untitled

Will the 50-50 work? Well, you'd have to ask the audience.

The success of Keith Wyness' controversial suggestion to get the Dons and rangers fans cohabiting will ultimately depend on the good sense and responsibility of the hundred individuals chosen as guinea pigs. Good luck to them, I know I wouldn't want to do it. I am sure that the noble upstanding citizens hand-picked for the job won't have any bother being civil amongst themselves, but whether they continue to get along so well if and when the behaviour of those around them begins to degenerate remains to be seen (would it have been all cakes and ale on January 19, I wonder?). I'm sure all possible steps will be taken to guarantee the impeccable conduct of the Pittodrie 100 so the scheme can't do any harm, though quite what 'success' in this venture is defined as is difficult to fathom. There surely will never come a day when a significant number of rangers supporters are allowed to mingle unsegregated with those of any other SPL (Ltd) club, so it's obviously less of a water test than a goodwill gesture. Which is a dangerous thing for Wyness to attempt, as he is gaining something of a reputation around Scottish football for being all mouth and no trousers - the SFA's David Taylor has already told him to shut his trap and concentrate on his job; you can rest assured that his old farm counterparts were less than impressed with his infamous "Sauchiehall Street" gibe; and even elements among the Aberdeen support are voicing their unease at the way they see Keith courting back page headlines without necessarily delivering anything of substance. Although the papers fell over each other to applaud the limp, futile and insincere anti-bigotry schemes of the old firm several seasons ago, there was never much doubt that what could be seen as an AFC publicity stunt would be pounced upon by an avaricious media.

Nothing if not predictable, our friends in the press. Words such as "crackpot" and "mayhem" were trotted out as the Wednesday tabloids suggested that KW needed his head tested for even suggesting that foot soldiers from the two warring factions could share the same stand without harbouring thoughts of mutual murder. It's not hard to see the inconsistency in such a stance - the papers were hardly backward in their justified condemnation of the Pittodrie crowd trouble last season, but woe betide anybody who actually advances a peacemaking proposition! The simple fact is that fans of Aberdeen and rangers growing apple trees and honey bees and living in perfect harmon-ee does not sell tabloid newspapers, and as such the ambulance chasers of the west coast press, whilst all the while refusing to accept any responsibility for the degeneration of what used to be the league's top fixture, will attempt to thwart at every turn any plan to take the sting out of the fixture. Further, they will take every opportunity they are given to throw fuel on the fire - the very highbrow Daily Star takes the biscuit this week for helpfully informing its readers that the bad blood between the clubs stems from 1988, when a tackle by Neil Simpson…..zzzzzzz. In that case it's rather surprising that said paper's horoscope column isn't written by Willie Johnston; given his despicable stamp on John McMaster's throat many years previously he can clearly see the future. A very shrewd man with a clipped moustache and a large Reich once said that if you're going to tell a lie, make it a big one and tell it often - people will believe it because if it wasn't true you wouldn't dare to say it.

The most disappointing response, though, came in the leader column of the P&J (a publication which TRF has long suspected of betraying its North East roots with a view to wider sales, see the Polls section of this website). According to the editor, Derek Tucker, it's a ruddy good job that Aberdeen have made the first move, because he reckons that most of the "enmity" comes from the Red Army rather than the huns. Well that's as maybe but crucially ignores two points, and betrays the fact that Mr Tucker - not a Dons man, by the way - knows little and cares less about football (not a good idea to go shooting your mouth off about it, then).

Firstly, to say that Aberdeen fans dislike rangers more than vice versa ought to be no less obvious a statement than to say that your average Joe Bloggs republican dislikes the Royal Family more than they dislike him. In pure footballing terms Aberdeen is not a serious rival to rangers and has not been for ten years - they shouldn't give a toss about us. They ought to feel no more strongly about us than Manchester United fans do about, say, Nottingham Forest: contenders some way back but now a very minor itch. The tenor of some of the vitriolic comments rangers supporters make about AFC proves that this is anything but the case.

Secondly, it is naïve to blame one set of fans for the "enmity" without considering why it may be that the two groups can't stand each other. As far as I can tell, though there is unquestionably an unwelcome element of pure anti-rangers bigotry among a significant few Dons followers, Aberdeen supporters dislike their rangers counterparts because of the obnoxious and downright offensive way they behave in public. The sectarianism, the songs, the flags, the red hand gestures, that bloody strip, the England tops, the stubborn insistence that "it's only meant in fun byraway", the dads wrapping their (or probably the milkman's) innocent kids in regalia of long-gone religious battles, the coining of Winters (not to mention plenty of Dons fans); the list is as long as Mr Tickle's arm. On the other hand, rangers fans don't like the Red Army because the papers tell them to, because they couldn't handle the success Alex Ferguson had here in the 1980s, because we don't like them and aren't afraid to say so. Now tell us again why an Aberdeen fan's distaste for all things rangers is worse than a rangers fan's hatred for the Dons, Mr Tucker? It's not the fact that the two sets of supporters can't stand each other that sets the atmosphere of the fixture apart; Aberdeen v rangers is hardly unique in that respect - teams all over the world have others that they canna suffer to quite the same degree and it will ever be thus. The difference is the way in which it can boil over into action, and if that's an Aberdeen preserve, well, that's tangerine.

That's not to say that there is not antisocial behaviour among Aberdeen supporters, particularly where the huns are involved. The lifeforms who invaded the track during last season's fixture, for instance, were moronic in the extreme, and it is TRF's great sadness that there was not more punishment meted out after that incident. There continues to be unsavoury content within the Red Army's ibrox songbook, too, even though the most latest visit saw only one retard (still too many) attempt to celebrate the ibrox disaster in tune and be swiftly drowned out by an impromptu football song by the other 699. Nice One Simmie has had its day, if ever there was one, and is now frankly an embarrassment. It serves only to justify, not parody (they are well below sarcasm, believe me), the tabloid press' infatuation with Ian Durrant, and gives everyone - even the P&J, it seems - a stick with which to beat the Red Army. Simpson gave so much to the Aberdeen cause and deserves more than to be remembered for one crass challenge. Much would be done to shift the blame to where it belongs if this ditty were never to be heard again on the terraces of ibrox or Pittodrie. With a travelling support of only hundreds these days that wouldn't necessarily be impossible either - the infiltration of an AFC official into the away section, such as Gordon Bennett once carried out, would clearly discourage the genesis of such chants, especially one who cuts as imposing a figure as Wyness himself. If that sounds too Big Brother for you then tough - you can only go squealing about freedom to act if you can show yourself to be big enough and responsible enough to do so without causing affray, and that can no longer be said of Aberdeen fans at rangers games. We've been asked nicely to refrain from the Durrant songs time and again and it has not worked: personally I would shed no tears for someone flung out of the ground for starting another chorus.

In short, there is much to do to temper the often dark overtones surrounding the Aberdeen-rangers fixture, and not all of it is the responsibility of the other club. Keith Wyness should, at least, be applauded for making some kind of effort to blunt the edge with his 50-50 scheme, but it's only make-up. If he really wants to make a difference, there's plastic surgery to be done.

Home

*Will the 50-50 work? Well, you'd have to ask the audience.*
The success of Keith Wyness' controversial suggestion to get the Dons and rangers fans cohabiting will ultimately depend on the good sense and responsibility of the hundred individuals chosen as guinea pigs. Good luck to them, I know I wouldn't want to do it. I am sure that the noble upstanding citizens hand-picked for the job won't have any bother being civil amongst themselves, but whether they continue to get along so well if and when the behaviour of those around them begins to degenerate remains to be seen (would it have been all cakes and ale on January 19, I wonder?). I'm sure all possible steps will be taken to guarantee the impeccable conduct of the Pittodrie 100 so the scheme can't do any harm, though quite what 'success' in this venture is defined as is difficult to fathom. There surely will never come a day when a significant number of rangers supporters are allowed to mingle unsegregated with those of any other SPL (Ltd) club, so it's obviously less of a water test than a goodwill gesture. Which is a dangerous thing for Wyness to attempt, as he is gaining something of a reputation around Scottish football for being all mouth and no trousers - the SFA's David Taylor has already told him to shut his trap and concentrate on his job; you can rest assured that his old farm counterparts were less than impressed with his infamous "Sauchiehall Street" gibe; and even elements among the Aberdeen support are voicing their unease at the way they see Keith courting back page headlines without necessarily delivering anything of substance. Although the papers fell over each other to applaud the limp, futile and insincere anti-bigotry schemes of the old firm several seasons ago, there was never much doubt that what could be seen as an AFC publicity stunt would be pounced upon by an avaricious media. Nothing if not predictable, our friends in the press. Words such as "crackpot" and "mayhem" were trotted out as the Wednesday tabloids suggested that KW needed his head tested for even suggesting that foot soldiers from the two warring factions could share the same stand without harbouring thoughts of mutual murder. It's not hard to see the inconsistency in such a stance - the papers were hardly backward in their justified condemnation of the Pittodrie crowd trouble last season, but woe betide anybody who actually advances a peacemaking proposition! The simple fact is that fans of Aberdeen and rangers growing apple trees and honey bees and living in perfect harmon-ee does not sell tabloid newspapers, and as such the ambulance chasers of the west coast press, whilst all the while refusing to accept any responsibility for the degeneration of what used to be the league's top fixture, will attempt to thwart at every turn any plan to take the sting out of the fixture. Further, they will take every opportunity they are given to throw fuel on the fire - the very highbrow Daily Star takes the biscuit this week for helpfully informing its readers that the bad blood between the clubs stems from 1988, when a tackle by Neil Simpson…..zzzzzzz. In that case it's rather surprising that said paper's horoscope column isn't written by Willie Johnston; given his despicable stamp on John McMaster's throat many years previously he can clearly see the future. A very shrewd man with a clipped moustache and a large Reich once said that if you're going to tell a lie, make it a big one and tell it often - people will believe it because if it wasn't true you wouldn't dare to say it. The most disappointing response, though, came in the leader column of the P&J (a publication which TRF has long suspected of betraying its North East roots with a view to wider sales, see the Polls section of this website). According to the editor, Derek Tucker, it's a ruddy good job that Aberdeen have made the first move, because he reckons that most of the "enmity" comes from the Red Army rather than the huns. Well that's as maybe but crucially ignores two points, and betrays the fact that Mr Tucker - not a Dons man, by the way - knows little and cares less about football (not a good idea to go shooting your mouth off about it, then). Firstly, to say that Aberdeen fans dislike rangers more than vice versa ought to be no less obvious a statement than to say that your average Joe Bloggs republican dislikes the Royal Family more than they dislike him. In pure footballing terms Aberdeen is not a serious rival to rangers and has not been for ten years - they shouldn't give a toss about us. They ought to feel no more strongly about us than Manchester United fans do about, say, Nottingham Forest: contenders some way back but now a very minor itch. The tenor of some of the vitriolic comments rangers supporters make about AFC proves that this is anything but the case. Secondly, it is naïve to blame one set of fans for the "enmity" without considering why it may be that the two groups can't stand each other. As far as I can tell, though there is unquestionably an unwelcome element of pure anti-rangers bigotry among a significant few Dons followers, Aberdeen supporters dislike their rangers counterparts because of the obnoxious and downright offensive way they behave in public. The sectarianism, the songs, the flags, the red hand gestures, that bloody strip, the England tops, the stubborn insistence that "it's only meant in fun byraway", the dads wrapping their (or probably the milkman's) innocent kids in regalia of long-gone religious battles, the coining of Winters (not to mention plenty of Dons fans); the list is as long as Mr Tickle's arm. On the other hand, rangers fans don't like the Red Army because the papers tell them to, because they couldn't handle the success Alex Ferguson had here in the 1980s, because we don't like them and aren't afraid to say so. Now tell us again why an Aberdeen fan's distaste for all things rangers is worse than a rangers fan's hatred for the Dons, Mr Tucker? It's not the fact that the two sets of supporters can't stand each other that sets the atmosphere of the fixture apart; Aberdeen v rangers is hardly unique in that respect - teams all over the world have others that they canna suffer to quite the same degree and it will ever be thus. The difference is the way in which it can boil over into action, and if that's an Aberdeen preserve, well, that's tangerine. That's not to say that there is not antisocial behaviour among Aberdeen supporters, particularly where the huns are involved. The lifeforms who invaded the track during last season's fixture, for instance, were moronic in the extreme, and it is TRF's great sadness that there was not more punishment meted out after that incident. There continues to be unsavoury content within the Red Army's ibrox songbook, too, even though the most latest visit saw only one retard (still too many) attempt to celebrate the ibrox disaster in tune and be swiftly drowned out by an impromptu football song by the other 699. Nice One Simmie has had its day, if ever there was one, and is now frankly an embarrassment. It serves only to justify, not parody (they are well below sarcasm, believe me), the tabloid press' infatuation with Ian Durrant, and gives everyone - even the P&J, it seems - a stick with which to beat the Red Army. Simpson gave so much to the Aberdeen cause and deserves more than to be remembered for one crass challenge. Much would be done to shift the blame to where it belongs if this ditty were never to be heard again on the terraces of ibrox or Pittodrie. With a travelling support of only hundreds these days that wouldn't necessarily be impossible either - the infiltration of an AFC official into the away section, such as Gordon Bennett once carried out, would clearly discourage the genesis of such chants, especially one who cuts as imposing a figure as Wyness himself. If that sounds too Big Brother for you then tough - you can only go squealing about freedom to act if you can show yourself to be big enough and responsible enough to do so without causing affray, and that can no longer be said of Aberdeen fans at rangers games. We've been asked nicely to refrain from the Durrant songs time and again and it has not worked: personally I would shed no tears for someone flung out of the ground for starting another chorus. In short, there is much to do to temper the often dark overtones surrounding the Aberdeen-rangers fixture, and not all of it is the responsibility of the other club. Keith Wyness should, at least, be applauded for making some kind of effort to blunt the edge with his 50-50 scheme, but it's only make-up. If he really wants to make a difference, there's plastic surgery to be done.
	Home