Frankie

Problem is, literally speaking, even FTP has merit if you want to go down the Celtic route of being able to make 'political' statements at football games. For the most part, any sensible person can judge the individual intentions. It's only when trouble-makers like Spiers (and misguided fans) muddy the waters that a problem can occur. Cringeworthy sums up the use of all these words pretty well as opposed to sectarian, racist or the like.

Fenian is more acceptable than hun but that doesn't mean either should be used just for the hell of it... Rangers FC have always been a class above that mob (now more than ever) and that should be reflected in our choice of language when appropriate.

The only thing we should pander to is common decency and our Rangers supporting pedigree. Fenian and taig have their place where appropriate but IMO words such as these have much stronger effect when used correctly.

This was locked in error yesterday folks. Apologies.

Thursday pm or Friday am are the preferred times anyway mate...

Good to see an interesting open debate on this. I've removed all censored words which were a remnant of years gone by on here and now the forum style (and membership) has changed somewhat I'm happy to remove the redacted stuff. As ever we trust our membership to use such words carefully and responsibly. We will of course moderate on an ad-hoc basis if need be. If anyone thinks any post is in bad taste, then please report it.

Don't be silly MF. This is the sub-forum we use for such matters so that's why it was moved here - for no other reason. Some places wouldn't even allow an open discussion on this but, as usual here, we've nothing to hide. Regarding the thread, not sure what happened there (we had another thread closed a couple of weeks back which we couldn't track either) but it may be an issue with the new forum style and/or someone pressing a button by mistake. The thread is open now of course. With regard to fenian (note it is now uncensored) this is a remnant from years gone by on Gersnet (we've been around now for 10 years) where we had a few members who wanted to use the term less than constructively. These people no longer post and the forum has taken a different style on in recent years. To that end, we're happy to remove any censored words and moderate on an ad-hoc basis instead. As ever, we trust our members to understand their responsibilities in that regard and don't foresee any problems given the other legal explanations bmck has kindly offered.

Sorry you've lost me. If we sing the song and get punished won't that show that the club didn't lie about any ban? Like you, I'm frustrated at the lack of clarity (and I wouldn't tell anyone what or what not to sing) but I think we need better strategies than defiantly singing songs to address the problems (alleged or otherwise) we face. The problem is that given the club don't lead well, our fans don't lead well and we seem to lack any organisation whatsoever when it comes to our challenges, we're all p!ssing in the wind on whatever website we use. That's why the enemies you mention are being so successful. The Billy Boys debate is just one symptom of a larger disease which is debilitating our club off the park. Pursuing solutions to this are well and good (tell me where to sign up) but I don't see many suggestions from anyone unfortunately.

Such common sense isn't always applied in a court of law, Pete...

Excellent post Cal... Or even better UEFA and the SPL just releasing a statement saying 'Sticks and stones...'

Seems the grapevine mentions this guy to us at the moment... Can't see it myself but if he does reject a new contract then the usual rumours may well be more than that.

Given we seem to the only club making public statements and mentioning specific songs being banned, how do we take everyone down with us if there is no appetite to examine other clubs/supports? Given Celtic's continual and ongoing Republican stance and their supports' unpunished penchant for IRA glorification (something which is also supposed to be illegal) then one could argue fen!an has never been more appropriate in song from those who oppose such principles. As such, any grown up debate highlighting the faux offence and clear double standards would be welcome. I'd have thought Leggatt was one person who could help put together our case. Gordon Smith and Professor Steve Bruce may be another couple of experienced folk who could comment. I'm sure we all have other contacts of appropriate background (legal, academic etc) who we could approach to put together something that shows exactly how sensationalised this whole subject is. The most immediate hurdle though is that terms such as 'fen!an' have already been pretty much outlawed in this country in many contexts. When people like Donald Findlay struggle to defend their use in the courts and many more people (with vested interests such as politicians or charities) argue against it publicly, then it won't be easy to show how harmless a football chant which utilises it is.

Do you think UEFA and/or the SPL would then punish us given the warnings the club have been making of late? Someone somewhere is putting the club under pressure here. The why is obvious - the who, less so. Playing Russian Roulette may be one course of action but what happens if our bluff is called?

I think much of that is probably correct. FWIW, I feel UEFA clearly fined us for singing TBB after pressure of Celtic-minded people in Scotland. After that censure, I then feel Murray felt the best course of action was to proscribe that particular song to avoid further problems. In retrospect, that action was possibly premature as I doubt UEFA are overly interested in taking stronger action. However, it is difficult to judge their intentions because (as we seen with the Villarreal debacle) they're a law unto themselves and will remain pressured by people in higher places than you or I. As such, to try and move the debate on, how would you recommend we challenge UEFA and/or other parties in order to achieve clarity?

I'd rather they told us when they'd signed not that they may sign...

Working fine here mate...

It was either her or Gerard Kelly...

Has it really been almost a month since news broke of the proposed Whyte consortium takeover? Amongst the tepid stickiness of premature welcomes and the excitement of tabloid transfer war-chests, as ever there was minimal meat on the bones of this story from the outset. And there's even less now as we approach Christmas, the suggested date of deal conclusion from those 'club insiders' that are oft-quoted but rarely named. Of course we've been down this road before over the last year or so. From Graham Duffy (the alleged fan buyout champ), to Dave King (the alleged financial innocent), to Andrew Ellis (the alleged Murray 'shill'); the cast of this particular pantomime is varied and about as 'A' list as Elaine C. Smith in Mother Goose. 'Yes, we are interested in buying the club', says their statements to the stock exchange. 'Oh no you're not', says Alastair Johnston and much of the fan-base. Hilarious, if you're a 5 year old kid - less funny if you're a Rangers supporter anxious to hear more about the club's long-term future. To that end, the information vacuum surrounding this issue is making it difficult for the average bear. Sir David Murray (he's behind you!) seems more interested in garden proposals for Ratho and stadiums for Edinburgh rugby teams than his >90% shareholding in Scotland's most successful club. Alistair Johnston (he knows all the big stars) enjoys making 30min long bland AGM statements but appears mute from the comfort of the USA the rest of the time. Meanwhile our fan groups (containing more than a few panto dames I'm told) profess inside information but only relay rumour rather than offering tangible guidance. Is it any wonder we're easily beaten off-the-field by more organised clubs? Obviously we all understand that there are legal restrictions in place surrounding such matters but given it won't be long before the club are selling season tickets to us again, I'd like to know what I'm buying. I'm all for ongoing debt reduction and financial prudence but I also expect the club to remain competitive personnel wise. If a purported Champions' League bounty of �£20million can't reduce the debt to a fair degree while also ring-fencing some money for a new player or two in January, how do the likes of Whyte et al intend financing their plan in the longer term? Surely we're all a bit sick of asking the same questions and not getting any answers except the well remunerated Martin Bain expecting praise for NOT selling a key player half way through the season. Gee, thanks for that Martin - here, have another half a million and a French vineyard for your trouble. The script is all too obvious and just a bit boring. �£20million+ transfer war-chests; G51 super-plans; stadium upgrades; new found respect for supporters; oversight committees to make recommendations. Blah, patronise, blah, prevaricate, blah, boast etc etc. And this is where people like Bain are treading on thin ice this winter. By all means, play the prudence card to avoid further debt. Please do play hard-ball with any player you feel is asking for too much money. Yes, ensure we avoid censure from shadowy kangaroo courts eager to feast on the anti-sectarianism sham. But, please don't treat us like mugs. Show us a bit more respect and we'll continue to show our unwavering commitment to our club. Of course, the vast majority of our fans buy a ticket again next season; most probably with league title win garnish, new ownership cherry on top or not. But cancel the ownership pantomime now as we're not interested in being served up condescending clap-trap without substance. if people are really serious about becoming genuine leaders of the Rangers, do so through the correct channels - not a nudge to Jim Traynor here and wink to Darrell King there. Yes, we're all intrigued about SPL reconstruction and we appreciate that will play an important part in our club's future. But we're more interested about our club in a specific sense. In a period where you're releasing statement after statement about our supporters' alleged 'Unacceptable Conduct'; well I'd like to remind you that allowing external parties such as banks, objectionable people within football authorities and the media to dictate our future, whilst the people who pay your wages remain uninformed is also far from satisfactory. Will you work with us towards a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year or will you allow the Scrooges you're associated with to continue the 'Bah Humbug' attitude of the club to its loyal fans?

I'm a bit disappointed the club haven't commented further on the issue as well. I understand that there are legal restrictions in place surrounding such matters but given it won't be long before they're selling season tickets to us again, I'd like to know what I'm buying. I'm all for debt reduction but I also expect the club to remain competitive personnel wise. If �£20million of CL money can't reduce the debt to a fair degree and also ring-fence some money for a new player or two, how do the likes of Whyte et al intend financing their plan in the longer term? I'm sick of asking the same questions and not getting any answers except Bain expecting praise for NOT selling a key player half way through the season.

I agree that the club should publish the directive in its entirety to remove the uncertainty surrounding this issue.

After apparently banking �£20million from the CL, I'd rather hear our CEO talk about incoming transfers rather than denying key players may be leaving.

I've also bought the t-shirt in this case having put together a report a few years back detailing the sham that is the anti-sectarianism industry in this country. I can understand your frustration with regard to the supporters groups in this issue because I had put this together shortly before I resigned from the Trust and still expected them to release/support it even after the debacle there. Unfortunately they chose to kick it into the long grass so I released it as a Gersnet project instead. I'd like to see the report revisited and improved now the debate appears to be being given too much air-time again. Article on report here: http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/archived/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=670&Itemid=54 Full report available here: http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/reports/SIFworkinggroup.pdf

The UEFA Directive is available on the Assembly's website. http://www.thebluenose.co.uk/assembly/uefa-directive/ Of course it is up to the individual supporter whether or not to take this as genuine. I do believe it is but I also don't believe UEFA would enforce it.

I think MF's last sentence is perhaps the most accurate way to approach this. I feel strangely confident about this deal though. Nothing concrete to lay my hat on but just feel there's no smoke without fire sometimes.

They seem to cheer the fella Kayal happily and hypocritically enough...