calscot

After is was banned by UEFA and the club - if you had been pro-active, you'd still be singing it with a couple of different words. Massive own goal which is nothing to give anyone credit for. I agree but I also think the same of many words that people take mock offence to - like the one Green used without malice. However, if you're even half clever you can avoid the very obvious faux pas that life can present. If you don't mean it then why is it important to keep singing it when it should be interchangeable with a word that is not misconstrued? You seem to be arguing against yourself. Like F T P and F*enian Bastards? What is the good reason for it?

I can't see how that should warrant any praise... quite the opposite. Reward the upper management with riches while shafting the people on the floor - sounds bad to me.

The problem with this argument is that if it were completely true, then you would all have no problem changing the words when the offensive ones are no longer considered banter but are regarded by most of society as sinister and dangerous. It shows a lack of sensitivity to the values of the rest of Europe and for the precarious position it puts our club in as Europe decides not to stand for it. Why is it not enough to be up to your knees in Celtic blood or some other Celtic soubriquet that cannot be associated with a religion or nationality? Surely they are the targets of the banter? As they say, if it was racist stuff against blacks or Jews, would you find it just as enjoyable? When good men do nothing and all that...

I did say that the Tories did some good and the loony left were out of control. But then the Nazi's would tell the same story as you... The Tories improved some things then shafted a whole nation and then ruined the foundations of the economy of the UK for generations to come. I remember the affluent days of the Labour spending years, doesn't mean that they did the country much good today. However, Labour built on the mistakes of Tories as that's the only way they could be voted in. The thing people now forget is that under the Tories it could have been worse as they voiced that the Labour government controls for the banks were too tight... But the biggest thing for me is how the Tories shafted Scotland because there was no votes there - a disgraceful way for a party to act. You may vote against the SNP and they still get in BUT they will NOT do the same to a safe Tory region of Scotland. I'm ambivalent about the SNP but I doubt ANY party would have done what the Tories did. It's completely unethical and against the philosophy of democracy. People were asking what the difference was when we were given our devolved government and Labour were elected in - the same as the UK government. The point was we could vote them out any time we liked - and now have done.

The Tories totally showed where democracy can be flawed and completely abused the whole philosophy. They had no votes in Scotland and so had no interest in our country except as a dumping ground. That's not the way democracy is supposed to work and shows a lack of understanding or care of the process by the Tories. They acted like a malevolent dictatorship in Scotland - we were more like a disposable satellite state and shame on them for that. How can you even trust a party after acting like that? A party that doesn't care about real democracy - it's not even traditionally British in the slightest and therefore they don't really represent true British values.

The trouble with them newco-ing is that I doubt they'd be able to keep Tynecastle. Where would they play? Murrayfield? Meadowbank? Livingstone? Another of the small rugby stadiums?

PS Maybe he needs to try someone like Dundee again, or Raith Rovers.

I think Ally and all of us would take the Nacho of say 4 years ago but what kind of player is he now? Rejected by his last club and no offers coming in, I can't imagine he has much left in the tank. Ally has seen him in training and so probably thinks what he has is better - or perhaps Nacho's wage demands, although reduced, don't seem value for money. None of us know what Novo is like as a player now and I think that the secondary evidence is damning. It's a real shame as I've love to see the Novo of old lend us a hand in the lower leagues but it seems it's just too late for him.

Switching a home ground for a league game smacks of a lack of sporting integrity... It will obviously reduce the chances of an upset. Seems they need an independent review of their capacity by safety experts. Is it possible the council are more worried about the numbers of fans in the town rather than in the stadium?

If you want to leave a club would you allow the rest of the club to decide whether you are allowed to?

I would say that's incredibly ignorant of what went on at the time - perhaps you were better off. Maybe it's getting worse again but who has most of the power in Westminster now? Thatcherism had it's good points but went way too far and due to lack of votes over the border, shafted Scotland. They also shafted the British economy - and we're still paying for that now due to creating an economic system that relied on our banks instead of manufacturing to bring in the money. I leaned towards the Tories in the early 80's due to more sensible policies than the loony left at the time and the infighting of the Lib-Dems and the marginalisation of the SNP. But when someone shafts you good, you don't invite them back - not when they haven't changed a bit. I really don't agree they are doing any good for the economy right now and even history has shown their policies are unlikely to work - just look at the difference between Hoover and Truman. I've never felt so wary about losing my job to cuts as I have since the Tories came in and haven't had a pay rise either, despite high inflation. I was very poor under the Tories before and I'm getting poorer with less job security under their policies now.

There's no harm in taking a look. They still have to impress to get a deal and therefore have to look better than what we have.

The problem with our fans though, is that they have not learned to adapt to the changing rules of the game. It used to be you could pass back to the keeper and he could pick it up. Overuse of this was deemed so distasteful and bad for the game it was frequently booed and complained about and so was eventually banned. Now when you pass back and the keeper picks it up you are punished every time. As a team you have to adapt to the new rule and find another way of relieving the pressure. Keepers learned to boot the ball high up the pitch, defenders make themselves available for a short return pass etc. Fitness levels had to increase to deal with the more demanding game as the ball was in play more of the time. Basically players and teams adapted to the new rules and philosophy. A similar thing has happened to our fans to deal with something that was deemed to be distasteful and bad for the game. However, our fans have been blinded by their own arrogance. They are playing the way they did before even though the rules have changed and they have been punished for it. Like the pass back, you can't pretend the rule is not there just because you don't like it. Time has moved on and you have to adapt. A footballer can't say, how dare they tell me how to play the game, because the fact is FIFA and UEFA make the rules, so they can. The answer is to be clever, and if it was EVER about "banter" and the fans are not lying about that, then find new banter that is within the rules. Find stuff that winds up the opposition and our rivals but is not despised by all and sundry - and doesn't break the rules. Our own fans have claimed for years that our football has become ugly, but some of the way our fans support is ugly as well as break laws of the land and the game. If we demand our team play the beautiful game then maybe we should be a more beautiful support... But even if you disagree, if you break the rules you will be punished and despised - we have found that out big time even though we were set up by a few parties that did not have our interest at heart. If our support wants to define itself by the hatred of another team then find a legal way to slag them off and wind them up. If you want to define yourself by your patriotism, religion and politics, then at least promote them in a positive sense - that is also within the rules. Just play the game well, instead of like a shit player who just doesn't get the rules.

Brilliant bit of writing. I think before the days of PC niceties, a lot of the stuff could be seen as banter, but when you have the whole world appalled at the effects racism and sectarianism and making a fist of cleaning it up, then it all starts to become malevolent and nasty. The banter excuse is gone as it no longer has a context. While we have been picked on by UEFA due to the gleeful light shone on us by others, they seem to be picking on many other clubs too, not just us. We are just becoming another thorn in the foot that they will want to remove. We are becoming the troublemaker who disrupts the well behaved class and needs punishing or removing. We're the kind of no hoper who responds to tellings off and punishments by getting louder and more outrageous, with the "I can do what I want" attitude. But in a civilised society, the kind Britain stands for, and in the context of being a good Protestant, this is just not true. You really have to wonder what impression we are giving of Britishness and Protestantism. Instead of being good citizens and Christians it seems we're more into effing this and that and killing or suppressing others as well as having a strange relationship with the Orange Order instead of the Church of Scotland while singing praises of the divine leader of the Church of England. The Sash seems a very unChristian song as it seems to be about worshipping a false idol. You have to wonder why we're singing that instead of "Will your anchor hold" if we are truly Presbyterian. Surely God and Christ deserve a mention by their followers? And yet they are very noticeable by their absence. Even our football credentials are flawed with Follow follow not about following the team but effing the Pope and the Vatican. Maybe if some want to represent Britain, Protestantism and the royal family, they should at least do so in a way that makes them something to be proud of, in a civilised and pious way. Some of the songs we sing instead of being virtuous, are appealing to the baser and more bitter attitudes of society. I don't think that's a very good USP, except for recruiting the ugly, angry, narrow minded, boorish part of our population.

Is there one for Scottish League One? Maybe it would help get to know the players and teams and make other results more interesting.

I remember Stevens being an excellent right back but was frustratingly injured a hell of a lot. We don't have much competition for that spot except perhaps Gattuso, who was unhappy playing there. Of course if we go back far enough, Sandy Jardine was a legend.

I remember Laudrup linking up with Cleland very often, in fact I used to think that Walter had told Cleland, "If in doubt, pass to Laudrup." Cleland was mostly a right, wing back (although sometimes played on the left when required) and so I therefore remember Laudrup playing mostly on the right - although he did have a free role and was generally somewhere behind the two strikers. My memory is that it was generally on the right of midfield in a 5-3-2 formation as Albertz was an obvious choice for the left with someone like Ian Ferguson in the middle. Sometimes he was picked as the second striker, especially with Gascoigne in the team.

I'm shocked any Scots who lived through the 80's and 90's would vote Tory after how they've treated our country. Even their arguments against devolution and independence are full of lies, scaremongering and completely twisting the truth while telling us we're just too rubbish a people to govern ourselves. They treat us with contempt. I think as a Scotsman you'd have to be a very money oriented, self centred, high earner to vote for them with an I'm all-right Jack attitude. All other parties may have their failings but the Tories are pretty much the political equivalent of Celtic in Scotland - only looking out for themselves and contemptuously shafting everyone else.

Kennedy would have taken money out - Souness even says that. The trouble with entrepreneurs is that their personal score in life is how much money they make. If they don't make decent money on a venture then they see it as a bad failure which grates on their ego. The only exception is their charity work which is mainly there to make them look like better people so that more want to do business with them - and tax breaks of course. Anyway, the upshot is that not many big hitting businessmen will willingly not take a profit. It's just not in their mindset.

He's right in that we didn't get fantasic people to take over the club and run it for the right reasons. He's wrong in that his consortium was no better. We needed the right people but the right people don't exist. It's one of those oxymorons - like if you want be in parliament you should be disqualified from standing, if you're a businessman who wants to run Rangers then you're not right for Rangers. The more I read about the business side of things, the more I realise that the biggest driving force is greed and that morals are something only to pretend to have. You would think that there are enough fabulously rich people out there that they don't actually need to make any money at all from Rangers, they just have to ensure we don't make them a loss. But that thinking is for another universe.

Not sure how crap Celtic are but I still can't see them not cantering to another tainted title. Give them a couple of Championship (English) sides and they would struggle badly, but against the Premiership (Scottish) teams, I can't see them having a problem. Even when the standard of Scottish football increases, few sides are able to put in a decent run of results - they are always taking loads of points off each other.

Just bought tickets for Bill Struth stand as haven't been in that one since the club deck was added. Must say the online process was excruciating and seems to be designed by idiots with no sense of usability. I was at a catch 22 where I couldn't register as it said it already had my details and it didn't recognise any email and password combination or even any email to send a password reminded. So had to re-register with slightly different details and lying about my date of birth... Then later the forms were wouldn't submit and wouldn't tell you why. It's all pretty amateurish.

I find it embarrassing and cringe-worthy that we are just copying the names of the English leagues. All it does is make talking about the leagues and comparisons a bit awkward and ambiguous and so you completely ditch the names and say things like "third tier" where Division 3 would have been self explanatory. But with the English thing, we're just showing ourselves up as a small mind country with no imagination.

I think it should be obvious that Celtic have a higher quality squad. They have not been bargain basement hunting like us. They have not been picking up the type of SPL players we have for a reason. They may not be brilliant but the players they are bringing in have a higher market value. If you imagine any type of commodity - wine, food, tools, sports equipment... then while spending more on more expensive stuff does not guarantee you will end up with better quality and there is the law of diminishing returns, generally, if you still try to get value for money, spending more should have you ending up with higher quality stuff. Cheap things are usually cheap for a reason.

I don't think many of our current squad would have been first picks if they were added to our squad from a few years ago. Wallace and Jig were in both squads so don't count in this scenario. I think the only one with much of a chance would be Templeton. Law and Daily would have been ok as squad fillers. McLeod would be knocking on the door of the team and one or two other youngsters might have had the odd chance - but be behind the more mature youngsters that left.