Leaderboard

Comparisons? Remember the day Steven Gerrard was revealed as the next Rangers Manager? BBC Scotland's Chief Sports Correspondent, Chris McLaughlin remembers it well, he stood on the grassy knoll at the edge of the Hinshelwood waste ground, as the national media passed him by. The club had withdrawn his press privileges three years previously, after he broadcast a match report of a 2-6 Rangers victory at Easter Road in the Petrofac Cup, leading with, "Police have arrested four supporters from the away section and charged them with alleged sectarian chanting". Chris did social media then, and he justified his leading and including this fact in a match report, by stating he always spoke to the Match Commander before broadcasting. There is a direct comparison because a few weeks later, Christopher's favourite football team was playing at Pittodrie. Those watching endured the usual IRA karaoke, and waited on Chris to provide his match report on national radio. It contained no mention of sectarian chanting and no arrests. Bears engaged with Chris on social media, reminding him of his claim he always spoke to the Match Commander. Chris assured all he had spoken to the appropriate police officer, and their were no arrests for sectarian chanting. Imagine our surprise when the Aberdeen Press and Journal revealed the next morning, that six supporters from the away section had been arrested for alleged sectarian chanting? Back to the grassy knoll, Chris determined to get an angle on Gerrard's signing that other media sources had not pursued. He found someone who played at Rangers and shared the pitch with Gerrard as a teammate. He passed the interview on to Phil Goodlad and the Shetlander addressed Charlie Adam. It was pre-recorded and hail-hailed by the usual PQ Gang Hut suspects as a must listen. Charlie concluded Gerrard had made decent signings and had enough man management skills to secure second, comfortably. The occupants of the Gang Hut did NOT agree with that particular conclusion. Big Dick, Wullie Miller, Tom English, and Allan Preston were having none of it. A comfortable cooing ensued as Tom English pronounced, "the Scottish game has changed since Charlie left, he is out of touch, his conclusion is arrogant". Wullie Miller delivered the coup de gras, "Rangers have always been arrogant". The season progressed and the first half was a blur of games. Our league and league cup fixtures were regularly interspersed with a 14 game Europa Cup run. PQ's focus was our defeat to Aberdeen in the semi-final of the league cup, Umar Sadiq produced much hilarity and we were reminded he was a Gerrard signing. The league cup final had Liam McLeod purring that normal service had been resumed as Scotland's best two teams in the last several seasons, were once again contesting the trophy. The end of March saw the last rites being administered to Strict Liability, as Dolly sectarianly abused Gerrard at Ibrox. Songs about the Ibrox Disaster and the engraving in two foot high letters, 'HaHa 66' on the Rangers team coach in an Aberdeen Hotel car park; ran contrary to Wullie Miller's Sunday newspaper empathetic claim, like Steve Clarke he was happy to leave Glasgow as a teenager, "there is no bile in Aberdeen". Now, the Gang Hut will NOT discuss bilious Aberdeen, but they realised an interference must be run on strong claims for strict liability. The beginning of April saw a return to that question, 'has Gerrard improved Rangers'? The spectrum of answers from the Gang Hut was narrow, some reckoned on a marginal improvement, others offered Gerrard's Rangers were not challenging for the title and would be fortunate to finish ahead of both the Dons and Killie. Fairs fair, and I must mention Billy Dodds EBT and Stephen Thompson EBT. Both mentioned our 14 game Europa Cup run compared to last season's two game calamity against Progres. Obviously, it was a three line whip across PQ, because even the very new, 'View from the Terrace' on BBC Scotland's second channel discussed it and Craig Fowler supported the preferred conclusion. Last Sunday, Big Dick, Liam McLeod, Wullie Miller, and Neil McCann gather inside the Gang Hut to watch Sky's coverage of the Rangers v Aberdeen league fixture. There has been six sports desks leading up to the game. They are unremitting in their presentation on every hour, "Celtic can secure their eighth consecutive league title today if Rangers sill any points in today's match. Aberdeen have already defeated Rangers on each of their three visits to Glasgow". I presume the PQ take is that Rangers supporters do not have aspirations? All season, it is never what we could win, always what we can lose. Reporting on the game was more of the same, Both penalties were dubious, Tav's offside/on side not discussed, and Big Dick wanted Defoe cited. Sportscene's Michael Stewart found the penalties laughable and Katic should be embarrassed. They showed Tav' on side but did not discuss it. You won't be surprised to hear, the Sportsound question had changed, 'has Neil improved Celtic'? Big Dick read out the comparing stats, and the panel concluded Neil had bettered Brendan. Just for the record, it appears Charlie Adam's view was legitimate; but Big Dick did not consult the league tables to provide the necessary comparison. This Saturday, the cloth eared Chris McLaughlin will be at Pittodrie and will reveal in a bilious manner, what kit Derek prefers when playing away! Charlie Adam can get tae fcuk.

I thought that line was an advert for hair products for a second. #HastySolutions

I hope the consensus at Parkhead is that Lennon has improved Celtic - I hope they keep him as I believe SG will have his number next year if it is Lennon vs Gerrard in the dugout.

I think its a shrewd bit of business. I liked Davis first time around (loan and permanent) I think once he is fully fit he could be a key player

I think we've made clever signings. Stewart, Jones and Hastie are widely considered to be among the best talents in the league, outside the Old FIrm. It makes sense to hoover-up the best talent in the league to fill out our squad. I also think they fit straight into the wide-forward positions that are absolutely vital in our 4-3-3. It's a position we're light in, with only Candeias, Kent, Murphy and Middleton 'natural' wide-forwards. Kent is unlikely to be here next season, and Middleton is not quite suited, as he's more of an out-and-out winger. Arfield has been playing there recently, and, I think, has done a wonderful job and should start in that position from now on. Are they going to improve the starting XI? Difficult to say. Maybe. Jones is maybe a better creator than what we have, and Stewart is maybe a better goal-threat than what we have in those positions. We still need acquisitions of quality in key positions that will improve our starting XI.

Am I the only one who is far from impressed with the targets/acquired players so far. Jordan Jones and Jake Hastie are bang-average SPFL players who will not improve our first 11, and are not any better than the current options in the squad. Having watched both closely when we have played them in 2019, Jones is just another O'Halloran, only effective on the counter attack which is something we dont get to do very often. He will be a total waste of a wage IMO. Hastie looks young, raw and miles away from being a good player for us for 19-20 season. He had the luxury of being up against our weakest left back, and didnt impress at Fir Park, having2 excellent chances and couldnt even hit the target with either. No better than any of our young fringe players IMO and I hope we loan him out somewhere either at Scot Prem or Eng league 1 to educate him. Greg Stewart is a very poor player IMO, and I am hoping we miss out on this one. I dont see where he fits into our current playing formation, and we have better options in this area than this for what will be sizeable wages. Yes, I know we have cash restrictions, but I dont see the point in bringing in players that are no better than current options. We must improve our first 11, bring in a left back, a good centre half, an attacking midfielder, and a striker who can play in our system and score goals, and replace any players who leave that are first team regulars (Morelos, Tav etc). We have wasted so much cash on squad players who dont contribute, we have a fantastic set of youth players, use them when the first 11 gets injuries/suspensions.

We've had next to no-one who is a long shot specialist for a very long time. Next season, although not stick on starters, we'll have Middleton and Hastie in and around the squad who can both fly them in from distance. In my opinion in an ideal world you've got top quality players making up the backbone of your starting line-up (your Barry Fergusons and de Boers), but with room for some young talent too. I've said before we won a treble and got 97 points and 101 goals with both Maurice Ross and Bob Malcolm racking up 30 odd appearances. You don't need every position to be perfect, yet it sometimes seems like perfection is the standard required of young players by our support when they break through. For too long Rangers have clogged up the squad with fairly average older players who's value and performance are only going down year by year. There needs to be space for them to break through and (maybe more importantly) we need to actually be buying young players that fit that description like Hastie if our own academy doesn't produce them.

Worth clicking on the long conversation that follows this tweet.

Excellent post Gaffer ! All it needs beyond this particular disagreement, is a little bit of respect instead of ..'you are either with us or against us' ..style rhetoric Our propensity to confront, including within our own ranks has been shown to be very damaging. One angle of damage that is seldom mentioned is that it will put off a lot of our fans from putting their head above the parapet regards active participation. For this reason I think a lot of talented and savvy individuals don't want to know when it comes to representing the club/fans groups, etc. in football politics. This contrasts to the other side of the city where a deeprooted rebellious culture means that all levels tend to put themselves forward for the fight. The result is that they are better at it than us and we are always playing catch-up. My hope was/is that Club1872 could grow into something that would eventually see us bridge this particular divide, we'll see....

It's important we focus on each organisation that demonstrates continually negative actions when it comes to Rangers. The SNP and BBC Scotland are the main two at the moment. Anyone who doubts that or keeps asking for evidence either has an agenda or is completely ignorant. Do other Scottish clubs fly the Union Flag over their grounds? Do other Scottish clubs fans wave lots of Union Flags? Do other Scottish clubs fans sing Rule Britannia, GSTQ and a plethora of other Unionist songs and chants, including many about Ulster? It is no wonder the SNP and their voters dislike us. Particularly in light of their ranks being swelled by people who sympathise with and support Irish Republicanism.

We can agree that there are SNP politicians who are guilty of malicious actions against our club. But can we also agree that there are Labour, Tory, Green and other politicians who are guilty of malicious actions against us in other ways, and ways that perhaps some people (like me) feel are more important than the football club we support? There are too many people on here with their own political agendas and only want to point the finger at one party. That's what spoils the debate on here, and it obscures the real problem which @JohnMc has tried to raise. My main problem with this thread however is the suggestion that people should put the interests of the club above all else in their lives, and therefore not vote for politicians who would do Rangers harm, no matter what damage the alternatives will do to their families, friends, jobs, and colleagues. For most people on this forum, Rangers is important but nowhere near the most important consideration when voting. I think ALL political parties are hypocrites and biased on a range of much more important issues, and in my opinion you are all guilty of hypocrisy for pointing the finger at our supporters who would choose to vote in a different way to you. I am now going to bow out of this. I love reading/posting about Rangers and only came on this thread because it annoys me when the hypocrisy is targeted at our own fans. To me, that's just not acceptable. But as anyone on here knows, I can't stand the current crop of politicians and would certainly never vote for any party at the moment. I thought that made me suitable to take a neutral role in this, but clearly not. I'm heading off to the other threads to talk about the Rangers.

I understand what you're saying here, but anti-independence is a single issue that will be important to some people and not to others. I look around all politically parties and they each stand for something that I find distasteful to say the least. No one can claim to own the moral high ground when the parties you vote for are advocating action that negatively affects other people. You can name any party at the moment and I'll give you examples of things that I find extremely damaging to our society. Let's see who then sits back and who does something about it. The FACT is that there isn't single party I'm aware of that can inhabit the moral high ground so many people on here, including you, then have to decide to either not vote (as is my decision), or vote for the least worst option. For SNP voters on here, I'd certainly expect them to be aware of the attitude that some of its members have towards the club. However, who am I (or who are you) to decide if that consideration is more important than other issues they may hold dear? For Labour voters, I'd expect them to consider the fact that Corbyn is regarded as having sympathies towards certain terrorist groups and is actively trying to disregard the BrExit democratic process, but again if they decide to vote in that direction they will have weighed up the options and on balance decided that it's the least worst option. The same applies to all other parties I can think of, and please don't get me started on the Greens. I bet that almost all SNP voters on here will be frustrated, annoyed, or even furious at the treatment of our club by members of the party they vote for. I certainly haven't seen anyone defend what they've done, but maybe I've missed that. This is our football team's forum so understandably people like you and me will point out the corruption and bias towards our team, and there are certainly plenty of examples coming from various SNP politicians. If it was a political discussion forum there isn't a single person on here who could defend their party against the bias and corruption in other more (in my opinion) important issues. Thankfully Rangers attracts supporters from all backgrounds and that's a strength we have. Just as @Billhas the right to make the interests of our club his most important consideration when voting, others have the right to make other issues (i.e. Non football related) their most important. I cannot understand why anyone would have a problem in respecting that. This thread is now brilliantly demonstrating the point I was trying to make earlier. By us fighting internally we are losing focus on who the real enemy is. The Biased Bhouys Corporation and certain political figures (most notably within GCC at the moment) are where our attention should be, and not on trying to condemn our own fans.

On Saturday, the Cosgrove and Cowan show was interesting. They had Archie MacPherson on to essentially speak about Billy McNeill and Hibs Chief Executive, Leeann Dempster as guests. I was impressed with Ms Dempster, she was clear and concise in her appraisal of the Scottish game. She handled everything well, attendances, ticketing, Edinburgh derbies, attracting children to games, policing, stewarding, ..................................... etc. There was an honesty in her replies, even admitting the thrower of the Buckie bottle at Celtic's Scott Sinclair will in all probability, not be identified and brought to justice. It was obvious that Tam Cowan knew her well from her time in the CE role at Motherwell. He was anxious to draw the teeth on accusations that she was once a season ticket holder at Ibrox. Again, no hesitation in replying, "not for a few years, more like twenty years". She explained she was using her brother's season ticket at first, then got her own for two decades, before other other opportunities in life took greater priority. Leeann Dempster came across as a football person. Thus, BBC Radio Scotland are to be thanked for extending an invitation to such a guest and any question can be posed on behalf of the listeners. Step forward DrStu', his first question is, "given your time attending Ibrox, did you indulge in any dodgy songs"? Dempster did not answer directly, she used the opportunity to explain both her's and her club's opposition to strict liability. It's been mentioned several times on this thread, DrStu' is up to his knees, wading through the depths of sectarianism. He labels Rangers supporters as, "h-u-ns and typical orange wa-nkers", he is accosted by the British Transport Police at Queen Street station for bellowing, "can you spot a handsome h-u-n", and tells deliberate lies about Rangers supporters supposedly ransacking Barcelona cathedral in 1972, in his Daily Record column. DrStu' in his sixty-seventh year is LAZY. He needs the exposure the show provides, it allows him to keep his finger in any number of income streams. It's just he cannot be bothered representing all the license fee paying listeners, even when there's a very occasional interesting guest in front of him.

Many of the comments on this thread show that where Rangers sit in your list of priorities in life determines the likelihood of you voting SNP. Makes sense.

It's amazing how many people didn't like me saying you can't vote SNP and be a Rangers supporter. Amazing because I've never actually said that. What I have said is that there is a natural incompatibility between the two. This is hardly a secret, with SNP using every opportunity to disadvantage Rangers. It's not difficult to overcome this incompatibility of course and many do just that, the fact there are clearly Rangers fans who vote SNP is obvious evidence of this. But it takes compromise to accommodate two diametrically opposed views. You can pretend there is no conflict, when there clearly is. Or you can take the view one is simply more important than the other. What you can't do is be honest AND lend wholehearted support to both. If you're in this unfortunate situation, it's entirely your own business how you reconcile it with your conscience but at least make some effort to admit the basic truth. There are a number of members and many in the wider Rangers support who DO refuse to criticise the SNP when it disadvantages Rangers, which is proof enough for me that what I've said is true The near-hysterical response to my earlier post from predictable directions only reinforces that view.

I like Davis. The more he plays, the more he'll deliver. Sound business. It's beginning to look like someone has thrown away the Martin Bain manual of player recruitment.

You seem to think we should fill the whole team with youths! it can't be done and challenge for a title as well, and if any of the youths deserve to play they will play. Davis is still a quality player, he has been idle for a year and only now showing he still has quality, a good pre season and you will see SG is correct to sign him.

Might be better down at the Crucible and for us to bring in some young blood .

He appears to have worked himself back to fitness and should be fine after a pre season. A year is decent business.

RANGERS are today delighted to announce that Steven Davis has joined the club on a one-year-deal. https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/steven-davis-joins-rangers/

It hard to assess our youngsters as they dont get a long enough run in the first eleven. Give the youngsters a chance let's see what they can do .

Not sure how you can say we have "wasted so much cash on squad players" - these guys are clearly coming in to replace others who will be leaving, it will more than likely be a 1-for-1 swap of wages - and none of them have come in on any transfer fee. I am pretty sure the majority of us would have said "bang average SPFL player" about Kamara as well, but look how that seems to be turning out already.... The other thing to remember is that these players are available right now on Bosmans - that doesn't mean there is an expectation they will be our "improve the starting XI" players - I doubt they will. I suspect that our "marquee" summer signings won't be happening until later in the summer - for one I suspect Morelos will go - which will free up a ton of money to reinvest - but we can't reinvest it until he actually goes. Hastie has potential as does Jones - by far from the finished article in both instances but, if they were, we would have no chance of getting them. We have a long summer ahead so no need to worry just yet my friend The season isn't even done

Was Defoe not a doubt before the Aberdeen match? If Defoe is playing with an injury we should start Morelos, but if Defoe is fit he should keep his place and Morelos should be on the bench. What a great dilemma to have.

we do need Rangers people in politics

Who needs friends eh? Ian McCall doesnt deserve the right to comment on the top flight POTY nominations, an absolute nobody.

It's also telling that Tomkins is English and Fraser from Inverness, rather than the west of Scotland where the bulk of the population actually live, both are 'list' MSPs rather than constituency elected too. There will probably be a couple more if we really looked but it's a poor return from a possible 188 MPs and MSPs.

I would concur Gaffer that there is a myriad of things we can point out which we find distasteful or hypocritical in politicians of other parties, but that is a world away from deliberate and malicious action targetted against our club. and following the fanzone debacle, as well as other instances, the SNP have been shown to be guilty as charged.

I'd say John both Murdo Fraser and Adam Tomkins have made their Rangers allegiances quite clear, but its symptomatic of the point you make that in recent times it was Ulster politicians such as Jeffrey Donaldson who could be relied upon to further Rangers interests in the political forum

My point Bluedell is that no one is working for us, the best we get is ambivalence, and the worst is people who clearly dislike us and make it quite well known. Why is that? Why are there no votes, or at least why is the perception there are no votes, for politicians in being publicly pro-Rangers? To me, these threads come across as some posters using it to have a go at the SNP, to underline their own political beliefs. The SNP didn't invent it, it's been around for a couple of decades now across all political stripes. For me you're not identifying the problem at all, the issue isn't Susan Aitken being a dick on Facebook chat, it's why someone like Susan Aitken feels that's acceptable, indeed maybe desirable. In the end she's doing what the people in power before her also did, and they had a very different political belief. For me, if you want to fix this, you need to address why we have no political capital no matter who is in power. You're making this about the SNP, it's not about them, it's much bigger than that.

If Killie need to beat us to knock the sheep into fourth place, and we don't have anything to play for, I'd give our under 16s a full 90 minutes against them. It'd be good experience for our youngsters, with that added benefit of seeing McInnes' face of fury again!

The only fury they demonstrate is when the obvious contradiction is mentioned.

Even where these fans support or defend the actions of these political figures?

There's plenty of examples of them defending the SNP and virtually no examples of them being "frustrated, annoyed, or even furious" that I've seen. I've been critical of them on quite a few occasions.

Next you'll be telling us you can't go on a protest in case a handful of teenagers are wearing scarves over their faces.

Its a funny argument this BD - criticism of fans who base support of political party relative to their sporting affiliation, but no criticism of politicians who make their political decisions designed to inflict harm on a football club.

That's fine in theory, but they don't manage them independently. One is managed and one is ignored. They vote for Rangers haters and do nothing to change the views of the party that they support. They come on here and consistently take the side of the Rangers-hating politicians and try and justify the attitude of those who look to damage our club. If Rangers isn't important enough to you to take into account when deciding who to vote for then fair enough, and I doubt it's the be-all and end-all to anyone but it's certainly a factor and not an issue to ignore. We're talking about politicians who prevent Rangers getting a fanzone, who actively support our biggest rivals in a number of ways and yet Bill is a bigger threat than them because he prioritises Rangers? I really don't get that.

Has to be done within our financial constraints. Too much of a risk to do otherwise. Transfer fees in to cover transfer fees out - needs to be a balanced set of books for the foreseeable. But I am sure they will do what they can, realistically, to support SG. Our performances of late have shown improvement (coincidence or not that it has also occurred with Morelos suspended ??) and we will comfortably obtain second. Indeed, but for some poor officiating and poor decisions we would be looking at 55 already. Even just the 2 OF games at Parkhead (foul on Ryan Jack and Tav howler) would see us just still fighting for the title. I think the Board recognize the improvements SG and his backroom staff have brought on relatively shoe-string budget and now firmly believe in him.

‘Spurs 1-2 Ajax Barce 3-1 Liverpool

There is no doubt that poor coaching is one of the single biggest factors in whether kids progress in football, the other ones being attitude and discipline. For years we relied upon methods that were often referred to affectionately as "proper old school". Most of these coaches were good (or even great) players who failed to notice that the world had moved on around them. Equally, there are many coaches who either don't have a clear vision, or fail to communicate it clearly enough in a manner that can be understood by the younger players. The coaching for coaches in Scotland is now excellent, and it attracts many of the world's top coaches and managerial prospects. It has been highly regarded for around 15 years now. A big problem we still face however is that many coaches go on the courses, just to collect the badge. They then revert to their old ways because they've "played the game and know best". To coach a player from youth to elite level takes time, persistence and consistency. Too many coaches in our country (and yes, at our club) have been fine footballers, but poor coaches. If they use the tools and techniques they've been taught, coaches can be effective. Mulholland and his crew know this thankfully, and if we have some stability at the club for a decade there is no doubt at all we will develop some players good enough for our first team. As for Middleton, he's clearly developed the right attributes for his age. You can tell when they've been properly coached because there are some elements to their game that shine through. He is technically good on both feet, he is aware of his surroundings because he runs with his head up, and he demonstrates he can make good decisions most of the time. When players get to 16/17, these are key. There are exceptions to this rule of course, but those are some of the qualities and performance measures that coaches track.

I will answer. It is common knowledge among the people who follow the youth that Jimmy Sinclair the old head of youth would only go for large strong players and therefore we lost many young talented players. The style of football he wanted to play also did not match in with the current Rangers Philosophy. He put coaches in place to teach his methods. That is why he was replaced.