Club 1872 Hogmanay Statement

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

3 minutes ago, Blue Nosed Babe said:

That one should not sing about supporting terrorists, nor mock the dead, nor act in an offensive manner including sectarianism. 

Yep that would be my take as well.

[cushynumber 25,178]

26 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said:

Just out of interest BNB what woud your take be on this from Lord Advocates Guidelines relating to OBFA...

there talking about clapping. Distasteful as it is, Id like to see OBFA being used to bang people up for that.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

1 hour ago, cushynumber said:

 

 

 

Call me cycnical but every negative repy to our new member will probably be screenshotted & sent to the Sun.

[We Will Follow Rangers 13,397]

Good statement and also good if the points made were made to them in person, time will tell if we'll see a repeat performance of their apparent tolerance to some pretty disgusting banners and  "props".

not much faith, at the end of the day.

A.C.A.B.

[bluepeter 5,627]

5 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said:

Call me cycnical but every negative repy to our new member will probably be screenshotted & sent to the Sun.

Yeah, you may be right D'Art. Let's be clear, nobody said anything remotely actionable so I considered leaving it all up, but to prevent anyone saying anything daft...

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

3 hours ago, Carsons Dog said:

 

Going back to the question - have C1872 raised it with the club and what was the response?

Yeah?

No?

[Bad Robot 21,513]

5 hours ago, cushynumber said:

"Furthermore the importance of respecting the  minute silence associated with this fixture was emphatically emphasised to Police Scotland."

 

Can the Police actually do anything if the minutes silence is not respected?

The pedo brigade will wait outside the stadium again and will probably flyly make some noise from there so it's not picked up by the media

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

15 minutes ago, Carsons Dog said:

Yeah?

No?

Ive just answered this question on Gersnet CD - if the members express a wish to restrict ticket allocations then I suspect it will go to a vote. Should the vote be in favour of a change to the status quo then that would be communicated to the Rangers board.

[bluepeter 5,627]

6 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said:

Ive just answered this question on Gersnet CD - if the members express a wish to restrict ticket allocations then I suspect it will go to a vote. Should the vote be in favour of a change to the status quo then that would be communicated to the Rangers board.

How many members would have to express this wish, and how would they have to do it? Your statement already references "the growing movement amongst our members to further restrict the number of tickets allocated to the away support in respect of this fixture." 

So, we know that the members have expressed the wish, when should we expect the vote to happen? Or are you waiting for a majority to express the wish, then you put it to a vote (let's not go into vote wording just now...), then if a majority vote for the action proposed by C1872 you will put it to the board?

[bluepeter 5,627]

11 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said:

Ive just answered this question on Gersnet CD - if the members express a wish to restrict ticket allocations then I suspect it will go to a vote. Should the vote be in favour of a change to the status quo then that would be communicated to the Rangers board.

My questions above are genuine by the way, no ulterior motive. 

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

6 hours ago, D'Artagnan said:

Do you think perhaps such concerns are not reflected in that statement ?

What was wrong with his statement?

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

14 minutes ago, bluepeter said:

How many members would have to express this wish, and how would they have to do it? Your statement already references "the growing movement amongst our members to further restrict the number of tickets allocated to the away support in respect of this fixture." 

So, we know that the members have expressed the wish, when should we expect the vote to happen? Or are you waiting for a majority to express the wish, then you put it to a vote (let's not go into vote wording just now...), then if a majority vote for the action proposed by C1872 you will put it to the board?

Thats more or less how it would work BP - members propose a motion, vote on it and the Club 1872 board take it forward. But certain proposals may require clarification before even putting it to a vote - ie that there may be other factors involved such as regulations or agreements beyond even the control of the Rangers board themselves as well as other factors such as legal obligations.

We should not shy away from use of the vote wording - such action is intrinsic to a CIC - in fact it is one of the requirements of a CIC Annual Report to demonstrate that the membership have not only been consulted but that the results of such consultation have been put into practice.

[scottyscott1963 19,145]

Me personally will bet on PS being nothing more than casual onlookers and have lost all faith in them actually tackling the vermin for what is described in that OBFA piece being shown above by D'Art.
These cunts are showing anti social behaviour every week by singing the praises of a proscribed organisation every fucking match and there is nothing done about it.
When the numbers of cunts arrested for showing support of terrorists equates to the amount of Rangers supporters being arrested, then I will believe they are being "even handed".
But!!!!!! until then i'm unconvinced they will take action against them.......for whatever reason.

[bluepeter 5,627]

3 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said:

Thats more or less how it would work BP - members propose a motion, vote on it and the Club 1872 board take it forward. But certain proposals may require clarification before even putting it to a vote - ie that there may be other factors involved such as regulations or agreements beyond even the control of the Rangers board themselves as well as other factors such as legal obligations.

We should not shy away from use of the vote wording - such action is intrinsic to a CIC - in fact it is one of the requirements of a CIC Annual Report to demonstrate that the membership have not only been consulted but that the results of such consultation have been put into practice.

D'Art - I have nothing but respect for you, but I also have many years experience of committees, boards, etc to know how these things work. Call me cynical if you like...

C1872 have released a statement which says the members have expressed a wish to restrict the ticket numbers, then you tell us that you think if the members express a wish it will go to a vote? I would bet right now that reducing celtic ticket numbers at Ibrox will never go to a C1872 vote. What you've posted suggests it should, so where do we go from here? 

It's manipulation, it's simple psychology, and I hope you can influence it positively.

I've just read back over your post, and there is something which really concerns me in there:

But certain proposals may require clarification before even putting it to a vote - ie that there may be other factors involved such as regulations or agreements beyond even the control of the Rangers board themselves as well as other factors such as legal obligations.

Are you happy with that?

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

59 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said:

Ive just answered this question on Gersnet CD - if the members express a wish to restrict ticket allocations then I suspect it will go to a vote. Should the vote be in favour of a change to the status quo then that would be communicated to the Rangers board.

Cheers mate

They maybe should have gone through that process before bringing it up in the meeting with the polis.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

3 minutes ago, bluepeter said:

D'Art - I have nothing but respect for you, but I also have many years experience of committees, boards, etc to know how these things work. Call me cynical if you like...

C1872 have released a statement which says the members have expressed a wish to restrict the ticket numbers, then you tell us that you think if the members express a wish it will go to a vote? I would bet right now that reducing celtic ticket numbers at Ibrox will never go to a C1872 vote. What you've posted suggests it should, so where do we go from here? 

It's manipulation, it's simple psychology, and I hope you can influence it positively.

I've just read back over your post, and there is something which really concerns me in there:

 

 

Are you happy with that?

But certain proposals may require clarification before even putting it to a vote - ie that there may be other factors involved such as regulations or agreements beyond even the control of the Rangers board themselves as well as other factors such as legal obligations.

I dont think that should be cause for concern BP - it would be a complete waste of time and effort if we were to set up a vote, invite members to cast their votes and then lobby the Rangers board regarding the result about a subject or matter which was beyond even their control. All we would be doing there would be engaging our members in a worthless exercise, raising expectations and ultimately wasting their time

[Senex 20]

So long as we're charging the bheasts 50 quid a turn, there's no way we'll be rejecting that cash while we're in our currently parlous financial state. No chance. That's point one. Point two is that by dint of the access routes and the construction of the stadium, Ibrox is probably one of the most easily policed grounds in the country; on Old Firm days the fans are so successfully segregated that you don't see Timmy until you're inside the ground and they're isolated in their own stand. The idea that the polis are going to get inventive or start playing around with this arrangement is similarly a non-starter.

Bottom line is the status quo suits the cops, suits the Tims and suits us all from a security and (more importantly) a business point of view. They won't change it.

[bluepeter 5,627]

7 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said:

But certain proposals may require clarification before even putting it to a vote - ie that there may be other factors involved such as regulations or agreements beyond even the control of the Rangers board themselves as well as other factors such as legal obligations.

I dont think that should be cause for concern BP - it would be a complete waste of time and effort if we were to set up a vote, invite members to cast their votes and then lobby the Rangers board regarding the result about a subject or matter which was beyond even their control. All we would be doing there would be engaging our members in a worthless exercise, raising expectations and ultimately wasting their time

It smacks of get-out-clause to me, to be honest. If your membership want something which is outwith current 'regulations or agreements' they shouldn't even be allowed to vote on them?

Anyway, off to bed now, 4am start tomorrow 

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Just now, bluepeter said:

It smacks of get-out-clause to me, to be honest. If your membership want something which is outwith current 'regulations or agreements' they shouldn't even be allowed to vote on them?

Anyway, off to bed now, 4am start tomorrow 

Not at all BP.

Would you take a vote on here on something you knew ultimately you could not deliver on ?

[Dlydon81 245]

8 hours ago, cushynumber said:

"Furthermore the importance of respecting the  minute silence associated with this fixture was emphatically emphasised to Police Scotland."

 

Can the Police actually do anything if the minutes silence is not respected?

I immediately thought the same thing.  I also thought guys got arrested for the effigies after footage was reviewed.

For me, this is nothing more than C1872 brown nosing the wider rangers fanbase at the exact same time they are trying to get all RSCs to align with them (and pay for the privilege of it)............or perhaps it's just a coincidence................

[cushynumber 25,178]

1 minute ago, Dlydon81 said:

I immediately thought the same thing.  I also thought guys got arrested for the effigies after footage was reviewed.

For me, this is nothing more than C1872 brown nosing the wider rangers fanbase at the exact same time they are trying to get all RSCs to align with them (and pay for the privilege of it)............or perhaps it's just a coincidence................

I think that's a bit harsh. I thought it was more a "don't blame our fans if there's any trouble because savco won't respect the minutes silence" 

[Dlydon81 245]

13 minutes ago, cushynumber said:

I think that's a bit harsh. I thought it was more a "don't blame our fans if there's any trouble because savco won't respect the minutes silence" 

seriously? If the police can't keep 8,000 Celtic fans quiet during the silence then you can't blame Rangers fans for subsequent violence.

I sincerely hope that is not what was intended by the statement and it is incredibly worrying if any Rangers fans interpret it as such.

[Thewhitesettler 2,714]

Two things, regarding the tickets, if we reduce their allocation, they'll do exactly the same thing to us. 

Second point is, I hope that we're charging them £49, at least, for their tickets, the same price they charged us.

I just wish that we could put Them somewhere hidden from the TV cameras. The Club Deck perhaps? Giving them the whole of the Broomloan Stand, and a good position for media coverage, really, really, annoys me.

There were a few OF games, in the past, when we decided to give them no allocation, due to their club refusing to pay for damages committed by their fans, and they never gave us any for Parkhead. Which was crap.

[Dlydon81 245]

8 minutes ago, Thewhitesettler said:

Two things, regarding the tickets, if we reduce their allocation, they'll do exactly the same thing to us. 

Second point is, I hope that we're charging them £49, at least, for their tickets, the same price they charged us.

I just wish that we could put Them somewhere hidden from the TV cameras. The Club Deck perhaps? Giving them the whole of the Broomloan Stand, and a good position for media coverage, really, really, annoys me.

There were a few OF games, in the past, when we decided to give them no allocation, due to their club refusing to pay for damages committed by their fans, and they never gave us any for Parkhead. Which was crap.

I think that happened once and it was at ibrox 1-1 draw.  I don't recall them banning us from their ground though.

 

[Dlydon81 245]

4 hours ago, Senex said:

So long as we're charging the bheasts 50 quid a turn, there's no way we'll be rejecting that cash while we're in our currently parlous financial state. No chance. That's point one. Point two is that by dint of the access routes and the construction of the stadium, Ibrox is probably one of the most easily policed grounds in the country; on Old Firm days the fans are so successfully segregated that you don't see Timmy until you're inside the ground and they're isolated in their own stand. The idea that the polis are going to get inventive or start playing around with this arrangement is similarly a non-starter.

Bottom line is the status quo suits the cops, suits the Tims and suits us all from a security and (more importantly) a business point of view. They won't change it.

Totally agree! Also, the way I understand it is that in recent times (say this century), both clubs agree to charge the same price for the tickets.  Both clubs also pay for the damage their fans cause at the away match.  If they smash up broomloan seats, celtic pay for the damage.  I also recall a rumour one year that we didn't get paid for the damage they caused at Ibrox and we just withheld money from the sale of tickets for the next away celtic match.