Gheorghe_Hagi
Well-Known Member
The elitism of the uber staunch is so, so boring.
We either don't sign Catholics or we're "self loathing"? Aye, okay.
We either don't sign Catholics or we're "self loathing"? Aye, okay.
Looking at it as a sixteen year I thought maybe it would but as a sixteen year old I thought I knew everything.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.
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.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.
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'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?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.
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.
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.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?
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?
Fair enough, an honest answer.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.
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.
Agreed. But then, if FF existed 30 years ago, you would have posted the exact same thing.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.
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.
Agreed. But then, if FF existed 30 years ago, you would have posted the exact same thing.
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.
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.
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?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
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'...
Exactly. They are the real bigots after allYou mean they hated us even more for signing a Catholic than they did for not sugning one?
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?
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.
That's your prerogative but it proves beyond all doubt that you are not unconditionally fan of Rangers.Yes, I would boycott in your ludicrous hypothetical scenario.
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.That's your prerogative but it proves beyond all doubt that you are not unconditionally fan of Rangers.
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.
So, finally, would you answer the question, who would you rather plays for Rangers;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.
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.
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.
That's your prerogative but it proves beyond all doubt that you are not unconditionally fan of Rangers.
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?
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 Rangers fans who hate us.
Yeah, will fix now.I'm at a loss with this sentence, is it a typo?
If EoL is not a Rangers fan, I'm a Dutchman.
I've been waiting a long time to use that one.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.