Twitter

[SANTAN]

11 hours ago, velo army said:

Not a position I. a Lanarkshire catholic (the papiest of papes imo), might be expected to be occupying, but here we are.

Rangers are taking a laudable stance in support of their player. It's actually a great bit of leadership which will make it easier for other clubs to emulate should their players be on the receiving end of abuse (and if it isn't happening already, it will). There will be those at the club who bridle at the association Rangers and its support have with sectarianism and anti-catholic bigotry, and who want to move wholesale away from that atavistic shite. Their hand will be strengthened by this. 

Attacking Rangers for having a history of sectarianism in response to this action is weird. Of course they had a policy of not signing catholics and of course that was wrong. I don't think you'll find too many people defending that record on here. But using that as a stick to beat them with while they're showing strong leadership and great support for a player daily abused because of his race isn't constructive. 

When your first response to an act of social good is shaming then it's generally because the person or people doing the good have stepped out of the role you had assigned for them. It means that you depend on them being the big bad wolf of the story, on whom you can heap blame and opprobrium. It's what we do when we want them to return to the role we had for them. People will live up or down to our expectations. If we want Rangers to reform (and for their fans to become less interested in the integrity of Derry's walls etc) then the best thing to do here is to praise this unconditionally. People move towards praise, but if they don't get it then they'll move towards criticism and become what we criticise them for (a hug is better than a punch, but a punch is better than nothing).

So aye, if you care as much as you claim to about bigotry then you're duty bound to give the sticky buns a hearty slap on the back for this. If you're not doing that then you need to own your part in its continuation. 

E.T.A. 1000th post!!! Expecting a telegram from the Queen if she's not too busy right now.

Your post is mostly spot on but the emboldened part is nonsense. 

The reason people won't argue against it here is quite simply because they want it to be true and know very little of the history of the club. You can perhaps argue Rangers did not sign as many Catholics as you would expect per demographics but you can not argue that we have ever had policy which aims at this. It's just untrue and there are numerous Catholics that have played for the club before Mo Johnston.

[SANTAN]

Back on topic. 

 

[velo army]

17 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Your post is mostly spot on but the emboldened part is nonsense. 

The reason people won't argue against it here is quite simply because they want it to be true and know very little of the history of the club. You can perhaps argue Rangers did not sign as many Catholics as you would expect per demographics but you can not argue that we have ever had policy which aims at this. It's just untrue and there are numerous Catholics that have played for the club before Mo Johnston.

Fair enough. I don't fancy getting into exactly what the policy was, whether it was a "don't ask, don't tell" kind of thing or whether it was an urban myth that the club never overtly challenged. We can agree that your club had an anti-catholic problem for decades and just leave it at that.

[Guest]

It's just untrue and there are numerous Catholics that have played for the club before Mo Johnston.

Between 1930 and 1989 when Johnston signed how many Roman Catholics did Rangers actually sign? As this is when the ban was apparently in place.

[SANTAN]

Just now, Empty It said:

 

 

Between 1930 and 1989 when Johnston signed how many Roman Catholics did Rangers actually sign? As this is when the ban was apparently in place.

 

I don't know of the top of my head. 

There was never a ban in place. Who introduced this made up "ban"? 

[Guest]

I don't know of the top of my head. 
There was never a ban in place. Who introduced this made up "ban"? 

But surely you can name atleast one if they weren't against it? Takes a simple Google to find that they didnt sign any in that time frame but that'll just be another thing to add to the long list of coincidence.

[itzdrk]

5 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

I don't know of the top of my head. 

There was never a ban in place. Who introduced this made up "ban"? 

Rangers

[SANTAN]

13 minutes ago, Empty It said:

17 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

I don't know of the top of my head. 
There was never a ban in place. Who introduced this made up "ban"? 

But surely you can name atleast one if they weren't against it? Takes a simple Google to find that they didnt sign any in that time frame but that'll just be another thing to add to the long list of coincidence.

Funnily enough I don't remember players from a time period 30 years before I was born and their chosen religion. 

If you perhaps do a more extensive google you will find plenty of sources showing catholics that played for Rangers in that time period, perhaps someone could point to any shred of evidence that there was a specific policy put in place like what was initially claimed. 

[Guest]

Funnily enough I don't remember players from a time period 30 years before I was born and their chosen religion. 
If you perhaps do a more extensive google you will find plenty of sources showing catholics that played for Rangers in that time period, perhaps someone could point to any shred of evidence that there was a specific policy put in place like what was initially claimed. 

Not as if a vice chairman come out and said something along the lines of our heritage when asked about it and several players and managers speaking out about it. Some conspiracy against the mighty Rangers this must be.

[SANTAN]

7 minutes ago, Empty It said:

9 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Funnily enough I don't remember players from a time period 30 years before I was born and their chosen religion. 
If you perhaps do a more extensive google you will find plenty of sources showing catholics that played for Rangers in that time period, perhaps someone could point to any shred of evidence that there was a specific policy put in place like what was initially claimed. 

Not as if a vice chairman come out and said something along the lines of our heritage when asked about it and several players and managers speaking out about it. Some conspiracy against the mighty Rangers this must be.

So you don't have proof of a signing policy. Colour me surprised. 

[Pocketman]

5 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

So you don't have proof of a signing policy. Colour me surprised. 

this seems reasonably well sourced:

Prior to the First World War, Rangers did not have any policy regarding players' religion, and at that time the club did have a number of Catholic players.^[2][3] In the 1920s, following the rise in popularity of the Orange Order in Glasgow where Rangers players and directors attended functions,^[4] Rangers quietly introduced an unwritten rule that the club would not sign any player or employ any staff member who was openly Catholic.^[5][6] An indication that the policy was specifically anti-Catholic rather than Protestant-only was Rangers' signing of Egyptian international Mohamed Latif in 1934.^[7]

The policy was not acknowledged publicly until 1965 when Ralph Brand, on leaving the club for Manchester City, told the News of the World that Rangers operated a Protestants-only policy.^[8] Two years later vice-chairman Matt Taylor was asked about perceived anti-Catholicism with the ban on Catholics at Rangers; he stated "[it is] part of our tradition ... we were formed in 1873 as a Protestant boys club. To change now would lose us considerable support".^[9]Northern Irish club Linfield, which shares a similar culture to Rangers, had a similar policy, though not as strict as Rangers', until the 1980s, as a contrast to their Big Two rivals Glentoran.^[10]

 

[Guest]

You could just come out and condemn the signing policy instead of doubling down and coming across as a sectarian sympathiser. By constantly denying it you're just defending a bunch of bigots.

[SANTAN]

3 hours ago, KingRocketman II said:

this seems reasonably well sourced:

Prior to the First World War, Rangers did not have any policy regarding players' religion, and at that time the club did have a number of Catholic players.^[2][3] In the 1920s, following the rise in popularity of the Orange Order in Glasgow where Rangers players and directors attended functions,^[4] Rangers quietly introduced an unwritten rule that the club would not sign any player or employ any staff member who was openly Catholic.^[5][6] An indication that the policy was specifically anti-Catholic rather than Protestant-only was Rangers' signing of Egyptian international Mohamed Latif in 1934.^[7]

The policy was not acknowledged publicly until 1965 when Ralph Brand, on leaving the club for Manchester City, told the News of the World that Rangers operated a Protestants-only policy.^[8] Two years later vice-chairman Matt Taylor was asked about perceived anti-Catholicism with the ban on Catholics at Rangers; he stated "[it is] part of our tradition ... we were formed in 1873 as a Protestant boys club. To change now would lose us considerable support".^[9]Northern Irish club Linfield, which shares a similar culture to Rangers, had a similar policy, though not as strict as Rangers', until the 1980s, as a contrast to their Big Two rivals Glentoran.^[10]

 

1 ex player saying "protestant only" isn't a reputable source of a no catholic signing policy. You'll not find any because it didn't exist and if it did exist then they did a terrible job considering we signed numerous catholic players and other players from different religions. 

2 hours ago, Empty It said:

You could just come out and condemn the signing policy instead of doubling down and coming across as a sectarian sympathiser. By constantly denying it you're just defending a bunch of bigots.

Why would I condemn a mythical signing policy?

Do you condemn things that don't exist? How on earth does that come across as "a sectarian sympathiser"??? I'm not defending any bigots, I'm refuting made up stories. 

[jimbaxters]

3 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

1 ex player saying "protestant only" isn't a reputable source of a no catholic signing policy. You'll not find any because it didn't exist and if it did exist then they did a terrible job considering we signed numerous catholic players and other players from different religions. 

Why would I condemn a mythical signing policy?

Do you condemn things that don't exist? How on earth does that come across as "a sectarian sympathiser"??? I'm not defending any bigots, I'm refuting made up stories. 

Blow them out the water by naming the catholic signings.

[Pocketman]

16 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

1 ex player saying "protestant only" isn't a reputable source of a no catholic signing policy. You'll not find any because it didn't exist and if it did exist then they did a terrible job considering we signed numerous catholic players and other players from different religions. 

Why would I condemn a mythical signing policy?

Do you condemn things that don't exist? How on earth does that come across as "a sectarian sympathiser"??? I'm not defending any bigots, I'm refuting made up stories. 

you are bizarrely ignoring the subsequent statement by then then Vice Chairman.

But yes, If you  exclude the VC statement (why did he give that statement?), and also overlook the refusal by Rangers to sign a Catholic player over a  60 year period, and also ignore that pretty much everyone  in Scottish football acknowledged and/or lampooned this signing policy (Ricki Fulton and Gregor Fisher's Scotch and Wry Brendan O'Mally sketch for example) then yes, it is one ex-player's word. 

Edited April 10, 2021 by KingRocketman II
spelling

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Blow them out the water by naming the catholic signings.

Aye, go on, Stormzy. It shouldn't take long..

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

20 minutes ago, KingRocketman II said:

(Ricki Fulton and Gregor Fisher's Scotch and Wry Brendan O'Mally sketch for example)

At the end of 1967 Rangers had done a deal to buy Ian Porterfield from Raith Rovers until it hit a (elephant in the room) stumbling block.

Their loss was Sunderland's gain as Porterfield helped them win the FA cup some years later.

[Mark Connolly]

It was never a written policy nudge nudge, wink wink, funny handshake, one trouser leg rolled up, etc

[Guest]

Blow them out the water by naming the catholic signings.

They signed a player Laurie Blyth who was catholic, only problem is he was hounded out when they found out. No policy though.

[velo army]

Quite the hill to die on this. All its doing is bringing the focus back to the historical discrimination and away from the good work being done by your club.

It happened, it isn't in place now, they're doing good work now and it should be applauded.