Bonkers OCNC Thread

Humble PiePosted on7:38 pm - Dec 3, 2013

bryce9a says: (80)
December 3, 2013 at 8:45 am

Sorry to intrude on this fascinating discourse. (Good move TSFM)
So, let me get this right……
After taking up most of the minds on this blog for the last couple of weeks. After every one of your attempts to reinterpret the meaning and spirit of the rules and regulations of the game was debunked. After all the whataboutery and numerous attempts to rewrite recent history. After 70 odd posts full of woolly hypothesis, wild speculation and ill-considered comparison. Despite it being proven beyond reasonable doubt that ‘club’ and ‘company’ are indivisible (ergo The Rangers are a NEW club) the best you can come up with is……
The Rangers are still the same ‘club’ because YOU (and presumably the rest of your teams supporters) ‘think’ they are ?
Are you sure you’re not Neil Doncaster ?
As my daughter would say. Epic Fail!

M8DreamerPosted on10:13 pm - Apr 13, 2014

How refreshing to hear the Dundee Utd supporters singing “your not Rangers anymore” at Ibrox yesterday.
This should be sung at every game that TRFC play, to remind TRFC and their supporters that they are a new club with 2 years history( until Administration/Liquidation 2).
Scottish Football needs to constantly remind TRFC and their supporters of this to ensure that they are never allowed to forget this

RyanGoslingPosted on11:32 pm - Jun 19, 2014

Sorry slightly off topic, and I definitely do not wish to stir up an old club new club debate, but JoeMillersShorts just posted a link to an article on the World Cup thread that got me thinking. In the article the author, by way of example, mentioned Patrick Thistle fans singing songs about Celtic and “Rangers”. What I found interesting about this was that the author put “Rangers” in inverted commas. I’m pretty sure I understand why he did this. I realise that most people here refer to TRFC. JamesForrest is fond of Sevco Rangers. PhilMacGhiollaBhain prefers “the klan”. I just wondered if anyone would ever refer to Rangers in an unqualified manner, or if fellow posters always felt the need to provide a distinction when referring to Rangers.

I myself don’t, as has been evident many times. I know several posters (Barcabhoy I believe, perhaps Ecobhoy, may well be wrong) have said it is up to Rangers fans how they view their club, and fair play to them for that. As I said, I don’t wish to start the same old debate, just trying to take the temperature of the blog.

TSFM – if this is an inappropriate question for the main blog and should be moved then I apologise and please do move / delete it.

RyanGoslingPosted on11:56 pm - Jun 19, 2014

Joe, didn’t realise the source. Although if it was posted on a political / sociological website, I’d question the value in posting here. I don’t think football exists in a bubble, but I think we have to tread a fine line on this blog between discussing football in its context and risking debates which spiral beyond all relevance. As I said previously, I agreed with a lot of what the author said, but just think care should be taken in the direction of debates. Please correct me if you disagree.

RyanGoslingPosted on12:27 am - Jun 20, 2014

John Clark,

You’ve answered my question at least! And I understand what you mean, I really do.

I’m trying to tread a fine line between starting the bonkers debate here. What I was getting at is, while a distinction must be drawn between old and new rangers, I personally believe that if someone said “Rangers against Hearts in the first game of the Championship”, everyone would know what team was being referred to. I understand the points you make. My question was, notwithstanding your points, do any posters here refer to “Rangers” simply as Rangers, or does everyone make some distinction in the name.

Honest question, I’m not trying to argue any point, and I sincerely hope that “self deluding fans” was not aimed at me.

John ClarkPosted on12:51 am - Jun 20, 2014

RyanGosling says:
June 20, 2014 at 12:27 am
‘…do any posters here refer to “Rangers” simply as Rangers, or does everyone make some distinction in the name. ‘
———-
I think it’s likely that most posters do make the distinction, conscious of the concerted campaign by the media and the Football Authorities to get us to ‘move on’ in the hope that the gross wrongdoing done by them will be forgotten.
Occasionally, though, the odd poster will use the word ‘Rangers’, rather than Sevco, TRFC, ‘new club’ or whatever.
That is regrettable. But such posters almost certainly mean ‘Sevco’ etc ( unless of course their post is actually referring to RFC as was).
And, of course, I was not referring to you as being a ‘self-deluded’ fan.Your very useful posts are clear evidence that you are anything but!

oldbhoy99Posted on12:53 am - Jun 20, 2014

RyanGosling says:
June 19, 2014 at 11:32 pm
———————

Ryan, I am comfortable enough referring to rangers without inverted commas, but only when referring to the pre 2012 model. The various distinctions you mention are(for me anyway) a way of ensuring we don’t get sucked into propagating the big lie, and I’m pretty sure you understand that.
You make the point that it is up to TRFC fans how they view their club, and I agree with that. However, it is up to the rest of us to decide how we view your club. I don’t expect TRFC fans to share my viewpoint, and equally I would expect TRFC fans to understand that very few fans in Scotland share their viewpoint.
It may come across as petty or sad, but imo these distinctions are important as a constant reminder that people won’t be sucked into the big lie, we won’t just roll over while the SMSM tickles our belly.

Resin_lab_dogPosted on12:59 am - Jun 20, 2014

RyanGosling says:
June 20, 2014 at 12:51 am

0

0

Rate This

________________________________________

‘Jags’ could refer to ‘Partick’ or ‘Caley’.
‘Caley’ could refer to either Caledonian Thistle of old, or the new club ICT.
No objection to people using ‘Rangers’ as a shorthand. It would be laughable to try and stop bears talking about sevco as ‘the gers’.
But there is a constituency that wants to airbrush from history an episode which damaged the sport massively and from which important lessons have unfortunately still to be learned.
These are the people that need a great big ‘THE’ to remind them of this fact.
When/if those lessons are actually learned, I shall feel alot less strident about policing my acronyms
It all comes down to context.

RyanGoslingPosted on1:06 am - Jun 20, 2014

Resin Lab Dog,

You’re getting right to the heart of why I brought this up in the first place. I’m reading between the lines here obviously, but I take what you said to mean that if none of the “lie” had been perpetuated, and a new club had been started and recognised as such, openly and honestly, you’d have happily (or at least willingly) called them Rangers without the need for qualification? Therefore the qualification on the name is an indicator that until honesty prevails the qualification is required?

Resin_lab_dogPosted on1:16 am - Jun 20, 2014

RyanGosling says:
June 20, 2014 at 1:06 am

2

0

Rate This

_______________________________________
Exactly so.

upthehoopsPosted on7:28 am - Jun 20, 2014

RyanGosling says:
June 19, 2014 at 11:32 pm
================================
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter to most people if Rangers fans view the current entity as the same club. Who knows how we all may react to such a scenario. What does matter is the authorities in Scotland appear to have worked with the current entity to create a vision that nothing has changed, when in reality there was no previously separate club and it was liquidated. It shows the cultural power the Rangers support have in Scotland when this can happen. I think it is safe to say that no other Scottish football entity would receive such favourable treatment. I often wonder what the SFA stance would have been had it been Celtic that were liquidated. My view is the SFA may well have wanted the new entity to be part of the league due to its fan base, but it would be made clear it was a year zero start in terms of trophies. I really can’t get my head round why the SFA chose to say this new Rangers entity has the history of the one that was liquidated. There is no reasonable explanation other than fear, or naked bias. I don’t believe the scar will ever heal for fans of clubs who played by the rules yet see this new entity receiving such preferential treatment.

hectorPosted on8:15 am - Jun 20, 2014

I see the old club new club debate has reared its ugly head again. It will never go away and the bonkers page on this blog has helped tone it down a bit. The share chat page on the LSE site is clogged up witth it but that may be a function of the shares not doing anything for weeks on end.. The EBT scheme may be back in the news as Christian Nerlinger if he returns to The Rangers got a £1.8 million “loan” from the old club and I am sure the press will be all over it . 😆

AmazinglessPosted on3:34 am - Aug 9, 2014

RyanGosling says:
June 20, 2014 at 12:27 am

My question was…do any posters here refer to “Rangers” simply as Rangers, or does everyone make some distinction in the name.

………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………

I call your club “Rangers” without (conversational) qualification, Ryan, and I noticed the brief return to the (gloriously circular) discussion about the “correct” nomenclature for the team playing out of Ibrox.

Amongst other things (and this is now directed towards anyone who…well, isn’t Ryan, I suppose), it was (broadly) suggested by a range of contributors that those of us who refer to this club as “Rangers” were falling into a trap, that our actions were “regrettable” and that we (unwittingly or otherwise) give succour to The Big Lie through our choice of words. (The Big Lie, for the uninitiated and my unborn son, being that Rangers Football Club didn’t die – which, of course, it did.)

Some of us watched the attempt to separate the company from the club with a fascinated suspicion that morphed towards outright incredulity – a transcending mixture of excited disbelief and borderline arousal. Is it at all possible, we wondered with joy, that people might actually be so catastrophically self-deluded? The answer, of course, is Yes – emphatically so. (Humans? What are they like?)

However, two things:

First, a technicality: The word “Rangers” seems a perfectly acceptable diminutive of the words “The Rangers Football Club” – and, as such, not immediately or necessarily any more offensive (unless you’re actively trying to find a reason to take offence, of course – and there’s a lot of it about) than abbreviating “Manchester United”, say, to “Man U”.

And, contrary to the apparent fears of so many, whilst using this “Rangers” diminutive, it remains possible that our cognitive facilities may continue to function otherwise unimpaired: to wit, we may use this term whilst retaining both a clear conception of the newborn entity and a clear memory that the word “Rangers” was ascribed to the dead entity. Multi-tasking. It’s a gift.

Second, fans of this club call it “Rangers” and that’s just fine by me – who am I, after all, to instruct them to behave otherwise? As a general (and explicitly personal) rule – and there are limits, of course – it feels reasonable and natural to afford people the courtesy of addressing them by the name(s) they call themselves.

Which, depressingly, may beg the question: If the roles were reversed, might we expect the same courtesy (or respect) in return? Hardly, but so what? If we see someone behave abysmally, or suspect that they might behave abysmally at some unspecified point in the future, we’re under no pressing obligation to behave abysmally ourselves. That way lies a race to the bottom; a morally squalid dead-end. (Or Glasgow, as some might have it…and they would of course be wrong, Your Honour.)

None of this is to suggest that referring to Rangers as “Sevco” or “TRFC” (or whatever) is either “wrong” or cause for rueful regret. On the contrary, it remains perfectly possible for people to understand and respect (and entirely agree with) this approach whilst choosing something quite different for themselves. And where’s the problem with that? Why should this difference be viewed as “regrettable”, “[un]seemly” or “[im]proper”? (I tell you what, but for a white, middle-class chap, it feels terrifically exciting to be able to pass myself off as a put upon victim for once. I can see why so many are at it.)

If we call this club “Rangers” we propagate (and/or buy into) The Big Lie? Hmm. Some of us may feel differently. Don’t fall for The Big Lie? I didn’t. We won’t. But please be careful lest you fall into the trap of believing yourselves somehow qualified to (automatically) judge right from wrong in this instance.

True, you may not like or agree with these reasons for calling Rangers “Rangers”, which is perfectly fair enough – you will be highly qualified, after all, in assessing your own likes, leanings, instincts and outlooks. What you necessarily lack, however, is the authority to definitively pronounce on the likes, leanings, instincts and outlooks of others.

(Forgive the following diversion, please, but glancing back at what I’ve already written and rather dreading what on earth I may write next, I anticipate it to be prudent:

Although I’m writing this here (on TSFM); although I may occasionally reference comments [you] made here; although it may appear as if a charge is being laid directly at your door and that your variable motives, actions or intentions are being miscontextualised and/or mischaracterised, the setting and what goes on here is broadly immaterial to the nature of this lament and in no way constitute its sole or particularly intended target.

But those of us who are not Rangers fans and yet nevertheless call Rangers “Rangers” – and we’re a motley bunch, I’m betting, generally living in the shadows, skulking, badly in need of a self-help group where we might talk and share with fellow sufferers – find ourselves frequently assailed from the (internetty) sidelines, subjectively declaimed as being categorically in error and as part of the problem itself.

I lose track of the times I’ve seen people (or been that person) variously hauled-up, chastised, “educated”, vilified and dismissed for calling Rangers “Rangers”. It’s internet-wide, not TSFM-specific, is all I’m trying to say, and it’s becoming quite exhausting. At least here, on TSFM, we may find ourselves being disemboweled with civility. It feels like a safe-haven, comparatively, when you see what’s out there. The horror. The horror.)

Those who legitimately choose not to call Rangers “Rangers” have correspondingly never once shown themselves to be in a position to legitimately dictate these terms to others. Some may have lost sight of this simple fact, as well as misappropriating Descartes along the way, perhaps: I think this; therefore I’m right.

They also (sometimes) give the unfortunate impression of seeing themselves as having a monopoly on the moral outrage provoked by the corruption and cheating at Ibrox. They don’t. Some of us simply choose not to wear it on our sleeves, day in, day out, day in…

To suggest that our actions are therefore misguided or actively help propagate The Big Lie is maybe a little careless, to put it as politely as possible.

Besides, some may also simply have an inherent disinclination to poke angry bears with what might occasionally feel like a rather clumsy and obvious stick. I don’t know.

But in good faith, good people, you run the risk of overestimating your own authority whilst underestimating the intelligence of others. Gonnae no dae that?

jimlarkinPosted on12:20 am - Sep 27, 2014

Interesting “discussion” on LSE site.
Claim that the SFA backed DUNDEE UTD when DDU said that SevcoRangers were only 2 years old, regarding the Charlie Telfer “Transfer”.

http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=RFC

ecobhoyPosted on8:31 pm - Apr 1, 2015

RyanGosling says:
June 20, 2014 at 12:57 am

I would like to expand on your point that it is “regrettable” that people refer to “Rangers” (insert your name of choice here!) as Rangers, and the implications that has for “moving on”. Leaving aside the regulatory change which I think to a man, or woman, we all agree has to happen, how would you see us moving on? Are “Rangers” and by extension their fans always destined to be outsiders as far as this blog and Scottish football as a whole is concerned? I’ve heard and commented on the requests for Rangers to show contrition etc as a requirement for moving on, but I doubt the current office holders of the club will do that on behalf of the previous office holders or themselves, and the vocal obnoxious fans on the internet certainly won’t. The SFA by virtue of their secret agreements have screwed all fans of Scottish football, and I mean all fans, myself and my brethren included. So how can we move on together?
————————————————————-
Personally some people in my opinion will never move on unless every trace of Rangers is obliterated from Scottish Football.

That’s not my position – irrespective of my personal view wrt to elements of the Rangers support – and I have exactly the same view with regard to elements of the Celtic support.

The problem that any Scottish football fan is confronted with IMO is the lack of governance provided by the SFA – which may indeed amount to corruption – and the utter and patheic failure of the SMSM to probe and expose the SFA failings.

Make no mistake! Rangers fans in particular have suffered more than anyone through the SFA’s dereliction of duty IMO. And they have also suffered more than most through the failures of the SMSM to do their job and uncover the facts and publish them.

And ‘facts’ are what this has to be all about and indeed I remember when the forerunner to this site and even this site was solidly based on factual discussions. Now the norm appears to be speculation based on speculation.

For the sake of Scottish Football we have to get back to dealing with and discussing the facts. Part of that IMO entails accepting that there will always be a ‘Rangers’ in Scottish Football.

It doesn’t actually matter whether the current new Board fails or not – there will be a replacement whether it is MA or fans starting again on Glasgow Green. That is the reality and if the Rangers fans have to accept certain facts then so does everyone else IMO.

The type of club that Rangers supporters want to have is their choice and really nothing to do with anyone else as long as they accept and follow the rules and are treated in the same way as every other club.

That for me is the bottom line – otherwise the oldco/newco debate will continue in its inevitable circular manner long after I have shuffled off this mortal coil. And there will never ever be an acceptable resolution or conclusion.

We have to move beyond T3B, Dave King or MA. Seriously what will be will be in terms of the financial future of this particualr Rangers legal entity and possibly a few still to come.

Jayzus there’s a General Election campaign underway which has the potential for massive changes for the future of every UK citizen and tbh Rangers in that context is small beer indeed.

I hope this post isn’t moderated because I believe this blog needs to engage with Bears – if we don’t then it will be a lost opportunity to not only improve Scottish Football but to cleanse the SFA and also to shame the SMSM into actually finding some ethics and possibly a wee bit of professionalism.

I won’t go as far as asking them to find courage because the current journos have absolutely no backbone. I know that; you know that and so do they.