In support of Dignified Silence

[72barca 1,788]

My point is the CLUB should have no position on the whole PUL thing - ergo they should not be trying to defend anything based on religion or political grounds.

Also today the majority of the context of our PUL leanings is in direct response to celtics catholic stance - but when we are beating Ajax when we get bat to the CL no one in the crowd gives a damm about PUL but they sure as hell care how we perform and what the result is. The term 90 min bogota was bandied about a few treats ago - and still is a phrase that covers our PUL stance - and we are not supposed to care what they do anyway !

You have ignored everything that has been said and just deflected. The point is that when a fan says they don't want the club to answer every nutcase out there that is different than the club not being involved when the fans need them to be.

As an example, the banning of the Billy Boys. The other side through the learned Professor Tom Devine made their case based on the word 'fenian', and because SDM had no interest in defending against such a borderline politically correct word the fans lost their most wanted and most galvanizing chant to dignified silence. Because SDM did nothing in defence of the argument for TBB the politics of the other side won the day. Would you say that this was a religious or a political or a business argument that was lost here?

I do know that the P/U/L section of the support DO want the chant back in some form. There is no chant that engages the whole stadium like that one does, and that includes non P/U/L fans.

You heard CG when he told us about the bigots in the room when they were thrashing out the 5-way-agreement. I would have to say, that to me, that was the culmination of the bully gaining many victories against dignified silence and having the confidence to go for the jugular. When big fat Rod was spewing his bile, with only Ally standing against him, was he religiously or politically motivated?

When our club took place in the 'shame game' at Parkhead in '98, I think it was, and referee Dallas was struck on the head with a coin, should we as a club have taken the chance - religiously, politically or business motivated - to have our rival severely punished rather that stand by with a dignified silence while they received a slap on the wrist?

No matter which example you want to choose, in the past our club has not treated these incidents and many others, in the same way our opponents have. They have, whether motivated by religion or politics or business, attacked us and built a dossier against us domestically and in Europe ( remember Fair committee who got us a closed door game) all to the sound of dignified silence from our club. No doubt these kind of insidious attacks were business-motivated.

Now I don't want to see the club lead an Orange Walk down Edminston Dr. but I do want to see them take a more direct part in assisting the fans' and the clubs' case in any circumstance whereby there is an attemp to push the club or the support down. The bheast must feel some pushback in all areas. The only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him and his minions.

If Reid and Liewell think that because they don't want to occupy the back of the bus, we must show them that we won't either. In a religious sense, in a political sense or in a business sense. I believe that should start by throwing dignified silence off the bus.

[TravelingWilBEARy 4,319]

did you even read the post?

because I cant remember him telling you to stop being a proddie, loyalist or unionist.

It doesn't look like it and judging from most of the replies he wouldn't be the only one.

[CrackFox 245]

sorry,stopped reading at `I lay the BLAME for being where we are jointly with ‘Sir’ David Murray, who went from my hero to zero because of the way he dealt with our sale, and the charlatan Craig Whyte`.

David Murray ran into financial trouble with his other businesses,mainly steel.India had captured most of it by their cheap prices (cheap labour costs)

Murray needed a loan of £50 million to keep his businesses afloat.

Cap in hand he went to his and Rangers bankers.Not using names as we all know.

Bankers agreed to £50m loan on one condition,that Murray sell Rangers to absolutely ensure that none of the loan would find it`s way to Rangers, and Ll oops! get their £18m back.

Murray was blackmailed into choosing his entire business empire over Rangers.The man had no choice.

Though it could be seen as odd that the man in sole charge of that decision,the banks head of business loans Scotland,was and probably still is an ALLEGED celtic season ticket holder and share holder.

Odder still is that the deal to buy Rangers was done between the bank and Ticketus and the only thing missing was a shady business guy that would go along with the very dubious deal.

Enter Craig Whyte a conman who wasn`t a stranger to dodgy deals.

`ere Craig Ticketus will put £24m in an Escrow account,you give us our £18m before you have actually bought Rangers and you have bought Rangers for nothing,good game good game!

Ask yourself this.If Craig Whyte borrowed £24m from Ticketus which went into an Escrow account asl said,then how did L bank get their hands on the £18m first from the Escrow account?

Always follow the money to find the real crooks and who was really behind our admin.The head of that banks business loans Scotland made a sharp exit not long after.Retired early I think it was.

If he is not a personal friend of Peter Lawwell I`ll buy a season ticket to parkhead.

I`ll get stick for defending David Murray but he upgraded our stadium to UEFA Elite status,built a magnificent training facility and brought us the joy of watching Gazza AND Laudrup in the same team.

For that alone I thank him.

[Getstiffed 8,863]

sorry,stopped reading at `I lay the BLAME for being where we are jointly with ‘Sir’ David Murray, who went from my hero to zero because of the way he dealt with our sale, and the charlatan Craig Whyte`.

David Murray ran into financial trouble with his other businesses,mainly steel.India had captured most of it by their cheap prices (cheap labour costs)

Murray needed a loan of £50 million to keep his businesses afloat.

Cap in hand he went to his and Rangers bankers.Not using names as we all know.

Bankers agreed to £50m loan on one condition,that Murray sell Rangers to absolutely ensure that none of the loan would find it`s way to Rangers, and Ll oops! get their £18m back.

Murray was blackmailed into choosing his entire business empire over Rangers.The man had no choice.

Though it could be seen as odd that the man in sole charge of that decision,the banks head of business loans Scotland,was and probably still is an ALLEGED celtic season ticket holder and share holder.

Odder still is that the deal to buy Rangers was done between the bank and Ticketus and the only thing missing was a shady business guy that would go along with the very dubious deal.

Enter Craig Whyte a conman who wasn`t a stranger to dodgy deals.

`ere Craig Ticketus will put £24m in an Escrow account,you give us our £18m before you have actually bought Rangers and you have bought Rangers for nothing,good game good game!

Ask yourself this.If Craig Whyte borrowed £24m from Ticketus which went into an Escrow account asl said,then how did L bank get their hands on the £18m first from the Escrow account?

Always follow the money to find the real crooks and who was really behind our admin.The head of that banks business loans Scotland made a sharp exit not long after.Retired early I think it was.

If he is not a personal friend of Peter Lawwell I`ll buy a season ticket to parkhead.

I`ll get stick for defending David Murray but he upgraded our stadium to UEFA Elite status,built a magnificent training facility and brought us the joy of watching Gazza AND Laudrup in the same team.

For that alone I thank him.

Add to that the sudden merging of the BDO, Celtics lawyer and Celtics auditors.

[CrackFox 245]

Add to that the sudden merging of the BDO, Celtics lawyer and Celtics auditors.

very true and also add to that Hearts owed double what we `legitimately` owed and third of that was penalties.

I firmly believe John Reid asked for a favour from someone in either the civil service or cabinet to put us out of business.

The guy is a bitter wee rabid rancid ira loving baldy bastard!

[CrackFox 245]

also forgot the judge that ruled on whether the Famine Song was racist or whatever is also a personal friend of Mr John Reid (it is alleged)

ya wee baldy cunt!

[Getstiffed 8,863]

very true and also add to that Hearts owed double what we `legitimately` owed and third of that was penalties.

I firmly believe John Reid asked for a favour from someone in either the civil service or cabinet to put us out of business.

The guy is a bitter wee rabid rancid ira loving baldy bastard!

Tbh mate, up until about 6 months ago I wouldn't have believed it so easily.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

You might be surprised to know there are parts of that I agree with. We cant respond to everything and, in fact I wouldnt expect the club to. You asked what is the criteria for intervention - I would say protecting the brand.

However there is a considerable irony in the thrust of your article - which attempts to make a case for dignified silence.

Having said that, I lay the BLAME for being where we are jointly with ‘Sir’ David Murray, who went from my hero to zero because of the way he dealt with our sale, and the charlatan Craig Whyte.

A contributory aspect of the set of circumstances which cause you so much anger is our failure to deal with lies against our club and the consequences of that failure.

The greatly exaggerated toxic debt, in conjunction with our certain guilt over EBT's were the factors which led to to this. The newspaper articles based around the lies spun by the Rangers Tax Case Blog as well as the BBC Documentary - which even Lord Nimmo Smith acknowledged was the "trigger" to other activity - all set the tone and weaved the lie which eventually let our club fall into the hands of Whyte.

[bluenose48 951]

I think the OP was spot on, a bit long winded, but never the less correct.

To react to every piece of shite that is written or aired by the legions who hate us, who attack us at every opportunity, would achieve nothing.

Battering your head against a brick wall achieves nothing but giving you a sore head. To get through the wall its prudent to first find out if there is a gate.

Picking your battles is a tried and true method of winning the war. Leave tilting at every windmill to the Don Quixote's of the World.

One thing I have noticed on here is all the internet warriors who decried BP9 and others as being handwringers etc, have not yet laid out their plans for attacking those who attack us.

No battle plans, no individual court actions, no backing up your online rhetoric with actual action.

Tell me I'm wrong.

[Young Conqueror 78]

I think the OP was spot on, a bit long winded, but never the less correct.

To react to every piece of shite that is written or aired by the legions who hate us, who attack us at every opportunity, would achieve nothing.

Battering your head against a brick wall achieves nothing but giving you a sore head. To get through the wall its prudent to first find out if there is a gate.

Picking your battles is a tried and true method of winning the war. Leave tilting at every windmill to the Don Quixote's of the World.

One thing I have noticed on here is all the internet warriors who decried BP9 and others as being handwringers etc, have not yet laid out their plans for attacking those who attack us.

No battle plans, no individual court actions, no backing up your online rhetoric with actual action.

Tell me I'm wrong.

Your wrong!!!

[MrMccoist 204]

I think the OP was spot on, a bit long winded, but never the less correct.

To react to every piece of shite that is written or aired by the legions who hate us, who attack us at every opportunity, would achieve nothing.

Battering your head against a brick wall achieves nothing but giving you a sore head. To get through the wall its prudent to first find out if there is a gate.

Picking your battles is a tried and true method of winning the war. Leave tilting at every windmill to the Don Quixote's of the World.

One thing I have noticed on here is all the internet warriors who decried BP9 and others as being handwringers etc, have not yet laid out their plans for attacking those who attack us.

No battle plans, no individual court actions, no backing up your online rhetoric with actual action.

Tell me I'm wrong.

But thats just it, its not about every crackpot. It's about winning hearts and minds.

Instead of letting Spiers Phil Mac Gorilla Brain and the Hag attack us in print how about redressing it

We dont have to respond to every article yes that is correct but equally sticking our head in the sand is what got us in this situation.

Ok, how would i deal with it? Ban Britney from Ibrox. - simple but effective. Why the hell he is allowed to darken our door is beyond words

Step 2 - Appoint a decent PR spokesman (not Jack. say someone like Alistair Campbell?) every time we are attacked in print, and its factually incorrect make sure we ask for apologies/corrections. His salary would probably be a tenth about we are paying JI

Step 3 - Engage with supporters groups such as VB etc more than once every six months- say monthly, and ask for their concerns.

Hell look at the decent bears we have on this forum who blog - most prominently D-Art who could be asked to redress idiots putting lies about us in print.

D'Art said the criteria above should be anything that damages the brand. I'd go further and say anything INCORRECT which damages the business/brand/supporters.

Too often its being left to VB - D'Art etc to defend us and although they are amazing at it. It has to come from the club.

Dignified silence nearly helped kill us. It beggars belief anyone still thinks this is a valuable option in glasgow in 2014.

[bluenose48 951]

Your wrong!!!

I was waiting for that.

[MrMccoist 204]

You might be surprised to know there are parts of that I agree with. We cant respond to everything and, in fact I wouldnt expect the club to. You asked what is the criteria for intervention - I would say protecting the brand.

However there is a considerable irony in the thrust of your article - which attempts to make a case for dignified silence.

A contributory aspect of the set of circumstances which cause you so much anger is our failure to deal with lies against our club and the consequences of that failure.

The greatly exaggerated toxic debt, in conjunction with our certain guilt over EBT's were the factors which led to to this. The newspaper articles based around the lies spun by the Rangers Tax Case Blog as well as the BBC Documentary - which even Lord Nimmo Smith acknowledged was the "trigger" to other activity - all set the tone and weaved the lie which eventually let our club fall into the hands of Whyte.

Spot on as ever

Bain even gave an interview to the IRA lover with the identity crisis who apparently kills pensioners himself.

It beggars belief D'art

[bluenose48 951]

But thats just it, its not about every crackpot. It's about winning hearts and minds.

Instead of letting Spiers Phil Mac Gorilla Brain and the Hag attack us in print how about redressing it

We dont have to respond to every article yes that is correct but equally sticking our head in the sand is what got us in this situation.

Ok, how would i deal with it? Ban Britney from Ibrox. - simple but effective. Why the hell he is allowed to darken our door is beyond words

Step 2 - Appoint a decent PR spokesman (not Jack. say someone like Alistair Campbell?) every time we are attacked in print, and its factually incorrect make sure we ask for apologies/corrections. His salary would probably be a tenth about we are paying JI

Step 3 - Engage with supporters groups such as VB etc more than once every six months- say monthly, and ask for their concerns.

Hell look at the decent bears we have on this forum who blog - most prominently D-Art who could be asked to redress idiots putting lies about us in print.

D'Art said the criteria above should be anything that damages the brand. I'd go further and say anything INCORRECT which damages the business/brand/supporters.

Too often its being left to VB - D'Art etc to defend us and although they are amazing at it. It has to come from the club.

Dignified silence nearly helped kill us. It beggars belief anyone still thinks this is a valuable option in glasgow in 2014.

Excellent, at last some concrete ideas that are achievable.

[MrMccoist 204]

Excellent, at last some concrete ideas that are achievable.

Wasnt quoting your post as a criticism btw. I was just debating/answering it.

[Young Conqueror 78]

I was waiting for that.

It has been good to read your posts bn48 and can clearly see you are a very passionate Bear. The theme running through the thread for me is that we have to make a stand somewhere and the Club should only get involved when haters are looking to damage them. I'm sure we the fans can do a little bit more as you may have read on some of the posts on here in the last few days and as MrMcCoist pointed out how we can also achieve this.

Keep up the good work bud

[bluenose48 951]

Wasnt quoting your post as a criticism btw. I was just debating/answering it.

Was not taken as criticism. I enjoy good debate and banter.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

You might be surprised to know there are parts of that I agree with. We cant respond to everything and, in fact I wouldnt expect the club to. You asked what is the criteria for intervention - I would say protecting the brand.

However there is a considerable irony in the thrust of your article - which attempts to make a case for dignified silence.

A contributory aspect of the set of circumstances which cause you so much anger is our failure to deal with lies against our club and the consequences of that failure.

The greatly exaggerated toxic debt, in conjunction with our certain guilt over EBT's were the factors which led to to this. The newspaper articles based around the lies spun by the Rangers Tax Case Blog as well as the BBC Documentary - which even Lord Nimmo Smith acknowledged was the "trigger" to other activity - all set the tone and weaved the lie which eventually let our club fall into the hands of Whyte.

The BTC was by no means a stick on case - in fact ( actually pure speculation on my part) both SDM and Lloyd's probably took the view that it was a lost case - they wanted that potential liability off the balance sheet - hence the pressure/ desire to sell - SDM - my ex hero has had a pretty easy ride from fans and press about his part in all this - keeping stum has certainly worked for him.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

You might be surprised to know there are parts of that I agree with. We cant respond to everything and, in fact I wouldnt expect the club to. You asked what is the criteria for intervention - I would say protecting the brand.

However there is a considerable irony in the thrust of your article - which attempts to make a case for dignified silence.

A contributory aspect of the set of circumstances which cause you so much anger is our failure to deal with lies against our club and the consequences of that failure.

The greatly exaggerated toxic debt, in conjunction with our certain guilt over EBT's were the factors which led to to this. The newspaper articles based around the lies spun by the Rangers Tax Case Blog as well as the BBC Documentary - which even Lord Nimmo Smith acknowledged was the "trigger" to other activity - all set the tone and weaved the lie which eventually let our club fall into the hands of Whyte.

The BTC was by no means a stick on case - in fact ( actually pure speculation on my part) both SDM and Lloyd's probably took the view that it was a lost case - they wanted that potential liability off the balance sheet - hence the pressure/ desire to sell - SDM - my ex hero has had a pretty easy ride from fans and press about his part in all this - keeping stum has certainly worked for him.

[MrMccoist 204]

The BTC was by no means a stick on case - in fact ( actually pure speculation on my part) both SDM and Lloyd's probably took the view that it was a lost case - they wanted that potential liability off the balance sheet - hence the pressure/ desire to sell - SDM - my ex hero has had a pretty easy ride from fans and press about his part in all this - keeping stum has certainly worked for him.

Lloyds would have put us in admin anyway if we lost BTC. ergo not having the liability?

CW had it all worked out based on European income that season. If we won BTC he was quids in if we didnt he was going to put us in admin anyway.

Us getting put out led to plan b withholiing paye

Dont see' why lloyds/SDM wouldn't have put us in admin had we lost BTC anyway.

[bluenose48 951]

It has been good to read your posts bn48 and can clearly see you are a very passionate Bear. The theme running through the thread for me is that we have to make a stand somewhere and the Club should only get involved when haters are looking to damage them. I'm sure we the fans can do a little bit more as you may have read on some of the posts on here in the last few days and as MrMcCoist pointed out how we can also achieve this.

Keep up the good work bud

Thank you for that and yes I'm very passionate about Rangers as my wife can attest to when I\m watching us on RTV.

I agree we need to take some of our haters to task, but as I said we have to pick our targets.

Getting too excited about Mad Phil is a waste of energy, because rationality is not one of his strong points.

However as MrMcoist states seeking out incorrect statements by media and forcing them to retract publicly would be a great step forward.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

The BTC was by no means a stick on case - in fact ( actually pure speculation on my part) both SDM and Lloyd's probably took the view that it was a lost case - they wanted that potential liability off the balance sheet - hence the pressure/ desire to sell - SDM - my ex hero has had a pretty easy ride from fans and press about his part in all this - keeping stum has certainly worked for him.

You are right it wasnt a stick on case in fact the smart money suggested it was as much as 60/40 in our favour - but the unchallenged lies & assertions had us "guilty until proven innocent" - which the likes of Spiers with his now infamous quote along with the likes of Cosgrove were happy to repeat time and time again. While the latter has apologised for calling us cheats the former has denied it on national tv despite his twitter assertions to the contrary. i will return to this later.

I disagree SDM, for all his faults had given up on it being a lost case - quite the contrary.

But our treatment at the hands of the SPL/SFA was governed and dictated by that presumption of guilt - and it was a presumption which came about as a result of lies which went unchallenged and a documentary with a partcularly biased slant towards our guilt - the latter of which was produced courtesy of evidence which had been stolen and retained by the BBC from the Big Tax Case.

But returning to Spiers - we have him by the balls due to his lying and damaging assertions about our club.

Can you imagine the impact it would have on our media treatment if we were to serve legal notice on him personally, that he was personally answerable to, not his newspaper, with regard to the lies ?

Going back to an earlier point we discussed - its not about challenging every single negative story or comment - its about driving change and becoming a force for accountability within the media culture by making an example of the chief protagonsists - if you tell lies and damage our club - you personally will be responsible for the consequences of that

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

Lloyds would have put us in admin anyway if we lost BTC. ergo not having the liability?

CW had it all worked out based on European income that season. If we won BTC he was quids in if we didnt he was going to put us in admin anyway.

Us getting put out led to plan b withholiing paye

Dont see' why lloyds/SDM wouldn't have put us in admin had we lost BTC anyway.

I think the fear was the liability at that point was with MIM not the club and part of the sale was to get that liability away from MIM - anyway SDM gets an easy ride- no one will ever convince me he did not know that Whyte was a charlatan!

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

You are right it wasnt a stick on case in fact the smart money suggested it was as much as 60/40 in our favour - but the unchallenged lies & assertions had us "guilty until proven innocent" - which the likes of Spiers with his now infamous quote along with the likes of Cosgrove were happy to repeat time and time again. While the latter has apologised for calling us cheats the former has denied it on national tv despite his twitter assertions to the contrary. i will return to this later.

I disagree SDM, for all his faults had given up on it being a lost case - quite the contrary.

But our treatment at the hands of the SPL/SFA was governed and dictated by that presumption of guilt - and it was a presumption which came about as a result of lies which went unchallenged and a documentary with a partcularly biased slant towards our guilt - the latter of which was produced courtesy of evidence which had been stolen and retained by the BBC from the Big Tax Case.

But returning to Spiers - we have him by the balls due to his lying and damaging assertions about our club.

Can you imagine the impact it would have on our media treatment if we were to serve legal notice on him personally, that he was personally answerable to, not his newspaper, with regard to the lies ?

Going back to an earlier point we discussed - its not about challenging every single negative story or comment - its about driving change and becoming a force for accountability within the media culture by making an example of the chief protagonsists - if you tell lies and damage our club - you personally will be responsible for the consequences of that

I have no issue with fighting out corner and fighting it hard - but the petty like for like 'he said this we say hat shit just creates noise - and our own bloggers add to that noise so that clarity of cause, action and reaction can be lost.

[tollboy-noey 50]

Ok Gogzy, But why mention Unionist or Protestant,

Sounds like dont mention religion to me.