Follow Follow Rangers. Season 2023/24

[Bairnardo]

Just now, Dons_1988 said:

I think you’ll find you’re just raging that rangers won. 

Yeah, another anti-racism stance revealed to be simply someone rattled by "Big Fils goal". 

[steelmen]

Good post, although I would challenge the last sentence a bit - its been glaringly obvious for years now. 
The media have allowed their sectarianism to continue unchallenged (with a few vocal exceptions).

I think the difference now is it is starting to change from ‘it’s ok, it’s only sectarian’ to ‘this is racism’ which is being taken more seriously

[Forever_blueco]

It’s Saturday morning and the off sales are now open lads .
 

Away and get some cans ffs 

[Orbix]

3 hours ago, craigkillie said:

Is this true? I haven't seen a single Rangers fan on this thread, including several supposedly sensible ones, condemn the behaviour of the Heart and Hand guys, and disappointingly several very decent folk that I follow on Twitter had nothing to say about the racist singing last weekend either. It seems to be tolerated at the very least.

The last day or so has also exposed a large number of grubby and sinister little bunch of oddballs as part of the online Rangers support.

Since the Heart and Hand story broke, there’s been 4 rangers fans posting in this thread, and myself and AJF both condemned the tweets and the singing - be it found racist or otherwise - and supported the bans on the Union Bears that the club introduced. 
 

I get that swinging at strawmen makes life easier, but when you’re castigating the rangers posters on here as ‘a sinister bunch of little oddballs’ it looks a bit self-serving to your argument. 

[Bairnardo]

4 minutes ago, Orbix said:

Since the Heart and Hand story broke, there’s been 4 rangers fans posting in this thread, and myself and AJF both condemned the tweets and the singing - be it found racist or otherwise - and supported the bans on the Union Bears that the club introduced. 
 

I get that swinging at strawmen makes life easier, but when you’re castigating the rangers posters on here as ‘a sinister bunch of little oddballs’ it looks a bit self-serving to your argument. 

Tbf, you have offered up that 4 fans posted since and 2 of them "condemned" the tweets. We also have, immediately above your post, one fan saying folk should just go and get some cans, and we had Kincardine claiming outcry about racism/sectarianism is simply folk angry that Rangers won. Its not a great hit rate really for supporting your position

[capt_oats]

14 minutes ago, Orbix said:

I get that swinging at strawmen makes life easier, but when you’re castigating the rangers posters on here as ‘a sinister bunch of little oddballs’ it looks a bit self-serving to your argument. 

In fairness @craigkillie's post refers to "the online Rangers support." I'd take that to mean a large number or the wider online support exposing themselves as a "grubby and sinister little bunch of oddballs" rather than specifically those on Pie & Bovril.

If the shoe fits though...

Edited September 4, 2021 by capt_oats

[AJF]

4 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Tbf, you have offered up that 4 fans posted since and 2 of them "condemned" the tweets. We also have, immediately above your post, one fan saying folk should just go and get some cans, and we had Kincardine claiming outcry about racism/sectarianism is simply folk angry that Rangers won. Its not a great hit rate really for supporting your position

I think what I’d offer as any form of balance to that, is that people can have more than one thought or response to the situation. That’s human nature.

Myself for example: firstly, I wholeheartedly believe the offensive tweets are unacceptable and any consequences that come the way of these guys will be deserved.

However, I also agree with others that this has likely come about as a result of tabloid press being unhappy at the media restriction at Ibrox rather than any genuine attempt to highlight and call out sectarianism or bigotry.

I also believe it is convenient that it was saved to be released in the wake of a big derby win for us. I haven’t made these points (until now) as I believe it doesn’t come across entirely well but it’s not to say I disagree with others who have made the point.

Additionally, I think those in the media (Stewart and Spiers mainly) that are somehow attempting to hold Rangers as a club responsible for this are trying to set a dangerous precedent and know exactly what they are doing.

Any media outlet can become an official media partner with Rangers if they choose to do so. If, for example, the Record had done so, would Rangers be responsible for the offensive tweets made by their employees that are now surfacing in retaliation to the article? No, they wouldn’t.

I’m going to leave it there, but also make it clear this is not an attempt to detract from the original article, my feelings are clear it is unacceptable.

[craigkillie]

Since the Heart and Hand story broke, there’s been 4 rangers fans posting in this thread, and myself and AJF both condemned the tweets and the singing - be it found racist or otherwise - and supported the bans on the Union Bears that the club introduced. 
 
I get that swinging at strawmen makes life easier, but when you’re castigating the rangers posters on here as ‘a sinister bunch of little oddballs’ it looks a bit self-serving to your argument. 

I specifically said it was just the tweets for folk on here, the bit about the singing referred to people on Twitter.

I must have missed AJF (who I reckon is probably the best Rangers poster on here) condemning them - if he did then fair enough, but all I saw was him questioning the motives of the Daily Record journalists when he mistakenly thought it was just petty minor indiscretions from the guys involved. I know that he probably does oppose it all, and it's easy to fall into the "obviously racism is bad, I don't need to say it" trap, because I have in the past too.

I genuinely thought you were a St Mirren fan, so if you did condemn them I wouldn't have realised it was a Rangers fan doing so.

[Bairnardo]

4 minutes ago, AJF said:

 

I also believe it is convenient that it was saved to be released in the wake of a big derby win for us. I haven’t made these points (until now) as I believe it doesn’t come across entirely well but it’s not to say I disagree with others who have made the point.

.

Any media outlet can become an official media partner with Rangers if they choose to do so. If, for example, the Record had done so, would Rangers be responsible for the offensive tweets made by their employees that are now surfacing in retaliation to the article? No, they wouldn’t.

 

Not too much wrong with what you have written for, but to pick up these two points.... The first one is absolute howling at the moon. The second one..... Surely its a two way street? A media outlet can't just become a media partner of Rangers, once Rangers affiliate themselves with anyone, media or outlet, then yes, Rangers have a degree of additional responsibility re the output. Especially when it is literally a Rangers podcast, rather than the example of the Daily Record which is a standard (shite) newspaper. If you think Rangers didnt make the expectations clear when they approved a partnership with heart and hand, then either you are correct, and Rangers are utterly amateur, or they did and thats a different conversation

[bennett]

2 hours ago, CCB19035 said:

Excellent thoughts on the conversation. 
 

As long as you're winning, nothing else matters. 
 

That mantra worked really well for the old club

I apologise for posting a Rangers pic on the Rangers thread.

9 years without winning any major domestic trophies proves your point wrong.

The day when Uncle Charlie founded us was one of my proudest moments.

 

[AJF]

13 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

I specifically said it was just the tweets for folk on here, the bit about the singing referred to people on Twitter.

I must have missed AJF (who I reckon is probably the best Rangers poster on here) condemning them - if he did then fair enough, but all I saw was him questioning the motives of the Daily Record journalists when he mistakenly thought it was just petty minor indiscretions from the guys involved. I know that he probably does oppose it all, and it's easy to fall into the "obviously racism is bad, I don't need to say it" trap, because I have in the past too.

I genuinely thought you were a St Mirren fan, so if you did condemn them I wouldn't have realised it was a Rangers fan doing so.

Aye, in fairness you’re correct that I never came out and condemned it, which is something I probably should’ve done before now.

Edited September 4, 2021 by AJF

[AJF]

14 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Not too much wrong with what you have written for, but to pick up these two points.... The first one is absolute howling at the moon. The second one..... Surely its a two way street? A media outlet can't just become a media partner of Rangers, once Rangers affiliate themselves with anyone, media or outlet, then yes, Rangers have a degree of additional responsibility re the output. Especially when it is literally a Rangers podcast, rather than the example of the Daily Record which is a standard (shite) newspaper. If you think Rangers didnt make the expectations clear when they approved a partnership with heart and hand, then either you are correct, and Rangers are utterly amateur, or they did and thats a different conversation

Completely appreciate those points. I said I believed it was convenient the timing as I very much doubt the tweets only came to their knowledge in the days following the match, but of course, I can’t prove that, it’s just a theory.

And on the second point, I’m not entirely sure how it works but what you say seems plausible. However as an example, Clyde1 are an official partner of Celtic. If as you say, Celtic have made it clear what is expected then should they be held responsible for any controversial rants on there (such as Keevins last week regarding racism/sectarianism)?

[Guest TheJTS98]

30 minutes ago, AJF said:

However, I also agree with others that this has likely come about as a result of tabloid press being unhappy at the media restriction at Ibrox rather than any genuine attempt to highlight and call out sectarianism or bigotry.

I can see why Rangers fans would see it this way, and all supports are susceptible to groupthink. But I think it's quite simply come out in a tabloid paper because it is a newsworthy story.

Rangers have a rep for sectarianism and in public make a big show of trying to distance themselves from it. But here they are having missed the fact that their 'media partners' are wronguns. It's certainly a story, whether they have beef with Rangers over media access or not.

For what it's worth, I found it eyebrow raising that Rangers would bring about an official link with a podcast named like that. Sends a bit of a message, and one that Rangers give the impression they don't want to send.

All joking aside, if I worked at Rangers and had been asked if bringing someone like the named in-house was a good idea, I'd have said no. I'm surprised this has come about at all. It seems very amateurish.

[Orbix]

25 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

I genuinely thought you were a St Mirren fan, so if you did condemn them I wouldn't have realised it was a Rangers fan doing so.

If I was a St Mirren fan my username would be A Miss and I don’t know whether this thread could survive a trans debate.

[Bairnardo]

4 minutes ago, AJF said:

Completely appreciate those points. I said I believed it was convenient the timing as I very much doubt the tweets only came to their knowledge in the days following the match, but of course, I can’t prove that, it’s just a theory.

And on the second point, I’m not entirely sure how it works but what you say seems plausible. However as an example, Clyde1 are an official partner of Celtic. If as you say, Celtic have made it clear what is expected then should they be held responsible for any controversial rants on there (such as Keevins last week regarding racism/sectarianism)?

I guess there are a lot of possibilities for this partnership type agreement. To give an example, if Falkirk had a commerical partnership with say, a sportswear manufacturer who turned out to be using slave labour, my expectation of Falkirk would be for them to immediately terminate any involvement and offer up immediate condemnation.

If a Falkirk podcast that was officially affiliated witht he club was guilt of doling out racial/sectarian/homophobic/sexist (not an exhaustive list) I would be looking for the club agian, to cut all ties and condemn

[AJF]

14 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

I guess there are a lot of possibilities for this partnership type agreement. To give an example, if Falkirk had a commerical partnership with say, a sportswear manufacturer who turned out to be using slave labour, my expectation of Falkirk would be for them to immediately terminate any involvement and offer up immediate condemnation.

If a Falkirk podcast that was officially affiliated witht he club was guilt of doling out racial/sectarian/homophobic/sexist (not an exhaustive list) I would be looking for the club agian, to cut all ties and condemn

I agree there, if it comes to cutting ties I don’t have much issue, I think I’m maybe more concerned with the insinuation from certain journalists that Rangers are responsible for the actions. As let’s not forget, these comments were made by the individuals in a private capacity rather than on behalf of said podcast.

[Dundee Hibernian]

Last season I was taken aback that the Ibrox club had the 'Heart and Hand' podcast as the sponsors of their Rangers TV coverage of matches, and that H&H chose the player of the match: mind writing it on the match threads at the time here.

But on reflection, the club only appears to react to bad publicity rather than prevent issues before they occur, in fact they probably don't see anything wrong with associating themselves with such a group, what with their backing of gatherings such as 'Union Bears', overlooking racist bile chanted or sung by their customers, or ongoing choice of colours for their away outfits and tracksuits. It appears to be part of the club's marketing ploy to encourage a particular type of fan, and/or maybe the custodians at Ibrox enjoy a circus of staunch rage.

[DukDukGoose]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

I specifically said it was just the tweets for folk on here, the bit about the singing referred to people on Twitter.

I must have missed AJF (who I reckon is probably the best Rangers poster on here) condemning them - if he did then fair enough, but all I saw was him questioning the motives of the Daily Record journalists when he mistakenly thought it was just petty minor indiscretions from the guys involved. I know that he probably does oppose it all, and it's easy to fall into the "obviously racism is bad, I don't need to say it" trap, because I have in the past too.

I genuinely thought you were a St Mirren fan, so if you did condemn them I wouldn't have realised it was a Rangers fan doing so.

AJF is not in the same league as the salt & vinegar chap.

[Sortmeout]

What do people about the tit-for-tat outing of old tweets that is now going around Twitter?

 

Also, on a related note, what about the boy from Middlesborough who has been charged by the FA for tweets he made 9 years ago as a 14 year old?

[bennett]

 

Is Keith just having a bit of a laugh with the lads or is he being a bigot here?

 

 

Twitter has gone absolutely crazy today, tweets being pulled up left, right and centre. Accounts and tweets being deleted as journalists rush to protect themselves.