Follow Follow Rangers. Season 2023/24

[Bairnardo]

35 minutes ago, Thistle_do_nicely said:

A great post.

When you're ran by worthless human beings, employ worthless human beings and you pander to worthless human beings that form a substantial part of your customer base you end up with companies like Statement FC.

edit: I mean I posted it yesterday before all this came about but I think we're rapidly approaching the point where their more self-aware fans are going to recognize that it's not worth being tarnished by association with Rangers* anymore.

The irony of it being that The Rangers fans have been cracking on for years to be Scotlands leading voice against child abuse in sport. The reality of it is, these are a group of people who are every bit as bad as those they have criticised and sung songs about and are not even self aware enough to recognise it. How little integrity must you have to stand behind that statement. Shameful. 

[H Wragg]

Bad things = old company
Trophies = same club
That is literally their mindset. 
So the Manchester riots had nothing to do with rangers because rangers the club was being run by rangers the company now in liquidation.? Makes sense
 

The Manchester riots don’t have anything to do with Rangers, old or new.

It was Chelsea.

[Yossarian]

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:

The irony of it being that The Rangers fans have been cracking on for years to be Scotlands leading voice against child abuse in sport. The reality of it is, these are a group of people who are every bit as bad as those they have criticised and sung songs about and are not even self aware enough to recognise it. How little integrity must you have to stand behind that statement. Shameful. 

That's it. It was never about showing any regard for the victims of abuse, it was all about using the pain and suffering that they went through to score points and attempt to take the moral high ground. Its been pretty transparent the whole time.

[Aim Here]

3 minutes ago, Yossarian said:

That's it. It was never about showing any regard for the victims of abuse, it was all about using the pain and suffering that they went through to score points and attempt to take the moral high ground. Its been pretty transparent the whole time.

Nearly, but taking the moral high ground is never the point when it comes to Old Firm pointscoring. The aim is to point at some real or imaginary crime of the other side to give your own side a license to be arseholes. Celtic's fans don't really want to see Rangers stop singing about being up to their knees in f*nian blood - because then the onus would be on them to cut down on cheerleading the Provisional IRA in their own songbook. Sectarian-minded Rangers fans don't really want people to stop calling them 'h*ns', they're just using it as leverage so they can keep throwing blatant slurs like 't*igs' or 't*rriers' around. It's the moral low ground that they're after, not the high ground...

[Rugster]

An absolute disgrace but not in the least bit surprising from this particular club. 

[Darth Merlot]

The The Rangers in absolute scumbags shocker.
Who'd a thunk it...

[Frank Grimes]

Still at least the decent Sevconians on here are condemning it 

Oh wait...

 

[Monkey Tennis]

This is genuinely strange and needs treading round carefully.  

The tale of what happened in the 80s to this kid is truly upsetting.  It's part of a long narrative about how adults in positions of power over children, were able to exploit that power horribly with few checks on their behaviour.  It's always alarming and distressing to read of such events, but the reality is that given the time and climate, Rangers are in truth scarcely to blame for what happened.  The individual concerned is, as is the cultural climate which permitted it.  There doesn't appear to be a suggestion that Rangers were aware of this, or attempted to silence anyone or cover anything.

The fact that it happened at the club does however mean that the organisation faces a moral responsibility to make the right, apologetic, sympathetic and supportive noises.  

To hide behind the old club/new club thing though, is incredibly crass.  Even leaving aside the double standards involved, which no longer seem important in this context, it's just staggering to pretend that it matters.  If there had been no liquidation in 2012 and Rangers' company had still carried on, it would still be the case that nobody currently involved would have been involved then or implicated.  The club however, would still be required to respond appropriately.  Liquidation surely doesn't change that.

That brings us to the statement.  It's actually mind blowing.  For Traynor (presumably) to see this as the right time to lash out about "nasty attacks" on a football club reveals something really dark.  There will definitely be people associated with Rangers who wince at that. 

The whole bloody thing is horrible and it feels like a line has been crossed this time.  

Edited May 16, 2018 by Monkey Tennis

[Frank Grimes]

Spot on

Nobody of sane mind blames Oldco/Newco for this

Its the statement and widespread online reaction from **** that’s rightly attracting ire 

[The_Kincardine]

2 hours ago, Aim Here said:

Nearly, but taking the moral high ground is never the point when it comes to Old Firm pointscoring. The aim is to point at some real or imaginary crime of the other side to give your own side a license to be arseholes. Celtic's fans don't really want to see Rangers stop singing about being up to their knees in f*nian blood - because then the onus would be on them to cut down on cheerleading the Provisional IRA in their own songbook. Sectarian-minded Rangers fans don't really want people to stop calling them 'h*ns', they're just using it as leverage so they can keep throwing blatant slurs like 't*igs' or 't*rriers' around. It's the moral low ground that they're after, not the high ground...

This is a shocker of a post, particularly from a supporter of a club displaying a "*** Scum" banner on Sunday.  You clearly recognise that the term is unacceptable but seem, in a warped way, to be justifying its use on the basis that we Rangers fans welcome such a term so that we can reply in kind.  You are certainly participating in the race to the bottom, and I don't say that in a flattering way.

You highlight the 'H' word and rightly so.  It is, as you suggested, unacceptable and I complain about it vehemently on here, often to the point of ridicule.  I certainly do not embrace the term in order to throw, "blatant slurs like 't*igs' or 't*rriers' around".  Other, usually team-specific, forums use terms like '***', 'orange b*****ds' or 'tarriers' frequently and that is to their demerit.  These terms certainly should not be part of the vocabulary of P&B.  I trust that you agree with me on this.

As for 'David'? I'd really like to know the detail of what happened between the bloke's lawyers and our lawyers two years ago.  I'd like a clear, cant-free and thoroughly honest brief from Ibrox explaining what transpired.   

If we did, actually, pass the buck back to the liquidators then that is a dreadful dereliction and one I am ashamed of.  If the report linked to is correct than I have to agree with this quote:

"My issue's always been that they may be a …different legal entity, but they're still the same club. And although they don't have the same maybe liability legally, certainly morally they're still the same club."

We have to be accountable for what happened and to deal with it in a humane and compassionate way.

[alta-pete]

Ok. I’ll bite. It is beyond shocking. My views on the GASL and Traynor that present Rangers to the outside world with their dog whistle nonsense have been mooted on here before but this represents a new low and total lack of self awareness. Never mind the impact on ‘David’ or anyone else that might have suffered.

A dark day.

[Bohemian]

12 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

Ok. I’ll bite. It is beyond shocking. My views on the GASL and Traynor that present Rangers to the outside world with their dog whistle nonsense have been mooted on here before but this represents a new low and total lack of self awareness. Never mind the impact on ‘David’ or anyone else that might have suffered.

A dark day.

Hardly bitting with a response like that, fair play lad..

[Aim Here]

37 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

You highlight the 'H' word and rightly so.  It is, as you suggested, unacceptable and I complain about it vehemently on here, often to the point of ridicule.  I certainly do not embrace the term in order to throw, "blatant slurs like 't*igs' or 't*rriers' around".  Other, usually team-specific, forums use terms like '***', 'orange b*****ds' or 'tarriers' frequently and that is to the

I suggest no such thing. I made no comment on how sectarian the term actually is, merely that Rangers fans currently take offence at it.

What I was suggesting, regardless of whether the term is or is unacceptable, is that it's supposed unacceptability isn't always an honest one. You only have to go visit the likes of Rangersmedia to see the abject hypocrisy of significant numbers of people who take offence at the term while making liberal use of anticatholic slurs, sometimes even in the same sentence, I kid you not.

(If you must know, I, in common with a huge number of people in Scotland, had no inkling of any supposed sectarian connotations with the word until fairly recently. With the singular exception of Celtic, every major football team in Scotland has a fanbase where the majority comes from a protestant background and the use of 'h*n' to describe Rangers fans occurs pretty much everywhere - are we all self-hating protestants?

I actually suspect that the offence taken by Rangers fans post-dates the OFBA as an artificial attempt to find a term that they could use to whatabout when called out for their anticatholic slurs; because the other contender - orange b******d, while definitely an anti-Protestant slur, rather than a dismissive term for a group of football fans, was not in common enough use. Certainly national newspapers - not exactly known for their f****n inclinations - felt able to use the term from the 1980s onwards without anyone taking offence. It's alleged use as a sectarian term in Scotland seems to be a recent innovation).

Even if this theory isn't true, though and 'h*n' is an unacceptable sectarian term, I still stand by my main point, which is that Old Firm fans take offence - rightly or wrongly - mainly as a tactic to continue their own offensive behaviour.

 

Edited May 16, 2018 by Aim Here

[Frank Grimes]

[The_Kincardine]

6 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

I suggest no such thing. I made no comment on how sectarian the term actually is, merely that Rangers fans currently take offence at it.

What I was suggesting, regardless of whether the term is or is unacceptable, is that it's supposed unacceptability isn't always an honest one. You only have to go visit the likes of Rangersmedia to see the abject hypocrisy of significant numbers of people who take offence at the term while making liberal use of anticatholic slurs, sometimes even in the same sentence, I kid you not.

On P&B it is an unacceptable term. Rightly so.  On P&B anti-Catholic slurs are unacceptable.  Rightly so.  The gist of your argument is that we encourage the use of the H word so we can use our own slurs.  This is ridiculous.

[DA Baracus]

Actually I imagine the majority of football fans outside of Celtic and Sevco don't give a shit about religion. 

Because it's moronic shite for cretins.

[BawWatchin]

4 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

On P&B it is an unacceptable term. Rightly so.  On P&B anti-Catholic slurs are unacceptable.  Rightly so.  The gist of your argument is that we encourage the use of the H word so we can use our own slurs.  This is ridiculous.

It's an unacceptable term on here because it offends certain snowflakes who know full well that the term isn't remotely sectarian. It's just convenient to falsely claim that it is, as it fits in with the sevco victim agenda and gives false legitimization to use terms that are actually sectarian.

[Bairnardo]

It's an unacceptable term on here because it offends certain snowflakes who know full well that the term isn't remotely sectarian. It's just convenient to falsely claim that it is, as it fits in with the sevco victim agenda and gives false legitimization to use terms that are actually sectarian.

Kincy has repeatedly failed to deminstrate why that word is sectarian so I wouldnt bother tbh.

[Aim Here]

13 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

On P&B it is an unacceptable term. Rightly so.  On P&B anti-Catholic slurs are unacceptable.  Rightly so.  The gist of your argument is that we encourage the use of the H word so we can use our own slurs.  This is ridiculous.

I seem to recall that P&B's admins acknowledge that the use of the term is disputed but they choose the safe option of banning it, though it's hard to find forum rule discussions here, and maybe I'm getting mixed up with some other Scottish football forums.

And no, Rangers fans don't 'encourage' the use of the H word. Rangers fans take offence at it, partly because it's a license to use their own slurs, and partly because it makes the sectarianism points tally a bit less one-sided, if they can contrive some sectarian offence aimed at them to balance out whatever they dish out. Be honest, how many times in your life have you heard a Scottish person use the term to refer to a Protestant outwith a footballing context? I have *never* heard it, so far.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Aim Here

[Amato72]

Would be nice if we could talk about football on this thread.

 

 

RANGERS can today confirm that Allan McGregor has rejoined the club on a two-year deal.

The vastly experienced Scotland goalkeeper was recently named Hull City’s Player of the Year for 2017/18 and becomes new manager Steven Gerrard’s second signing following the arrival of midfielder Scott Arfield on Monday.

 

Decent signing imo.