Rangers harming the Old Firm brand

RabSpackman

Well-Known Member
Exactly, that petty tin pot club came up with this "Glasgow Derby" pish, and made sure all their half wit ex players and sympathisers use it exclusively, it's a death penalty offence to use the phrase "old firm".

But yeah, we are the ones harming "the brand"
I think Rangers did a bit of marketing on the Glasgow Derby, might have been about the return of the “original” Glasgow derby, when we played Queens Park in 2012.

It was really funny and clearly wound up those in Timmy HQ to a high level.
 

Craigton

Well-Known Member
I hope we do start disassociating ourselves from that mob.
I would love it if Rangers started the same shit that they have been pulling for a few years now.
I reckon they would shite it if we did!
 

The paisley loyal

Well-Known Member
Don't they realise we love to see them get so desperate and irate over this.
It really gets under their skin. Keep the boot on their neck Rangers and don't relent.
In all this condemnation of Rangers cutting the allocation of tickets to Ceptic, it seems to have been forgotten that it was Ceptic, who first mooted cutting back the ticket allocations. But true to the nature of their support, it's all been turned round to blame big bad Rangers. You have to remember their mantra. Always cheated, never defeated. Truly a club like no other, thank f@#k.
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
Like we give a fuk. :)


A club support representing half of the name, well a bit less than half, refusing to call the brand by name, refusing to accept the brand name as an entity, is causing any damage to the brand that exists.
The support of just under one half of said brand refusing to call the other half by name will be causing more damage.
The directors of just under a half of the said entity who refuse to use our name in publication when referring to us will be causing more damage.
The entity that is inextricably linked to a child sex abuse scandal will cause more damage to any brand than anything else.
Frankly though, I’m happier.
I hate the Old Firm term more than any of the other lot could.
 

Craigton

Well-Known Member
If they want to discuss this then the starting point, and which should be non negotiable, should be that we get a stand BEHIND the goal NOT stuck in a corner.
If they cannot agree to that then there is no conversation.
End of story!
 

Bangersbc

Well-Known Member
If we are one brand, then where were they when we were getting boted to the bottom of Scottish football. They want seats for their fans, they can pay for our stadium expansion as far as I'm concerned!
 

Jan Wyck

Well-Known Member
The less of them in the street in and around our fans, lessens the chance of Rangers supporting children being bottled by Celtc fans, as has happened more than once in recent history. Which we all know went undetected by Police Scotland and seemed to miss the usual outrage of the SMSM also.
We can't do much about the plethora of crimes against Celtc children but we can do our utmost to protect our own.

Here we stand. We can do no other.
 

SchtimzRvanFudzHorst

Well-Known Member
Fúck Celtic and their puddle-drinking supporters and media lapdogs.

Why on fucking Earth would we want 7,000 STH bears to miss out on a game to be replaced by those scumbags? That’s all it comes down to. Everything else is just noise. The talk about a ‘brand’ is laughable. It certainly doesn’t help that speccy flat-topped fucker negotiate any more than about 75p a season from Sky. And they had no compunction in losing their ‘brand’ when we got fucked into the fourth tier.
 

Tailwind

Well-Known Member
I've reads loads of times about "Old Firm" fans being lost in a time warp, singing anthems of hate, sectarian bile, goading each other, and all the rest of it.

Now they want to bring this back, because in some way, missing it, is harming the Old Firm brand ?

Whit?
Its simple, you can flip flop your opinion, complete 180s for each conversation, depending on what Celtic want.
 

Kubala

Well-Known Member
Fúck Celtic and their puddle-drinking supporters and media lapdogs.

Why on fucking Earth would we want 7,000 STH bears to miss out on a game to be replaced by those scumbags? That’s all it comes down to. Everything else is just noise. The talk about a ‘brand’ is laughable. It certainly doesn’t help that speccy flat-topped fucker negotiate any more than about 75p a season from Sky. And they had no compunction in losing their ‘brand’ when we got fucked into the fourth tier.
The answer you'll get on here is that guys who have season tickets and also get to away games can get to Parkhead. So they get to go to two games and you get to go to none. Seems fair right?
 

Thor

Well-Known Member
If they want to discuss this then the starting point, and which should be non negotiable, should be that we get a stand BEHIND the goal NOT stuck in a corner.
If they cannot agree to that then there is no conversation.
End of story!
I actually agree with this but not just now. First things first is we look after our own support. However if we were to expand our stadium and it meant we didn’t have to take any season tickets off people then I’d have the discussion but it would need to be we had their full stand behind the goal similar to what their fans used to get with us.
I know it might be a long way off but that’s the only way I’d like to see it potentially being changed.
 

Artful Dodger

Well-Known Member
There is no such thing as the old firm. As Rangers fan shareholder and season ticket holder I don’t want to associated with that entity from the east end of Glasgow. I don’t want to share the same air as them never mind a football stadium. They refuse to use the term old firm as do I. They are nothing to me and never will be. Keep them out everything they touch turns to shit.
 

JAC_1966

Well-Known Member
Tampering with kids for 50 years harms a "brand" - Scotland excluded.

Not giving supporters of terrorists more tickets than absolutely necessary seems pretty fair to me.
Exactly. They're a security threat with their pro IRA views
 

Deidmoo5e

Well-Known Member
in the previous arrangement they got 15% of our stadium (7,500) directly behind the goals. If there’s any suggestion of this making a return then we must demand 15% (9,000) of their midden right behind the goals otherwise it’s a non starter. Having said that I’m personally happy with the current arrangement as I’ll never set foot in the place again unless it’s a neutral venue for a cup game or similar.
 

Steve_french

Well-Known Member
Possessing a single thought of your own is all it takes to poke holes in Scottish main stream medias bias. Stunningly lazy journalism but not surprising.
Correct, the full stand was an anomaly that should have been addressed the minute we stopped getting the away end at the piggery.

I love the pointless tears though.
 

Goggs21

Well-Known Member
They should stop moaning about their allocation
If it’s the Glasgow derby then surely they don’t want more tickets than Queen’s Park would get as that would constitute preferential treatment , maybe the scum think that everybody should do what the SFA and SPFL do when they stamp their feet
Still feel Stewart Robertson should have said a bit more in his Athletic interview when asked about it
Point out they get a full end with unrestricted views
Point out they get a bigger percentage of our stadium
Point out their bogging unwashed and inbred
Just stick to facts as above as there is no arguing about it
Don’t get me wrong even they agreed to everything I still don’t want them back, they provide nothing but vile pollution and I can do without that
 

Turrabear

Well-Known Member
How can we damage a brand that they say dosn,t exist. But it didn,t stop their club renewing their 50% share in the intellectual property of the old firm.
 

Strathbungo Bear

Well-Known Member
Technically it is a valid point, for promoting the Old Firm to an international market having lots of away fans would add to the atmosphere. So I suppose it is very short sighted of us to keep their numbers down. On the other hand keeping the smelly grey and green jobbies out of our stadium has got to be the right thing in terms of public hygiene.
 

Turrabear

Well-Known Member
Why does all the 'blame' get shifted our way? Absolutely nothing is stopping them giving us a full allocation, therefore returning the fixture to its 'full glory'.

Going forward, I see some sort of compromise whereby the away side get the European allocation, as in 2,500 at Ibrox and 3,000 at Parkhead. Not that I'd advocate this, it's just what I can see happening.
Honestly can,t see that happening mate.
 

Smoky bear

Active Member
Keep the cnts out our stadium we don't need them or want to be associated with them, ram the old firm brand, we support our football club as a football club not like Celtic who use their club as a vehicle to spout their propaganda, political, anti- British, anti-Monarchy, anti-semitic, anti-protestant, and their IRA sympathies, which has nothing to do with supporting a football club, we don't need them.
 

martyboy92

Well-Known Member
Wow,just wow. They have had a least 7 paedophiles operating within their ranks for a number of years. All covered up and no-one dare talk talk about it,yet it is Rangers that are harming the brand they pretend that doesn't exist?!?. Jog on.
I was just about to say this! one won't budge on away allocation and one has a paedophile ring... who's worse?
 

cm72

Well-Known Member
Rangers should really stick the boot in and say they don't want associated with anyone that has child sex abuse cases ongoing.
 

devilman

Well-Known Member
Rangers harming the Old Firm brand but Celtic refusing to accept it exists any longer is not doing any harm?

Can't say I give a shit but it's just another bullshit story ignoring the facts.

Also, how can Rangers be doing the damage. Celtic are the ones who support terrorists, cover up child abuse amongst other things. Yet, are we to accept they're the decent ones? They also seem to forget that Celtic also were refusing to dish out tickets to Rangers fans for Celtic park.
 

GourockBlue50

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
But not using the term 'old firm' in official communications is fine for the 'old firm brand' apparently.
Exactly. They are the ones proclaiming that they don't want associated with the brand as we have fiddled with out taxes.

Fiddling with kids seems to be ok rite enuf.
 
Top