Comment on A Sanity Clause for Xmas? by incredibleadamspark.
January 20, 2015 at 1:53 am
Just heard a plug for 5 lives Nicky Campbell show lamenting Rangers fall from the giddy heights of the champions league SEMI-FINAL ( ? ) in 1994 ! ! !
Now I’m pretty sure they finished behind Marseille in a 4 team group ( bruges + psv maybe the other teams ? )
with a won 2 lost 2 drew 2 record courtesy of an outrageous fluke goal from Scott Nisbet in one game . . .
Appears its not just the smsm that inhabit an alternative reality these days ! Or is it me ?
It was actually 1992/93 which was the second season of the new CL format. Only champions allowed (imagine that!) and two qualifying rounds to determine who made the group stages. There were only two groups containing four teams and the winners of each group made it to the final. You were allowed five subs and only three foreigners.
Rangers beat Lyngby in the first round then Leeds Utd in the second. As a youngster (12 years old, maybe) I attended the Leeds game at Ibrox where Gary McAllister scored an absolute screamer in the second minute. Strachan also played and must have been 35 at the time but was still outstanding. Cantona was in the team too. Rangers won 4-2 on aggregate to make the group stage where they would face Marseille, Club Brugge and CSKA Moscow.In the other group were AC Milan, Porto, PSV and IFK Goteborg. They won two and drew four to finish on eight points and were unbeaten in Europe that season (imagine that!) but finished one point behind Marseille who went on to beat AC Milan 1-0 in the final. Definitely no semi-finals, Nicky Campbell.
Whatever the thoughts on Rangers now it was a fantastic achievement at the time and a memorable season to be a fan. David Murrays ego seemed to expand at the same rate as the CL and football is now unrecognisable compared to twenty odd years ago. Just read again the eight teams who made the group stages that season, and had to qualify to do so, and ask yourself how many of them would get there now? That’s what happens when you chase moonbeams. This flood of money and advertising has lead to the commercialization of the game, our game, and has turned many fans off. I’m one of them.
Now here is the interesting bit. The Marseille owner, Bernard Tapie, was alleged to have made illegal payments to a number of Valenciennes players during the 92/93 season. The payments were for them to go easy on Marseille before the CL final. An investigation resulted in the banning of Marseille from next seasons CL, the stripping of their league title and eventual relegation to the second division. There were further allegations of bribery during the CL campaign that season but Marseille were ultimately allowed to keep their CL title.
incredibleadamspark Also Commented
A Sanity Clause for Xmas?
I hope Alex Neil and his assistant Frank McAvoy are a success at Norwich. What a great job they did at Hamilton and what a wonderful gesture by the club towards two loyal servants. It also shows a fantastic appreciation of their own fans. Yet another good news story about Scottish football.
A Sanity Clause for Xmas?
The abuse of Delahunt is crazy and it’s got me thinking about how important our use of language is to overall debate. In an ideal world no words should be banned and we’d just exercise our own judgement about the effect certain words might have on another group. Sevco is fine, by the way. Sevco, Sevco, Sevco, Sevco, Sevco. See. Sevco. Faux outrage is embarrassing and I’ll stop just short of Voltaire on this one.
When I see Rangers fans described as ra people, the clan and the darkside I wonder how I’d feel about contributing on this site if I were a Rangers fan. I’d probably avoid it to be honest. To me the use of such language seems counterproductive to the overall aims of TSFM. Words. Complicated, eh?
Recent Comments by incredibleadamspark
It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
DARKBEFOREDAWN, again a very sensible post and a good read. I don’t think looking abroad for examples is particularly informative. Different countries will have their own set of rules and it’s probably not a one size fits all situation.
Why not keep it in Scotland and use Airdrionians as an example? They may have got their name back but they were founded in 2002 as Airdrie Utd after the original club went into liquidation.
It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
DARKBEFOREDAWN, that’s a good post. What I would say is that this Rangers are the same but different. They are a result of the old one being liquidated. An emotional connection is obvious but surely there can be no claim to any titles previously won by the old club?
As for the EBTs was it not the incorrect use of them that was the problem? It’s the side letters, not regestering payments with the SFA, not supplying information and lying to authorities that is the issue.
An emotional response is understandable and when all is said and done it’s only a football club. I sat in the rear of the Govan stand for years with my family. For me this is the second version of the club and I don’t think that’s a big deal. They still play at Ibrox, play in blue strips….
Who Is Conning Whom?
I personally haven’t read anything that has made me think anyone should be removed from this site. From what I’ve read, the debate has been pretty civilised. I really dont see a problem. I think sometimes the terms ‘troll’ and ‘squirrel’ can be misused to shut down conversations.
No one has to read every post and if anyone wants to raise other issues for discussion then they are free to do so. I’m sure the Mods will step in if they feel things are getting out of hand.
The discussions this last week or so have improved my understanding of certain issues and I think that’s a really positive thing.
I read, and occasionally post, on SFM because I’m broadly in agreement with what is discussed on here. We shouldn’t exist in a self-congratulatory bubble or be unwelcoming to posters who have a different take on things.
Specifically who has this vice like grip on the football authorities and media? It seems everybody, whichever team they support, is unhappy with the authorities and media. Reading, listening and interpreting the exact same things but coming to completely different conclusions.
On on that note, whilst I don’t agree with our new poster, I have enjoyed reading his posts and the responses from the more clued up on here.
As for JJ, it seems to me he is just offering his readers an updated version of succulent lamb. Let’s call it cyber lamb. I think he knows his audience well and has no problem playing to it.
I think everyone has been poorly served and continues to be poorly served by the SMSM. Is that because of an agenda, finances, a lack of journalistic talent or just the media doing what the media do? Take your pick, I guess.
Time to Ditch the Geek Show
Nice picture at the top from Nightmare Alley. I do like a good Film Noir. For the purists these are low budget affairs with no major stars (Rangers) that may or may not involve a death (Rangers, again), a double cross (Greene/Whyte), a private detective, also known as a ‘dick’, trying to work out what the hell is going on but is hopelessly behind the curve and manipulated by others (Keith Jackson), a collection of chancers, charlatans and criminals (Rangers boardroom) and with a narrative and worldview that’s undeniably pessimistic (armageddon). Have we been watching one these past few years?
In the 1940s when loads of these classic movies were made the term Film Noir wasn’t around in Hollywood. It was coined by a French critic who noticed the similarities within these movies and the term stuck. Some argue that Film Noir is not a genre but a state of mind. What’s the state of mind of many in the Rangers saga? Cognitive dissonance?
So Film Noir is seen as an accurate and widely used description these days. Seems like the opposite is true of the Old Firm.