John Clark, Thanks for your final clarification, I appreciate that. I …

Comment on Bonkers OCNC Thread by RyanGosling.

John Clark,

Thanks for your final clarification, I appreciate that.

I would like to expand on your point that it is “regrettable” that people refer to “Rangers” (insert your name of choice here!) as Rangers, and the implications that has for “moving on”. Leaving aside the regulatory change which I think to a man, or woman, we all agree has to happen, how would you see us moving on? Are “Rangers” and by extension their fans always destined to be outsiders as far as this blog and Scottish football as a whole is concerned? I’ve heard and commented on the requests for Rangers to show contrition etc as a requirement for moving on, but I doubt the current office holders of the club will do that on behalf of the previous office holders or themselves, and the vocal obnoxious fans on the internet certainly won’t. The SFA by virtue of their secret agreements have screwed all fans of Scottish football, and I mean all fans, myself and my brethren included. So how can we move on together?

RyanGosling Also Commented

Bonkers OCNC Thread
Resin Lab Dog,

You’re getting right to the heart of why I brought this up in the first place. I’m reading between the lines here obviously, but I take what you said to mean that if none of the “lie” had been perpetuated, and a new club had been started and recognised as such, openly and honestly, you’d have happily (or at least willingly) called them Rangers without the need for qualification? Therefore the qualification on the name is an indicator that until honesty prevails the qualification is required?

Bonkers OCNC Thread

“However, it is up to the rest of us to decide how we view your club. I don’t expect TRFC fans to share my viewpoint, and equally I would expect TRFC fans to understand that very few fans in Scotland share their viewpoint.”

I am totally on board with this statement and think you have summed up the impasse very well.

For what it’s worth I think if all conversations on this subject were based on an assumption of decency and good moral standing on both sides there would be no need for any heated debates ever, a common understanding could very easily be found. Alas, I recognise that will not happen and I know that there is a large proportion of responsibility for that which should be assigned to my side.

Bonkers OCNC Thread
Resin Lab Dog – again, I totally understand where you are coming from, and I agree with you. Ian not arguing for anything to be swept under the carpet. In fact I’m not arguing for anything, I was merely asking a question. My point is that if you say rangers everyone knows what you mean. If people want to make a clear distinction when referring to them to reference between old and new, I understand that, and only asked to see what peoples feelings were on the name. Not the name of the company, which is different, or the club blah blah blah (!!! We’ve all been through this) but just how people would refer to it in casual conversation or indeed debates on a blog,

By way of explaining myself, I shall give two examples. Both of the friends I mention are die hard Celtic fans, although they could easily be fans of other teams and hold the same views. The first friend has not uttered the word Rangers I don’t think since liquidation, Sevco only for him. Doesn’t really car about any of the stuff we debate here but likes to wind up his “Rangers” supporting mates. The second friend does know and care about the stuff we debate here, but always just refers to “Rangers” because he knows I know what he means, and I know he knows what he means.

Recent Comments by RyanGosling

To Comply or not to Comply ?
Easyjambo – thanks, a very interesting reply. I deliberately chose Dundee United in my question to Wottpi because I know it is not the club he supports. The reason for my question was because people are asking what do Rangers (a club most posters in question do not support) provide to the Scottish game, therefore I was interested in what other clubs provide to the game that Rangers do not.

Allyjambo – that was basically my point. If Rangers had been found out early doors, made to pay up and rapped firmly on the knuckles, they wouldn’t have folded. They wouldn’t have won as many titles, sure, but would have remained solvent. Possibly. 

To Comply or not to Comply ?
Also BigBoab1916 I just noticed this gem:

”Lawman, DBD,SlimJim and RG grow up FFS, death is a natrual processs inthe circle of life.”

I notice I am in there. Would you care to justify this please? As it seems you are slandering me with absolutely no just cause whatsoever. 

To Comply or not to Comply ?
Constructive point BigBoab1916. Pathetic, subservient, gullible. Quite insulting really. Are you just here to call us names?

To Comply or not to Comply ?

Do you really think if everyone accepted the fact that Rangers were liquidated and relaunched as a separate entity that it is highly unlikely we would be having any sort of inquiry into the 2011 Rangers Euro License application/granting? And if so, wouldn’t you say regardless of whether the liquidation emergence nonsense had happened or not it would still be worthwhile if not essential to ensure that rules were followed appropriately in 2011?
I still maintain that it would have been best for Rangers if rules had been followed to the letter in the first place. If so, I think it highly unlikely that liquidation would have occurred at all. 

To Comply or not to Comply ?

i have a question that results from your thought provoking post last night, asking what it is Rangers stand for and what they offer the Scottish game. My question is what, for an example, do Dundee United bring to the Scottish game? And if I may be so bold, could you answer with reference to Dundee United only and not with contrast examples to the negatives of Rangers?

Many thanks in advance – I look forward to your reply!

SSL Certificates