• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bruce778

  • Birthday 07/10/1986

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Football, golf, tennis, Rangers FC, music.
  1. This does seem like a strange kick off time dictated by Sky as a result of 2 Jan not being a public holiday in England. I think it should be moved but doesn't seem likely. A few people have said it would be "preferential treatment" to move the fixture, inferring that Rangers and Celtic would somehow benefit from the game being moved 24 hours or 48 hours. This is a strange comment as it seems to me that moving the fixture provides no advantage to either team whatsoever but would be a decision made on public safety grounds. Personally, I would have no issue with the Edinburgh derby of Dundee derby being moved if requested by the police or others. I certainly wouldn't think the Edinburgh or Dundee clubs were being given preferential treatment. But I suppose people get a bit precious, incoherent and petty when it comes to Rangers and Celtic.
  2. Anyone based in Oz watching the game and if so what channel/website? Happy to pay a website to watch it. Doesn't seem to be on any of the Foxtel channels, but the France game is on ESPN next week.
  3. I'm not disagreeing with that. Unfortunately, its a reality that among football supporters of a crowd of that size there will be idiots. You can't just not allow them to attend. Anyone fighting should be identified and dealt with by the law. Clearly there were idiots on both sides but I highly doubt Rangers fans would have been fighting if not provoked in the first place, but who knows. Im sure many Rangers fans would like to have applauded their team after a long successful season despite defeat but were not allowed to because of the pitch invasion.
  4. Can see the spin machine at work. This will be all Rangers fault in a few days time. did hibs fans have a "need" to be on the pitch?
  5. I don't think Rangers said their fans were innocent. Undeniably, Rangers fans went on the pitch, but it was in response to provocation and goading by hibs fans who went on the pitch and ran towards Rangers fans at the opposite end of the stadium - not just to celebrate their win like most pitch invasions. Fighting by by any supporter on the pitch is obviously unacceptable regardless of which team they support. However, you're pretty naive if you expect that any set of fans at a neutral venue of 21.000 fans each would, on the whole, be so restrained so that none would respond to such goading or taunting - which hasn't been seen in Scottish football at such a game for decades.
  6. Let's not blow it out of proportions? Eh? If, and it's a big if, rangers players and staff were assaulted, then the SFA have no choice but to throw the book at hibs. It's as serious as the assault on neil Lennon. If we get to the stage where football players are not safe on the pitch, then it will affect all football fans in Scotland. We have stadiums that allow fans onto the pitch to avoid a hillsborough repetition - those stadiums can only operate if there is a certain level of trust that fans will not run onto the pitch and attack players. Being caught up in a mob mentality and the excitement of winning the Scottish cup for the first time in over 100 years is not an excuse for assaulting football players (or anyone for that matter). I would like to think everyone would agree that: 1. Hibs fans invading the pitch is unacceptable and has not been seen in a cup final in decades, even for teams who hadn't won the cup before or in decades. However, there is a certain level of understanding given hibs atrocious record in the Scottish cup, the circumstances of the win and the relief that must have been felt by their fans. 2. That understanding does not extend to hibs fans who made their way to the Rangers half of hampden for no other reason than to provoke rangers fans. An odd way to celebrate. 3. Rangers fans who reacted to those hibs fans and any of the hibs fans who engaged in fighting on the pitch are clearly out of order. 4. If there is found to be assaults on players and staff of Rangers (or hibs), the SFA must deal with that very strongly. This is the second time in a year fans have done this against rangers. What actually happened to Motherwell? There was also that incident where the Motherwell fan "accidentally" hit lee mcculloch in the face with his flag stick. Did anything come of that? Not likely is my guess but happy to be proved wrong. Lots of people on here have a go at Rangers for refusing to bury the hatchet regarding the past 5 years (and in some cases there is a valid point there), but as far as actual fans incidents go, it seems to me that it's other teams and not Rangers who have the pedigree for serious provocative behaviour. The SFA have to act where the SPL didn't with Motherwell to avoid this escalating. Call me paranoid but I think if Rangers fans had done something similar at the end of the semi final there would be a much less sympathetic response. In fact the government would probably be convening a summit about it. As far as the game goes, hibs were far more dangerous and effective than Rangers. Possession wasn't used well and we looked rusty. Of concern is that Stubbs appears to have tactically out thought Warburton. The defence was an absolute shambles and there is definitely a lot of work required to rectify that. Well done to hibs - good to get that monkey off their back and I hope they get promoted next season cos Scottish football needs teams like hibs competing in the top league.
  7. I thought this thread couldn't get any more mental then I saw Leigh Griffiths being compared to David Beckham.....
  8. So we are sure he was a Rangers fan when he threw the flare but not sure if he was a Rangers fan when he entered the ground?Sounds logical...
  9. The issue is motherwells failure to identify the fan and failure to steward properly. If it was a Rangers fan then Motherwell failed to stop him having access to the home end, failed to stop him getting in with a flare, failed to stop him throwing the flare and have subsequently failed to identify him. That's the issue.
  10. I like how this thread has been spun to focus on anything but the pitch invasion and goading by Motherwell fans. Seems to me Motherwell has been let off very lightly.
  11. I assumed that the first thing the new board would do would be to hand in the notice on the sports direct contract. Reading that statement, it looks like it has only been done recently, which is disappointing. But at least it has been done I suppose.
  12. You're the one who first said you didn't understand why people were saying it was aberdeens "fault".Unless Inverness breached their contract with their player, which I doubt, it can't be anyone else's "fault" than aberdeens, just like every other transfer that doesn't happen (assuming the player agrees). The reason it didn't happen (again barring a breach of contract by Inverness) is because Aberdeen didn't persuade Inverness to sell the player. Just like it was Rangers fault that Scott Allen didn't sign for them.
  13. That's how transfers work. It's a deal negotiated by both clubs. If the buying club doesn't offer enough, the selling club won't accept the offer. So it is aberdeens fault they didn't sign the player. It doesn't mean they didn't act reasonably or properly value the player, but there is no one else to blame.
  14. If you activated the buy out clause we wouldn't be having this discussion. Who's being ridiculous now? Without any proof you are suggesting Inverness have plainly ignored the contract with their player. While I don't know what happened either, I would suggest it's less likely to be a case of Inverness ignoring the clause in the contract than Aberdeen simply not offering enough for the player.
  15. It can't be anyone other than aberdeens fault that they didn't sign the player assuming he was willing to join them. They didn't offer enough money to the selling club. Seems pretty simple.