Rick Roberts

3 hours ago, JohnMc said:

Good article, well written, good stuff @Rick Roberts

Thanks John

1 minute ago, Gonzo79 said:

I have no time at all for UEFA or the Scottish government (and fully respect the opinions of Bluedell, Frankie and Rick Roberts) but I get the feeling we're pissing in the wind, to a large extent.  

We are, it's gone. We've lost that fight.

But it's important we learn from it. Understand what's happened. Maybe even balance things up. 

47 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

I've seen quite a bit of that, and to try and equate the two is just sick and trivialises the racism that the likes of Kamara and others regularly receive. It is points scoring and those who use it should have a good look at themselves and realise that their bitterness is downplaying the racism that some black people have to regularly suffer.

 

I've also seen the claims of anti-Irish racism and couldn't get my head around how Rangers fans were racist against the Irish. The "Why don't you go home" chant could be levelled against us, but it's not been sung for many years as far as I'm aware, and it seems to me that it was sarcasm and aimed at Scots who pretend to be Irish, rather than Irish people themselves. I couldn't think of other songs/chants that were anti-Irish.

 

I guess from what Rick is saying they're trying to claim the use of "f*nian" is in some way anti-Irish. As the argument is using the political meaning of the word then that's the same logic as claiming that our "fuck the SNP" chant is anti-Scottish. 

 

There still is racism out there, although thankfully nowhere near as bad as it was 30 years ago, but the attempts to link it to Rangers fans is downplaying it and allowing the actual racists more oxygen to continue their bile.

Yep, i'm guess i'm trying to point out the agendas and contortions involved. The goal was always to get us in trouble, by any means possible, and less with how that's achieved or any double-standards.  

Ultimately, we have to be smart and wisen up. This one's always going to be a loaded gun. No doubt they'll invent new and imaginative ways to catch us out in the future. 

12 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

i know he got a yellow but would be amazed if the CO doesn't deal with this. It was wild. 

Yep, it's a lot less subtle than the Alfie or Roofes incidents. 

On 13/03/2021 at 09:23, Uilleam said:

Adrian Goldberg's film 'The Celtic Boys' Club Scandal' now released

 

 

This is the crowd-funded documentary that covers much that other TV and news hasn't. Some brave stuff from the Grays and Gordon Woods. 

Please watch, like and share to increase exposure. 

1 hour ago, Bluedell said:

if we win the league and with Lawwell standing down, it would be ideal opportunity for them to act with a greater position of strength than they may have had up until now.

I cant disagree. Just so frustrated this has continued.

A question for yourself @Bluedelland the forum. Does anyone know how much the CO or contract lawyers at the SFA get paid? Is it in their accounts?

9 hours ago, Bill said:

On what basis would you take this to the courts.  Seriously, no one is ever going to get anywhere with this if we continue to waste time and energy on fictitious remedies and impossible solutions. It is what it is. You either change the relationship between Rangers and the SPFL & SFA to something like we had well before the Murray years or you settle for how it is today. Celtic are benefiting now because they understood better than we did that this is essentially a political battle, not a legal one. Many years ago Rangers was by far the most influential club in the Scottish game but we turned that into a "no one likes us, we don't care" situation. Of course it's not entirely as simple as that but you get my point.

I agree with the politics stuff. But there's something different this time too. We saw last year that Doncaster and co were going nowhere even when caught bang to rights. Even look at the Salmond enquiry, there's a new variant of shamelessness going around.

I initially thought that this would be a last hurrah from them, but i'm not so sure now.

Looking at the Rangers board, they really should've fronted up to this 2 or 3 years ago.

Here's Adam's tactical article for the first two seasons. A brilliant level of insight and detail. Enjoy!

https://the4thofficial.net/2021/01/steven-gerrard-the-man-who-took-on-the-impossible-job-at-rangers-part-1/

Here's Kenny's article. Well worth a read ?

15 hours ago, Ted McMinnime said:

Really great article! The contrasts of our EL success compared to their CL implosions is stark. Our transfer business has been very astute, Grezda is the only one who paid a substantial fee for that didn't work out. 

Absolutely. The Gerrard factor is incredible. And the old timers coming back for the fight, of course.

Even though it didn't happen for players like Ejaria and Ojo, they still had moments or goals that helped the club. 

16 hours ago, the gunslinger said:

this is something you could really expand on here if you wanted. even a series of articles looking at monthly results or quarters would be fascinating. 

 

Hopefully the spring and summer will be a time to totally immerse ourselves in Rangers and Gerrard. The more moments and memories from everyone the better. ?  

Thanks for the feedback guys ?

I'd thoroughly recommend watching back some of the highlights from the early games. The euro stuff is really enjoyable/interesting, knowing what we now know.  

Also, if anyone can use or recommend any easy editing software or has any hints then let me know? I'd love to see some of the highlights set to music - especially with Kent's celebration ?

38 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

I was going to point out that the initial part of the article refers to BBC rather than BBC Scotland, but thinking about it further the BBC as a whole are complicit and London have backed the approach of their biased counterparts in Scotland and refused to investigate it, despite numerous complaints to them, including one from@ian1964.

That's my thinking, there's plenty of kindred spirits in London for them. They may not be fully aware what they're signing up for but are happy with what they've been told. My mind goes back to CW2014 where many were wined and dined a la celtic. These impressions matter and last.  

11 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

The whole thing stinks.  

Crooks and chancers everywhere

1 minute ago, Waltersgotstyle said:

There are far more questions than answers surrounding this deal. £13m is a lot of money for a fans group to raise, a sum of that size should be going into the club not to any individual. I say this as a big Dave King fan as well. 

Does anyone know how club1872s % would look if the £13m was invested in a separate share issue? 

Also, what's club1872s model, £1300 for each of 10,000 members?

Daft question. What if club1872 don't raise all of the money?

As a fan of club1872 my questions would be more for them going forward (most of it covered in other posts). Guarantees/transparency etc has to be addressed. They'll need to admit and own what has went wrong in the past. 

Some of their work (confronting papers and BBC) has been fantastic. But it's been erratic and they've disappeared completely for huge periods of time. A consistent, reliable, transparent defender of the club and support is what I'd expect from them in return for any investment. 

26 minutes ago, RANGERRAB said:

Will there be a replacement CO?

The SFA were having redundancies were they not?

This could be one of them.

Not exactly an essential role is it if all things are considered?

SSB mentioning a successor. ?

1 minute ago, Bluedell said:

Transfer fees/player sales aren't included in revenue.

I notice he calls it revenue and total income at the same time? Is it in the total income number?

3 minutes ago, DMAA said:

How the heck are they bringing in that kind of revenue? They haven't had Champions League money since 2017/18, and their revenue is still way above where it was before, even in a pandemic stricken season. Transfer fees only partially account of it.

He had some info on earlier in the year that's worth a look. If you follow the thread its got player sales / broadcasting etc. £20m extra from CL, and £25m from Teirney. Take that away and it's back to Delia levels - with bigger wages.  

On 16/05/2020 at 09:14, Bill said:

For those prepared to consider the reality of our position, the harsh truth is Peter Lawwell has out-thought and out-fought Rangers for the best part of 20 years. He has succeeded is establishing Celtic as the pre-eminent club in Scotland and has done so by removing Rangers from any position of influence it had in Scottish football. Celtic has been better run in every respect, to the extent they are now far better financed and much better connected than Rangers by a country mile.

 

Since returning to the SPFL, Rangers has succeeded in making second place its own but remains far behind Celtic in almost every respect. If we are ever going to shake off our current mantle as second best and step out of Celtic's shadow, we will need a far better calibre of leadership and it's far from obvious to me that we currently have the people on board to provide it. Clearly, we're now heading in the right general direction but if we don't improve and get it right, we could spend the next 20 years heading in the right direction without ever arriving at a destination.

 

I remember when Rangers was recognised by everyone as the gold standard in Scottish football, when Celtic was the perennial bridesmaid. But we got lazy and careless and frittered away every advantage we once had. I don't think we can just assume Celtic will do the same. There's a tacit understanding that we have to stop Celtic winning ten in a row but, seriously, I'm more concerned about them winning 15 or more in a row and, frankly, nothing I've seen so far persuades me we yet have what it takes to stop them. My hope is that recent boardroom changes will pave the way for new and more aggressively competitive investors/directors and that that will translate into something more than the half-hearted challenges we've mustered in recent years. Something significant has to change and I hope the current directors are smart enough to realise that.

Was just thinking this. In many aspects off-the-pitch, we're quite a away off where we should be. It might be that once we crack one stronghold then others will fall shortly after, equally it might not.

3 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

In this next game at the weekend, he must drop Goldson, Tav, Davis and others.  Regardless of the result, this will help stabilise us in the medium term. 

I'm not sure at this stage. I'd hate us to experiment too much AND keep losing, only to watch celtic drop points and think what could've been. Once the league is mathematically gone, absolutely. Not that they don't deserve dropped, just that their nature is that they might turn up in the next game and are part of the strongest 11. 

Agree with the rest, we do need to find out weaknesses this season and work out how to eradicate them. By whatever method necessary. 

5 hours ago, Bluedell said:

While I understand the sentiment, I'm not sure that I want to lose Derry's Walls, and there's no chance that there can be a Rangers verse added.

 

I do share your thoughts over the high ground, and I'm not keen on the revised version of "Three Cheers For". There is a fine line and "We're coming down the road" is on the right side of it.

 

The mindset has to be something for the future. The top priority has to be getting rid of the use of the F and P words. 

 

I'm astounded and dismayed that the warnings aren't getting through. There's a rumour that we are again not going to accept tickets for the next away leg, which is understandable. I'm not sure what else the club can do, other than remove those who attended last night from the travel club, which also has some issues. 

We're coming down the road was the one I had in mind, it lends itself well to "we're supporters of the RFC" for example.

Even something like Build my Gallows, i love it but "I'm a loyal Rangers man" might resonant more.

I don't want to dilute everything or lose any edge. And i certainly don't want to give everything the Andy Cameron treatment. There's just certain songs that could benefit. And making things about Rangers is a good habit if we're to wean folk away from add-ons etc. 

4 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

As far as I'm aware, there was only one song sung that mentioned the UVF, and it's about the members of militia formed in 1912 enlisted with the British Army's 36th (Ulster) Division for WW1.

 

I don't see that being a major issue, and was not one of the 2 problematic songs sung yesterday.

It's not problematic, and it's not FTP chants or TBB. But it does hand away high ground over their IRA stuff. 

I guess what i'm getting at is a mindset - a push to see all songs given a Rangers verse and that be the one driven from the singing section.