'Setting The Standard' Project Moves Forward

[rbr 1,247]

:fish::fish:why dont the pair of you just get a room !!!!!

[maineflyer 0]

:fish::fish:why dont the pair of you just get a room !!!!!

 

That's a belter!!!!!

[Big Spliff 0]

Well lo and behold, out of the blue..... the new Assembly website has this to say in discussing the UEFA directive.

 

http://www.thebluenose.co.uk/assembly/uefa-directive/

 

Following the two UEFA Champions League fixtures against Villareal in February and March 2006, UEFA charged Rangers FC for being responsible for discriminatory chants sung by sections of their supporters at both matches, in particular, the ââ?¬Ë?Billy Boysââ?¬â?¢ and ââ?¬Ë?F*** the Popeââ?¬â?¢.

 

Rangers challenged the charges and the UEFA Control & Disciplinary Body cleared the Club in April 2006.

 

UEFA appealed that decision and the Disciplinary Inspector called for the closure of parts of Ibrox stadium, as well as a CHF 35,000 fine. UEFA rules also allowed the consideration of forcing Rangers to play matches behind closed doors, as well as a stadium ban.

 

The UEFA Appeals Body investigated the case and again Rangers FC challenged all charges. The club was fined CHF 30,000 and the closure or partial closure of Ibrox stadium, as originally sought, was prevented. However, the Club was severely warned about its responsibility for the future conduct of supporters and a directive was issued which stated (in conjunction with the Judgment from the Appeals Body):

 

ââ?¬Â¢ ââ?¬Ë?F*** the Popeââ?¬â?¢ is discriminatory under UEFA rules

ââ?¬Â¢ The ââ?¬Ë?Billy Boysââ?¬â?¢ is associated ââ?¬Å?with an attitude that is strongly sectarian and thus discriminatoryââ?¬Â.

� The directive also instructed to the Club to implement a range of measures to demonstrate its continuing efforts to eradicate sectarianism, including the banning of supporters indulging in such behaviour, communication of anti-sectarian messages etc.

ââ?¬Â¢ UEFA made it clear that the singing of the Billy Boys was prohibited. Songs and chants that referred to ââ?¬Ë?F*** the Popeââ?¬â?¢ and ââ?¬Ë?feni@nsââ?¬â?¢ were also condemned. The UEFA directive referred to the ââ?¬Ë?ethosââ?¬â?¢ of its decision and said that a club such as Rangers should be in a position to encourage behaviour that would not jeopardise the club at domestic and international fixtures.

Osasuna

Following the UEFA Cup tie against Osasuna in March 2007, Rangers were fined 20,000 Swiss francs for ââ?¬Å?discriminatory singingââ?¬Â by its supporters. Osasuna was fined far more heavily due to the lack of security arrangements on the night.

 

UEFA specifically mentioned ââ?¬Å?No Pope in Romeââ?¬Â, ââ?¬Å?F*** the Popeââ?¬Â and the Billy Boys as discriminatory singing and concluded the following:

 

ââ?¬Å?UEFA has to send a strong message that sectarianism is unacceptable within football, especially within UEFA competitions. If Rangers FC wishes to compete in UEFA competitions, they must combat this behaviour not only on the occasion of home matches but also on the occasion of away matches. These incidents are ascribable to Rangers FC in accordance with Article 6(1) RD and must be punished accordingly.ââ?¬Â

 

Since that time, the Club has continued with informal liaison with UEFA and the Scottish football authorities and it is clear that the Club and its supporters are unlikely to be given the benefit of the doubt in the future should there be further incidents.

[maineflyer 0]

Well lo and behold, out of the blue..... the new Assembly website has this to say in discussing the UEFA directive.

 

http://www.thebluenose.co.uk/assembly/uefa-directive/

 

Following the two UEFA Champions League fixtures against Villareal in February and March 2006, UEFA charged Rangers FC for being responsible for discriminatory chants sung by sections of their supporters at both matches, in particular, the ââ?¬Ë?Billy Boysââ?¬â?¢ and ââ?¬Ë?F*** the Popeââ?¬â?¢.

 

Rangers challenged the charges and the UEFA Control & Disciplinary Body cleared the Club in April 2006.

 

UEFA appealed that decision and the Disciplinary Inspector called for the closure of parts of Ibrox stadium, as well as a CHF 35,000 fine. UEFA rules also allowed the consideration of forcing Rangers to play matches behind closed doors, as well as a stadium ban.

 

The UEFA Appeals Body investigated the case and again Rangers FC challenged all charges. The club was fined CHF 30,000 and the closure or partial closure of Ibrox stadium, as originally sought, was prevented. However, the Club was severely warned about its responsibility for the future conduct of supporters and a directive was issued which stated (in conjunction with the Judgment from the Appeals Body):

 

ââ?¬Â¢ ââ?¬Ë?F*** the Popeââ?¬â?¢ is discriminatory under UEFA rules

ââ?¬Â¢ The ââ?¬Ë?Billy Boysââ?¬â?¢ is associated ââ?¬Å?with an attitude that is strongly sectarian and thus discriminatoryââ?¬Â.

� The directive also instructed to the Club to implement a range of measures to demonstrate its continuing efforts to eradicate sectarianism, including the banning of supporters indulging in such behaviour, communication of anti-sectarian messages etc.

ââ?¬Â¢ UEFA made it clear that the singing of the Billy Boys was prohibited. Songs and chants that referred to ââ?¬Ë?F*** the Popeââ?¬â?¢ and ââ?¬Ë?feni@nsââ?¬â?¢ were also condemned. The UEFA directive referred to the ââ?¬Ë?ethosââ?¬â?¢ of its decision and said that a club such as Rangers should be in a position to encourage behaviour that would not jeopardise the club at domestic and international fixtures.

Osasuna

Following the UEFA Cup tie against Osasuna in March 2007, Rangers were fined 20,000 Swiss francs for ââ?¬Å?discriminatory singingââ?¬Â by its supporters. Osasuna was fined far more heavily due to the lack of security arrangements on the night.

 

UEFA specifically mentioned ââ?¬Å?No Pope in Romeââ?¬Â, ââ?¬Å?F*** the Popeââ?¬Â and the Billy Boys as discriminatory singing and concluded the following:

 

ââ?¬Å?UEFA has to send a strong message that sectarianism is unacceptable within football, especially within UEFA competitions. If Rangers FC wishes to compete in UEFA competitions, they must combat this behaviour not only on the occasion of home matches but also on the occasion of away matches. These incidents are ascribable to Rangers FC in accordance with Article 6(1) RD and must be punished accordingly.ââ?¬Â

 

Since that time, the Club has continued with informal liaison with UEFA and the Scottish football authorities and it is clear that the Club and its supporters are unlikely to be given the benefit of the doubt in the future should there be further incidents.

 

There's no date associated with this "clarification" but I assume this is new.

 

All of which continues to be the reporting of directives attributed at arms length to UEFA but which no one can actually directly track to a UEFA directive. If UEFA actually made these points (and I'm in no way denying they did) then where is that UEFA correspondence? Surely the whole strategy would have carried more weight if clearly seen to come from UEFA itself.

 

I guess this is probably Frankie's work, he said he had a new approach he wanted to take. It's way too much of a coincidence that the Assembly should suddenly decide to clarify things are the passage of so much time. Unfortunately, it does no more that was already done two years ago and the immaculate timing only adds to the suspicion of collusion.

 

Why is there such apparently desperate intent to re-inforce a UEFA position that no one has ever seen. If UEFA said these things then why deny everyone the opportunity to see the UEFA correspondence? Is there something else in the directive that certain parties wish to keep under wraps?

 

Rather than actually clarifying anything, which it doesn't, this latest epistle comes across as simply offering a defence of the Assembly's original statement. It's merely repetitive and brings no new evidence to to table.

 

Unfortunately, the Assembly is one of those organisations that acquires its constituency merely because it exists and depends entirely on the club for that existence. Perhaps if the Assembly were actually representing a voluntary constituency and operated independently of the club, it might be able to adopt a more credible posture on issues like this. Of course, that's only the personal opinion of one solitary supporter who represents no one but himself and who is entirely self-funding.

[Big Spliff 0]

Good decision not to lock this thread!

 

I'm sure frankie will be along directly again to shed any light, but given his previous posting about an idea he didn't seem too hopeful and there has been a bit of work put into this, so I'm guessing (all things considered) that he'll say it was nothing to do with him. Just a guess mind you - I've been wrong before, I think it was in 1992:D

[maineflyer 0]

Good decision not to lock this thread!

 

I'm sure frankie will be along directly again to shed any light, but given his previous posting about an idea he didn't seem too hopeful and there has been a bit of work put into this, so I'm guessing (all things considered) that he'll say it was nothing to do with him. Just a guess mind you - I've been wrong before, I think it was in 1992

I remember it well and a right fukk up it was too. :devil:

[bmck 117]

saying this he'll probably come along and contradict me, but i'm fairly sure frankie has nothing to do with the assembly's website or the assembly itself (other than through his previous work with the RST and current stuff with the STS meeting, and that he may know people from it). i wouldn't be suprised if they put it up because quite a lot of people will want to know exactly what the deal with it is because they miss TBB.

 

to me it's pretty clear. we got fined for descriminatory chants, TBB is is that chant. if they fined us once, there is some precedent and so they'll do it again; so whether it was either the club, the assembly or uefa, it makes no difference - the outcome is the same, uefa muscle means its best (in a having-to-be-pragmatic sort of way) that we don't sing it.

[craig 5,195]

TBB has started creeping back into the repertoire when we are on the road, has it not ?

 

Perhaps it creeping back in also plays a part in it being revisited by the Assembly.

 

FWIW I also didnt think Frankie had anything to do with the Assembly. My take on him "trying a different route" was merely looking at things from a different angle than having the Assembly restate previous communications.

 

Could be wrong though.

[bmck 117]

^ shit, we've both said the same thing. that's rehearsed - smacks of conspiracy

[craig 5,195]

Oops. Gribz will be in here in a flash Am sure he has a program on his PC that automatically takes him to any website that the word "conspiracy" is typed into :fish: