Hildy

When I first saw Rangers in the late 60's they had red socks with white tops...so for me those were always the real Rangers socks!

Much as I have criticised McCoist, and though it pains me to see such a large sum of money disappearing from the club, I have no quibble with McCoist getting his contract paid in full.

I'd be surprised to see him getting another gig in football, certainly at a major club.

He was a pretty poor pundit who relied on charm and appearance more than his analytical skills. He may not walk back into television work now.

When so many others have walked away from Rangers with bloated wallets, McCoist will feel that he should too, and if this is his last major salary, he should take every penny of it - or accept a large pay-off.

Who voluntarily walks away from such a large wedge when they don't need to? One or two but not many.

He should have been put on notice long before he offered to walk away, and I made this point before on here - several times.

Why do people object to one man having convictions while another man's are mostly ignored?

Hypocrisy is probably one reason, but there's a realism afoot too. If we were so moral would we rid the club of every high-ranking employee with a drink-driving conviction? We would but we don't.

King made his fortune in South Africa and it may have been his expectation that the state would be lax when it came to the rich and powerful with regard to tax, but times changed and he was left with a large bill.

Few Rangers fans are troubled by a rich club owner trying to keep his taxes low. What rich man does not minimise his tax spend?

I'm not a King fan but my reservations are more about how he will run the club than some historic tax offences.

I would like to see King and Desmond, Rangers and Celtic, sitting down together to address the fact the the future is going to be a bleak place for both of them unless something changes.

Currently, Scotland has two major clubs with enormous drawing power, but they are slowly dying. Competing with each other generates interest, but when the clubs enter the European stage, they do so in a bid to chase income - not glory.

Madrid, Barcelona, Milan, Manchester, Munich and London are European cities that belong at football's top table, but Glasgow has to feed off its crumbs.

Anyone who owns Rangers or Celtic really has to sit down and think about this.

31,427.

Not that great, but people know that it's going to be all about the play-offs and it may need games of that stature to bring the crowds back in big numbers.

Has a non British manager ever been successful in Scotland? Advocaat had a level of success certainly, but he had a significantly bigger budget than all the rest at first and when Celtic started to compete financially under O'Neil he struggled. Wim Janson won the league with the Tims but he still only lasted one season and we'd imploded half way through which really helped him, Hearts won a cup with someone or other from abroad in charge but the Scottish national side, Motherwell, Dundee Utd, Aberdeen, Dundee, Hibs, Rangers and Celtic have all tried 'foreign' managers with really poor results.

 

Picking who'll make a good manager is nigh on impossible, particularly for supporters who don't actually see the personalities and dynamics up close. If you looked at the playing career of Jock Stein or Jock Wallace you'd never have picked them to have the later success they did. Who thought Robbie Neilson was going to be a good coach?

 

First and foremost our club has to win in Scotland and that puts certain restrictions on us. Secondly I think we've a duty as a club to look to have a side that represents the support and that means finding the best players and managers from here and building the team that way. Sure supplement that with outside influence but all football clubs should represent their support.

 

There are managers who are doing well with the resources they've got. Murray at Dumbarton and Fowler at QOTS spring to mind, both those clubs are over-achieving currently and when you see how Alex Neill did with Hamilton and now Norwich you can see the our current league can develop managers. Finding someone with a pedigree is nigh on impossible, we're simply not in that market just now, finding someone with potential is much more realistic. Over to you Dave.

Appointing the right manager is extremely difficult and identifying an up and coming talent is not easy.

As fans, we mostly haven't a clue who is up to the task, but we're in good company. Football directors often don't have much of an idea either.

Major clubs though should have an ongoing awareness of the market. Everything that can be done to find the right candidate should be done but there is still no guarantee that we'll get it right.

To be honest, most managers are probably fairly ordinary and unremarkable, but there seems to be a small minority who have the knack.

Alex Ferguson had an outstanding managerial career, but I wonder how many spotted the potential when he was first starting out.

I think we'll get promoted.

We're not great but we should be able to do what needs to be done over two legs in the playoffs.

The idea that we could fail is really quite horrific. Another year away from the top will weaken the brand even more, and we just can't afford that.

Yeah we won't have conceded 5 so that's why.

I can happily live with conceding five if we can score six.

If we had more 3-2 and 4-3 games to experience, we might actually start to enjoy football again.

6 5 against part timers. It should embarrass people but hey Ho.

I'm guessing we won't be embarrassed with a 1-0 win so a 6-5 win shouldn't be an embarrassment either.

Much as we expect professionalism from managers, as fans we should be able to live with - and enjoy - any game which is decided by the odd goal in eleven.

It would be talk of the Scottish football steamie for weeks.

6 5 would be embarrassing

Why?

Why do we accept 1-0 unquestioningly and view a rare 6-5 possibility as embarrassing?

Every one of us would love to see a 6-5 result no matter which order the goals came in.

Instead of dwelling on defensive frailty, we could maybe applaud attacking brilliance.

We want to be entertained and a 6-5 win would be highly entertaining. If a 1-0 win isn't embarrassing, neither is 6-5.

Who amongst us has seen a professional game of football that ended 6-5?

I remember the disappointment when he signed. We kept chasing him and I hoped we wouldn't get him. I didn't rate him then, I haven't rated him at any time since and I certainly don't rate him now.

Unfortunately, Rangers dropped to a level where he could be kept on. Without the nightmare of the last few years, he'd surely have been long gone.

The loyalty question is overdone, much as the traitor factor is with regard to those that left.

If Naismith had been as old as McCulloch, he'd likely have stayed at Ibrox, and if McCulloch had been as young as Naismith when the roof fell in, he'd surely have moved on.

I hope to see Rangers and McCulloch parting company soon.

I get the idea that some people are happy we are not filling the stadium. I don't understand that to be honest.

The attendance figures are important and will continue to be so. We have been through an unprecedented period in recent years. We should be looking closely to see if a full recovery is likely or if some permanent damage has been done.

Some expected Ibrox to be full to bursting when the new board came along but it hasn't happened. Maybe it will in the key play-off game.

If attendances really are down, we need to find a way to get them back up again. Another season at this level will not help us at all, but I'm confident that we will be promoted and that will surely give us an attendance boost.

40,521 today.

This is much healthier although the Hearts contingent probably added a few thousand to the gate.

I can think of another towering figure in Rangers' history who was a Hearts fan - Willie Woodburn.

Struth, Greig, Jardine and Woodburn - all names that are rooted in the very fabric of Rangers, and yet they started out as Hearts fans.

It certainly seems probable but I can't find anything myself.

 

I do find it interesting though that Greig and Jardine were. I remember Greig saying as much in one of his videos before he was voted Greatest Ever Ranger. Says a lot about what the club can mean to those who join it and the fans who can clearly separate people's background and their contribution.

I found this:

Willie Maley. his rival manager during his Ibrox years, was a sprinter with Clydesdale Harriers and won the Scottish 100 yards title. Struth, reckoned by Mason and Stewart to be a member of Edinburgh Northern Harriers, never won a national title. The main reason that he never won a national title was that he was a professional in an era when only amateurs were eligible for championship meetings. Struth grew up in Edinburgh and followed his local club, Hearts. Like Maley he took part in a range of sports but his real talents were in athletics. He trained as a stone mason and competed in athletics events the length and breadth of Scotland and even went south to the pro meetings in the Lake District and on at least one occasion to Wales. A look at the details of his running career tells us about the man and the sport at this point in its development.

http://scottishdistancerunninghistory.co.uk/Bill%20Struth.htm

Not sure about Struth but the other two were.

 

Struth was brought up near Tynecastle and worked foe the club but I'm not sure if he supported them or not.

I remember reading that Struth owned shares in Hearts and that this was his first allegiance. Unfortunately, I can't recall where I read it.

That looks good and should have been done earlier. To be honest this is what should have originally be done rather than the renaming of the Govan Stand.

I agree.

The Govan Stand should not have been renamed at all by a board that knew as much about the history of Rangers as you and I know about Celtic.

All born and bred Edinburgh men?

I think I'm right in saying that all three had Hearts as their first love in football.

There's a bust for Jardine, and another for Struth, and of course Greig has a statue.

What do those three men have in common?

If a new nomad is not going to be appointed, I expect the board to explain why not, but while there will be some negative headlines about this, I don't think it is necessarily such a bad thing.

It may well be seen as a move in the right direction.

The new chairman should still have his copy from when it was sent to the Rangers board of that period....

 

Seriously though, perhaps we should be looking to put together a new version ourselves. Maybe a project for the summer months.

That sounds like a good idea.

Or was he forced to sell?

'Forced'' might be a bit strong but it's probably not too far away from the truth.

People believed that Murray could choose the right sort to sell Rangers to, but this was extraordinarily naive. He was under extreme pressure to get rid of the club and was probably quite relieved when it was eventually let go.

If would appear then that if a NOMAD can't be found, it will be a little embarrassing for Dave King but not necessarily bad news for the club.

I'm fairly sure a good number of us will be quite happy to face the future NOMAD-free.

This is just my take on it so don't throw the toys out the pram (that goes for everybody else)

 

When the wheels started in motion on the takeover of Rangers, McCall quit Motherwell as boss then McCoist told his 'close friends' he would be leaving Rangers.

 

McCall was the boards first pick even before they got in imo, and McCoist knew all about it. I reckon it was a very good pick by the board giving the circumstances. McCall has suddenly pulled a rabbit out the hat after such a short time in office. So kudos to the board for that.

If your theory is correct, the idea that we have moved into a new era of transparency is misguided.

I don't think your theory is correct.

It might not, but in reality it's far more likely to happen than not, so I don't understand your pessimism at all.

 

 

 

That question seems very strange to me in the context here because while it's asking about an important issue, absolutely none of us know the answer for a number of reasons.

 

 

 

Another question which seems strange in the context here (attendances) for a whole swathe of reasons, but primarily because we've been a Europa League standard team for many years now and then there's the fact that our average attendances against several Scottish minnows recently have been as big as many a European night at Ibrox outwith the 'big games' against 'top clubs'.

 

 

 

Scottish football is poor these days and in more ways than one, we all know that, but to say that Rangers has 'little ambition left' is ridiculous.

 

The Club and the supporters have plenty of ambition, we just need a slightly more ambitious structure in terms of development, scouting etc and a management team and squad of players to have ambitions and effort/performance levels which are on par with what the Club and the support strive for.

 

 

 

The new board's been in place for 3 weeks and they have an absolutely massive task ahead of them which they're going to need our help with, so would it maybe not be more prudent to give them some time to try to sort the mess out than to attempt to second guess them and harp on about their lack of ambition?

My doubts about the future for Rangers are countered by your optimism but I do not believe that Rangers' future will come close to matching the club's mostly distinguished past.

We wanted an honest board and I believe we have got one, but it needs a radical edge and I'm not sure that it possesses one. We need safe and trusted hands on the board but we need imaginative thinking too. Just now, it looks like the church elders have taken over - and I mean no disrespect to church elders.

I'll let you know when I see a sign that this board is more than a group of well-intentioned and well to do individuals.

I hope it is soon.