Leaderboard

Why do I have the feeling if we had signed Naismith instead you'd still have this thread in reverse?

Just another attempt to isolate the smaller nations into probably a third rate competition and allow the Euro bureaucrats to feather their pockets even more.

One thing you can't take away from Naismith is that he is and always has been a very clinical finisher. There is no doubt Naismith would score plenty from Barisic, Candeias and Tavernier's crosses. For me we still badly lack a forward who will consistently score from crosses despite the fact we've got better crossers than we've had in a long time.

Last night in Trouville sur Mer, I persuaded a bar man in a cafe tabac to switch the TV, to allow me the opportunity to watch Scotland/Albania. The tabac had two customers and my opposition was a member of the local glee club, agreed with my suggestion as I stood him une verre de vin rose. Further, he agreed that Naismith played well. I say to King Zog, Rudi Vata, Enver Hoxha, ......................... Norman Wisdom; your team took a helluva beating.

Naismith looked good last night, against a team of similar quality to Airdrie.

Johnny Russell is a better player. Naismith is not as good as Morelos. Maybe a better finisher, but you can’t judge players on internationals. We signed the likes of David Healy and Salenko based on scoring goals against minnows. Albania are probably punching above their weight being in division C in the nations league. Back in the good old days when there were only 32 countries in UEFA, Albania were always the worst team in Europe!

Aye I know! maybe this should be in the general football thread! admin can move if they wish!. I went along to watch Tranent Juniors, although now most all east juniors have joined the East Of Scotland League, playing against Haddington and Tranent captain was the one & only Ian Black! the only thing I seen him do was a terrible challenge on the Haddington player, who had to be subbed because of his injury, Black should have been shown a red but only received a yellow!!!.It still annoys me that he actually played for Rangers!!, the local gossip was he was getting 9k per week at Ibrox and has pissed it all away!!, fucking arsehole

Agree totally. When he and McGregor left they were both at the peak of their careers. We had no right to expect Scotland players at their respective ages to perform at the lowest league level. Wallace was different, he still had his best years ahead of him.

I dunno. If money were no object I think in some years I might take a baseball bat to a few tellies over the course of a football season.

Back in 2015 we had the pleasure on the Founders Trail of the company of Les and Jean White a retired couple from Airdrie. After the Trail they approached us and asked if they could join our Restoration of Rangers Graves team with a view to specifically looking after the plots at Craigton Cemetery. We of course welcomed them with open arms. They travel over to Craigton before every Trail and carry out essential gardening work to ensure that the plots of Founder Peter McNeil, Manager Mr Struth and Trainer James Wilson are kept in pristine condition. ‘’Bluenoses with Green Fingers!’’ It’s a wonderful ,heart-warming example of the Rangers Family at work. They’ll be extremely embarrassed by this but we’d like to say thank you for the dedication, time and effort that you both put in. Thank you.

Outstanding commitment. You're right to highlight their good work and generosity.

He was okay at Hearts. We should never have signed him. I'd rather forget that era, other than some of the enjoyable trips.

To refer back to my previous question about why a politician might withhold his footballing allegiance in order to further his career, I would draw parallels to my own support of Rangers. I grew up in the Scottish Borders and much of the realities of West of Scotland life in terms of any religious divide passed me by as its largely irrelevant down in Rugger country. My Dad is a Rangers fan and grew up in the west coast and I got my love of our team from him, pestering for tops and being football daft from as young as I can remember. However, despite being baptised, neither I nor my family are in any way religious. It was the done thing at the time I guess but we never went voluntarily, only on the odd occasion did we set foot in a church when invited to a wedding or attending a funeral. We were not a political family either, although I did take a keen interest through my teens and still do to varying degrees depending on how engaged I am on specific topics, or how jaded I might be with all the referendums and elections we've had in recent years. I never really knew who my parents voted for - they are working class so would typically view things in terms of "how much is that going to cost me" when looking at the budget and how much a packet of fags or a pint of beer would cost from midnight. Fast forward to today, I find myself in the space that is being vocally criticised by some. I identify as a Rangers fan first. I have voted SNP in the past but also for Labour, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats. My politics is largely left of centre but I consider myself pretty moderate. However the only fixed view I have on politics is that I will change my view to suit the circumstances as they relate to me. Hence, my vote is never guaranteed to anyone and I would never join a political party for that reason, despite being reasonably well engaged. Not having grown up in a family or social setting that was Loyalist or influenced by NI politics, I don't identify with those elements of Rangers fan. I voted yes in 2014 but not for any reasons based on identity, but from (in my view), a pragmatic sense that Scotland would do a better job of running our affairs long term than an increasingly remote Westminster. [NB - I'm not attempting to re-hash any arguments on this, just giving some context] So from my perspective, I'm not against the union or people who identify as unionists, but I do struggle with aspects of the way support for it is expressed. I'm not pro- Royalist. But similarly, I'm not anti-Royalist either. So when you roll up the various tenets of the stereotypical Rangers fan, i don't sit naturally with many of them, despite a shared love for a football team. Yet I attempt to fit in, to not make an issue of any differences I have with those who have alternative views, to enjoy the cut and thrust of discussion whilst not attempting to be divisive. I often do this carefully. I seek to look at both sides of a debate and give a moderate view. So, to bring back to the question - I think political culture is such that it is very personality and issue driven. Debates are polarised and the effect is a tribal "them and us" scenario whereby the only way to get ahead is to side with one extreme view or another. To express a moderate and balance view is seen as weak - "you're either with us or against us" springs to mind. I think we've seen plenty of that in this thread and its disappointing to say the least.

This is why I vote for "none of the party options" because it's all about scoring points no matter what party you are in. Party politics is killing debate and progress in my opinion. I wish there was an alternative option but for me there isn't yet. On this point though, I think McAveety is enjoying being in this position. It does appear (to me at least) that there has been an unusual intervention here and until the questions (asked by Rangers and then Club 1872) are answered, the perception will be one of bias. To be honest, I can accept that bias creeps in now and again, but when it happens and is called out, it needs to be corrected. Surely, this could be cleared up quickly. I'm just hoping that the councillors and Rangers reps are now speaking directly about this instead of using Twitter.

Currently, I am in France. I start my day reading through Scottish/British newspapers on line. Today's Glasgow Evening Times has the headline, 'Labour Trio deny Stoking Bigotry in Rangers fan zone row'. The political correspondent, Stewart Paterson relates Glasgow City Council leader, Susan Aitken has accused Pauline MacNeill, Frank McAveety, and Anas Sarwar of, "knowingly exploiting sectarian division on this issue". The trio of Labour politicians mentioned have denied the accusation. The means utilised by Susan Aitken to make her accusations is again social media, to be precise, Twitter. The SNP Councilor criticised Rangers staff for using the same means in their allegation of bias. The Convener's Deputy, Councilor David McDonald(also Chair of Glasgow Life) was subjected to abuse and threats on Twitter, with sectarian abuse and threats of violence directed towards him. Of course, Councilor McDonald's own social media feeds had long standing items of ridicule being directed at Rangers eighty year old act of remembrance for those lost in a colliery disaster, the Loving Cup ceremony. As yet, there is no criticism from Susan for David's Twitter actions. Thus, lurid language, accusations of stoking bigotry fired off in a number of directions, denials, the right to Twitter usage, and further attestation from Susan Aitken that she has no objection in principle to Rangers hosting a fan zone. The Comments section contains a suggestion that Rangers should be required to purchase the ground to host said fan zone. I wonder if the Councilors involved in necessary Committee would allow the club to do so, on the same grounds that they demand of Celtic? We could crowd fund it, appears to be the way to go these days.

I found this post interesting, mainly because you described yourself as being in the minority. Yet even a cursory glance at voting in West Central Scotland from the late 60s onwards clearly showed that the majority were at least left leaning, and voting, if not out right socialists. Despite this you clearly felt you were in a minority when mixing with Rangers supporters. Even though we pulled our support from inner-city, post industrial Glasgow, mining villages across Lothian, Ayrshire and Lanarkshire, the steel and mill towns of Renfrewshire and Lanarkshire and the docks and yards of Clydeside. So did none of the people who voted Labour throughout the 70s and 80s support Rangers? Of course they did, in their tens of thousands. I don't think you were in a minority. There have always been some people for whom supporting Rangers is an expression of their belief system. They see supporting Rangers as a box to tick along with being Orange, Unionist and right of centre politically, sometimes very right of centre. They feel all these things are interconnected, and they can be quite vocal about it. You can see it on this thread too. The thought that someone could passionately and loyally support Rangers whilst rejecting all the other aspects they feel are connected to it puzzles and angers them. You can see it in some of the posts on this thread. Comments like 'never hear SNP supporters near me at Ibrox' and 'only know a couple and they're fair weather supporters' all help fill this narrative. Only 'real' Rangers supporters need apply. I actually think it's that mindset that's in the minority now. I think @pete nailed it; 60% don't care. They only care about who is playing upfront this weekend and who we might sign in January. They care about football, and only football. Whether people like it or not the Scottish society I was born into has changed out of all recognition. The SNP are the most popular party currently. Scottish independence is a distinct probability now, one that grows daily as Labour and the Tories veer further to the extremes and the UK heads towards huge, unclear social and economic change. There is a real possibility that a united Ireland and an independent Scotland could happen in my lifetime. Neither of those events will make me support Rangers any less.

TBH I don't give a toss about politics,have no interest in the Orange Order even though my son plays in an flute band,have no religious calling,couldn't care less about Bobby Sands being deid and so on. Have a loathing for cowards who cover their faces during so called parades etc.. I support Rangers as a football club and have no objections to who we sign as long as we can get back to being a top club again.