Jump to content

 

 

Rangers in danger of looking as ridiculous....


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

...

I truly don't get where the spite for us among the opposition comes from when the yahoos have for years being screwing them all while taking their best players then never even utilising many of those players Scott Allen being a prime example.
...

 

This is the one thing that always annoys me. They all get it straight into the face and watch Brown and Co. laughing in their faces. Their fans wreck the stadiums and gloat like there is no tomorrow. For one reason or another, they take it all, squeal every now and then, and then retreat to their mountain holdfasts and dungeons for months. If a big one is lying on the ground, they sneak by, poke a dagger into its back and hope that a gold coin or two falls into their hands because of it. And even when that does not transpire for the best part of 7 years, they rather sit in the gloom and dark and whisper quiet curses and threats than get into the Hooped Horrors faces  - not least as they all hold one (as in: ONE) vote of power in the SPFL. And now they seemingly want those who still feel that dagger in their backs to act against the other big heinous one and hold the banner in their stead.

 

(Sounds terribly like Scottish clan mentality ... which usually yielded next to nothing of the centuries.)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

And despite all that, it's Rangers that are detached from reality and have a cheek to complain? :rolleyes:

Correct.

Jackson's piece is perverse, to such an extent that one might suggest, deliberately so. That, however, would be to extend the man far too much credit. 

 

It is clear that he lost, some time ago, his "in" at Ibrox and Auchenhowie, and now flounders, occasionally penning a rather obviously bitter piece impugning Rangers.

 

If he sincerely wishes to understand Scottish Fitba' in the era since the appointment of Regan, he should devote some time and effort to studying the fictional works of Lewis Carroll, specifically 'Alice in Wonderland'.  In current circumstance, criticising Rangers is akin to deprecating Alice for her reactions to the bizarre logic of Wonderland, and the outlandish characters contained therein. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bluedell said:

The incident was seen by the ref and a decision made. In what other country in Europe would they take that incident, hardly the worst, and reassess it? No wonder it's pushed the club over the edge. 

I don't know about another country but it's within the rules that currently exist in Scotland and hence nothing will change regards Flanagan and the 2 game suspension.

 

What is generally recognised by many clubs in Scotland is that the current rules/process isn't fit for purpose and needs to be changed. There seems to be a general beliefthat things will change this summer. It remains to be seen to what and if it works any better.

 

What I think is more significant with this statement is the decision to go after specifics, including pointing to a particular incident/player to highlight an inconsistency that I think we all agree is very much part of the current process and individuals involved.

 

I very much agree with the inconsistency, trial by Sportscene, lack of transparency etc.

What I'm saying is that I think we've picked the wrong example to go public on.

For me, you go for something(s) blatant that was ignored by Sportscene and not even chosen by Claire Whyte to be looked at by the panel of ex-refs and you contrast it with relevant examples of our players being highlighted by Sportscene, cited and suspended.

 

With Simunovic, it seems as though it was a case that was looked at and presented to the panel.

So you are basically pointing at the 3 ex-refs rather than the process as a whole.

 

The other issue for me is if it would have been better to get something out there using another conduit, which is a debate in itself. 

 

Siege mentality is one thing but when the club does act like this, it has to get it right and it has to be part of an ongoing strategy. We'll get a better idea of results when we hear of any changes to the process for next season.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Daily Rhebel is annoyed at us standing up for ourselves and outing a clear and obvious bias from the CO.

 

That works for me.

 

The Rhebel has clearly bought into, hook line and sinker, the official celtic line of "know your place hun scum" where we are not allowed to stand up for ourselves, or accuse celtic (and their players) of any misconduct, but just continue to accept the corruption, cheating, and bias that comes through from referees, compliance officers, et al.

 

I have said this repeatedly, the Daily Rhebel should have no press access to Auchenhowie, Ibrox, any of our players or coaching/management team. Any players talking to the Rhebel get a maximum fine. We should put up on the big screens at every home game the message that this organisation is not for Bears. If I ever manage to win a big jackpot in the Euromillions and buy a big stake in our club, this would be in place in the first week. The message it sends out to the rest is very clear, be fair or lose readers/access.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, buster. said:

I don't know about another country but it's within the rules that currently exist in Scotland and hence nothing will change regards Flanagan and the 2 game suspension.

 

What is generally recognised by many clubs in Scotland is that the current rules/process isn't fit for purpose and needs to be changed. There seems to be a general beliefthat things will change this summer. It remains to be seen to what and if it works any better.

 

What I think is more significant with this statement is the decision to go after specifics, including pointing to a particular incident/player to highlight an inconsistency that I think we all agree is very much part of the current process and individuals involved.

 

I very much agree with the inconsistency, trial by Sportscene, lack of transparency etc.

What I'm saying is that I think we've picked the wrong example to go public on.

For me, you go for something(s) blatant that was ignored by Sportscene and not even chosen by Claire Whyte to be looked at by the panel of ex-refs and you contrast it with relevant examples of our players being highlighted by Sportscene, cited and suspended.

 

With Simunovic, it seems as though it was a case that was looked at and presented to the panel.

So you are basically pointing at the 3 ex-refs rather than the process as a whole.

 

The other issue for me is if it would have been better to get something out there using another conduit, which is a debate in itself. 

 

Siege mentality is one thing but when the club does act like this, it has to get it right and it has to be part of an ongoing strategy. We'll get a better idea of results when we hear of any changes to the process for next season.

 

 

 

Unless I missed it somewhere, there has been nothing official from the CO office to say they did review the Defoe incident and didnt think it was bad enough to warrant a case? Only speculation that this happened?

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tannochsidebear said:

Unless I missed it somewhere, there has been nothing official from the CO office to say they did review the Defoe incident and didnt think it was bad enough to warrant a case? Only speculation that this happened?

The usual unofficial and unsatisfactory procedure would seem to be that it usually gets out to journalists and is then reported on.

 

It's another reason to ridicule the process but I doubt the leaks will be pure bullshit.

 

I think you could use Scott Brown as exhibit X and go through a couple of seasons of videos and put forward a slam dunk case against Mr.Untouchable, Sportscene, C.O., the process and how a lack of transparency allows blatant injustice to thrive.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tannochsidebear said:

Unless I missed it somewhere, there has been nothing official from the CO office to say they did review the Defoe incident and didnt think it was bad enough to warrant a case? Only speculation that this happened?

Exactly and another thing is why is there only one camera angle on this assault? were the others trained somewhere else or has the film been locked away in the vault containing the effigy evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, buster. said:

What I'm saying is that I think we've picked the wrong example to go public on.

For me, you go for something(s) blatant that was ignored by Sportscene and not even chosen by Claire Whyte to be looked at by the panel of ex-refs and you contrast it with relevant examples of our players being highlighted by Sportscene, cited and suspended.

 

With Simunovic, it seems as though it was a case that was looked at and presented to the panel.

So you are basically pointing at the 3 ex-refs rather than the process as a whole.

 

The other issue for me is if it would have been better to get something out there using another conduit, which is a debate in itself. 

 

Siege mentality is one thing but when the club does act like this, it has to get it right and it has to be part of an ongoing strategy. We'll get a better idea of results when we hear of any changes to the process for next season.

 

Yes, it should have been done much earlier in the season. Players were given free reign to assault Morelos (Broadfoot and Morelos being the 2 most recent), with no action being taken and the club did little or nothing to protect him as a 22 year old in a foreign country (and some of the blame goes to Gerrard on that).

 

However I've got absolutely no problem with them doing it on this occasion, as there were unique circumstances to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know he's been better recently but the longer Flanagan is banned for the better as far as I'm concerned... 

 

Also, I think we need to bear in mind that if anyone is an expert on looking ridiculous it's Keith Jackson. An expert speaks, we should all listen. I quite liked the "rhyming slang" line though. I'm happy for the club to point out the constant inconsistencies and to do it publicly, at some point maybe a journalist will start to look into them instead of slagging us for pointing them out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.