Furious Rangers hit out over Celtic fan allocation as Ibrox side claim Council's decision 'doesn't make sense'

fergie1959

Well-Known Member
I get the odd bit of info from a Civil Servant who’s working on this ScoGov Safety Advisory Group. I only know him vaguely as he’s the son of my best friends mate - so it’s third hand effectively and I don’t contact him directly.

Seemingly they did go into a lot of detail when setting the limits, and the primary focus has been on entrances/exits, concourses, toilets and Hospitality areas. There’s quite a difference in the two limits (circa 6%) and my own guess is that our Main Stand might account for that. Lots of narrow stairwells, cramped concourses etc, and it accounts for a huge chunk of our overall capacity. Much less so than the Dhims equivalent. That’s just my guess though.
Usually agree with you Valley. Not this time. Sectarian bigotry is the one and only reason.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
Parkhead passageways and numbers of exits are no better though.

I honestly think we are giving them too much credit, the most likely explanation is they just want to favour Celtic over us.
I’m in the fortunate position of never having visited their ‘new’ meccano stadium. I’m aware of the layout of our Main Stand though and other than the Club Deck it is not spacious in the stairwells and concourses. It also represents a far bigger percentage of our capacity than their’s does.

I’m not seeking to defend the numbers reached, simply looking for any potential valid reason for it that they could hide behind if questioned. I think there’s enough in the ‘narrow concourses’ angle for them to hide behind it as a legitimate explanation if pushed though. Even if it’s not entirely true.

Ultimately, there’s probably a bit of both - narrower concourses and a disingenuous favouring of the Dhims. From the info I got from the guy in the Safety Avisory Group, concourses, toilets and Hospitality areas have been their main areas of concern.

The contentious issue here isn't so much the 50/75/100% process that's in place - can argue the rights and wrongs of that but if its applied to everyone then its 'fair - but the respective 'safe' capacity figures of 17,000 vs 24,000 and how they were reached. Many are missing that point entirely.
 
Last edited:

alexg123

Well-Known Member
Rangers were left seething after Glasgow council chiefs green-lighted Celtic’s request to welcome in 18,500 fans for their Saturday friendly – 10,000 more than Steven Gerrard’s champions have been allowed to host across the city just two hours later.

But local authority chiefs insist they are only following safety guidelines after ordering Gers to leave Ibrox more than three-quarters empty for their clash with Brighton while at the same time giving Celtic the thumbs up to stage the biggest crowd in Scotland since the start of the pandemic.

Gerrard’s squad are gearing up for a glamour double header against Graham Potter’s Premier League outfit on Saturday, with Carlo Ancelotti’s Real Madrid then visiting Govan the following day.

Gers announced earlier this week they would use the tune-up clashes to ramp up their preparations for the return to full houses.

The Brighton game - which kicks-off at 5.30pm - will be staged in front of 8,500 fans, with 12,500 lucky ballot winners then set to pile through the turnstiles for Sunday’s showdown with the Galacticos.

Rangers plan to increase the capacity further to 17,000 for their first league game of the new season against Livingston on July 31 before hopefully throwing the gates open and staging a 51,000 sell-out for their Champions League clash with Malmo or Helsinki on August 10 - they day after Scotland’s covid restrictions are due to be lifted.

But the news the Hoops will run out to a crowd of 18,500 fans for their 3pm warm-up match with West Ham on Saturday has left both Ibrox chiefs and fans alike stunned.

A well-placed Ibrox source told Record Sport : “The board are not happy about this at all.

“They simply cannot understand why Glasgow City Council are only allowing them to welcome in 8,500 fans to Ibrox when there will be double that at Parkhead for a game kicking-off two hours before. It just doesn’t make sense.”

However, council bosses say the discrepancy is down to the fact a graduated build-up for large scale events has been agreed with the Scotland’s Safety Advisory Group, which regulates attendances.

As Celtic hosted 9,000 fans for Tuesday’s European qualifier with Midtjylland, they can now increase the capacity for the Hammers showdown.

But because Rangers’ clash with Brighton is the first since Scotland moved to Level Zero conditions on Monday, they are only allowed to make use of around 50 per cent of Ibrox’s current 17,000 Covid-safety crowd limit - with the proportion jumping to 75 and then 100 per cent for the matches against Real and Livingston.

A spokesman for Glasgow City Council explained: “We really want to see events, including matches, back as close to normal as the regulations allow. It’s good for the economy and frankly it’s just good for people to be able to do the things they love doing.

“But in doing it safely, we’re stepping up how many people can be in stadiums match by match, starting at 50% of safe capacity, then 75%, then 100%. We think this gives the right balance and allows Glasgow’s clubs to start moving towards normality.”

While Rangers are upset by the approach, Celtic bosses have welcomed the decision which will see Parkhead beat the country’s previous pandemic crowd record of 16,500 for the British & Irish Lions rugby clash at Murrayfield last month.
Another reason for the majority to vote Unionists at the next election or it will only get worse
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
So the time lines and attendances allowed figures are:

17 July: Rangers v Arsenal - 2,000; Celtic v Preston - 2,000

20 July: Celtic v Midtjylland - 9,000.

24 July: Rangers v Brighton - 8,500 (why the 500 difference incidentally between this and their 9,000?); Celtic v West Ham - 18,500.

25 July: Rangers v Real Madrid - 12,750 (now we have a 5,750 difference - why?).

31 July: Rangers v Livingston - 17,000 (referred to as Rangers’ “COVID safety crowd limit” - is this an actual thing? If so, what is the criteria for determining it? If it is based on capacity of Ibrox and Parkhead then the numbers still don’t make sense. Nor does it make sense if you aren’t in any event maximising social distancing by opening all sections of the stadiums. And that is before you get into the fact that, as someone pointed out the other day, Ibrox is effectively compartmentalised into 12 or so different parts (I can’t quite recall what the number was but it was about 12 I think).

Celtic are “encouraged by the indicative figure of around 24,500 for the subsequent home game”. Is that them v Dundee on 7 August? Or a European game on 3/4 August (when we are away to Malmö / Helsinki)? If they are getting it for the European game, what are they then going to get for Dundee? Another increase? Why is there no mention of a Celtic “COVID safety crowd limit” and, if there is one, what is it and why does it differ from ours?

9 August: restrictions scheduled to lift.

10 August: Rangers v Malmö / Helsinki - full house expected.

Glasgow City Council’s statement just does not stand up to scrutiny, even against their own “explanation”. We both started at 2,000 fans. Two games later we are at 12,750 and they are at 18,500. Three games later we are at 17,000 and they are at 24,500.

I don’t think a “seethe” from Rangers is quite good enough here. The club should be demanding answers here and I’m sure they are. Whilst I understand why the club generally prefer to try to be diplomatic and do things behind close doors rather than have everything played out bitterly and in public, there are times when blatant double standards need to be laid bare and publicly called out. This feels like one of them.

How often do we hear about discrimination in Scotland, particularly the west coast of Scotland? Yet this sort of thing plays itself out like this. And, worse still, it plays itself out and nobody truly calls it out. We rant and rave on FF and the like and Rangers sources talk of “seething” but that’s it. That’s the extent of our voice. If the boot was on the other foot then this would be playing out in a very different way. James Dornan and co would be all over it.

And as an aside, the silence from Club 1872, the “fans’ group”, is deafening.
The only justifiable difference, game to game, is slightly more for them considering their bigger stadium.
 

gibster1972

Active Member
Rangers were left seething after Glasgow council chiefs green-lighted Celtic’s request to welcome in 18,500 fans for their Saturday friendly – 10,000 more than Steven Gerrard’s champions have been allowed to host across the city just two hours later.

But local authority chiefs insist they are only following safety guidelines after ordering Gers to leave Ibrox more than three-quarters empty for their clash with Brighton while at the same time giving Celtic the thumbs up to stage the biggest crowd in Scotland since the start of the pandemic.

Gerrard’s squad are gearing up for a glamour double header against Graham Potter’s Premier League outfit on Saturday, with Carlo Ancelotti’s Real Madrid then visiting Govan the following day.

Gers announced earlier this week they would use the tune-up clashes to ramp up their preparations for the return to full houses.

The Brighton game - which kicks-off at 5.30pm - will be staged in front of 8,500 fans, with 12,500 lucky ballot winners then set to pile through the turnstiles for Sunday’s showdown with the Galacticos.

Rangers plan to increase the capacity further to 17,000 for their first league game of the new season against Livingston on July 31 before hopefully throwing the gates open and staging a 51,000 sell-out for their Champions League clash with Malmo or Helsinki on August 10 - they day after Scotland’s covid restrictions are due to be lifted.

But the news the Hoops will run out to a crowd of 18,500 fans for their 3pm warm-up match with West Ham on Saturday has left both Ibrox chiefs and fans alike stunned.

A well-placed Ibrox source told Record Sport : “The board are not happy about this at all.

“They simply cannot understand why Glasgow City Council are only allowing them to welcome in 8,500 fans to Ibrox when there will be double that at Parkhead for a game kicking-off two hours before. It just doesn’t make sense.”

However, council bosses say the discrepancy is down to the fact a graduated build-up for large scale events has been agreed with the Scotland’s Safety Advisory Group, which regulates attendances.

As Celtic hosted 9,000 fans for Tuesday’s European qualifier with Midtjylland, they can now increase the capacity for the Hammers showdown.

But because Rangers’ clash with Brighton is the first since Scotland moved to Level Zero conditions on Monday, they are only allowed to make use of around 50 per cent of Ibrox’s current 17,000 Covid-safety crowd limit - with the proportion jumping to 75 and then 100 per cent for the matches against Real and Livingston.

A spokesman for Glasgow City Council explained: “We really want to see events, including matches, back as close to normal as the regulations allow. It’s good for the economy and frankly it’s just good for people to be able to do the things they love doing.

“But in doing it safely, we’re stepping up how many people can be in stadiums match by match, starting at 50% of safe capacity, then 75%, then 100%. We think this gives the right balance and allows Glasgow’s clubs to start moving towards normality.”

While Rangers are upset by the approach, Celtic bosses have welcomed the decision which will see Parkhead beat the country’s previous pandemic crowd record of 16,500 for the British & Irish Lions rugby clash at Murrayfield last month.
Corrupt 19th Century Terrorist Council..
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
"While Rangers are upset by the approach, Celtic bosses have welcomed the decision which will see Parkhead beat the country’s previous pandemic crowd record of 16,500 for the British & Irish Lions rugby clash at Murrayfield last month."

Last paragraph is comedy gold, trying to shoehorn in that they've achieved something.
That’ll be them the “Covid crowd champions”.
They’ll probably bring out a DVD.
 

Timardim

Well-Known Member
We're never going to get a fair deal or any favours from the Rangers hating GCC until they are rooted out. Their ilk hate us more than they like their own paedo enabling shitey club......55 is destroying them....WATP.
 
Last edited:

RWL12

Well-Known Member
I’m in the fortunate position of never having visited their ‘new’ meccano stadium. I’m aware of the layout of our Main Stand though and other than the Club Deck it is not spacious in the stairwells and concourses. It also represents a far bigger percentage of our capacity than their’s does.

For me it isn't just about inside the stadium. Their stairwells and concourses aren't much bigger, IIRC, but their largest stand also borders the cemetery wall.

Are GCC trying to say it's safer for more people to crowd down this walkway than it is Edmiston Drive?

 

dh1963

Well-Known Member
I’m in the fortunate position of never having visited their ‘new’ meccano stadium. I’m aware of the layout of our Main Stand though and other than the Club Deck it is not spacious in the stairwells and concourses. It also represents a far bigger percentage of our capacity than their’s does.

I’m not seeking to defend the numbers reached, simply looking for any potential valid reason for it that they could hide behind if questioned. I think there’s enough in the ‘narrow concourses’ angle for them to hide behind it as a legitimate explanation if pushed though. Even if it’s not entirely true.

Ultimately, there’s probably a bit of both - narrower concourses and a disingenuous favouring of the Dhims. From the info I got from the guy in the Safety Avisory Group, concourses, toilets and Hospitality areas have been their main areas of concern.

The contentious issue here isn't so much the 50/75/100% process that's in place - can argue the rights and wrongs of that but if its applied to everyone then its 'fair - but the respective 'safe' capacity figures of 17,000 vs 24,000 and how they were reached. Many are missing that point entirely.
While I appreciate your possible explanation about passageways, toilets, etc I still think any so-called scientific decision to give them 40% "safe" capacity and give us 34% can't possibly be justified if properly challenged. As someone who has tried to enter and leave both stadia, and who has gone for a pee in both too, there is simply no way Parkhead is in any way bigger, roomier, or less congested in those areas. The exit out of the stands is actually worse.

The one area I'm not sure is hospitality, but I fail to see how that can have any significant bearing here.
 

DaveL

Well-Known Member
For me it isn't just about inside the stadium. Their stairwells and concourses aren't much bigger, IIRC, but their largest stand also borders the cemetery wall.

Are GCC trying to say it's safer for more people to crowd down this walkway than it is Edmiston Drive?

There was a crush in there before Gerrard's first game at that mhidden.
They were lucky no one lost their lives that day.
How that place gets a safety certificate is beyond me.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
For me it isn't just about inside the stadium. Their stairwells and concourses aren't much bigger, IIRC, but their largest stand also borders the cemetery wall.

Are GCC trying to say it's safer for more people to crowd down this walkway than it is Edmiston Drive?

Primarily within the stadia is what I'm being told (not specifically for us and them, for all clubs). Motherwell, for example, have issues with their Main Stand and with the stand opposite due to restrictive passageways. My mate has a ST near their Directors Box but they got shifted into the Away Stand for their LC match.
 
Last edited:

Blu_ultra

Well-Known Member
100%

440px-Janefield_Street_-_geograph.org.uk_-_496860.jpg
With the wall behind so close, that should be construed as queuing inside. If your turnstile is in the middle of that, then you are in an enclosed space. That particular area has been a flashpoint far fans entering including crushing. GCC are institutionalised bigots.
 

TheDerryend

Well-Known Member
There is a terrible habit of turning on the people at the club on here. They're not to blame for this, in fact the job they have done in running the club has been first class. The rise in our fortunes prove this.

Unfortunately, we are caught up in nasty politics in this country and no matter how big we are as a club, its extremely hard to take on a govt. We have extremely poor politicians in this country, making decisions and the last thing we need is divide and conquer among ourselves.

Rangers have absolutely no political clout in this country, none whatsoever, in fact the name itself is like a bad word to many.

Over many years the tims have been portraying us as the sporting wing of the BNP and now it has spread to many people outwith Celtic.

Unless we get this lot voted out, then nothing will change, by all means believe in independence, but not under this poisonous party.
 

mart22

Well-Known Member
The fact Glasgow Council chiefs are Celtic supporters makes no odds. They'll ask us to believe.
And Andy Newport, Daily Record lackey, claiming to have well placed Ibrox sources, what an absolute fud. The Daily Record is a shite paper with shite sport journalists.
 

Gibraltar Loyal

Well-Known Member
There is a terrible habit of turning on the people at the club on here. They're not to blame for this, in fact the job they have done in running the club has been first class. The rise in our fortunes prove this.

Unfortunately, we are caught up in nasty politics in this country and no matter how big we are as a club, its extremely hard to take on a govt. We have extremely poor politicians in this country, making decisions and the last thing we need is divide and conquer among ourselves.

Rangers have absolutely no political clout in this country, none whatsoever, in fact the name itself is like a bad word to many.

Over many years the tims have been portraying us as the sporting wing of the BNP and now it has spread to many people outwith Celtic.

Unless we get this lot voted out, then nothing will change, by all means believe in independence, but not under this poisonous party.
Do you not think the club should have taken action over those that have slandered us for years? Not sure Id agree that they have run the club 1st class. Im sure the recent ticketing issues for friendlies and lack of communication underline this.
Also the club are to blame for puting oit statements to garnernthe support of fans and then not following through on them. The status quo and wont be found wanting soundbites for example. Arw Doncaster and McLennan still in place within SPFL? Are they welcomed to Ibrox? Id they arent prepared to follow through on their statements they should say nothing. I'll bet a pound to a penny no legal action has been taken after the 55 celebrations.
 

TheDerryend

Well-Known Member
Do you not think the club should have taken action over those that have slandered us for years? Not sure Id agree that they have run the club 1st class. Im sure the recent ticketing issues for friendlies and lack of communication underline this.
Also the club are to blame for puting oit statements to garnernthe support of fans and then not following through on them. The status quo and wont be found wanting soundbites for example. Arw Doncaster and McLennan still in place within SPFL? Are they welcomed to Ibrox? Id they arent prepared to follow through on their statements they should say nothing. I'll bet a pound to a penny no legal action has been taken after the 55 celebrations.
In talking about the team on the pitch, the improvement is there for all to see.

It's ok saying take legal action, but if there's any lawyers on here, they might be the people to ask.

The laws a very complicated thing and people who have committed the worst of crimes, have walked on the slightest technicalities.

These people came here to run a football club on its knees, not to get involved in murky politics. Politicians if anything are careful with their words, in other words devious. I suggest we sign dominic Cummings if we want to go on a political fight up here.

As for the league season and the spfl, hearts and partick were the real losers in all of that, went to court and lost. We would have had no chance and just be throwing money down the drain.
 

Gibraltar Loyal

Well-Known Member
In talking about the team on the pitch, the improvement is there for all to see.

It's ok saying take legal action, but if there's any lawyers on here, they might be the people to ask.

The laws a very complicated thing and people who have committed the worst of crimes, have walked on the slightest technicalities.

These people came here to run a football club on its knees, not to get involved in murky politics. Politicians if anything are careful with their words, in other words devious. I suggest we sign dominic Cummings if we want to go on a political fight up here.

As for the league season and the spfl, hearts and partick were the real losers in all of that, went to court and lost. We would have had no chance and just be throwing money down the drain.
We employ a PR guru called David Graham who was involved with DUP. If that isnt a murky political background then I dont know what is (NI politics in general not specifically DUP). He is worse than a man down.
Take a look at the strip personalisation thread to see the quality of our off field activities.
 
Top