Graeme Speirs. Articles wanted

[Ayebrox 0]

Outstanding article, Frankie. Appreciated

[gers_boy_john 2]

Yeah that was the one i was talking about Frankie

I had to laugh when Speirs said he doesn't go on FF

[Muff 245]

Some post Frankie

[Ibroxblue 122]

On the other hand, here are some quotes from Spiers where he has been complimentary to Rangers or spoken out against Celtic (taken from a small sample of his output):

2/5/05 (Aberdeen 1 Gers 3) "So much for this decrepit, allegedly dying Rangers team. ...Rangers richly deserved this win. McLeish certainly did, given the attack-mindedness and tactical daring of the team he put on the field. ...Barry Ferguson and Buffel had fine matches, and Prso, scorer of two goals and serenaded throughout by an enthused Rangers support, was the embodiment of a classic striker."

22/8/05: "Mercifully, after their disgrace at Ibrox, Celtic have at least pursued a line in dignity. The Parkhead club and its captain, Neil Lennon, last night apologised for the pitiful scenes which disfigured the closing moments of the Old Firm match on Saturday.

Ibrox has witnessed a few tantrums in its time, but the sight of Lennon, his fury boiling over, physically barging and threatening the referee, Stuart Dougal, having been shown a red card after the final whistle, was a wretched spectacle. Lennon, purely and simply, brought himself and Celtic into disrepute following their 3-1 defeat.

Lennon, speaking through the club's website, last night issued a terse, if not quite heartfelt apology for his behaviour following Saturday's final whistle. ...To many observers at Ibrox, it seemed a minor miracle that Lennon remained on the park for the 90 minutes. Having got himself booked, yet having continued to carry on feuding with the excellent Thomas Buffel, Mr Dougal appeared to have gone the extra mile on Lennon's behalf before the final whistle. Thereafter, when Lennon then verbally abused Dougal, the referee had no option but to show him the red card. ...Gordon Strachan, the Celtic manager, simply got it wrong later when he was asked about the Lennon incident. Managers invariably defend their players when they are grilled by the media, yet Strachan's words, intended or not, were ill-advised. ...these words from the manager were nonsensical. ...There was general outrage at Alan Thompson's 22nd minute red card for his scything "tackle" on Nacho Novo. Yet Dougal, in issuing his straight red, called it exactly right. ...Certainly, to say that Dougal made "a ludicrous" decision over Thompson, as some have said, is laughable. It's just a pity that the Englishman, along with a few others at Ibrox, didn't know what they were talking about.

It isn't Dougal who should be apologising. It is, quite rightly, Celtic and Lennon, even if their words do sound half-baked."

17/10/05: "the Rangers supporters, in fine voice all afternoon".

20/10/05 (Gers 0 Artmedia 0) "Rangers played decently on the night, and were even heroic in periods of the first half".

24/11/05: "Rangers fans ... a fine sight gathered behind Vitor Baia's goal. Vocally, they were an act of defiance as McLeish and Rangers stood firm on the field."

23/8/02: ?It would be easy, though not any more gratifying or uplifting, to say that the latest blight on Neil Lennon's football career is simply a case of bigotry. The wider truth, though, is that Lennon, the subject of a death-threat in Belfast on Wednesday night, is a player whose personality makes him a magnet for attention, for good and certainly for ill.

Even the obvious fact of his strife in the Northern Ireland team defies commonplace analysis. It isn't simply the case that, because he is a Catholic playing for his bedevilled country, he is the subject of Loyalist extremism. We have flesh and blood evidence to the contrary of this in Pat Jennings, a Catholic, and a man who won 119 caps for Northern Ireland, who was lauded throughout his career and remains a hero to supporters. ? Nor, though, is Lennon a silent witness. Eschewing the traditional role of the dumb footballer, he has political views on Ireland, which he has made known in the knowledge that they will provoke. Specifically, Lennon has expressed sentiments about a resolution of the Ireland question which were hardly going to make some Ulster Protestants celebrate his existence with banging drums. Lennon, of course, has every right to express his opinions, though no right, ultimately, to be surprised by adverse reactions.

He is also a showman in his own right. The talk, the swagger, the peroxide-blond hair, all bespeak a man who doesn't feel scalded by the spotlight. ?A part of Lennon seems to fancy himself, and this isn't a criticism; in fact, it almost seems endearing. It is partly this quality, espied by opposition fans who otherwise have no sectarian bones within them, which makes supporters beyond Glasgow want to jeer and goad Lennon.

27/8/02: ?Lennon also is regularly booed and barracked in such non-sectarian cities as Aberdeen. ? Why, more than any other Catholic who plays for Northern Ireland, does he attract such hate? Why, when he knows it will trigger a reaction, does he talk about an all-Ireland political solution for his homeland (the point is not whether you agree with Lennon or not . . . the fascination is with the impulse within his character to speak out)? And why, in places like Dundee and Aberdeen, where sectarianism is less of a blight, does Lennon still attract such bile from the terraces? ?Amid an ugly story, these are legitimate lines of exploration, as is the subject of Celtic FC and its cultural immersion in Catholicism.?

[minstral 5,375]

frankie what a great article.

[Guest Manticore]

On the other hand, here are some quotes from Spiers where he has been complimentary to Rangers or spoken out against Celtic (taken from a small sample of his output):

2/5/05 (Aberdeen 1 Gers 3) "So much for this decrepit, allegedly dying Rangers team. ...Rangers richly deserved this win. McLeish certainly did, given the attack-mindedness and tactical daring of the team he put on the field. ...Barry Ferguson and Buffel had fine matches, and Prso, scorer of two goals and serenaded throughout by an enthused Rangers support, was the embodiment of a classic striker."

22/8/05: "Mercifully, after their disgrace at Ibrox, Celtic have at least pursued a line in dignity. The Parkhead club and its captain, Neil Lennon, last night apologised for the pitiful scenes which disfigured the closing moments of the Old Firm match on Saturday.

Ibrox has witnessed a few tantrums in its time, but the sight of Lennon, his fury boiling over, physically barging and threatening the referee, Stuart Dougal, having been shown a red card after the final whistle, was a wretched spectacle. Lennon, purely and simply, brought himself and Celtic into disrepute following their 3-1 defeat.

Lennon, speaking through the club's website, last night issued a terse, if not quite heartfelt apology for his behaviour following Saturday's final whistle. ...To many observers at Ibrox, it seemed a minor miracle that Lennon remained on the park for the 90 minutes. Having got himself booked, yet having continued to carry on feuding with the excellent Thomas Buffel, Mr Dougal appeared to have gone the extra mile on Lennon's behalf before the final whistle. Thereafter, when Lennon then verbally abused Dougal, the referee had no option but to show him the red card. ...Gordon Strachan, the Celtic manager, simply got it wrong later when he was asked about the Lennon incident. Managers invariably defend their players when they are grilled by the media, yet Strachan's words, intended or not, were ill-advised. ...these words from the manager were nonsensical. ...There was general outrage at Alan Thompson's 22nd minute red card for his scything "tackle" on Nacho Novo. Yet Dougal, in issuing his straight red, called it exactly right. ...Certainly, to say that Dougal made "a ludicrous" decision over Thompson, as some have said, is laughable. It's just a pity that the Englishman, along with a few others at Ibrox, didn't know what they were talking about.

It isn't Dougal who should be apologising. It is, quite rightly, Celtic and Lennon, even if their words do sound half-baked."

17/10/05: "the Rangers supporters, in fine voice all afternoon".

20/10/05 (Gers 0 Artmedia 0) "Rangers played decently on the night, and were even heroic in periods of the first half".

24/11/05: "Rangers fans ... a fine sight gathered behind Vitor Baia's goal. Vocally, they were an act of defiance as McLeish and Rangers stood firm on the field."

23/8/02: ?It would be easy, though not any more gratifying or uplifting, to say that the latest blight on Neil Lennon's football career is simply a case of bigotry. The wider truth, though, is that Lennon, the subject of a death-threat in Belfast on Wednesday night, is a player whose personality makes him a magnet for attention, for good and certainly for ill.

Even the obvious fact of his strife in the Northern Ireland team defies commonplace analysis. It isn't simply the case that, because he is a Catholic playing for his bedevilled country, he is the subject of Loyalist extremism. We have flesh and blood evidence to the contrary of this in Pat Jennings, a Catholic, and a man who won 119 caps for Northern Ireland, who was lauded throughout his career and remains a hero to supporters. ? Nor, though, is Lennon a silent witness. Eschewing the traditional role of the dumb footballer, he has political views on Ireland, which he has made known in the knowledge that they will provoke. Specifically, Lennon has expressed sentiments about a resolution of the Ireland question which were hardly going to make some Ulster Protestants celebrate his existence with banging drums. Lennon, of course, has every right to express his opinions, though no right, ultimately, to be surprised by adverse reactions.

He is also a showman in his own right. The talk, the swagger, the peroxide-blond hair, all bespeak a man who doesn't feel scalded by the spotlight. ?A part of Lennon seems to fancy himself, and this isn't a criticism; in fact, it almost seems endearing. It is partly this quality, espied by opposition fans who otherwise have no sectarian bones within them, which makes supporters beyond Glasgow want to jeer and goad Lennon.

27/8/02: ?Lennon also is regularly booed and barracked in such non-sectarian cities as Aberdeen. ? Why, more than any other Catholic who plays for Northern Ireland, does he attract such hate? Why, when he knows it will trigger a reaction, does he talk about an all-Ireland political solution for his homeland (the point is not whether you agree with Lennon or not . . . the fascination is with the impulse within his character to speak out)? And why, in places like Dundee and Aberdeen, where sectarianism is less of a blight, does Lennon still attract such bile from the terraces? ?Amid an ugly story, these are legitimate lines of exploration, as is the subject of Celtic FC and its cultural immersion in Catholicism.?

It's hard not to notice that this started from after he was seeing himself getting pelters on FF.

And it's all reasonable comment, unlike his anti bears shite.

If you're on here as well as FF Graeme, GIRFUY.

Loads of us will never buy any paper in your group until they sack you and your bosses know it.

[Ibroxblue 122]

On the other hand, here are some quotes from Spiers where he has been complimentary to Rangers or spoken out against Celtic (taken from a small sample of his output):

2/5/05 (Aberdeen 1 Gers 3) "So much for this decrepit, allegedly dying Rangers team. ...Rangers richly deserved this win. McLeish certainly did, given the attack-mindedness and tactical daring of the team he put on the field. ...Barry Ferguson and Buffel had fine matches, and Prso, scorer of two goals and serenaded throughout by an enthused Rangers support, was the embodiment of a classic striker."

22/8/05: "Mercifully, after their disgrace at Ibrox, Celtic have at least pursued a line in dignity. The Parkhead club and its captain, Neil Lennon, last night apologised for the pitiful scenes which disfigured the closing moments of the Old Firm match on Saturday.

Ibrox has witnessed a few tantrums in its time, but the sight of Lennon, his fury boiling over, physically barging and threatening the referee, Stuart Dougal, having been shown a red card after the final whistle, was a wretched spectacle. Lennon, purely and simply, brought himself and Celtic into disrepute following their 3-1 defeat.

Lennon, speaking through the club's website, last night issued a terse, if not quite heartfelt apology for his behaviour following Saturday's final whistle. ...To many observers at Ibrox, it seemed a minor miracle that Lennon remained on the park for the 90 minutes. Having got himself booked, yet having continued to carry on feuding with the excellent Thomas Buffel, Mr Dougal appeared to have gone the extra mile on Lennon's behalf before the final whistle. Thereafter, when Lennon then verbally abused Dougal, the referee had no option but to show him the red card. ...Gordon Strachan, the Celtic manager, simply got it wrong later when he was asked about the Lennon incident. Managers invariably defend their players when they are grilled by the media, yet Strachan's words, intended or not, were ill-advised. ...these words from the manager were nonsensical. ...There was general outrage at Alan Thompson's 22nd minute red card for his scything "tackle" on Nacho Novo. Yet Dougal, in issuing his straight red, called it exactly right. ...Certainly, to say that Dougal made "a ludicrous" decision over Thompson, as some have said, is laughable. It's just a pity that the Englishman, along with a few others at Ibrox, didn't know what they were talking about.

It isn't Dougal who should be apologising. It is, quite rightly, Celtic and Lennon, even if their words do sound half-baked."

17/10/05: "the Rangers supporters, in fine voice all afternoon".

20/10/05 (Gers 0 Artmedia 0) "Rangers played decently on the night, and were even heroic in periods of the first half".

24/11/05: "Rangers fans ... a fine sight gathered behind Vitor Baia's goal. Vocally, they were an act of defiance as McLeish and Rangers stood firm on the field."

23/8/02: ?It would be easy, though not any more gratifying or uplifting, to say that the latest blight on Neil Lennon's football career is simply a case of bigotry. The wider truth, though, is that Lennon, the subject of a death-threat in Belfast on Wednesday night, is a player whose personality makes him a magnet for attention, for good and certainly for ill.

Even the obvious fact of his strife in the Northern Ireland team defies commonplace analysis. It isn't simply the case that, because he is a Catholic playing for his bedevilled country, he is the subject of Loyalist extremism. We have flesh and blood evidence to the contrary of this in Pat Jennings, a Catholic, and a man who won 119 caps for Northern Ireland, who was lauded throughout his career and remains a hero to supporters. ? Nor, though, is Lennon a silent witness. Eschewing the traditional role of the dumb footballer, he has political views on Ireland, which he has made known in the knowledge that they will provoke. Specifically, Lennon has expressed sentiments about a resolution of the Ireland question which were hardly going to make some Ulster Protestants celebrate his existence with banging drums. Lennon, of course, has every right to express his opinions, though no right, ultimately, to be surprised by adverse reactions.

He is also a showman in his own right. The talk, the swagger, the peroxide-blond hair, all bespeak a man who doesn't feel scalded by the spotlight. ?A part of Lennon seems to fancy himself, and this isn't a criticism; in fact, it almost seems endearing. It is partly this quality, espied by opposition fans who otherwise have no sectarian bones within them, which makes supporters beyond Glasgow want to jeer and goad Lennon.

27/8/02: ?Lennon also is regularly booed and barracked in such non-sectarian cities as Aberdeen. ? Why, more than any other Catholic who plays for Northern Ireland, does he attract such hate? Why, when he knows it will trigger a reaction, does he talk about an all-Ireland political solution for his homeland (the point is not whether you agree with Lennon or not . . . the fascination is with the impulse within his character to speak out)? And why, in places like Dundee and Aberdeen, where sectarianism is less of a blight, does Lennon still attract such bile from the terraces? ?Amid an ugly story, these are legitimate lines of exploration, as is the subject of Celtic FC and its cultural immersion in Catholicism.?

It's hard not to notice that this started from after he was seeing himself getting pelters on FF.

No, that just happens to be the small part of his output I had access to.

And, if he was so anti-Rangers, why would he kowtow to a Rangers' fans' website anyway?

[Guest Manticore]

No, that just happens to be the small part of his output I had access to.

And, if he was so anti-Rangers, why would he kowtow to a Rangers' fans' website anyway?

The odd balanced comment is hardly kowtowing.

The word from insiders though is that he's a sensitive soul and really doesn't like it.

[Guest orangpendek]

surely there can't be anyone who thinks graham speirs is a decent journo? whether he's biased or not i don't care, but his desperate, aging undergraduate routine wore thin years ago.

and why can't he say a sentence without swallowing hard halfway through? why?

[bearwhocares 0]

surely there can't be anyone who thinks graham speirs is a decent journo? whether he's biased or not i don't care, but his desperate, aging undergraduate routine wore thin years ago.

and why can't he say a sentence without swallowing hard halfway through? why?

Nervous complaint you get when you are a lying barsteward.

[bestiadegranada 0]

Spiers certainly seems to get mildly aroused most of the time he discusses Them, however I think the person who mentioned his "aging undergraduate routine" hit the nail smack bang on the head. Spiers fancies himself an educated man, an intellectual, the Malcolm Muggeridge of Scots football hackery. As with many educated people in this part of the world he makes the fashionable connections between Celtic and concepts like being the underdog, and plucky, courageous standing-up-to-the-Big-Bad-Brits. He, of course, makes the opposite and negative connections in relation to us. The fact is, and this should be what we always keep in mind when we discuss the guy, is that he lacks the intellectual rigour or even the courage to depart from these comforting yet sadly facecious stereotypes. The anti-Rangers journos in this country will never get away from these fixed ideas because they are all the same kind of educated "tricolour good union flag bad" lefties as Spiers. He is just the Alpha Male of their particular bankrupt tribe. I'm saying all this from the position of an educated leftie, by the way.

All that apart, rumour has it that if you send him an email, he's quite willing to engage you in debate.

[Frankie 505]

Spiers does answer his emails but don't expect reasonable debate.

He's right - you are wrong is the usual format. If you do manage to raise an interesting issue he either doesn't reply or says he's too busy to get involved further. Then of course he emails you again a few weeks later when the situation is different.

I wouldn't mind it if Spiers followed up his socio-commentary on the Scottish game with an interesting non-sporting piece about sectarianism but he himself admitted he doesn't know enough about the subject to comment reasonably.

A dangerous individual. But don't underestimate him.

[polar bear 0]

Ayebrox

There is a guy on Follow Follow who has already done this.....you could get the article via the site moderator. Makes eye opening reading

I used to be a regular poster on FollowFollow but was banned !

My post counts was in the thousands, I had never been given one warning or telling off of any kind.

But one day there was a thread about Barry Ferguson, and the moderator SM was getting heavily involved. SM was anti-Barry, the poster he was debating with was pro-Barry. SM was getting very frustrated with the guy, and resorted to abuse. The debate carried on for a while, and the guy was banned.

By this time I had joined into the debate to support Barry,and therefore the opinion of the other poster. When SM banned the other poster, I asked why. He said he didn't have to explain as he was a mod. I stated a second time that this was uncalled for, as the guy was debating in a very reasonable manner. Then I was banned. The message I received confirming the ban read, 'Banned. Reason: no reason.'

I had never once been aggressive on the forum, I never once swore or was abusive against anyone. But I was pro-Barry and supported Murray (while acknowledging his faults/mistakes) This got to some of the high profile posters I think, and SM took the opportunity to ban me. Very unreasonable in my view.

Anyway, to cut a very long story short, I can't get onto FollowFollow as I am banned ! I could have signed back up since then using a different account, but to be honest, despite the fact that it's a well run site and has some good posters, too many of the high profile posters ruin it in my opinion by not being accepting enough of opinions that are different to theirs. I felt that too many of the majority were scared to speak out against the high profile minority.

Sometimes I would debate about Murray or Barry for example, and would get ridiculed and abused. I'd be debating on my own with a whole pack of posters having a go at me. And then someone would start an anonymous poll on the topic, and the majority would vote for the side I had been debating all that time ! And I'm left thinking, why didn't you speak your mind when I was getting a verbal kicking earlier !

There is some fantastic content on the site, but it's far to 'my way or the highway' for my liking. I now use another forum where some other posters, really decent non-trouble making guys, have left or been banned in similar circumstances. The saddest thing for me was not so much the fact I couldn't use the site anymore, but the treatment I received from fellow Bears.

WTF I was banned for defending Barry also.

[delparlane 5,692]

Thanks for posting (or re-posting some of) this information, gents. Makes for some very interesting reading.