Rangers condemn banner at Old Firm game

[buster. 5,660]

7 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

As is the celebration of the kidnapping and murdering of Israelis. 

 

Or do you have a selective memory when it comes to praising the celtic fans?

Can you stop the whataboutery.

 

I have pointed only to the murdering of THOUSANDS of children (within an ethnic cleansing).

 

We can usewhatever logic you like, eg. a broken clock being right twice a day.

But they are right to call this out.

 

 

If you want to call out something else, fine. I would join you on the reference you made.

 

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 09:03 by buster.

[L72 263]

3 minutes ago, buster. said:

Can you stop the whataboutery.

 

I have pointed only to the murdering of THOUSANDS of children (within an ethnic cleansing).

 

We can usewhatever logic you like, eg. a broken clock being right twice a day.

But they are right to call this out.

 

 

If you want to call out something else, fine. I would join you on the reference you made.

 

 

 

With all due respect mate, ram it sideways.

 

You have pointed to figures and stuff put out there by Hamas, same as that lot did

 

Hamas revised there death numbers recently and started removing thousands of civilian deaths because they were lied about.

 

You buy into the ethnic cleansing myth that terrorists put out there.

 

That aside though, could you two take this to the lounge 🤔😂

[Uilleam 6,471]

2 minutes ago, buster. said:

Green and the spivs at Rangers

The Glazers at Manchester United 

Green and the spivs are small beer, and I don't think the kind of money they were able to make at Rangers would attract serious long term players. 

 

The Glazers bought a successful club, which generated huge -global- income. The situation at Rangers, as even you will realise, is entirely different: it has potential, but that has to be realised. 

Actually, we might look at the transferability of skills issue in the light of Sir Jim Ratcliffe's travails at Old Trafford. 

 

What have the 49ers done to LUFC that worries you? 

 

 

 

 

[ranger_syntax 4,835]

37 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

To make money from a sporting outfit, that sporting outfit has to be successful. To continue to generate returns, that outfit has to continue to be successful.

Maybe you can make a club successful enough to finish second in the league and play in the Europa league group stages while cutting costs.

[buster. 5,660]

4 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

Green and the spivs are small beer, and I don't think the kind of money they were able to make at Rangers would attract serious long term players. 

 

The Glazers bought a successful club, which generated huge -global- income. The situation at Rangers, as even you will realise, is entirely different: it has potential, but that has to be realised. 

Actually, we might look at the transferability of skills issue in the light of Sir Jim Ratcliffe's travails at Old Trafford. 

 

What have the 49ers done to LUFC that worries you? 

 

 

 

 

The uncertainty worries me.

 

The 'certainty' being shown by some supporters that the takeover will lead us to the promised land, concerns me.

 

If you use the simple logic that the new controlling interest will make all the right appointments, signings and decisions then we shouldn't have any problems.

 

However, we are a serial loss making business in pursuit of on-field success. Our expectation levels don't tend to allow for much patience and that is what we will need to become sustainable.

We are a very particular football club operating in a very particular environment that is highly pressurised. 

 

We have been an Omnishambles for years and it has led us to this point where we don't have many choices. We are rolling the dice.

 

I don't see this being a smooth ride but that is only my opinion and time will tell us how it goes.

 

 

 

 

[Bluedell 6,146]

42 minutes ago, buster. said:

Can you stop the whataboutery.

 

I have pointed only to the murdering of THOUSANDS of children (within an ethnic cleansing).

 

We can usewhatever logic you like, eg. a broken clock being right twice a day.

But they are right to call this out.

 

 

If you want to call out something else, fine. I would join you on the reference you made.

 

 

 

It was you who claimed that celtic fans were on the right side of the conflict, whilst ignoring their celebrations at the original atrocities. If you wish to take a narrow view and praise them for part of it whilst ignoring their abhorrent views on the other part then that's your prerogative but don't expect the rest of us to do so. 

 

[JohnMc 3,224]

Is it just a Scottish thing where everything must be either black or white, it can't be both? It's surely entirely understandable for the CEO and board of the club to feel that an enormous banner showing a figure pointing a gun in the general direction of the away support isn't the kind of image they feel represents them, while also thinking it's not literally calling for anyone to be shot and is entirely in keeping with the type 'edgy humour' associated with ultra groups. It's also fair to think the reaction from media and politicians is farcical. Those are not competing ideas. 

 

Likewise, you can feel the events of October the 7th in Israel were horrifying, barbaric and carried out by monsters while still feeling that a lot of what is happened since then in Gaza and beyond is also horrific and barbaric. You can utterly condemn Hamas and also believe that many of Israel's subsequent actions are also worthy of condemnation. Again, I don't see why these need to be competing viewpoints. 

 

Lastly, it's ok to be unhappy with the current board and senior management at Rangers and also be very wary of the likely new owners. Because you are unhappy currently surely doesn't mean you should welcome any change that comes. Many were very unhappy with Sir David Murray, and so welcomed Craig Whyte without question. There were influential fan groups offering unwavering support for him right up to us going into administration, this support seemed to be based on the fact he wasn't SDM. I'm not saying the 49rs people are Craig Whyte, all I'm saying is you can be wary of their motives and nervous of their aims while still feeling change is required. Again, these shouldn't be competing ideas. 

[Uilleam 6,471]

40 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

Maybe you can make a club successful enough to finish second in the league and play in the Europa league group stages while cutting costs.

How very contemporary Scots. 

[buster. 5,660]

22 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

It was you who claimed that celtic fans were on the right side of the conflict, whilst ignoring their celebrations at the original atrocities. If you wish to take a narrow view and praise them for part of it whilst ignoring their abhorrent views on the other part then that's your prerogative but don't expect the rest of us to do so. 

 

I mentioned their stance but let's forget that and concentrate on ourselves. I call out the murdering of thousands of children. You can do whatever you want.

[buster. 5,660]

19 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

Is it just a Scottish thing where everything must be either black or white, it can't be both? It's surely entirely understandable for the CEO and board of the club to feel that an enormous banner showing a figure pointing a gun in the general direction of the away support isn't the kind of image they feel represents them, while also thinking it's not literally calling for anyone to be shot and is entirely in keeping with the type 'edgy humour' associated with ultra groups. It's also fair to think the reaction from media and politicians is farcical. Those are not competing ideas. 

 

Likewise, you can feel the events of October the 7th in Israel were horrifying, barbaric and carried out by monsters while still feeling that a lot of what is happened since then in Gaza and beyond is also horrific and barbaric. You can utterly condemn Hamas and also believe that many of Israel's subsequent actions are also worthy of condemnation. Again, I don't see why these need to be competing viewpoints. 

 

Lastly, it's ok to be unhappy with the current board and senior management at Rangers and also be very wary of the likely new owners. Because you are unhappy currently surely doesn't mean you should welcome any change that comes. Many were very unhappy with Sir David Murray, and so welcomed Craig Whyte without question. There were influential fan groups offering unwavering support for him right up to us going into administration, this support seemed to be based on the fact he wasn't SDM. I'm not saying the 49rs people are Craig Whyte, all I'm saying is you can be wary of their motives and nervous of their aims while still feeling change is required. Again, these shouldn't be competing ideas. 

Well said John !!

 

ps. Rather than just a Scottish thing, I think it may be more a message board thing.

Maybe 20/80 😂

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 10:26 by buster.