Jump to content

TartanTeddy

First Team
  • Content Count

    621
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

TartanTeddy last won the day on September 29 2011

TartanTeddy had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About TartanTeddy

  • Rank
    First Team

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Glasgow

Recent Profile Visitors

1,416 profile views
  1. Nope, neither do I, and no idea where we were with season tickets at an equivalent point last year (given Covid, that's probably impossible to define). I've renewed my season, a bit reluctantly, but will come off the CCCS scheme, as it now has minimal value in guaranteeing semi final or final tickets, and I'll pick and choose cup games and European matches. I work away a bit, so in the long run it'll save me a fair few pounds, as I used to take every home ticket so that I would get access to final tickets and give away the seat for games I couldn't make. The club trying to get me to pay an extra £40 in the midst of the Covid crisis, will probably now lose them £100/£200 on tickets, depending on how many home cup ties I miss, plus if I take the refund from last season, it's getting to quite a significant amount. But I'm just a customer to them, and I'm going to start treating them that way until I feel like they actually value loyalty.
  2. Timing of the announcement is interesting - and the sudden offer of extra points for MyGers - wondered what triggered it?? Maybe a lot of people are asking for refunds or maybe MyGers isn't reaching the numbers expected but clearly something has prompted it Going by this forum not many are applying for refunds, but every season ticket holder I know personally has actually applied - so I'm guessing it's maybe the former that is worrying the commercial team, rather than the latter - but who knows? At the moment I wouldn't trust any information coming out of the club, which is a pretty sad state of affairs.
  3. I like that it's now clear that we are simply customers and there is no pretence by the club to suggest otherwise Renewed my season, but not taking up MyGers, as I don't like the premise and can't be arsed fighting for points and being manipulated by the commercial people who, it appears, have lost the plot. I'm not considered by the club to be uber loyal, despite having the same seat for 20+ years, so for the first time I won't sign up to CCCS for League Cup and Scottish Cup games and will probably miss a decent number of the European games (if the stadium is even open for them). And will take a hard pass on new merchandise. On the plus side, others will have the chance of my seat for League Cup and Scottish cup ties against the like of Brechin or Forfar - though it's likely we will just see a continuing decline in attendances for those games to the detriment of everyone involved. If we don't stop them getting ten in a row the marketing approach of treating fans like crap could backfire spectacularly
  4. The counter argument appears to be that “biological sex” refers to what the hospital fills in on your birth certificate, based on your genitals, which is a sentence I never thought I would write on RangersMedia. Gender, as it’s generally defined, has nothing to do with genitals. A person's gender, and this is what the trans community would argue, is personal, and is based on a persons own feelings within their own body. WHO definition, “Gender refers to the roles, behaviours, activities, attributes and opportunities that any society considers appropriate for girls and boys, and women and men. Gender interacts with, but is different from, the binary categories of biological sex.” So, the argument, is that if you are trans and feel that you are a woman, you have the right to present as that gender – gender being basically a social construct that is different from the binary categories of biological sex. Therefore from the bit of reading I’ve just done, I’m going with the position she is technically wrong – though I honestly don’t hold a particularly strong opinion on it, and the reaction certainly seems to be a wee bit over the top - though much like on here she's not for backing down, which seems to be generating even more backlash from those that don't agree!! What’s next, vivisection, global warming or who was better Laudrup or Gazza??? We’ll agree on something eventually!!
  5. So what's your opinion on the JK Rowling tweets - maybe I can learn something from your stance? Always happy to listen and learn from others
  6. All good points, and I hope people on here do eventualy see he hasn't done any damage to the clubs reputation. I'd also like to think, (maybe naively) that most RSC's would want to see the club at the forefront of doing positive work in the community, whether that's on anti discrimination or any of the other activities the Rangers Charity Foundation is engaged with in Scotland. Also fully agree, it's for all clubs in Scotland to do more, not just Rangers.
  7. As mentioned, every source on the phrase 'White Lives Matter' points to the same interpretation - it's pretty much impossible to argue that point, so I'll park that because it's clear you disagree with all of those sources and you think there is something driving the narrative on it. You would have to define or give examples of 'crazy mixed up thinking being taught in schools' not sure what that might be, but kids certainly seem to be more up to speed on the true sentiment of BLM than older generations who appear more challenged and conflate it with an idea that it is anti White. No idea about the JK Rowling tweets - just looked it up, on brief review, not got an opinion either way, so your thinking on me isn't on point I'll say again, as I have said above, Rangers can be more proactive in the community, greater engagement with BME networks, supporting community initiatives in Govan, and building on what they have achieved so far with the wide-ranging work that they have been doing. I worked with the club on a number of project s a few years back and it was a great experience - but it was acknowledged that more could be done. I think you're pretty fixed in your position, so not sure there is anything more to discuss.
  8. Happy for you to have a different take than those online, including numerous academic sources - but it's clearly a highly charged statement in the context of the current political situation. If you chose to disagree, that's up to you.
  9. You start by doing research - unless you have no interest in where the phrase was popularised: “White Lives Matter” is a white supremacist phrase that originated in early 2015 as a racist response to the Black Lives Matter movement, which arose to protest against police brutality against African-Americans and garnered considerable publicity in 2014 for protests in Ferguson, Missouri, following the shooting death of Michael Brown at the hands of a Ferguson police officer. Since 2015, white supremacists in several states, especially members of the Texas-based white supremacist group Aryan Renaissance Society, have promoted the slogan “White Lives Matter” with flyers and protests, forming a loose campaign to popularize the phrase. By 2016 other white supremacist groups, including Ku Klux Klan groups, were also using the slogan, and it soon became a staple among white supremacist mantras, continuing even after the original campaigners ceased their activities.
  10. Google 'White Lives Matter' and that where it takes you - and, of course, to organisations that share that sentiment. Anyone thinking 'White Lives Matter' is a benign statement has clearly lost the plot - it is a charged phrase and it has clear meaning, whether that was the intention of the person using it or not
  11. All fair comment - though I think over analysis of the wording the lad chose, off the cuff, to use to respond to a comment in the crowd can unjustly amplify the outrage some appear to feel. The reception he received, and the response of the crowd to the sentiment he gave were both positive - take a trawl through the comments here and you would think he had committed a crime against humanity. People talking about 'damage done' and saying he 'can go fuck himself', seem more problematic to me than anything he said. I can only speak from myself, but I think Rangers as an institution can do more, o top of what they have done, and I would welcome the club doing so - can we at least agree on that??
  12. He hasn't 'essentially said that we have a racist problem'. He is saying the club can be part of positive change and it has to be proactive in making that change happen. I think, because he has obviously been pressured by negative feedback from certain fans, that he would like his comments to be viewed as society needing to change, which it clearly does, and he sees Rangers as part of that process of change. I don't think he needs to take anything back (though I understand why he probably has had to do it if comments on this thread are typical) as I thought he represented the club well and I'm actually glad that he was happy to speak, as a Rangers fan, in front of that crowd Rangers make a significant impact in Scottish society, and I would hope that the club would want to see its position used in a positive way to influence positive change
  13. Everything. As does the club - who I've worked with on community initiatives in Glasgow. Rangers see themselves as agents of change and in promoting better community relations, and they have done significant good work over the last few years in both Govan and across the city You on the other hand are happy to have 'White Lives Matter' displayed as your profile picture, which I guess makes it clear that you have taken a particular and defined public position knowing it is recognised as a statement supported and actively promoted by people such as the Aryan Renaissance Society in the US. I think it's safe to say we have different political and social beliefs and we are unlikely to convince each other to change, so I'll leave any debate between us there.
  14. Just watched the footage. He gets a positive response when he gets up to speak - the way people are talking on here it's as if he was booed and caved into pressure to say something. He then says the same thing every other credible organisation is saying at the moment, that things have to change. And he gets a very positive response. People on here are calling that a PR disaster??? It would have been a PR disaster to not say your organisation needs to change, particularly in light of the reaction and feelings of the majority in the world. Change can simply mean taking a more active stand in community initiatives, bringing more people from diverse backgrounds into the club/support, doing what Everyone, Anyone has already stated it is intended to do. If you view his comments as saying there is a lack of diversity in who we sign, then that's just truly bizarre. If you're offended by his comments in general, you maybe need to think about why you're offended by someone clearly saying they want to see a more open and welcome society in Scotland, including within our own club.
  15. I see Motherwell FC made a really clear statement: Their club will provide season ticket holders with a guaranteed 19 games whether this season, or if it has to go into next season, the price will cover that amount of games. On top of that, any season ticket holder will get free access to televised games played behind closed doors. Clear, simple and leaves fans in no doubt where they stand. It also rewards loyalty for fans willing to take up a season ticket in uncertain times. Surely Rangers could make a simple statement like that and that would reassure any fans concerned about shelling out for games they might not be able to attend. As a club, we always seem to want to test the waters to see what we can get away with and then reluctantly fall into line with others when complaints hit a critical mass. Far better to lead with a bit of respect and understanding, reward supporters who have stood by the club, and have people be positive about supporting the team in these difficult times.
×
×
  • Create New...