Bears

Maybe he was brought in in case Davis faded during the season and to give Kelly time if he wasn't ready or failed to take up the mantle. Basically an extra option but not different enough from Davis, Jack and Kamara to give a new dimension to the midfield.

Only won 1 in 9? But what a trophy to win. And what a way to do it. We now have a very professional set up that should deliver plenty more in the next few years. Stunning progress throughout the club. And Terry Munro well deid. What's to complain about?

Great news for our defenders too. Who better to learn from about how a striker thinks and how to counter him?

Heading towards a Shay Logan and Bobo Balde dream team.

Class

Zlamal means 'broken' in Czech. Morally apt.

Clearly an unbalanced article just following the SMSM narrative. Doesn't engage with the actual video content by describing it properly so the question is has the author even seen it? And no mention of the request from the club to have supporters in for the last game. Lazy at best, but looks biased against us.

Desperate so-called journalism on a par with gollum's recent attempt. 55 has ruined them.

Surprised Clarke hasn't been shoehorned in as he used to be a young player.

Normal service has been resumed. And what a way to do it.

So we start calling that lot the taliban. How long til it's considered a sectarian slur and we are threatened for it by the sfa, uefa, polis?

So no Ben 10. Could call him Ben 9. Should be Ben 8 3/4 but they'll want to round it up as it sounds better.

Wonder who'll get to 55 first.

One day they might even make a Colombia connection. Something like Buff's charity work being a front for supplying caffeine-loaded contraband...

Would be good of you!

Occasional islands of on-topic content in the whole thread. Should change the thread title to 'Officialdom Conspiracy 2020/21? and Loads of Chuntering by the Same Few About This Thread Existing and Trying to Derail It'. Or better would be to have a separate thread to discuss whether this thread has the right to exist.

It's true that fans will always find something to moan about, that something was not fair. Also, when something does go in favour of your team, you tend to downplay it, happy to get away with it. We remember the times it goes wrong for us much more than the times we get away with it. So all fans of all teams can point to many times something was unfair. This points to how Rangers are treated in the print/online media, and especially by pundits on telly who have the opportunity to frame the narratives of the following week. As most so-called experts in the media have a strong dislike of Rangers, the narrative is usually what they see/twist us getting away with. This also informs the Compliance Officer what she should focus on. After all, a previous CO admitted getting his info from highlights, as chosen by the BBC. The Hibs game highlights focused on their penalty claim which even Dermot Gallagher said was not a penalty. The Roofe penalty claim was unsurprisingly not shown. The problem with the biased fans argument is that when you start recording the incidents, you can see that things don't even out for some teams, like ours season after season, that there is a big discrepancy overall, and that there are patterns with some games and certain referees. That's what this thread is good for. But if you are convinced you are right and no evidence is going to change your mind then there's no helping you. All we can hope for is more media presence for those who see what's going on and can shed light on it and that they get on with combating the garbage that is spouted by the general Scottish football media. Only then can the narrative change and we can hope that we'll be treated more evenly.

Incompetence and bias are not mutually exclusive traits.

Sorry, Jamie, you were not so clear in your previous post and I took your statement to be one member. Apologies. I also read it in light of your identification as a Hoxhaist. The party you refer to is the Social Democrats, who are far more liberal than socialist, although they do contain a number of ex-officials from pre-89 - basically those who will hoist any banner in order to retain power. You'll know this to be typical for Eastern Europe, though, I'm sure. I've checked and found that in Romania there are zero actual socialist politicians (who represent what I was talking about) in any national elected position, which in a PR system is very bad. But the social democrats have been across Europe probably the most successful political movement in recent decades, being generally centre left. As this is very off-topic, if you want to continue, may I suggest PMs?

That is only because it's proportional representation there, and in each country that suffered from the extremes of communism/socialism/whatever you want to call it there were those who benefited from having power or wealth, or just the stability of having a guaranteed job that required no effort. That it's only one member says how utterly unpopular socialism is with the vast majority. A sort of political-economic Stockholm Syndrome, if you like.

Try telling that to those who suffered there for decades. All far left systems are us vs them, just not officially. Any applied 'socialism' turns out in similar terms in reality.

I wonder if any Romanians would be - very understandably - offended by that comment!

That Dennis and Murzo cannot agree with counting a row of people below 10 maybe shows that other criteria are more effective, like the most obvious one...

The white guy is no. 6. I'm a white guy. You can call me the white guy if you ever see me in a group from different parts of the world. It doesn't bother me in the slightest but I can't speak for everyone else. You'd have to ask them. I might not have time to wait while you do so.

The guy with the black hair is ok? The guy who is black is not? The guy with the ginger hair is not? The guy form Eastern Europe, where being super-sensitive is not really an issue, who hasn't been given up to the minute training on the latest sensitivities, in a stressful situation, is probably not focusing on how to tiptoe around certain terms. He was talking to his colleague from his own culture in their own language. A word in that language sounded similar to a problem-word in another and the guy who was in the process of being sent-off went way over the top in his reaction (any connection to being sent off?), then a bunch of other guys downed tools and refused to play. In the current world of sensitivities, people need to react to problems like these as sensibly as Gerrard did at the weekend. Then can we just get on with the football?