30 years on, a different perspective

Status
Not open for further replies.
omegaman said:
Was that really an expectation of the signing? Did people really imagine it would heal west of Scottish society of its sectarian blight?
I know this was often said, usually as way of attacking the club, but who really believed that would happen?

All it ever meant to me was that we would be free to pursue any player irrespective of religion which would surely make us stronger, especially as it was an unprecedented period in the club’s history in terms of our wealth going through the roof and our burgeoning aspirations to compete with Europe’s best.

I didn’t give a f**k about building bridges and making the country a more tolerant place to live in or any of that old guff.

It was always about us, about what made us stronger, and it did, it undeniably did.
Click to expand...
Looking at it as a sixteen year I thought maybe it would but as a sixteen year old I thought I knew everything.

We now know that there was no chance.
 
I understand the OP argument that the 'signing made little difference to us'. What I'm unclear about is this- are we saying it would be more beneficial for the Club not to sign RC's?
The OP derisory (if I'm picking it up correctly) line about being 'inclusive and modern' would suggest so. So again, are we saying being exclusive and old fashioned would benefit the Club.
Ps- just to be clear, I'm one of those who did not accept Maurice Johnston.
 
BL11

1. I would support the club but perhaps not feel the need to go. I have explained that my passion (as in time, money, and mental anguish) is due to Rangers MY team, my cultural team. A team in blue that played in SPL with no real respect for its own values and past wouldn't need me I don't think and wouldn't excite me much. Not the same as 'I would refuse to support them'.
2. When 'the policy' (in fact almost non existent as a policy) was at its peak we were dominant and Celtic were nowhere. What RC geniuses did we miss out on? Between outbreak of WW2 and Stein arriving they win the league once. Once. Killie were better than them!
3. I have never said we stand still. I have repeated two things: a) don't throw baby out with the bathwater; contextualise and respect the values and traditions, and b) don't ever think we can appease the scum or be 'acceptable' as that huge mistake will be the end of us.

Thanks
 
Charing said:
I understand the OP argument that the 'signing made little difference to us'. What I'm unclear about is this- are we saying it would be more beneficial for the Club not to sign RC's?
The OP derisory (if I'm picking it up correctly) line about being 'inclusive and modern' would suggest so. So again, are we saying being exclusive and old fashioned would benefit the Club.
Ps- just to be clear, I'm one of those who did not accept Maurice Johnston.
Click to expand...
I am saying signing a horrible wee **** ***** didn't really do what so many now claim it did. I have never said we should remain in the Baxter led 60s in sepia tinted photos.
 
Commodore Carbuncle said:
Looking at it as a sixteen year I thought maybe it would but as a sixteen year old I thought I knew everything.

We now know that there was no chance.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of older guys really struggled with it and believed that making such a huge concession required something in return, but I never saw it that way.

I was only 19 though. I just saw Johnston as the best Scottish striker of the time.

Ultimately it didn’t change much of anything - we’ve had better players before and since - but the fact he had been the Yahoos’ poster boy, and conversely the man we loved to hate, was as bizarre as it was shocking.

I’m more depressed at the sensationalist guff the media are still spinning off the back of it now.

He wasn’t the first catholic we’d signed, everyone knows that, but as with all fake news items nowadays the media just go with whatever generates the biggest response so forget the facts and continue with the lie
 
Earl of Leven said:
I am saying signing a horrible wee **** ***** didn't really do what so many now claim it did. I have never said we should remain in the Baxter led 60s in sepia tinted photos.
Click to expand...
I'm in accord with your first sentence. Re your second- I asked a simple question and painted no flowery pictures about the 60s. The question was, do you think it would be beneficial if the Club did not sign RC's?
 
Charing said:
I understand the OP argument that the 'signing made little difference to us'. What I'm unclear about is this- are we saying it would be more beneficial for the Club not to sign RC's?
The OP derisory (if I'm picking it up correctly) line about being 'inclusive and modern' would suggest so. So again, are we saying being exclusive and old fashioned would benefit the Club.
Ps- just to be clear, I'm one of those who did not accept Maurice Johnston.
Click to expand...

A simple question.

Why would you want to sign players who are state subsidised to hate you?

Go back to an interview with wee stinky talking about Baxter.

'He wisnae fae Glesga, so he wisnae a bigot.' So said wee stinky.

So me being a sensitive wee bachle, I took from that so called praise was that any Rangers player from Glasgow/the west of Scotland was a bigot?

The filths' hatred cannot and will never escape them.
 
Charing said:
I'm in accord with your first sentence. Re your second- I asked a simple question and painted no flowery pictures about the 60s. The question was, do you think it would be beneficial if the Club did not sign RC's?
Click to expand...
Local ones, I'd rather we avoided....I will be honest. Any 'bold 19th Century Terrorist' from round here that supports Shame FC is not welcome in my opinion. RCs in general I can't see how you avoid that if you are bringing in players from London, France, Poland, CRoatia etc etc. No issues there.
 
Charing said:
I'm in accord with your first sentence. Re your second- I asked a simple question and painted no flowery pictures about the 60s. The question was, do you think it would be beneficial if the Club did not sign RC's?
Click to expand...


John Collins would have been a fantastic player for Rangers if he had the balls of Johnston, as far as I know family pressure saw him sign for the filth and he went on to win one Scottish cup and a Tennents sixes with them rather than trophy laden success with Rangers.

He is proof positive that the bigots on their side didn't want RC's playing for Rangers even after Johnston, turns out Collins is a fanny as well so I'm quite glad he turned us down with hindsight :))
 
Earl of Leven said:
Local ones, I'd rather we avoided....I will be honest. Any 'bold 19th Century Terrorist' from round here that supports Shame FC is not welcome in my opinion. RCs in general I can't see how you avoid that if you are bringing in players from London, France, Poland, CRoatia etc etc. No issues there.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, an honest answer.
It would be interesting to see the reaction if SG exploited the recent unsettled situation concerning Leigh Griffiths and signed him for Rangers. While one cannot make exact comparisons between two different individuals, its not an unreasonable comparison.
 
Charing said:
Fair enough, an honest answer.
It would be interesting to see the reaction if SG exploited the recent unsettled situation concerning Leigh Griffiths and signed him for Rangers. While one cannot make exact comparisons between two different individuals, its not an unreasonable comparison.
Click to expand...

It's so unreasonable, I'm beginning to think 'Lost in Space' was reality.

As for having that piece of filth in a Rangers strip, just you stick to Fantasy Island.
 
Another thing that seems to have changed is the amount of "mixed" families in Scotland. I'm basing this solely on what I read on here.

In my 9 formative years in Scotland (Bathgate and then Kilmarnock), I don't remember this being a thing and at the two schools I attended there was one Celtic supporter (a ginger lad called Kevin Gallagher) who was obviously very different even at 7 years old and didn't have a proper uniform).

In the same way that in days gone by if you married a Catholic you had to raise your kids in their faith, they seem to pick up more of the potential future generations than us.

Their culture seems much more dominant.

I'm certainly not bigoted but I still get surprised by how many people say RIP on here when someone dies. When my Grandma used to take me to the cemetary to visit my Grandad's grave she told me that the headstones with RIP on them identified the deceased as Catholic.

I know these are very trivial matters but it's inch by inch, little by little. Isn't that straight from the Jesuit playbook?

I'm asking questions as opposed to making statements here.
 
Steve Snedden said:
Another thing that seems to have changed is the amount of "mixed" families in Scotland. I'm basing this solely on what I read on here.

In my 9 formative years in Scotland (Bathgate and then Kilmarnock), I don't remember this being a thing and at the two schools I attended there was one Celtic supporter (a ginger lad called Kevin Gallagher) who was obviously very different even at 7 years old and didn't have a proper uniform).

In the same way that in days gone by if you married a Catholic you had to raise your kids in their faith, they seem to pick up more of the potential future generations than us.

Their culture seems much more dominant.

I'm certainly not bigoted but I still get surprised by how many people say RIP on here when someone dies. When my Grandma used to take me to the cemetary to visit my Grandad's grave she told me that the headstones with RIP on them identified the deceased as Catholic.

I know these are very trivial matters but it's inch by inch, little by little. Isn't that straight from the Jesuit playbook?

I'm asking questions as opposed to making statements here.
Click to expand...


In the same way that in days gone by if you married a Catholic you had to raise your kids in their faith, they seem to pick up more of the potential future generations than us.


I'm not so sure.


For me, what happened was weak-kneed Prods who just liked their 'Nat King' gave in.

Goodness knows we all want a quiet life, but there's no way I'd have allowed my 'chucky stanes' being brought up as a 'shettlestons'.

And I married a 'Prod' too.
 
BL11 said:
What a pile of nonsense.

EoL's post is aimed at me - I'm not a young Rangers fan.

It's not my fault that Rangers went bust, I was banned from the old board, twice, once for saying Craig Whyte should not be trusted and secondly, when the fans were marching on Hampden, I said we should be marching to Ibrox because Duff and Phelps were the real enemy at the time.

EoL has never once shifted on his belief that Rangers are only big because of the "USP" *(unique selling point) of being a Protestant Club. This may be true though my own belief is that Rangers are big because they were the most successful Scottish team in by far Scotland's biggest city and in direct competition of the Irish Catholic club. The fact that the Scottish were Protestant went hand in hand in those days.

EoL has also stated that if Rangers weren't a Protestant team, he would no longer support Rangers (not verbatim) which for me is a damning indictment of his flavour of 'support'.

EoL reckons that for Rangers to stay big, we need a USP, that USP being trying to appeal to a decreasing and ageing portion of society.

It's short sighted and will not ensure the club remains relevant in today's secular Scottish society. Sure, the Tims are in charge now but that's not the "new Rangers fans" fault either.

The Traditionalists want to rewind back to a time when things were supposedly better, that time has vanished (if it ever existed) and will never return.

If Rangers had always signed Catholics, then maybe our name would be on the European Cup.

Celtic signed the best Scottish players whereas we signed the best Protestants (post war) and as such, we lost out. Celtic were on their knees and we could've buried them in the 50s by signing Catholics and relegating the Tims.

I realise it's all hypothetical but so is most posts on these forums.
Click to expand...

I can't think of many, if any, Scottish RC's that could have improved Rangers in that time and were willing to sign for Rangers. Not many Scottish RC's fall over themselves to sign for us now.

Celtic created the religious dipole, yes, and Rangers emerged as a Protestant club. We just didn't 'win things', like Queens Park. I've no idea why anyone would deny this.

EoL is right to query whether a rudderless club with no identity can thrive in the long-term. I'd say the last 20 years is not a ringing endorsement of the new philosophy. I don't see the Yahoos giving up any of their identity, do you? Are the Yahoos moving away from politics and religion in order to 'remain relevant in today's secular Scottish society'? Quite the opposite. Why do Rangers fans think that we have to and that it will succeed?
 
Taki

And why always us?

"If we move to the centre ground then everything will be fine and no-one will hate us".

The solution is never to get involved and get things done...it is always the cry of the Millennial: "I'll just admit my privilege and acquiesce to your demands for more rights".
 
Also religion is made up pish. It really shouldn’t be the base for anything involving sane people but perhaps that’s a different topic.
 
texas_pedro said:
Also religion is made up pish. It really shouldn’t be the base for anything involving sane people but perhaps that’s a different topic.
Click to expand...

It's talked about in terms of religion but in reality it's culture.

And that should matter.

Until we start identifying as cultural British Prods in the way that atheist Jews identify as Jewish then we're on the back-foot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
texas_pedro said:
Also religion is made up pish. It really shouldn’t be the base for anything involving sane people but perhaps that’s a different topic.
Click to expand...

It might be made up pish, but as a Protestant do I not have the right to not pay for something I don't believe in?

That mob are perfectly happy for everyone to contribute to what you say is made up pish.

Every child should have the right to education. What they shouldn't have is state subsided hatred. And guess who only get's that bonus?
 
Johnston was a great player, but its questionable whether his actual on field contribution was worth the hassle - other than to get it up the crash barriers.

Murray was so full of his own personal hubris that he wanted to make a big play of signing an uber-poet like Johnston for pure self-aggrandisement- he wanted a knighthood, after all. In my view he could and should have just allowed Souness to sign players he wanted without the fanfare ' the era of no catholics was over in any case.

You might also argue that our action with Johnston resulted in a ramping up of the hate towards us and played a part in Reid, Lawwell, Desmond et al 'nailing us to the floor'...
 
Earl of Leven said:
BL11

1. I would support the club but perhaps not feel the need to go. I have explained that my passion (as in time, money, and mental anguish) is due to Rangers MY team, my cultural team. A team in blue that played in SPL with no real respect for its own values and past wouldn't need me I don't think and wouldn't excite me much. Not the same as 'I would refuse to support them'.
2. When 'the policy' (in fact almost non existent as a policy) was at its peak we were dominant and Celtic were nowhere. What RC geniuses did we miss out on? Between outbreak of WW2 and Stein arriving they win the league once. Once. Killie were better than them!
3. I have never said we stand still. I have repeated two things: a) don't throw baby out with the bathwater; contextualise and respect the values and traditions, and b) don't ever think we can appease the scum or be 'acceptable' as that huge mistake will be the end of us.

Thanks
Click to expand...
1. During previous discussions, you said that you wouldn't support Rangers if there were 11 Scots/Irish Catholics playing for Rangers. Can you confirm if this is still your stance?
2. My point was hypothetical but you could look at various Scot RCs who went to England that we might've went for IF they were available. I'm well aware that Killie, Hibs, Dunfermline had good teams, I don't know what age you think I am but I've been going to Ibrox since 1986.
3. I didn't say we (Rangers) were standing still. I believe you have got off the world in a huff because things have changed (as they always do) and your opening gambit goes to show it.

You have been clear throughout my time on these boards, you don't believe that Rangers should sign Catholics, Scottish, Irish and/or anywhere else because, you think, they hate "us".

Well, this may well come as a shock but I know quite a few Catholic Rangers fans who don't hate us and also I know a few Protestant Celtic fans who hate us.

Given the above info, would you rather a Catholic Rangers fans signed for us or a Protestant Celtic fan?
 
Last edited:
GodStruth said:
Johnston was a great player, but its questionable whether his actual on field contribution was worth the hassle - other than to get it up the crash barriers.

Murray was so full of his own personal hubris that he wanted to make a big play of signing an uber-poet like Johnston for pure self-aggrandisement- he wanted a knighthood, after all. In my view he could and should have just allowed Souness to sign players he wanted without the fanfare ' the era of no catholics was over in any case.

You might also argue that our action with Johnston resulted in a ramping up of the hate towards us and played a part in Reid, Lawwell, Desmond et al 'nailing us to the floor'...
Click to expand...

You mean they hated us even more for signing a Catholic than they did for not signing one?
 
Taki said:
EoL is right to query whether a rudderless club with no identity can thrive in the long-term. I'd say the last 20 years is not a ringing endorsement of the new philosophy. I don't see the Yahoos giving up any of their identity, do you? Are the Yahoos moving away from politics and religion in order to 'remain relevant in today's secular Scottish society'? Quite the opposite. Why do Rangers fans think that we have to and that it will succeed?
Click to expand...

How are Man Utd not rudderless, Man City, Real, PSG, Bayern and what is their 'identity'?

I honestly don't give a toss about the 'Yahoos' or what their identity is but I do know they like to make a big song and dance about how they don't care who signs for them and they like to make an issue that we do when they plain fact of the matter is that 99% of us don't care who signs for us as long as we improve as a team.
 
BL11 said:
How are Man Utd not rudderless, Man City, Real, PSG, Bayern and what is their 'identity'?

I honestly don't give a toss about the 'Yahoos' or what their identity is but I do know they like to make a big song and dance about how they don't care who signs for them and they like to make an issue that we do when they plain fact of the matter is that 99% of us don't care who signs for us as long as we improve as a team.
Click to expand...

You know the answer to that already mate, it's the CL: a game changer in terms of both revenue and exposure.

Preston, Bolton, Blackpool, Leeds and Stoke City would be better comparisons.
 
BL11 said:
That's your prerogative but it proves beyond all doubt that you are not unconditionally fan of Rangers.
Click to expand...
Indeed, as I have explained 1000 times. I am a fan of the club as an institution and not dependent on results only. I'm not funding 11 Mojos or O'Hallorans.
 
Steve Snedden said:
You know the answer to that already mate, it's the CL: a game changer in terms of both revenue and exposure.

Preston, Bolton, Blackpool, Leeds and Stoke City would be better comparisons.
Click to expand...

That's not the case at all. Man Utd have been the biggest Club in England as far back as I remember even growing up in the 80s so how did they manage that? Be being an exclusive club who only signs players from a certain, ageing and shrinking demographic?

We are not comparable with Preston, Stoke et al, we are a genuinely world renowned club though I respect your point that the CL has made the Big clubs in the big Leagues shoot into another stratosphere.
 
Earl of Leven said:
Indeed, as I have explained 1000 times. I am a fan of the club as an institution and not dependent on results only. I'm not funding 11 Mojos or O'Hallorans.
Click to expand...
So, finally, would you answer the question, who would you rather plays for Rangers;

A Scottish Catholic Rangers fan

or

A Scottish Protestant Celtic fan?
 
Steve Snedden said:
I'm certainly not bigoted but I still get surprised by how many people say RIP on here when someone dies. When my Grandma used to take me to the cemetary to visit my Grandad's grave she told me that the headstones with RIP on them identified the deceased as Catholic.
Click to expand...

Rightly, IMO, I would say the majority who will say RIP don't think as deeply into the words and just use it as a short and succinct mark of respect.
 
BL11 said:
That's not the case at all. Man Utd have been the biggest Club in England as far back as I remember even growing up in the 80s so how did they manage that? Be being an exclusive club who only signs players from a certain, ageing and shrinking demographic?

We are not comparable with Preston, Stoke et al, we are a genuinely world renowned club though I respect your point that the CL has made the Big clubs in the big Leagues shoot into another stratosphere.
Click to expand...

Both Man U and Liverpool have strong identities within their geographical area, their cities have a diferent demographic to Glasgow. Liverpool were only established as a force in the sixties and their unparralled European success (from an english perspective) is a huge USP. The Munich air disaster was a defining moment in Man U's history as Busby lost an exciting team full of potential and survived the tradgedy to rebuild another era defining team. Both clubs attract fans from all over the UK and ROI (and now the world) because they do have something identifiable, even if it's not as tangible as ours.

I think you are actually agreeing with me on this point. We are a former big club without the financial clout to remain in the upper echelons of modern football. Without our unique cultural heritage and identity we are Preston, Stoke, Blackburn, Bolton, Leeds.
 
They hate us with every fibre of their bodies.

They always have and always will.

Us signing "one of their own" only amplified that hated, and every "local" RC we have signed since have been hated even more.

There is a distinct difference in that our perceived policy was the stick that they had allowed to beat us...that got removed just around the same time as they started getting people into places in journalism
 
Just ask Nacho Novo about vile abuse and hatred .

Their hatred of all things Rangers is driven by far more than any signing policy we adopt.

There may well have been different angles at play here but let's not kid ourselves about why they despise us and everything we have ever stood for .
 
The signing was a hammer blow to them at the time and by the time they recovered it was too late to stop 9 in a row.

We don’t need a team full of local Protestants to be the Protestant club in Scotland. We were back then and still are now. The accusations of ‘self loathing’ are laughable to be honest, we have the most self congratulatory bunch of fans on British football. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
 
wee bud's pit boots said:
If EoL is not a Rangers fan, I'm a Dutchman.

I've been waiting a long time to use that one.
Click to expand...

He’s not a Rangers fan at all. He’s a Protestant Institution fan. If another Club was started and promised to only sign British Unionist Protestants, he’d be off like a shot.

He’d admit it so himself.

He doesn’t want Rangers fans to play for Rangers if they are Catholic.

Let that sink in.
 
bornabluenose said:
Just ask Nacho Novo about vile abuse and hatred .

Their hatred of all things Rangers is driven by far more than any signing policy we adopt.

There may well have been different angles at play here but let's not kid ourselves about why they despise us and everything we have ever stood for .
Click to expand...

That is it in a nutshell
 
BL11 said:
He’s not a Rangers fan at all. He’s a Protestant Institution fan. If another Club was started and promised to only sign British Unionist Protestants, he’d be off like a shot.

He’d admit it so himself.

He doesn’t want Rangers fans to play for Rangers if they are Catholic.

Let that sink in.
Click to expand...

You really are an odd one. I, and almost everyone else on the board, was born into the Rangers way of life because they ARE more than a club. And you know this. These traditions, and passions, drove me on when we were terrible and won nothing....it is NOT about winning at all costs.
 
Earl of Leven said:
You really are an odd one. I, and almost everyone else on the board, was born into the Rangers way of life because they ARE more than a club. And you know this. These traditions, and passions, drove me on when we were terrible and won nothing....it is NOT about winning at all costs.
Click to expand...

If supporting Rangers is all about buying into the "traditions" of the club and less to do with the football then why haven't these new age modern uber-PC "self-loathing" Rangers fans been abandoning the club in their droves when this decade has been nothing but almost constant misery on the park? If anything the opposite is the case.

You're absolutely right that Rangers are more than a club but it's perfectly valid for this to mean many things to different people. Your reasons for supporting Rangers aren't better or worse than anyone else's.
 
Gheorghe_Hagi said:
If supporting Rangers is all about buying into the "traditions" of the club and less to do with the football then why haven't these new age modern uber-PC "self-loathing" Rangers fans been abandoning the club in their droves when this decade has been nothing but almost constant misery on the park? If anything the opposite is the case.

You're absolutely right that Rangers are more than a club but it's perfectly valid for this to mean many things to different people. Your reasons for supporting Rangers aren't better or worse than anyone else's.
Click to expand...

As Number_Eight (RIP) used to say "You are one of two types of fan: the type who admits they were born into the Protestant club, or the the type who won't they were born into the Protestant club but knows they were".
 
Earl of Leven said:
You really are an odd one. I, and almost everyone else on the board, was born into the Rangers way of life because they ARE more than a club. And you know this. These traditions, and passions, drove me on when we were terrible and won nothing....it is NOT about winning at all costs.
Click to expand...

I’m sorry that you are reduced to insults but I guess you know you’re at odds with vast majority of the support who want Rangers to win no matter what.

You are all over the place and a bundle of contradictions, you are not a true Rangers fan and shame on you for seeking to deny the dreams of probably thousands of young Rangers fans who dream of playing for the Club but happen to be Catholic too.

Ps - before you call me a ‘new age millennial’, I was born in the 70s into an Orange family from Bridgeton.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top