Dons Supporters Together Statement on Rangers Situation

Like the Ch4 guys it's all very 'Old Firm' for my liking.

 

The OF need the rest of Scottish football much more than we need them. Without a league of opponents to compete with, they cannot survive.

 

Who are these people, Rebel? (Yes, I know, I know, they are "Dons supporters" and they are "together" - but still. Where did they come from and when did they arrive and why wasn't I immediately informed? Hurting here.)

As to their main points (and excluding the grammatically unstylish nature and declarative self-importance of the pronouncement), however, fair enough. Almost. I can see where they're coming from and feel more or less comfortable with that.

Are you mocking the heroic Aberdeen fans, Dev? Square go? (I feel emboldened since learning that you no longer have access to a gun.) But you see the sentence "without a league of opponents to compete with, they cannot survive"? That's probably true, no? It seems such an obvious point to make, granted, but I actually feel that it's one worth making, fearing as I do that Rangers and Celtic far too readily dismiss the necessity and/or contribution of their fellow Scottish travellers. And the voting system and allocation of monies may be seen as being deeply unfair, seemingly eternally loaded in favour of the Glasgow pair. I would love to see the other clubs do something deeply radical - I long for it - but reckon they'll probably make a bit of noise for a while before settling back down towards the comforts of an emasculated incompetence. (As a total by the by, but one of the reasons I'd love Scotland to be independent is that it would disallow Scots the option of blaming the English for all of their ills. When it doesn't embarrass me, it bores me senseless.)

Rebel, what's wrong with the expression "Old Firm"? (Just out of interest.) Is it simply because you don't want to be (seen to be) aligned with Rangers in any way? And did you like the statement from the pompous sheep or did it have you banging your head softly against the floor?

 

Dear Mr RebelBhoy,

your use of 1) and B) whilst " enumerating " points has always sat somewhat uncomfortably with me. Now you compound my discomfort by the addition of a somewhat Roman styled iii ).
I trust that you can feel my beel,

yours in dignified sporting integrity,

RL

 

We share a common beel Miss Rougé.

 

It's another statement that is factually incorrect.

Rangers never overspent from Souness onwards. Rangers were well run right up until Advocaat came and even since then, we were run within budget right up until the Credit crunch.

The 'Sporting Integrity' of the league has not suddenly been called into question. The Shyster has not paid tax this season only. That is not the clubs fault, it's the fault of one slippery bastard.

The EBT case is sDM's gift to the Rangers fans, the fans of Scottish football and Scottish society. And has yet to be proven one way or the other.

 

Nice one, Rebel, thanks. I’m just sorry I couldn’t shed any further light on Dons Supporters Together for you. However, for the greater public good…..

I had a look at their “About Us” section and it seems that they aim “to act as the democratic and representative voice of all Dons Supporters to allow any and all fans of Aberdeen Football Club to have a strong collective voice.”

Also, “to reflect the inclusive and collective nature of [the] organisation, membership is free to all.”

A bit pricey for me, but I’m sure they mean well. (Did somebody not once say that they would be very wary of joining any club that would have them as a member? That’s a bit how I feel, anyway.)

They used to be known as the AFC Trust (I’d actually heard of them, without ever knowing what they were about) and are an “Industrial and Provident Society….regulated by the Financial Services Authority”. It is their belief that “fans are the moral owners of their football club – they are the life blood of a club. No fans. No football club.”

I feel I should like these people – we all probably should – and yet I instinctively recoil from their attempts to give me “a voice” and feel a low-level loathing of the way they position (and see) themselves as being able to provide such a platform. Something in their certainty sets me on edge. But there we are.

Incidentally, I’m an Old Firm fan (how do you do?) in as much as I support both teams every single time they play in Europe. Under these circumstances, I find that supporting both teams is very, very easy.

“Rangers may have set an agenda, but they didn't lead anyone by the nose.” That’s true enough, although I suppose it may be said that their actions irreparably disfigured the Scottish game. (On the other hand, if Rangers hadn’t acted in such a manner, someone else would have probably done so at some point – given half a chance.)

A) I simply don’t know how to care about the answer to such a question. It’s impossible. Sorry.
3) Correct, it isn’t a fact.
F) I’d like to see a simple majority being sufficient. If more clubs vote in favour of something than vote against….that’ll do for me. This is the basis of our democracy, however galling the end results may occasionally be.

I’m not sure logic is going to play any part in all of this, so you may be destined towards a disappointment. No, I imagine this will be an appeal to your better angels, nothing else: Celtic and Rangers will always get more loot than anyone else through their season ticket sales, merchandise and sold advertising, so let’s have equality in TV money, a far smaller gap in what 2nd and 3rd placed teams earn for their endeavours, a little less talk of moving to England and – if the present set-up remains exactly the same – a little less mocking of other teams for failing to mount a challenge. Something like that. This is before we even get onto institutional (and press) bias in favour of the Old Firm – it makes me bang my head in despair when I see Rangers and Celtic fans try to out-victim each other. If only they knew, if only they knew…..

I’m blethering off the top of my head, though, so haven’t really managed to articulate what I wanted to say. Another time, maybe.

 

Oops. I just realised I used the expression "Old Firm" whilst talking to you, Rebel. No offence intended, it's simply an ingrained habit and may prove very hard to shake. I'll try not to use it in your direction again, though. Tally-ho.....

 

Thread Information

There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (5 members and 2 guests)

EDGE,
DevAdvocate,
Glesgabhoy67,
RebelBhoy

Oh, it's the Old Infirm

 

I just felt as if the statement seemed rather too obvious, like saying you can't run without legs,

As regards the "Old Firm".

I think there is a groundswell of opinion among Celtic fans that we don't want to be linked to Rangers in any way shape or form. (I have no doubt Rangers fans will feel the same way). The "Old Firm" epithet is from a bygone age when Celtic and Rangers (that sounds much better) used to always vote together on key issues, I doubt - though I can't be sure - that is still the case, nor has it been so for years. Sure, both clubs pay lip service to polite acceptance of each other but there is doubtless an underlying mistrust of all things Rangers/Celtic from the other side of the city.

I personally don't care for it but I sometimes indulge because of indolence on my part. It's easier to type OF than it is Celtic and Rangers, but apart from some historical anomaly where we may as clubs have ganged up to get our own way, there is no real connection. The usage of the term Old Firm suggests an alliance of some sort,and maybe in the past we have helped each other out because of shared interests, however, it would appear nowadays that Celtic and Rangers have practically nothing in common. TV deals? League reconstruction? On current form only a fool or a ridiculous optimist would suggest that these are issues on which Rangers wil have any great say in the next few years.

I personally would not oppose a restructured SPL, nor would Celtic I think. As far as I know the biggest barrier to reconstruction is the "Diddy" teams who want a chance of 4 games a aseason against the "Old Firm".
In summary, the Old Firm tag will always hang around our necks like an albatross scarf, we may not like it but hacks and people on internet forums are as lazy as me and will continue to use it.

 

First pics emerge from the DST meeting:

please log in to view this image

 

Obvious but still

 

Dev, hello. Thanks.

Indeedly, it was an excruciatingly obvious thing to say – no arguments there. At the risk of getting punched, however, Celtic and Rangers often give the impression (at least) that they may need reminded of this rather salient point. If you’ve not lived your life on the end of the breezy contempt the Glasgow teams (and their slavering lackeys in the press) afford their compatriots you’ll maybe not see the necessity – which is probably fair enough.

In breaking news, though, I can confirm that fans of other teams often view the “Old Firm” with an equally breezy contempt, lumping them both together and failing to see any recognisable difference between the two institutions. I do this almost permanently and it takes a real effort not to consider the two teams as being one and the same thing. Apologies in advance. (For sure, the Catholic/Protestant, Irish/British stuff may mark them down as being different in the eyes of their fans, but for me it marks them down as being quite samey – and almost vindictively dreary with it. More generally and pertinently, however, I view them both as at once giving and sucking the life out of Scottish football. And I’m a fan of Scottish football, so this can be annoying - when I remember to be annoyed.)

Interesting stuff about the origins and shifting use of the term “Old Firm”, thanks. I’m going to try to be more careful in my usage (and way of thinking). I was re-reading (a very old, very strange) book a few months back – Bill Murray, The Old Firm: Sectarianism, Sport and Society in Scotland – and the author was saying something similar to what you just said. The behaviours of both clubs, if memory serves, made the term “Old Firm” seem entirely justified – in a way that may no longer be properly relevant, as you say. Out of spite, however, I may find myself continuing to use it (in my head, at least) for as long as I see other teams or players being dismissed as either “diddy”, “mini-huns” or “Celtic-minded”. Fair’s fair.

I'm sure you're right about other teams wanting to play Celtic and Rangers four times a season and I'm sure this will be an obstacle. I can only speak personally, of course, but I would be happy enough not to play either team at all. Changed days, indeed. I'm just a bit sick of it all, the whole sorry circus. (And I'm saying this as someone who wants both teams to stay in Scotland. Mixed message? Oh yes.)

 

That's actually a pretty good turn-out. Maybe these guys are the business, after all.

 

My understanding of the term Old Firm, although it was often used to describe the actual matches between Celtic and Rangers, actually came in for full time use at the end of the 1960's when the football hacks used the term in derisively way to highlight the "bleeding" of the smaller and rural Scottish clubs when Rangers were buying players from smaller clubs. It wasn't the old firm that was buying the players and thus weakening the wee clubs, then it was Celtic. Of course at the same time these hacks praised Rangers for putting their money into the smaller clubs when they purchased from a Scottish club. When Celtic purchased a player from a Scottish club it was the Old Firm investing money into the Scottish game.

 

Aha. I don't know about everything else you said, Super Hooper, but I'm surprised to hear that the term wasn't properly used until the 1960's. I had it down in my head as having been in wide circulation many decades before that. (I'll need to go back to my book and check, but I was thinking closer to the 1920's. Maybe even before that. The mystery deepens.....)

 

Double post.