Squonk

While it’s fair to acknowledge that most clubs have a minority of neanderthal fans, there’s a danger of conflating that matter with a football club actively encouraging sectarianism as a tool for increasing or maintaining commercial revenue. By falling into that trap, we're effectively letting Rangers* as a club off the hook by diluting its culpability. Orange kits and employing David Graham are just two recent examples of the club appealing to the bigots. No other football club I know of deliberately operates a policy of pandering to bigots in order to retain their physical attendance and financial support. Limited progress has been made since the days when the old club employed a strict non-Catholic signing policy, but the current franchise playing out of Ibrox is still guilty of dragging its feet past the 17th century, despite the lip-service it occasionally feels obliged to pay. Sectarianism and anti-Catholic/Irish bigotry is a money spinner for a club steeped in Protestant unionism, and as others have said, if the Catholic/Irish were instead black, Muslim, Jewish or homosexual, there would be serious consequences, including the threat of stadium closures, or even league expulsion. AJF and bennet (and probably others) should rightly be commended for their condemnation of the behaviour of fellow fans and their club, but @VincentGuerin is absolutely right to question why any right-thinking person wouldn’t walk away from such a vile ‘institution,’ regardless of how much affinity that person might have built up purely from the on-field stuff. It’s a bit like admiring Hitler for his love of his pet dogs.

Then I guess you don't do sarcasm, humour or self-deprecation.

If you're confirming that you believe Rangers Football Club did not survive liquidation as the same club then I sincerely apologise for my false accusations and for casting aspersions on your opinions.

It's only natural that your opinion on lying and embellishment is going to be diminished, not to mention hypocritical, if you've indulged in them yourself regarding Rangers surviving liquidation. As for me being tedious, I'm proud of that one, although I much prefer the word tenacious. Edit: I'll leave it there so as not to clog up this thread, but reserve the right to bring the subject up again any time anywhere.

In what way have I prohibited you, or stopped you having an opinion? You seem to value the right to express your opinion, rightly so, but seem a little less keen that I should also have the right to express my differing opinion. The problem I have with your philosophy is that it demands that we should all desist from commenting on Rangers' liquidation, just to suit you and your fellow supporters, as it still makes you so uncomfortable, poor wee souls. I for one, intend bringing it up at every available opportunity, so I suggest those who are offended by any reference to the death of your old defunct club should stop reading my posts, or ask a mod to remove them. It remains the most seismic event in Scottish football history, a matter that affects every club in our nation, and a topic that shouldn't be shut down just because you and your fellow fans are agitated to be reminded of it eleven years later.

Sure. It must be difficult for you to dredge up memories of a cataclysmic event that happened to your club over a decade ago.

Alternatively, if you sit back and say nothing, the great swindle continues for another decade. I know which one I prefer. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

The lack of awareness of a Rangers* fan accusing anybody of lying and embellishment is truly staggering.

The hobos creaming their pants at Hearts current form, despite that woeful form still seeing them above Hibs in the league.

If only you volunteered as a medium, you could communicate with the old club.

Each poster has the description "Well-Known Member" below their username. They truly are a bunch of members right enough.

It's never too late to bring up the Marvel of Darvel in these kind of analytical debates in my opinion. I know it's soooooooo last year season, but I for one will never tire of remembering it fondly when the Doric flock fanciers get a bit uppity.

That's a bit of an own goal, is it not? A depiction of the Rangers Football Club Ltd, which they all claim is only a company, not their football club, but which is the entity that went into liquidation (after being renamed the Rangers Football Club plc, then RFC2012). I mean, just why would you glorify a supposedly meaningless operating company, rather than the club you support? The morons really do tie themselves in knots at times.

Imagine getting hyper excited about a routine 2-0 win against a club with around 5% of your playing budget.

Could be a UEFA official bringing the sack of sprouts that gets awarded along with the Best 2-2 Away Win In Europe Trophy?

FTFY.

If being unable to guarantee the safety of opposition fans is a factor, surely the football authorities should be introducing partial or full stadium closures, not pandering to the <checks notes> small minority of trouble-makers. As usual though with the gruesome twosome, they'll do the same as they do with large-scale sectarian chanting and claim there's nothing they can do.

I've just read on the ever reliable online Sun that Hibs' game has been moved to Wednesday with a 17.45 kick-off. Apparently that early kick-off is a result of UEFA rules designed to avoid clashes with Champions League games. Hearts will play on Thursday evening with a 19.45 kick-off according to the official club website.

Apologies if already covered, but the BBC's website currently shows next Wednesday's European games involving Hearts and Hibs are both being played in Edinburgh on the same day, with kick-off times still to be confirmed. Probably not a problem for the capital, unlike the ugly sisters in Glasgow, but is it likely the police will request one of those home ties be changed to an away fixture? FenerbahçeTBCTo be ConfirmedFC Twente Heart of MidlothianTBCTo be ConfirmedPAOK Salonika HibernianTBCTo be ConfirmedAston Villa KRC GenkTBCTo be ConfirmedAdana Demirspor

My interpretation of that is that foreign referees don't kowtow to Glasgow's gruesome twosome in the same way that Scottish referees do, because those foreign officials don't have to worry about the safety of their wives and children or the prospect of having their windows smashed to smithereens. Not awarding County a penalty for minimal contact, followed by awarding Celtic a penalty for minimal contact is the equivalent of a two goal swing.

It isn't intentional or preventing a goalscoring opportunity when the ball is blasted at a defender's hand from two or three metres away, but penalties are nonetheless awarded nine times out of ten these days. I suspect in this case the keeper is deemed to be in control of the ball, so no offence was committed.

With no sense of irony, you're being a bit selective about what constitutes 'subjective and biased.' I agree with @Hoose Rice that there was contact from Hart, however minimal, but Murray should've gone down at that point instead of staggering forward to try and score before diving on the ground. Hart's contact preceded the dive, so it should've been a penalty, as it would undoubtedly have been if it had involved Kyogo at the other end.

It pisses me off that the pundits can just laugh off the non-award of a Ross County penalty as if it's an irrelevance, because Celtic subsequently scored three goals. It never crossed their minds that a County goal while they were already in the ascendancy could have led to winning the match. The sequence of events that followed the Murray incident would've been entirely different, meaning those goals wouldn't have been scored and Celtic may well have remained unconvincing.

After just one senior competitive appearance, when he arrived on the pitch during the 89th minute? And during one of the most successful periods in the recent history of Scottish international football? I'll have a pint of what you're drinking. I can only assume you're either blootered or blinkered. ETA. On reflection, I can only assume the above post was a p!$$-take. Personally, I'm all for young Scottish talent emerging and taking their chances but there's precious little evidence of Rangers* fielding Scottish youngsters (future internationalists promoted from the B team or otherwise) considering that Beale is assembling a squad almost entirely comprising of newly imported foreigners.

It must be of considerable comfort to you that your club had always been known as The Rangers, while dealing (badly) with the grief of its undeniable death. How very 'Rangersy' of you to focus on an absolute irrelevance as an attempted distraction because you are unable to contest documentary evidence provided by Rangers themselves that kills the club continuity myth stone dead. Staunch, very staunch.