aofjays Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Mo Jo was a fucking great signing, scored loads of goals and annoyed the fcuk out of our east end neighbours, I was delighted when he joined Rangers. Do you think you deserve some kind of pat on the back for acting like an adult human being? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calum_gers Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 So three men that were there are wrong and you with your complete lack of access to such individuals are right? Whatever. If you want to lie to yourself go right ahead just don't expect anyone else to believe it. Just out of interest, those idiots outside the gates the day Mo Jo signed burning their scarves and tops as the TV reported the end of rangers sectarian signing policy. Why do you think they were doing that? Because they were idiots? If they hadn't been doing that they would been off being idiotic elsewhere. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 does anyone ever reply to a williemillersmoustache post I'm pretty sure you have. Ya b*****d 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 so tell me how this policy operated and from when it started and ended please? I'm not going to attempt to draw any conclusions about those who followed Rangers at the time the policy was in operation - different time, different ethics in some respects. Don't however insult our intelligence and your own, by implying that no such policy existed. It very clearly did and it surely leaves a bad taste? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 So three men that were there are wrong and you with your complete lack of access to such individuals are right? Whatever. If you want to lie to yourself go right ahead just don't expect anyone else to believe it. Just out of interest, those idiots outside the gates the day Mo Jo signed burning their scarves and tops as the TV reported the end of rangers sectarian signing policy. Why do you think they were doing that? Of course their was unhappy supports on both sides of the situation based on religion, loyalty and seeing him as a traitor etc and various other aspects. What does that have to do with the debate? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calum_gers Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 I'm not going to attempt to draw any conclusions about those who followed Rangers at the time the policy was in operation - different time, different ethics in some respects. Don't however insult our intelligence and your own, by implying that no such policy existed. It very clearly did and it surely leaves a bad taste? I can't say it leaves a particularly bad taste but I'm happy it no longer exists and by modern standards I find it strange that it ever did. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 I'm not going to attempt to draw any conclusions about those who followed Rangers at the time the policy was in operation - different time, different ethics in some respects. Don't however insult our intelligence and your own, by implying that no such policy existed. It very clearly did and it surely leaves a bad taste? a policy never existed , their was an unwritten rule adopted over a certain time period I accept but it certainly was not an official policy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 so tell me how this policy operated and from when it started and ended please? Are you serious? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 a policy never existed , their was an unwritten rule adopted over a certain time period I accept but it certainly was not an official policy. You're splitting hairs. The policy does not need to be framed in a document in order to exist. It was in effect, official policy, explicitly stated or otherwise. We both know this, so let's not be silly about it by pursuing this line further. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 a policy never existed , their was an unwritten rule adopted over a certain time period I accept but it certainly was not an official policy. I really despair at your inability to read. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 I can't say it leaves a particularly bad taste but I'm happy it no longer exists and by modern standards I find it strange that it ever did. That's fair enough, but I'd have thought that it's an aspect of the club's history that should inspire no pride for anyone but the genuinely bigoted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Official or unofficial. For some rangers fans, nothing to be ashamed of. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Are you serious? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Nice reply ... confirms what I thought. Entirely subjective and nae concrete proof. I'll accept this as an admission that the bolded statement, I highlighted, is wrong. Ok, I'd describe the OF as a body, as dormant rather than dead. As a handy label however, it's very much alive and well for me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 I really despair at your inability to read. dont despair dave 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Key factors. Well indeed. I don't have to say "in my opinion" every time I provide one as I float randomly around, do I? I'd kind of assumed that was a given. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 i think most of us can acknowledge that a policy doesn't need to be written to be applied. what is disgusting is not just the club that followed that policy, but the sfa did nothing. there is not a lot they could have done without proper documentation stating this policy, if they had to tried to do anything and rangers chose to take it to a court for example , any lawyer would have a field day with the sfa's stance . to put it simply, all the sfa could have done at most was forced/pushed rangers towards signing a catholic to be fair. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 From founding until Mo Jo signed according to rangers staff. Yes there were 14 others before him but I think you know fine well the policy existed. Don't believe me? Lets ask Matt Taylor: [the policy was] "part of our tradition….we were formed in 1873 as a Protestant boys club. To change now would lose us considerable support". Rangers were formed as a football club by those with a love of the game and sport in general, that is all. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 there is not a lot they could have done without proper documentation stating this policy, if they had to tried to do anything and rangers chose to take it to a court for example , any lawyer would have a field day with the sfa's stance . to put it simply, all the sfa could have done at most was forced/pushed rangers towards signing a catholic to be fair. Is it not the case that one of the things that led Murray and Souness to depart from policy, was that UEFA were quietly expressing unease? I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere, from around the time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Is it not the case that one of the things that led Murray and Souness to depart from policy, was that UEFA were quietly expressing unease? I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere, from around the time. I am not sure to be honest , could be true but again the only thing uefa could have done was breathed heavily down rangers neck and make them sign a catholic, without the legal documentation of this being an official policy they could not do much else if you get what I mean. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.