On the Old Club vs New Club (OCNC) debate, the SFA’s silence has been arguably the most damaging factor with respect to the future of the game. Of course people get frustrated when there is a deliberate policy of silence on the part of the SFA which results in the endless cycle of arguments being trotted out again and again with no resolution or closure possible.
The irony (it’s only irony if you assume that the SFA have gone to great lengths to create the conditions for the unbroken history status of the new club) is that the mealy-mouthed attitude they have adopted has actually polarised opinion in a far more serious and irreconcilable way than had they just made a clear statement when Sevco were handed SFA membership. A bit of leadership, with a decision either way at that time would have spiked a lot of OCNC guns very early on, but as history shows, they were afraid of a backlash from wherever it came.
I am now convinced that Scottish Football has passed the Event Horizon and is broken beyond the possibility of any repair that might have taken it back to its pre-2010 condition. Rangers fans will never – no matter what any eventual pronouncement from Hampden may be – accept that their next trophy will be their first. The trouble is that no-one else – again despite anything from Hampden – will cast them as anything else other than a new club who were given a free passage into the higher echelons of the game. Furthermore, they will forever force that down the throats of Rangers fans whenever and wherever they play. A recipe for discord, threats of violence, actual violence, and a general ramping up of the sectarian gas that we had all hoped, only a year or so ago, was to be set to an all-time low peep.
There is a saying in politics that we get the government we deserve. It works both ways though, and the SFA will get the audience it deserves. In actual fact it is the one it has actively sought over the last couple of years, for they have tacitly (and even perhaps explicitly) admitted that Scottish Football is a dish best served garnished with sectarianism. They have effectively told us that without it, the game cannot flourish, and they stick to that fallacy even although the empirical evidence of the past year indicates otherwise.
That belief is an intellectual black-hole they have now thrust the game into. They have effectively said that only two clubs actually matter in Scottish football. The crazy thing is that to put their plans into action they have successfully persuaded enough of the other clubs to jump into the chasm and hence vote themselves into irrelevance and permanent semi-obscurity.
That belief is also shared by the majority in the MSM, who despite their lofty, self-righteous and ostensibly anti-sectarian stance, have done everything they can to stir the hornet’s nest in the interests of greater sales.
Act as an unpaid wing of a PR company, check nothing, ask nothing, help to create unrest, and then tut-tut away indignantly like Monty Python Pepperpots when people take them to task.
Consequently the victims of all the wrongdoing (creditors and clubs) walk away without any redress or compensation for the loss of income and opportunity (and history) – stripped of any pride and dignity since they do so in the full knowledge of what has happened. But even as they wipe away the sand kicked in their faces, those clubs still insist on the loyalty of their own fanbases, the same fans whose trust they have betrayed with their meek acceptance of the new, old order.
The kinder interpretation of the impotence of the clubs is that they want to avoid the hassle and move on, the more cynical view that they are interested only in money, not people. In either case, sporting integrity, in the words of Lord Traynor of Winhall (Airdrie, not Vermont), is “crap”.
The question is; which constituency of 21st century Scotland subscribes to that 17th century paradigm?
Sadly, this massive hoax, this gigantic insult to our collective intelligence, is working. Many will leave the game – many already have in view of the spineless absence of intervention from their own clubs – but many, many more will stay and support the charade.
If you doubt my prediction, ask yourself how many tickets will be unsold the first time the New Rangers play Celtic at Parkhead? That my friends will be final imprimatur of authenticity on just exactly who New Rangers are, no matter the proclamations of both sides of the OCNC argument.
Can someone tell me how you actually “ring fence” Ibrox Stadium” (or any other property for that matter) so that it can never be sold by the legal entity which actually owns it.
I’m not saying it can’t be done, I just don’t know how it would be done.
Smugas on November 30, 2013 at 3:38 pm
———–
And so it will continue for another 100 years, perhaps. People on both sides justifying the hijacking of football clubs with Ireland’s troubles, because it’s their right.
I just listened to 90 minutes of football fans belting out songs about Irish matters, and now we’ve got folks on here suggesting they too should be allowed their wee bit of the action.
Two cheeks of the same arse for me.
Make your political protests, but keep these emotive, non-sporting, Irish issues away from Scottish football. In the end, Irish politics are for Ireland, not the terraces of football grounds.
GeronimosCadillac says: (106)
November 30, 2013 at 3:23 pm
If the GB are trying to make a statement or change Government policy regarding the attitude towards what is sectarian singing or not they have the opportunity to do so by petitioning their MSP.
Tif Finn says: (911)
November 30, 2013 at 4:16 pm
I suspect it would have to be done by some sort of trust whereby the stadium is placed in the trust in perpetuity for the good of TRFC. Makes their dodgy credit rating even more dodgy, though, as it would no longer be an asset of the club, or is it company? In fact, it might be even more problematical, as, no doubt, the club (or company) would have to find the finances to pay for it’s upkeep, and, as they won’t own the stadium, it’s lost revenue rather than an improvement to an asset.
Allyjambo says: (674)
November 30, 2013 at 4:27 pm
Its one of those, “It’ll sound good to the mugs, and once we are in charge we can say that there are too many unforeseen legal difficulties, sorry can’t do it after all”, things.
Danish Pastry says: (1742)
And so it will continue for another 100 years, perhaps. People on both sides justifying the hijacking of football clubs with Ireland’s troubles, because it’s their right.
I just listened to 90 minutes of football fans belting out songs about Irish matters, and now we’ve got folks on here suggesting they too should be allowed their wee bit of the action.
Two cheeks of the same arse for me.
Make your political protests, but keep these emotive, non-sporting, Irish issues away from Scottish football. In the end, Irish politics are for Ireland, not the terraces of football grounds.
—————————————
I agree 100%
scapaflow says: (1217)
November 30, 2013 at 4:37 pm
Undoubtedly. What’s more, I doubt it would win them any votes from the institutional investors, the idea they might give away their biggest asset, if they actually thought them serious.
Seems the more they deride the current board, and previous members, the more they become their clones; willing to dupe the supporters to gain power.
The Joy that is Albion Rovers. Paul will be looking down, a very happy man!
GeronimosCadillac says: (106)
November 30, 2013 at 3:07 pm
I suspect you know the answer is that they are held to be an institution that defends the faith, Union and monarchy.
———————————————————————-
To paraphrase Groucho Marx, Rangers may be an institution, but who wants to live in (such) an institution?
FT Albion Rovers 1 Motherwell 0
Mr McConville will be looking down with a huge smile on his face.
MercDoc says: (10)
November 30, 2013 at 4:53 pm
0 0 Rate This
The Joy that is Albion Rovers. Paul will be looking down, a very happy man!
=========================================================
And they deserved it. we were woeful.
As I said on yesrsel Paul enjoy.
Iron Men from the Iron Burgh.
I am a great believer in freedom of speech, but we have to remember that the GB display took place on private property and as such those freedoms may be constrained in some way. In this instance they were and the GB knew they were ignoring those constraints which would cause problems for the property owners
GeronimosCadillac says: (106)
November 30, 2013 at 3:07 pm
4 0 Rate This
manandboy says: (337)
November 30, 2013 at 2:56 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I suspect you know the answer is that they are held to be an institution that defends the faith, Union and monarchy. Because these ideas are national ones they have a wider cultural significance than Dunfermline. Dunfermline have a cultural significance but it doesn’t reach out much beyond Fife.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
GC, My question is genuine and the ‘Faith, Union and Monarchy’ is a ‘motto’ I haven’t come across before in a Scottish context, or anywhere for that matter, so thank you for that.
But, culturally ? Hmmmm.
Smugas says: (581)
November 30, 2013 at 9:49 am
On a lighter note, how many read Exiled Celt’s recent career piece, about having a good job, well paid etc and saying he had given it up based on principle and thought (at best) uh oh!, right down to the bit about the new boss doing things HER way and then thought Aaaaaah!
Just me?
**********
Yes – sorry to say but just you. Not sure what your point is but it really makes no difference to the story if it was a him or a her surely – fact is the only thing I have in my business is my reputation. No one gets to besmirch that – only me!
That’s a fair point actually.
With Paul Murray coming away with the “Ibrox Stadium” put into trust so it can never be sold (presumably meaning it can’t be used as security for loans either) and Malcolm Murray talking about 1,000,000 replica kits at £35 each (where is he buying his btw) bringing in £35m without including other merchandising it’s getting difficult to see any difference between this lot and the present incumbents.
Any old nonsense to get the support on their side. The thing is they never seem to look at these things objectively and with a critical eye. If one of their betters say it, then it must be true.
I’m afraid I am at the “You will get what you deserve … again” stage.
Personally, I can’t believe that displays featuring “freedom fighters” are still considered appropriate in this day and age.
As the old “freedom of speech” line is being trotted out, can we agree that banners such as “No peados in Div 3” (or however they spelled it) are also acceptable? And that the singing of songs by the Rangers support should also fall under this right to personal expression?
Of course not. It’s all bloody nonsense and has no place at the fitba at all. Excuses are there none.
I’m afraid a lot of people’s understanding of “freedom of expression” is incorrect. It is not an absolute right.
The notion that you can say, or display, or sing, or chant anything you like is simply not true.
Other people have rights as well.
For example Celtic PLC and the majority of Celtic supporters can say that they do not want political protest within Celtic Park. That is within their right, as is banning anyone who refuses to stop making such “protests” or displays.
On the GB display, it should be remembered that Celtic (like every Scottish club bar one perhaps!) are open to all beliefs, religions and political views. Are we going to have a different display every weekend for pro independence, pro union, pro this and anti this? Or should we celebrate our single commonality which is the support of the club – at whose home we are at?
As a side issue I am old enough (unfortunately) to remember when Mandela was a terrorist and Mugabe was a freedom fighter. My Indian friends always were never shy to remind me that Britain labelled Ghandi a terrorist.
I am also old enough to remember when Robert the Bruce was designated as Scotland’s saviour – however this was well before Mel Gibson made his fairy tale, which had little historical accuracy but unfortunately is now many people’s version of historical events.
Scotland needs independent thinking History Teachers!
I only ever pay to see two sports, football and snooker.
One of UEFA’s rules is about no political banners.
One of the WPBSA rules is to stay quiet during a frame.
If I shouted or sang at the Crucible I would be ejected from the arena. That’s the rules I agreed to when I bought a ticket.
It’s not about freedom of speech, it’s about thinking you don’t have to abide by the rules. If you want to make political statements don’t buy a ticket.
For attention of Barcabhoy and Greenock Jack
From the accounts from 2007-2011 inclusive, Rangers made sales of £789,000 to David Murray’s companies and paid £5,264,000 to David Murray’s companies for various services.
In 2008 one of Paul Murray’s own company interests received £12,500.
2007
RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
During the year, in the normal course of business, the Group had sales of £126,000 (2006 – £191,000) to companies of which Sir David E. Murray, or companies controlled by him are, the principal shareholders, and received services of £1,875,000 (2006 – £1,918,000), principally in relation to call centre, mail order operation, information technology, and travel, from them.
2008
RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
During the year, in the normal course of business, the Group had sales of £207,000 (2007 – £126,000) to companies of which Sir David E. Murray, or companies controlled by him, are the principal shareholders, and received services of £1,177,000 (2007 – £1,875,000), principally in relation to call centre, mail order operation, and travel from them.
During the year, MGI Investments Limited, a company controlled by P. Murray, provided specific services of £12,500 in relation to development matters. At the year end, a balance of £12,500 (2007 – nil) is included within trade creditors.
2009
RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
During the year, in the normal course of business, the Group had sales of £83,000 (2008 – £207,000) to companies of which Sir David E. Murray, or companies controlled by him, are the principal shareholders, and received services of £1,140,000 (2008 – £1,177,000), principally in relation to call centre, advertising and information technology services from them.
2010
RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
During the year, in the normal course of business, the Group had sales of £150,000 (2009 – £83,000) to companies of which Sir David E. Murray, or companies controlled by him, are the principal shareholders, and received services of £665,000 (2009 – £1,140,000), principally in relation to call centre, advertising and information technology services from them.
2011
RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
During the year, in the normal course of business, the Group had sales of £223,000 (2010 – £150,000) to companies of which Sir David E. Murray, or companies controlled by him, are the principal shareholders, and received services of £407,000 (2010 – £665,000), principally in relation to advertising and management services from them.
manandboy@ 2:56
Bang on the money.Institutionalised fawning.Always has been,always will be.(even efter they’ve gone)
I echo your sentiments regarding the incident at the Clutha Vaults.
I may be going over old ground but what was the negative press event that caused the company status to be flagged red?
————
THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
SC425159
Rating Suspended – Negative Press Event
————
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC425159/THE-RANGERS-FOOTBALL-CLUB-LIMITED/directors-shareholders#people-current
Night Terror says: (378)
November 30, 2013 at 2:54 pm
On UEFA’s stance on political banners.
“As oil is to the oil industry so stupidity is to football” (from Soccernomics) and it does not confine itself to the legislators.
Time the game got smarter and asked itself what harm is done by political banners?
Did Tuesday night’s banner make one iota of a difference to the cause it is meant to justify fighting?
Indeed since it could be viewed as a provocative act , going against an agreement to observe a football law, did it not justify the need for the stupid law that it was protesting against?
Our hearts are for pumping oxygen rich blood to our brains. The brains should do the thinking and the heart the pumping. Not the reverse.
If football used its brains it would recognise the pervasiveness of politics, which is but a physical expression of thought and so impossible to contain.
The game should drop the term political and ask that banners (other than those of racist content which continue to have the existing rules) do not portray, promote or explicitly speak of violence and leave it at that.
If someone wants to jump up and down about a banner reflecting history, even if that history almost inevitably has violence in its making, that is their problem. It applies to whether the banner shows an H for H Block or King Billy on his high horse ( but no blood being waded through)
So no block banning just one criteria -no explicit violence.
Then the banner men can hold their banners high whilst the rest of us ignore them (apart from maybe appreciating their aesthetic value) and watch the less than bloody football, which is why most turn up, not for the singing and dancing.
Banners have only become an issue because football has made their appearance an issue, particularly political banners. They only get attention because the rules focus attention on them.
Remove the rules and they become the physical equivalent of one more blog entry. Like this one that many will just scroll past..
Auldheid says: (1063)
November 30, 2013 at 7:25 pm
Reasonable argument, unfortunately the rules are as they are, and the only entity harmed by the GB antics, is Celtic.
john clarke says: (1405)
November 30, 2013 at 11:37 am
& GJ @ 11:40
_________________
Aww michty ma napper… 😳 😕 😳
Did I ruffle a feather this morning?! What did I miss??
Back to catching up (& re-hydrating!)…
Have the MSM learned from the way they covered Rangers administration? Or is it just the case that they enjoy sticking it to Hearts, or any club not residing in Govan?
Over on Jamboskickback there are one or two posters a bit annoyed about the way Bryan Jackson of BDO’s statement yesterday that Hearts fans will have to cancel Christmas to help bolster the club’s coffers. The articles all seem to treat his joke about ‘cancelling Christmas’ as serious, though he is clearly serious about the financial position, rather than showing him to be upbeat about the way things went with the CVA. Whatever their reasoning, I’d say that it is a far better reaction from the media than the euphoria over every positive bit of spin that emanated from Ibrox during the Rangers administration, that clearly led to a gross underestimation by their support of the gravity of their situation, that, in turn, led to their head in the sand attitude.
Have the MSM learned? Or is it just another case of negative, or, at least, less than positive, spin that the MSM are using to report on events at clubs other than TRFC?
PS in case I haven’t made it clear, I’d rather they overstated the seriousness of Hearts’ position rather than the other way round.
Tif Finn says: (913)
November 30, 2013 at 6:06 pm
‘…For example Celtic PLC and the majority of Celtic supporters can say that they do not want political protest within Celtic Park. That is within their right, as is banning anyone who refuses to stop making such “protests” or displays.’
————
The right of public political protest in public places is one that most people with any knowledge of history would defend,possibly even to the death.
But,unless I’m seriously wrong, a football ground is NOT a public place. That is, those admitted to it are admitted under the conditions specified by the ‘proprietors’. No one has a ‘right’ of admission , and even those admitted may be ejected if their behaviour does not comply with the conditions.And it is the right of the proprietors to decide whether the conditions are being met.
The Green Brigade have a very strong political point to make about very poorly drafted legislation which, to boot, appears to be unfairly/cack-handedly administered.
The proper place of protest should be the public streets and squares (subject to whatever permissions etc that might apply).
So, although broadly sympathetic to their cause, I do not think they can legitimately and reasonably expect to be allowed to cause their particular football club financial loss and penalty under football legislation, by bringing their political protest into the ground.
scapaflow says: (1218)
November 30, 2013 at 8:15 pm
8
0
Rate This
Quantcast
Auldheid says: (1063)
November 30, 2013 at 7:25 pm
Reasonable argument, unfortunately the rules are as they are, and the only entity harmed by the GB antics, is Celtic.
===================
Indeed but more a debate for Celtic blogs than here.
I tire of what I call offensive tennis, where whataboutery is battered around the court to no effect, when there is so much more important in the game that needs addressing..
As said previously, the fact that this piss poor act of legislation is seemingly only enforced at one venue, I tend to understand why the GB feel the need to display their contempt for it. The issue for me is why it is not being as rigorously enforced elsewhere. Call that whatabootery if you like, but the part of the message about chasing votes, is 100% correct based on what I have heard with my own ears from elsewhere this week.
Politicians are using football to score points, and gagging the response at the same time. FUBAR.
That might bear checking out John – the law on “public places” can be a bit hazy.
I think a football ground while a football match is being or about to be played may well be regarded legally as a “public place”, because the public have general access to it. The facts that there are house rules and the public pay for entry, if I remember correctly, is irrelevant. The same applies to nightclubs, restaurants, etc.
Greenock Jack says: (237)
November 30, 2013 at 12:00 pm
28
4
Rate This
This may surprise some but I’d defend the Green Brigades right to protest or to publicly put forward their views (including inside a football stadium). I don’t think it important who they are or the detail of what they have to say.
———————————————————————————————————-
I would tend to agree with you on taking the Voltaire position but it becomes a question of when the airing of such views is appropriate.The banner was undoubtedly political in nature and attracted the attention of Uefa as a consequence.The rights and wrongs of the european governing body determining what is political is a separate issue ,we are where we are. If you are suggesting that it should be cart blanche for anything to be sung /displayed at scottish football grounds then I profoundly disagree.We are maturing in Scotland as a result of the acknowledgment that homophobic/sectarian/racist behaviour is unacceptable and if you wish to partake as a member of society with all the benefits that entails then a personal responsibility rests with you to moderate your behaviour and expression of extreme views when in public.That is not to say that such views expressed in private amongst like minded peole is ok, but the hope that it will wither without the oxygen of publicity.I think the proscribing of sectarian chants is a progressive step that has been undermined by the constant need for some parties to attribute the same sectarian tag to political opinion..hence the catch all offensive behaviour act.Celtic supporters know that the media love to paint them and the club as the bad bhoys whenever they can. Celtic have a tremendous and valid connection to Ireland which can be expressed in so many positive ways that honour the heritage and memory without embarrasing and humiliating the Club with such self indulgent defiance of Uefa.
Whilst I have more than a little sympathy with many of the worthy ’causes’ that the
British Empire bequeathed the people’s of the world, and accepting that the GB banner was making an intelligent point, I have to say picking and clawing at a deep rooted social/political/cultural problem in this way is not particularly helpful. Further, why do this tho the club? Uefa have made it clear this type of statement is unacceptable, and all the GB have done is draw attention to their club, and in all probability this will result in a fine, or worse……and it will get worse if such displays continue. Is Bobby Sands really that hot a topic in Scottish football at the moment?
This little clip sums up how a lot of people feel about this scourge;
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bAvxqGnVO2w
‘…haircut from the 1960’s, and a brain from the 1690’s’ genius!
I don’t believe it’s acceptable that any group should use a football match to promote their political views. Would it be appropriate to unfurl banners in a cinema when a film is being screened? Would in be appropriate to stand up and chant in a theatre during a play? Would it be appropriate to sing songs promoting your political view in a workplace? Most fair-minded people would agree the answer is probably no. Why is a football stadium any different?
My support to those who have eloquently said the actions of the GB have little place in Sottish Football. Maybe I am wrong but looking at their marches etc on YouTube it just looks like the nonsense when there is trouble on the streets on NI. Older agitators hiding away in the background and loads of young daft Laddies, you wouldn’t trust to get a pint of milk, on the front line making a noise. Frankly it ain’t big and it ain’t clever. Please take it elsewhere.
Rufus
Of course many people have used other entertainment events to make political points. Even at times actors have used their appearance at the Oscars to make political points from the podium. The aim is of course to get publicity and support for a cause or to register opposition to fairly major issues. Chucking yourself in front of a racehorse to draw attention to the lack of women’s rights is pretty serious stuff. The problem as I see it for the GB is that, other than what is a small group, the rest of Scottish Football and a good deal of folk at Celtic don’t give a flying f**k about what they are fighting for.
This is not a football issue it is a political issue.
Football clubs, whether we like it or not, are businesses that simply cannot afford to have their brand damaged in any way because that effects income. This in turn effects the ability of clubs to attract players by being able to pay reasonable wages. Before anyone says it will simply be a small fine from UEFA that is true, however what if this on going issue causes two or three sponsors to withdraw financial support?
Brand perception is everything in sport and the media so often drive brand perception. In their desperation to talk up any good news from Govan it is equally important for them to get negative stories out about the opposition. Well issues in Amsterdam and the banner display allowed them to talk about some one else in a negative light. They must have thought Christmas came early.
We have talked on here about ‘The Rangers’ brand being toxic due to recent events however Celtic are quickly approaching a crossroads where they need to make a decision regarding this issue.
As I said above this is a political issue and it needs to be addressed in that arena. It has concerned me for a number of years how football fans in general are treated in Scotland. To me it seems that as soon as you put on a football scarf all sorts of liberties are remarkably removed from the individual. It says a lot for a society that specific groups of people are required to have laws made about them that are not covered under general legislation. I’ve heard stories of fans travelling to an away game that was cancelled at the last minute. The fans on the bus had a vote and decided to go to a game close by, as neutrals, but their bus was prevented from leaving the motorway by the police. If this had happened to a bus load of old age pensioners then it would be front page news.
Football fans in general have had a raw deal from the authorities for years. They are a very easy target because by nature they are divided. We bring a lot of business to many areas every other weekend, we pour money into economy for roughly 45 weeks a year. We should be treated better than we currently are.
Following the spat between Barcabhoy and Greenock Jack earlier re contracts to related parties, I checked back on previous years Related Party Transactions in the accounts. It was a bit of an eye opener. The following numbers equate to the amounts that Rangers paid David Murray’s companies for services between 1998 and 2011. For someone who claimed not to have taken a penny out of the club, £29M over 14 years (excluding his £6.3M EBT), it seems like he was feathering his nest to me.
1998 675,000
1999 673,000
2000 975,000
2001 3,082,000
2002 4,221,000
2003 3,896,000
2004 4,298,000
2005 3,941,000
2006 1,918,000
2007 1,875,000
2008 1,177,000
2009 1,140,000
2010 665,000
2011 407,000
Total 28,943,000
Easy jambo says …
Yip …and that £29m was paid by every taxpayer in the UK ….
manandboy says: (338)
November 30, 2013 at 2:56 pm
Your post regarding the “CULTURAL, SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY IMPORTANCE OF RANGERS”….
You seemed to be having great trouble identifying the validity of such a statement. I can’t see the problem myself….
Football is the national sport, the national past-time of Scotland.
With the exception of occasional internationals, this activity is experienced – day to day – in the form of watching/discussing/attending club football.
Rangers Football Club remains, if not the biggest, then one of the two biggest followings of any of the clubs within Scotland. Not only in attendance, 43410 on average at Ibrox last season, but there are Rangers fans in every corner of Scotland. Outside the catchments of other larger clubs – the Edinburgh clubs, Aberdeen, the Dundee clubs, Lanarkshire clubs etc, there is a good chance that any settlement you enter will have a large proportion of football supporters concentrating their affections on Rangers.
Having established this basis, if the cultural, social and community importance of football in Scotland is not to be denied, then it would be churlish to deny the substantial role Rangers plays as an impetus and vehicle for participation – through match attendance, media interest, day-to-day discussion at the workplace – in that national culture.
For example, you could never accept football in Spain being of cultural/social importance, then shrug your shoulders and scratch your head when asked about the cultural/social importance of Real Madrid. Same applies to Rangers.
You seem to think that the recent troubles Rangers have experienced have somehow diminished this importance….
“crippled and emaciated”, “impoverished and dysfunctional”, “beleaguered” etc…. a bit of wishful thinking with some of those terms considering we’re referring to a team that shifts 30-40K season tickets and has won 18 matches on the trot! I catch your drift though.
I’m aware of the turmoil in the boardroom, I can accept that Rangers are not currently challenging for top national honours, nor bringing in the same incomes for various reasons….
…..But these are NOT the factors in focus with regards this question – we are looking at the social/cultural importance which means people, supporters, discourse among media and punters alike. In that respect, whilst the lifeblood of the club – it’s support – still remains strong and united, and the name “Rangers” refuses to fade meekly into the discursive background, that importance and centrality remains.
Football is of huge cultural and social importance within Scotland and Rangers, as a significant force within the game in “social” terms if not (currently) in playing terms, cannot not but be identified as important in that same regard.
ps. The language you used to refer to the club that was the subject of your comment..
“THE IBROX CLUB,
TRFC,
Sevco,
Ibrox club,
Govan club,
new club,
TRFC,
the club down Govan way [my favourite]”…
and then, in the second but last paragraph, we finally, albeit with scare quotes, “Rangers”. Hurrah!
I’m not sure if you intended to make the not-uncommon-from-new-club-advocates avoidance of the team’s name humorous, but it amused me! 🙂
I’m probably speaking out of turn here but I thought the aim of the blog was to ask the questions the ‘meedja’ don’t or won’t.
Unless I’m very much mistaken the print press are all over the ‘banner story’ like maggots on necrotic flesh.
Yet I, personally, have heard nor read a single sentence about grossly inappropriate ‘jokes’ at a recently held, publicly aired, fans ‘convention’.
Other than on here, no mention of illegal, highly offensive, inciteful chanting / singing allegedly conducted in a public(?) place.
Meedja Howff are fairly earning their silver coins, well done Jeck.
As for my ha’penny’s worth on the banner issue… I’m not getting dragged into that other than to say “Rules is rules.” Smacks a little of hypocrisy to be jumping up & down demanding that rules be followed & applied WRT a Govan based football team* but adopt a flagrant disregard to those they disagree with.
If the Green Brigade want to protest against the Offensive Behaviour act they could also of course do it on the way to the match or in the carpark at Celtic Park (itself no stranger to protests), however they choose to do it at the game because that’s where the publicity is. They are using the crowd, journalists reporting on the game and the tv cameras provided by Celtic for their own ends and the expense of Celtic FC – both reputationally and financially.
My position on the GB (!) and their “political” statements is that they are (paying) guests at Celtic Park. The hosts have asked them not to do certain things which will cause their hosts problems, I think the GB should show their hosts the courtesy of biding by the rules.
Bryce,
As ever you put your point(s) over in a forceful and measured manner. However I’d like you to respond to my question regarding where you stand on the use of the WATP/No Surrender mantra.
You seem to have responded to every other poster but not to this. Just curious.
jockybhoy says: (278)
November 30, 2013 at 11:41 pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I may be wrong, and I stand to be corrected, but these are rules laid down by UEFA, further enforced and endorsed by Celtic Park.
Like I said rules is rules. People may not like them, indeed people may disagree quite vociferously with them but there is a duty to abide by them.
causaludendi says: (75)
December 1, 2013 at 12:00 am
1 0 Rate This
jockybhoy says: (278)
November 30, 2013 at 11:41 pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I may be wrong, and I stand to be corrected, but these are rules laid down by UEFA, further enforced and endorsed by Celtic Park.
Like I said rules is rules. People may not like them, indeed people may disagree quite vociferously with them but there is a duty to abide by them.
&&&&&&&
There is no duty on anyone to obey rules. If you believe that something requires to be challenged or is unjust, then you challenge it. You may be fined, you may be imprisoned, you may, incredibly, be executed for expressing a contrary opinion. You take the consequences for your actions. In this country we are allowed, to a degree, to express an opinion that may not be shared by everyone. We are expressly forbid, by law, to express an opinion or thought which may cause offence to someone. Democracy implies we can say what we want, experience tells us that ‘free speech’ is a mercurial concept that relies on the sanction of the governing body.
http://libcom.org/library/robbie-fowler-fined-supporting-liverpool-dockers
bryce9a says: (59)
November 30, 2013 at 11:39 pm
“For example, you could never accept football in Spain being of cultural/social importance, then shrug your shoulders and scratch your head when asked about the cultural/social importance of Real Madrid.
Same applies to Rangers.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________
b9a I am glad you have a sense of humour.
I don’t normally associate humour with Ibrox.
Nor do the creditors.
That includes the taxpayer.
In my lifetime, though not recently, and by some stretch, I have sat many exams.
Some have been marked simply as ‘pass’ or ‘fail’.
If my post were to be considered an exam, then I would mark your response a ‘Fail’.
The reason? Because you did not read the question – as it is written.
However, at one point you use the example of Spain and Real Madrid.
Real are culturally important to much of Spain due to it’s historical alignment with the Franco regime.
But in Catalonia, the cultural significance of Real is zero.
While in Catalonia, the cultural significance of Barcelona is huge.
Real does not identify with Catalonia and vice versa.
Barcelona does not identify with the rest of Spain.
The same applies to Sevco.
With the appropriate geographical adjustments of course.
Ps. For immediate improvement in results,
always read the question very carefully.
Just to remind myself, RIFC plc are an illegitimate club,one year old, foisted on us by wicked, duplicitous men who are still in office as the ‘guardians’ and law-makers of Scottish Football.
Supported by an absolutely gutless/complicit media.
There are, indeed, other interesting and important issues in Scottish Football that are worthy of reasoned debate. And I am, and have been, happy to join in.
But the unifying feature of this blog is the instinctive revulsion at the fact, and it is without question a fact, that we have been practiced upon by liars and cheats, big time, by the very people who are supposed to be honest, fair, sporting, transparent , yadda yadda yadda….
And also by-let’s face it- a lying, deceitful clique of newspaper and radio men ( and it does seem to be men-the women folk in the sporting media don’t seem to be involved?)
Let’s keep that in mind, even as we explore other matters of significance, while also enjoying our basic football.
The deceivers, and those who support the deceivers, are trying every trick in the book to get us to ‘move on’.
We must quietly insist on the truth-always and forever.
The lying men must go.
Then we can contemplate the possibility of ‘moving on’.
manandboy says: (339)
December 1, 2013 at 12:45 am
You were asking about the “cultural and social importance” of Rangers within Scotland, I described to you my impression of the “cultural and social importance” of Rangers within Scotland. That seemed to fit the bill but if there was some well-concealed sophistication in how you were phrasing your question then I apologise and admit it did go over my head.
Your analogy with Catalonia/Madrid is mystifying…
“Real are culturally important to much of Spain due to it’s historical alignment with the Franco regime.
But in Catalonia, the cultural significance of Real is zero.
While in Catalonia, the cultural significance of Barcelona is huge.
Real does not identify with Catalonia and vice versa.
Barcelona does not identify with the rest of Spain.
The same applies to Sevco.”
In that instance, Madrid is not situated in Catalonia, therefore is not of “cultural significance” to Catalonia, where as the massive team that is there, Barcelona, obviously are.
How does on earth does this tie in with Rangers?
Are you claiming Rangers isn’t of cultural significance to Scotland because Ibrox is not situated in Scotland? Presumably not.
Are you claiming Rangers isn’t of cultural significance to Scotland because Scots don’t support Rangers in any substantial number? Again, benefit of the doubt, presumably not.
Are you saying that cultural elements associated with Rangers supporters like unionism predominantly, and (of lessening relevance) protestantism are not entitled to be classed as aspects of the national cultural psyche? Don’t accept that at all.
My argument from 11:39 (http://www.tsfm.org.uk/2013/11/past-the-event-horizon/comment-page-22/#comment-75881) expressed in a nutshell, that Rangers remain of social and cultural importance within Scotland due to their continuing pre-eminence within the wider discourse of the foremost national pastime, is safer ground than speculating about the influence of RFC regarding wider notions of unionism etc. Would be interested in others’ thoughts but, on reflection, I think there is a re-inforcing effect where fans socialise and – as is naturally the case for a football fanbase – an element of group-think/wishing to be seen to sing from the same hymn sheet kicks in. On that basis, perhaps I do a dis-service to the role of Rangers ‘culture’ in contributing to unionist aspects of Scottish culture, even though basing political judgements on football allegiances is incomprehensible to me personally.
john clarke says: (1407)
December 1, 2013 at 1:27 am
___________________________________________________________________________________
John Clarke, is it any wonder we love you!
bryce9a says: (60)
December 1, 2013 at 1:32 am
“Rangers remain of social and cultural importance within Scotland due to their continuing pre-eminence within the wider discourse of the foremost national pastime”
_____________________________________________________________________________________
b9a Fail.
Now
Take a balloon.
Blow into it.
Keep on blowing.
Till it bursts.
Same applies to Rangers.
Angus1983 says: (1270)
November 30, 2013 at 9:31 pm
‘.. the law on “public places” can be a bit hazy. ….’
———-
I agree that in certain respects ( e.g. the application of the smoking ban to football grounds as ‘enclosed public spaces’) the law seems to support the view that in relation to health and safety issues football grounds and cinemas etc are ‘public’.
But I think that theatres, restaurants, and other such like businesses ( including football businesses) are legally entitled to impose conditions on those who choose to patronise them.
I have to say, now that you raise the point, that I don’t know for sure what the legal position is.I based my view on the ‘conditions’ printed on match tickets, reflecting the nature of the ‘contract’ between ticket purchaser and club.
Perhaps one of the lawyer posters could give us an opinion?
davythelotion says: (249)
December 1, 2013 at 12:43 am
######################
Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments of your post and have been known to flaunt / break rules, I’m afraid that advocacy of wanton rule breaking is a step too far. Or else what is the raison d’etre of this and many other blogs?
Rules are in place for a reason. They are not advisory guidelines. They are rules, to be adhered to, without which you have anarchy. You cannot simply pick and choose which ones you want to abide by.
Unless of course you have some sort of supremacist attitude in which case you can pretty much do whatever the hell you like. And we’re all aware, indeed currently witnessing, where that path leads.
If you disagree with a rule you challenge it, you lobby for change, you garner support. Anything else is mob mentality.
bryce9a says: (60)
December 1, 2013 at 1:32 am
“How does on earth does this tie in with Rangers? Are you claiming Rangers isn’t of cultural significance to Scotland because Ibrox is not situated in Scotland?”
____________________________________________________________________________________
b9a Fail
A stranger, spending 90 minutes at a game at Ibrox,
would be easily forgiven
if they thought they were at a stadium in NI.
Apart from the opposition and the address,
what evidence is there at Ibrox on match day
that the game is taking place in Scotland?
I repeat: For immediate improvement in results,
always read the question very carefully.
bryce9a says: (60)
December 1, 2013 at 1:32 am
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Good morning,
I did not have the pleasure of reading whatever it was that you directed towards me this morning. I did read TSFM’s edit and I also noted a post by, I think, AJ. This, coupled with other factors, led me to decide not to engage or interact with you any further. However I’m becoming increasingly uneasy at the tone, nature and direction your posts seem to be taking.
This is not the place to be discussing politics. Do not come back to me with ‘whitabootery’. I am not interested. You may claim that others are interjecting a sprinkling here and there. Again, I am not interested. I disagree with any political connotations brought up here, whether they be made by esteemed, noteworthy contributors or by an unknown, unproven commodity. There is never a valid reason for conflating religion, politics & sport but in this massively important year for the nation it is more pressing than ever before to have distinct separations. Subliminal messaging is everywhere, I for one do not want to see it on this blog.
Do not take this as a personal attack on your character – I do not know you so am not qualified to comment. It is a critique of your posting style and the topics you bring into play. And, for the avoidance of doubt, I am usually one of the champions of the alternative viewpoint on this site.
Bryce I,m just digesting your retort to manandboy’s Madrid/Barca comparison – which incidentally I thought was an excellent post as it points out the relevance (or not) of a football team , no matter how large , is largely dependent on the team and it’s location.
Your response is ridiculous and fails because you chose to ignore the point being made so I will attempt my own comparison. I originate from Edinburgh . I lived there until I was 25. In that time I did not see the ‘cultural & social’ aspects of RFC RIP. It must have passed me by. What I did see was/is a fan base totally out of step with the rest of the political mood of the country ie in a time when the independence bandwagon was gaining credence your fans turned up on a weekly basis to sing GSTQ , Rule Britannia etc, etc, etc. Yoiu still do. Is this because this is what fufills you or because it’s simply to antagonise? I ask rhetorically, I’m really not interested in your posts any more as I find them selective and tedious in the main.
Despite what the Glasgow media might say , RFC RIP were not part of the cultural/social fabric of Scotland. Maybe in parts of Glasgow and parts of the West of Scotland – that I can agree with. I think that is the point manandboy is making and it seems commonsense to me. Essentially , if your not a Rangers fan , Rangers are,t that big a deal. Possibly hard for you to aaccept but in my experiencetthat us very much the case. If onetakes the point further , Man Utd are the most powerful and successful club in England. But part of the social and cultural fabric of England? I don’t think so although they do have a few things in common with RFC/RIP – a glory hunting fan base , a club that is loathed by fans of other clubs and a (ex) manager that can rabble rouse and manipulate the media.
Regarding the debate that Rangers are of cultural importance to Scotland. They are, but no more than any other club. Football is the national sport after all.
I spent Friday evening in the company of a retired colleague, who I meet up with a couple of times a year. He is a Kilmarnock supporter and understandably lamented the current state of his club and what the future held for them. He noted to me, as he always does, that Kilmarnock are the oldest professional club in Scotland. If that does not make them as culturally important to Scotland as any other club what does? Surely too Queens Park, as the oldest club overall and with their link to Hampden, are of cultural importance. I quote two examples but In short every club is culturally important, no matter how many fans it has. Look at how fans rally to the cause when clubs hit troubled times – that shows you just how culturally important every club is.
What we need to examine though is why only Rangers are deemed to be of enough cultural importance that people feel the need to write about it, and the First Minister feels the need to comment on it. For me it goes back to something I often say and something that quite frankly despairs me. In short the underlying issue is still a notion of supremacy over others. What really concerns me is if this notion of supremacy was related to the colour of a persons skin, it would not be tolerated, and neither should it be. No writer would even dare go there. The simple fact is though it comes down to a view that Scotland is a Protestant nation, and Rangers are the Protestant establishment club. That makes them superior to other clubs, especially Celtic, who are a Catholic Irish club, who would do well to remember their place in the queue. That is what Rangers cultural importance means, no matter how educated or articulate the writer or commentator is. I don’t ever see it changing in my lifetime. The very fact an ex-Glasgow Herald Editor can write an article for a Rangers fans website essentially saying Protestants are superior to Catholics, and still be asked to write for the Herald in the present day tells us everything we need to know. Would they still employ him if he wrote on a website that white people are superior to black people? Of course they wouldn’t, as he would be regarded as a racist bigot.
As I say it despairs me. It completely and utterly despairs me.
Tearsofjoy,
If Manandbhoy had stated that Rangers was a cultural &social irrelevance to the sub-section of scotland/scottish society which is nationalism, I’d have had no problem with that (even though there are of course pro-independence Rangers fans).
But he didn’t.
The issue of ‘importance’ as i understood was being pitched at the national level, not restricted
to a particular sub-sect politically or geographically. Regarding the latter, you rightly point out that Rangers is not of much relevance to your particular locality. Not a problem for me as I did qualify my point that within the catchments of other large teams like Lothian, Aberdeen etc, Rangers did not hold the pre-eminent place within discourse of the national past-time as in other areas of the country.
I still don’t see how the catalonia/spain analogy ties in. If Catalonia are supposed to represent Scotland, and Rangers represent Madrid in being the cultural irrelevance to that particular national consciousness, then it fails because Rangers – unlike Madrid – must be considered to be PART of that national consciousness in question, being located within the nation, regardless of whether or not it chimes with a pro-independence vein.
You cant simply discount Rangers fans as not being Scottish and therefore an irrelevance to the national social/cultural psyche – as you could do with Madrid in regards Catalonia – just because they may not exhibit nationalism. Geography won’t allow it. Rangers fans here are Scots, whether they like it or not!
Thanks to the Jambo’s , Easy and Ally for their information on David Murray’s transactions with Rangers, which clearly showed how significant this was. I don’t keep the information to hand on an iPad whilst i am travelling, but i’m sure the data is correct.
What isn’t shown though, is the monies Murray received when he sold some of these business’ , which were very heavily dependent on contracts with Rangers. The notion that Murray was selfless in financially supporting Rangers is as funny as it is nonsensical.
Paul Murray was placed to do something about this, as he was placed to do something about the tax evasion, the deception aimed at the authorities and the rest of Scottish football. He chose to ensure he kept his blazer and club tie, and kept his mouth shut. Much to the detriment of rangers, their suppliers and creditors and the minority shareholders. He may be a nice guy, but i wouldn’t let him watch over the kitty money on a night out.
Finally Greenock Jack. What are you actually hoping to achieve on here ? Your deflection away from serious issues doesn’t work. You trivialise these issues, you don’t provide any data , you merely distract, and when your “contribution” is blown apart , as it was by EasyJambo and AllyJambo, you just move on to your next attempt at deflection.
I welcome good contributors from all clubs on here. The example shown by Hearts supporters in accepting their club has been the Architect of their own problems, is a credit to them and their club. The contrast with the way most Rangers supporters react is stark, and demonstrates why feelings are so hostile towards Rangers.
I’m sorry people can’t have it both ways. If we really want the rules to be applied without fear or favour with regards to Rangers rule breaking then the same ideals must be upheld whenever rule breaches occur.
UEFA’s rules are very clear
Article 16 – Order and security at UEFA competition
matches
1
Host associations and clubs are responsible for order and security both inside and around the stadium before, during and after matches. They are liable for incidents of any kind and may be subject to disciplinary measures and directives unless they can prove that they have not been negligent in any way in theorganisation of the match.
2
However, all associations and clubs are liable for the following inappropriate behaviour on the part of their supporters and may be subject to disciplinary measures and directives even if they can prove the
absence of any negligence in relation to the organisation of the match.
e) the use of gestures, words, objects or any other means to transmit any message that is not fit for a sports event, particularly messages that are of a political, ideological, religious, offensive or provocative nature.
The Green Brigade broke these rules and now Celtic will have to face the consequences. Both Peter Lawwell and Neil Lennon have spoken out against the banners, and I for one am in total agreement with them.
Barcabhoy says: (306)
December 1, 2013 at 8:09 am
….”the notion that Murray(David E.) was selfless in financially supporting Rangers is as funny as it is nonsensical.”
Paul Murray was placed to do something about this, as he was placed to do something about the tax evasion, the deception aimed at the authorities and the rest of Scottish football. He chose to ensure he kept his blazer and club tie, and kept his mouth shut. Much to the detriment of rangers, their suppliers and creditors and the minority shareholders. He may be a nice guy, but i wouldn’t let him watch over the kitty money on a night out.
===============================================================================
Barca…superbly said. And this from a Chartered Accountant who either did not have the ethical cojones to speak out, since he was browbeaten by Murray (D) and wanted “to keep his blazer and tie and kept is mouth shut”.
He is now portraying himself as the guardian of RIFC Ltd’s moral, ethical and financial standards.
Now where did I put my copy of the ICAS “Ethical Guide”….?
Oh dear Bryce,
“Rangers continuing pre-eminence”
That comment alone explains your problem. Now I know why you haven’t answered my earlier question about your views on the WATP/No Surrender issue. You would appear to be entirely comfortable with it. (Of course I can only base this on the belief that you actually understand the meaning of the word pre-eminence)
Tomtom said,
“Oh dear Bryce,
“Rangers continuing pre-eminence”
That comment alone explains your problem”
Returning that quote to the immediate context of the sentence it was taken from…
“…continuing pre-eminence within the wider discourse of the foremost national pastime…”
Surely you don’t dispute that regarding the discourse, the wider conversation of Scottish football, Rangers Football Club (or whatever pet name you wish to use) remains pre-eminent? Do you listen/see the radio/papers/blogosphere etc? Would it not be churlish to deny the continuing prominence of Rangers in this regard, despite being a 3rd tier club?
Having taken into account the actual meaning contained within my sentence, i think you’ll agree my point was a valid one, even if you find that preeminence tiresome/unjustified. I can understand that reaction as our onfield play has not yet merited attention on such a scale. But, despite the drop 3 tiers of league structure, id argue interest in the Rangers saga has remained undiminished.
In case anyone has missed me, I’ve been here but the old club / new club debate is getting extremely boring for me and the blog seems to have been dominated by it.
Pleased to see reasoned comments on the green brigade banner- people here have summed it up perfectly. No place in football. Thanks all.
And please give Bryce just a little more courtesy. The expected rigorous responses have been loud and proud and that’s what we thrive on here, but for some of you, please bear in mind that he is contributing to the debate and we can’t ask for more than that. I’ve seen people say they will leave the blog as it has been taken over by Greenockjack and Bryce- we’re finally getting rangers fans engaging here, which we really need, so I think the utmost respect should be shown, even while absolutely slating the viewpoints if necessary.
The conundrum we face is this: how can we engage in meaningful conversations with Rangers fans who are happy to propagate the lie that their club continues seamlessly from the original to now?
The starting positions are world’s apart.
If you come here and claim the history of the oldco then you must, in my book, accept all aspects of it, including the cheating and the massive tax evasion (amongst others).
By proclaiming your support for the concept of a continuing club (as opposed to a newstart) you effectively condone previous behaviours and this makes you, in my view, a cheat or at least a supporter of cheating.
At this point, honestly, I don’t see what is left to discuss?
We generally don’t have this problem with fans of other clubs in financial difficulties because, almost without exception, they arrive here with a similar world view that says that each club has to take responsibility for the actions of that club and that liquidation means the end.
For anyone currently debating with b9a……..take a trip onto twitter and catch up with Lord Billy Austin. This entity is actually what your dealing with. Someone who refers to people as T*ms and finds at least one derogatory/smug/superior comment to make when conversing with anyone.
So Lord Billy , you continue to mention your Culture. Can I ask is this something you are actually proud of? Because there is a very large majority of people in Scotland,( thats the country, not the bubble you live in,) who actually Abhor it, and everything it stands for.
The Spirit of the people involved in the Clutha tragedy are what Glasgow and Scotland is about. Truth, Dignity, Love, Respect, and concern for other human beings. God Bless them All.
Some bloggers on here give me the impression they have been institutionalised at some point in their life and are still trying to tell the world they where innocent,they come out with different reasons when the last one they offered is not accepted ,well in their minds the way they want it to be accepted,bottom line ,when you commit a crime you should be prepared to do the time ,what we have here in Scotland ,is an open instituition where the inmates come and go as they please convincing all and sundry that there has been no crime committed and with a bit of bullying drag the simpletons [you know who you are]into their charade,well this is one institution that will be closed down sooner rather than later ,and thats not made up.
bryce9a says: (62)
December 1, 2013 at 10:09 am
Surely you don’t dispute that regarding the discourse, the wider conversation of Scottish football, Rangers Football Club (or whatever pet name you wish to use) remains pre-eminent? Do you listen the radio? See the papers? Observe the blogosphere?
Having taken into account the actual meaning contained within my sentence, i think you’ll agree my point was a valid one, even if you find that preeminence tiresome/unjustified.
===========
Bryce, may I suggest that this year, your Christmas list to Santa should include a good dictionary? Words don’t just mean whatever you choose them to mean after you have used them. Your original meaning was clear- we all got it, thanks. No further clarification necessary.
The Scottish MSM can and will write and broadcast about the goings-on at Ibrox for so long as there is anything going on at Ibrox. That does not make your team pre-eminent, I’m afraid. It just makes them a laughing stock.
The idea that a third tier side is the pre-eminent team in Scotland is beyond laughable, it actually strays into rather worrying areas of psychology.
So long as the fans of your team actually believe this sort of absolute guff, then your team is just heading for oblivion. Because I don’t believe that the rest of Scottish football (that’s the 41 other non pre-eminent clubs and their fans, by the way) are prepared to put up with this supremacist garbage any more.
The emperor has no clothes (and no money to buy any) and everyone can see it now. If it comes to another vote to fast track an Ibrox side into the SPFL following an insolvency of TRFC, you might well find that Spartans get the nod this time round. Because everyone else is completely sick of this nonsense.
bryce9a says: (62)
December 1, 2013 at 10:09 am
“Rangers continuing pre-eminence”
The continued part is up for debate but there is no doubt that TRFC take up a lot of airwave and TV time for a football clumpany in the 3rd tier of Scottish football. So much so that I cancelled my Sky subscription long ago. In all seriousness why would you pay £30-£40 a month to watch such dross ?
Greenock Jack,
You claimed that PM got unfair criticism on here. Not having seen any, I asked you for examples. You come up with one only, that P. Murray is not leadership material, and then you say you agree with it! You’re not making sense.
neepheid says: (910)
December 1, 2013 at 10:45 am
…………….
Glad to see you have returned Neepheid!
Bryce
Pre-eminence means superior to or notable amongst others.
The former should not be confused with the latter nor should being notable be taken as meaning superior.
What is not in doubt is that RIFC is notable. It is notable because of focus.
Tsfm focus on them because of the abhorent attitude that makes them pre eminent in notable terms. A bit like the Taliban are pre eminent when they act or speak.
The msm focus on RIFC because they make money by doing so, not because there is anything superior about them. Quite the reverse at the moment. By msm focussing, RIFC are given pre eminence, but if that focus were removed any claim to pre eminence would evaporate.
With regard to impact on Scottish culture there is no doubt that RIFC is a totem around which some of the Scottish tribe gather and they can attract a large gathering, which has economic significance.
So I would not argue that they are not part of Scottish culture, but they are neither superior and, if culture were limited to only the best manifestations of it, they would not even be notable.
Pre eminence should not be mistaken for focus.
Just re-reading the FTTT decision and have come across this paragraph, which I find intriguing enough to prompt me to ask:
Does anyone know, as a matter of fact, whether any of the player-recipients of EBT payments was for any disciplinary offence fined by the SFA at any time while being in receipt? And if so, how much that fine might have been?
If he had a side-letter, then presumably the fine would have some relationship only to his declared earnings-and therefore would have been less than it perhaps ought to have been.
And, if the player was one of the top players, the fine-setters would surely have noticed the relatively low declared earnings, with some scepticism?
“161.
Side-letters, of course, had not been registered with the football authorities, the SFA and SPL. The spirit of their rules was that the whole contract terms should be registered. Suspiciously, no evidence was led as to who decided that the benefits in terms of the side-lettersshould not be registered. Non-registration of side–letters was incompatible with both authorities’ policing and disciplinary powers. For example,
any fines imposed on players would customarily reflect the disclosed wage. Non-disclosure would
thwart the authorities’ powers.”
You’ll find this on p.38 at this link http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j6850/TC02372.pdf
There’s only one thing on jack’s mind now. The AGM. McColl has folded his tent, the rest are looking decidedly careworn and jaded. This gives Jack two problems.
How to deflect attention away from the forthcoming call for cash to supporters
And
How to explain what exactly he’s been doing for the generous renumeration? (Aside from paying for posters on RM and other places).
Then there’s Craig……
Any word on Imran’s claim against the clumpany?
Any further updates on Ally ‘one million shares for £10k’ McCoist’s pay cut?
Will the. Pinsett Mason be released for panto season?
What about the inquiry into the derogatory statements made by MH re John Greig?
Which part of Scotplod did the requisitioners send their evidence of wrongdoing vis a vis the .IPO?
RyanGosling says: (114)
December 1, 2013 at 10:15 am
Couldn’t have said it better Ryan. Although I doubt people are ready to jump ship because of jack and Bryce, they both make valid contributions to our discourse. Like many of us, patchy at times, but in general I think they are useful additions to the TSFM canon.
On the ‘acknowledgement of its (Rangers’) cultural, social and community importance’…
Although I was born in Edinburgh, I lived in England until I was 14 (my parents returned just for the occasion – for which I will be forever grateful 😉 ). I was and have always been a Celtic fan. My choice wasn’t through cultural or religious reasons, but simply because Celtic played the best football. Easily. In that regard, I am an unashamed glory hunter.
Until I returned to Scotland, I had no notion of Catholic and Protestant differences and the problems that can cause in Scotland. Let’s just say that when I became aware, it was something of a culture shock. Not that I cared one jot for either as they are both hokum.
But in my experience, those Rangers fans who engage in that agenda care little for their supposed Protestant faith and are only interested in Catholic and Irish bashing.
It is undoubtedly something that is peculiar to Scotland and Northern Ireland (although in Scotland, it dissipates the further you move from Glasgow). That Rangers was, and Sevco is, a part of that ‘fabric of society’ is undeniable. It is not, however, something of which anyone should wish to be proud.