself in this demographic, should be helping the UB navigate this modern cultural transition.. Yet all I've seen on message boards and forums is a very polarized opinion of UB and there seems to be very little reasoned discussion from people who should know better. While I'm at it dialogue incidentally is a thing which Rangers have been notoriously bad at, with regards to the fan base, since Murray was Tzar.

 

Going back to point one. The UB are no different to any other Rangers fan that attends Ibrox on a match day and should be respected as such by ALL of us including the board.

 

In the 72-73 season my da along with 3-4 of his mates started the Spateston RSC and also ran the supporters bus which is sadly defunct today although some of the members still attend matches from Johnstone. He like many of the UB was under 30 years old at the time was he an upstart too? They organised held dances, dinners and POTY awards liaising with the club on player appearances for a number of years. However, as I understand it, when Murray took over that became a more complicated process as the club became less approachable.From the outside it appears this mode of operation has changed very little in the years that have proceeded Murrays tenure.

 

I was always under the impression that CF was the area that UB had targetted to have set as safe standing? If that is the case then I can see a number of issues arising from it. Legacy seating being just one.

 

Now reading their [UB] statement it appears to me that the clubs position has always been disingenuous as it tabled BF3 as an alternative. To my mind that is at best untenable and the club never intended for the situation to be easily resolved. Siting a safe standing area in that section of the stadium would not have been viable due to various logistics issues and don't forget that area was proposed long before the reduction in away fans ticket allocation. The ticket allocation is a fairly recent development and I urge you to remember that had it not been for the lobbying of  special interest group and one person in particular that would not have come to pass either.

 

Personally I've no skin in the game as far as safe standing is concerned however I am concerned about match day experience, atmosphere, catering and facilities. This isn't the 60-70's where a guy/girl with a strapped on serving tray walked through the terracing crowd shouting to sell their wares, macaroon and spearmint chewing gum, and drunk guys pissed, in empty beer cans, or on each other the contents of which then rolled down the terracing. This is the 21st century and things have moved on and are much more civilized thank f&*k!

 

To those who say that the UB think they are better than the rest of us I'm calling bullshit they don't but they do lack the sophistry of the Main Stand wallers when they are being torn into by folk who really should know better. They're not asking for preferential treatment either but if the organisers of the UB feel that they have outgrown the section allocated to them and have approached the club to discuss the matter then it is entirely up to the club to find a solution with them and rehouse them in an efficient manner, in a suitable position within the stadium, and not string them along and treat them like naughty children as it appears they have. They clearly aren't children as they have enough disposable income to follow the team home and away no matter how far they have to travel, including Europe, which by today's standard isn't cheap.

 

For that reason I'm annoyed by this marginalizing younger Rangers fans for having the temerity to ask!
 

8 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Sure, but it was unlikely that we'd have scored another 4; it doesn't work like that, no matter how we approach it. We caught them tactically, and dominated, and were clinical. They changed it second half, too, which negated that numerical superiority we enjoyed in the first half.

 

Edit: I had a look at their results -- I did not care for it ? -- and they've done what we've done, several times: Running away with it in the first half, then not continued.

I'm with the manager on this one, from this post match interview, I don't like it when the players take their foot off the gas and showboat. Don't drop the tempo, keep pressing, move the ball quickly and the chances will come how many of those you score is down to composure and a degree of luck. However if you take your foot off the gas and slow the game down you invite the opposition to get a foothold in a game that has essentially flew past them in the first half limiting your opportunity to create and possibly score as was seen by the fact we only really created 3-4 chances in the 2nd half where Lafferty scores from only one of those. The more attacking possession football we play the more chances we should create. If you limit yourself then its not a surprise your conversion rate drops.

39 minutes ago, craig said:

We’ve taken our foot off the gas.  This is the perfect opportunity to enhance the goal difference

I absolutely agree with you @craig and we need to stop doing it because rest assured the team sitting top of the league would be increasing their goal difference given half the chance.

 

I don't want to put a downer on a great 0-5 result today but I'm feeling that it was an opportunity wasted to close that goal difference gap.

 

1 minute ago, ian1964 said:

Sutton saying Accies should have had a penalty when Halliday flicked the ball over the Accies player!!!

Aye OK Chris. ::shakeshead::

To their credit Hamilton have set up fairly attack minded unfortunately they can't get near us today. Kamara as the sitting midfielder has been a yard off a couple of passages of play today but other than that has been excellent so I'm putting that down to the surface and the speed and bounce of the ball off it. In saying that I've been fairly impressed with his play neat and tidy and takes care of the ball very rarely gives it away regardless how it comes to him. His control and vision of the game gives Jack the opportunity to push 10 yards further forward than we've been used to without him in the team. If I was being fussy I'd like Kenty to take a little more care with his final ball but other than that we've completely bossed this today.  

Superb from Rangers tonight absolutely smashing them 5-0. 

 

Glen Kamara was excellent didn't do anything complicated won all his contests and played some nice football along with Ryan Jack and Scott Arfield. Tav and Candeias bossed the right hand side and Barasic and Kent did the same on the left. Alfie was deadly in front of goal. 

Another chopped off for offside

GO)AL RANGERS Morelos 5-0

Morelos

GOAL RANGERS 4-0

Andy Haliday

Goal Rangers!!!!

Rangers freekick on the edge of the box

Alfie strips the defender inside the box and hammers a shot at the keeper great save no corner.

Rangers going close again this time a cross to the pen spot for Morelos but he hulls the shot just wide.

Outstanding dig from the young lads to stay in that there and then taking it on penalties was really sweet!

21 hours ago, pete said:

I would expect it to be Roma and that will be a very difficult game as they are a really strong team. 

Roma nearly made a right rick of it. They were 2-0 and sailing into the last 10 mins. They lost 2 silly goals taking the game to penalties. The later stages of the game weren't without their own controversy, incensing the Roma bench, even with VAR in operation as Roma scored (ruled offside although there may have been an  offside earlier in the move from the limited replays I don't know nor could I see why the goal was disallowed) and they also had a penalty waved away by the referee neither of the incidents merited further examination, as far as the referee was concerned, through VAR. 

 

Before this final takes place I'd caution not to expect too much from our lads as this Roma team are in their last year at this level and its noticeable as they look much more mature, both physically, mentally and their all round play. In fact I'd go as far as to say that a few of them are ready to either challenge for game time in their first team or go out to other clubs. In contrast our lads are 03' and 04's meaning for example Alex Lowry who is 04' i.e. he's only 15.

Rangers 2-0 up at half time against a stuffy well organised technical side. First goal Lyle gets on a slip from the defender from the keeper rolling the ball out.  Second was all Young-Coombes wins the ball just inside their half and drives at the defence unleashing a left foot shot from inside the box low and away to the keepers right, a great goal from the lad. 

6 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

Quote

Andy Walker revealed he was baffled why Rangers manager Steven Gerrard wanted Kilmarnock midfielder Alan Power to be handed a ban as it would mean that he would miss the clash with Celtic.

 

https://thisisfutbol.com/2019/02/blogs/scottish-premier-league/andy-walker-baffled-by-gerrard-remarks/

The problem with Andy Walker and his ilk is that they don't understand what integrity is!

 

First of all 'The Gaffer' didn't call for a ban for Power he asked the question of whether or not the dangerous play would be considered by the C.O. It makes no difference who Kilmarnock are playing next only that apparent inconsistency is addressed.

I'm only really on to drop off last nights edited pod and then I'm off again.

 

Thanks for all the well wishes folks I really appreciate it.