Jump to content

Bears

First Team
  • Posts

    1,219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bears

  1. Goldson peaked last season, had a great period with his defending, passing and scoring. But he's not defending anywhere near as well this season, his positioning is too often poor, getting drawn to the ball, and he's lost his confidence in the big passes as well as up front. And he has had plenty opportunity to commit to a new contract. Time for an ultimatum from Gerrard - sign the contract and sort your game out or go now before you're remembered for something other than a great 55.

  2. Never been totally convinced by him even though he just had a great season overall. In Europe especially he is prone to too many errors and his positioning can be suspect at times. Good attackers too often get the better of him and poorer ones can get lucky like today.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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?

  8. 1 hour ago, JamieD said:

    I mean, I could tell it to the Romanian people who have elected as the largest party to their parliament a member party of the Socialist International, if you like.

    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.

  9. 1 minute ago, JamieD said:

    Perhaps, but Ceausescu's national communism was about as far from international socialism as you can get. Which is why the west liked him.

    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.

  10. 57 minutes ago, JamieD said:

    Might it have been good all round if they had had a calm conversation about it and the guy could explain himself? Sure. I can understand in the heat of the moment why that didn't happen though. It's a natural consequence of the divide and rule society we live in under liberal capitalism :sad:International socialism is the only solution.

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

     

×
×
  • Create New...