JohnMc

You're even more cynical than me it seems! Yes, I think that's part of his motive too, I'm a little surprised everyone doesn't.

Did I call him a liar? I don't think I did. Forgive my cynicism, it's from my personal experiences and if yours have been different then I'm envious of you. Politician saying things for political reasons is hardly the libel of the year, but if you feel Murdo Fraser was hoping to achieve something altruistic I'd be interested in knowing what that is? I remain open-minded, believe it or not. My final point, about the 'Ulsterfication' of Scottish politics, was simply my opinion on the descent of political discourse across the UK in recent years. Nationalism now dominates at every level of politics. Rangers supporters seem to be getting dragged into that, whether we want to or not. Fraser's article is, I assume, a riposte to some of the articles, comments and reactions to our supporters over the last few months. I understand why many might welcome that. I don't really because I feel it simply further entrenches this attempt top create 'sides', where I don't feel any should exist. We're a football club with a huge support that encompasses many conflicting views on every topic, I rile against anyone trying to pigeon-hole us. See, I can be cynical and naive at the same time!

If only we could play Real Madrid every week. It was inevitable we'd hit a patch of poor form after last season where we rarely put a foot wrong, every club goes through them eventually. There's a mindset change required in our team, we're no longer chasing, we're now being chased and that requires an adjustment mentally. I suspect there are other issues in the squad that we're not fully aware of too. There have been a few hints at Covid cases with players and it might be these have been more disruptive than we realise. I'm less concerned about 3 points being dropped in the league than I am about Tuesday's match. Our late goal in Malmo helped disguise an uninspired performance against a well organised but ordinary side, indeed the type of European side we've excelled in playing in recent seasons. An unfavourable result on Tuesday will see some pressure being applied to the players and management, as ridiculous as that sounds. Those of us who have been watching Rangers for a long time know our support, magnificent at times, will quickly forget about last season's heroics should this season start poorly. As Richard Gough once said at Rangers you're only as good as your last pass. I feel Kent is working hard but things don't seem to be coming off for him just now and our full backs aren't yet hitting their stride. That's such an important part of our style of play when it's not fully firing others need to step up. Hopefully we'll respond like Champions to this and start showing the side we know is there on Tuesday.

I've a Romanian friend who I've got to know fairly well over the years. We found ourselves talking about politics one day and I asked about her memories of living under Ceaușescu and his hated Communist regime prior to the fall of the Iron Curtain. I knew what had happened to him but I was curious what happened to the thousands of others who were party members, supporters and politicians after the revolution. She simply shrugged and said "they became democrats", the same people stayed in power they just did it under a different name. As a Glaswegian I can honestly say I've seen no discernible difference in my local politicians since the SNP replaced Labour as the dominant party in the city. They are basically the same, they just have a different colour rosette. When Labour ran the city and the country there weren't many of their politicians pinning Rangers colours to the mast, but there seemed to be plenty happy to sport green and white and a surprisingly high number of Thistle supporters. Now the SNP run the city and the country it's the same thing. I don't have a particular problem with Murdo Fraser's article other than he's a politician himself and, for me, is clearly hoping it might garner him, and his party, some support. Judging by this thread he might be right too. I'm fairly cynical of his motives though. I don't think he's hoping a couple of SNP MSPs will 'out themselves' as bluenoses, or that Bute House will arrange a civic reception for Gerrard. I worry this is simply another salvo in the ongoing 'culture wars' that make up modern politics these days. In the end there's probably no other subject Fraser could have written about that would have created as much response, that's a very sad inditement on our society currently. In my experience nobody is going to have their political mindset changed by posters on a Rangers message board and so I have no intention of trying to alter any of my fellow posters deeply held political views. I have very few deeply held political views as it happens. In the last 20 or so years that I've posted on various Rangers related message boards the lack of political support the club and fans seem to have is a fairly regular topic. I actually do think it's an important topic. We all know that there are Rangers supporters in the SNP, just as there were in Scottish Labour back in the day, however they largely hide it. For me that's what needs addressed, a proper understanding of why openly supporting Rangers seems to be politically toxic and has been for a long time now. For work and now family reasons I'm a regular visitor to Ireland. Although I lived in Northern Ireland when based there I visited the Republic a lot and was initially wary saying I supported Rangers when conversation turned to football. I'd quickly discovered that certain assumptions were made about me when my football allegiances were known. It was assumed I was an Orangeman, I was a Loyalist and I was a bigot. I realised that most people there had never actually met a Rangers supporter, they'd a stereotype in their head from footage of rioting in Loyalist Belfast or Portadown, a basic understanding of the Glasgow football/religion split and perhaps some overheard song lyrics during a live match on Sky. After a few months I realised I was as much to blame for this stereotype as the disaffected youth covering his face with a red, white and blue bar scarf as he stones the police during a contentious parade in north Belfast. I'm not an Orangeman, or a Loyalist and I try not to be a bigot and yet I'm a huge Rangers fan. So I stopped down playing my football support and let people make their own minds up about Rangers supporters based on their interactions with me instead. Like supporters of all clubs the Rangers support is broad and complicated. We all agree on very little, we hold different views on most subjects and, I believe, for the majority of our support who we want to win a football match has little bearing on who we vote for. I also understand that for some people supporting Rangers is an extension of their political belief system. For them it's an intrinsic part of their identity and belonging. That's fair enough and I don't get to tell them they're wrong to hold those views. At the same time they don't get to tell people they're wrong for holding different ones. I enjoyed my time living in Northern Ireland, it's a beautiful part of the world and I found the people there friendly and welcoming. I didn't care for their politics or politicians though. The politics of identity were dominant there then and remain so. I see shadows of that in the rest of the UK now. The rise of nationalism isn't just confined to Scotland. In my opinion Murdo Fraser's party are nationalist now, just a different type of nationalist. That's my political opinion and I don't expect anyone else to share it simply because we support the same football team.

Yes, that's what was reported at the time so this does seem like a backward step. Signing up for 6 years is the real surprise for me, I wonder if there's a break clause in it. Scottish football isn't easy to sell currently and I suspect the SPFL's desperation took any strength away from their bargaining, particularly after having no sponsor at all for a season. Ultimately it's the people in control of Scottish football who've led it to this point, you wonder when other clubs are going to realise that and demand action.

Maybe. I'd be disappointed if that was the case. Excluding the car industry from sponsoring the league because one of our major shareholders is in competition with them isn't going to stand up to any serious scrutiny though.

Yes, that would make sense if it's all about the money the clubs are getting. We carried Ladbrokes name on our sleeve when they were sponsors of the league, and it seems standard practice in football to wear the name of the competition on the shirt sleeve these days.

I remain a little puzzled by this. The £100k commission is fairly standard in that industry, it sounds a lot but in terms of the £8 million figure that's being reported as the value it's not and if the SPFL agreed to use a third party again that's not unusual in that industry. Cinch are owned by British Car Auctions who also own We Buy Any Car and are being used as a vehicle (pardon the pun) to sell many of the cars they buy through 'We Buy Any Car'. There is more profit in selling directly to the consumer than to the trade, it's simple business. The established car industry isn't over the moon about this but the lines in the traditional car industry have been blurring for years now. I struggle to accept that's what our gripe is with this. Does this deal perhaps preclude us from attracting another motor brand as a shirt sponsor? Maybe, but we've a betting sponsor currently while playing in competitions sponsored by Ladbrokes, it's not new to see competitive sponsors involved. Maybe it's the value and length of the sponsorship that's at issue. It's hard to tell just now if this is good value or not. The implications of Covid on the economy are still to be felt. Certainly the feeling that the SPFL and SFA haven't sold Scottish football at its proper value to TV and sponsors is one I share, but their 'bird in the hand' argument is valid and might yet prove right. There is growing political pressure to exclude betting firms from shirt sponsorship and advertising. It seems likely this will happen, and it might be Rangers are working to secure a new non-gambling shirt sponsor. Again, I would have thought the best and highest profile club in the country sporting a rival brand to cinch would have upset Cinch more than Rangers. This might simply be another attempt by Rangers to disrupt and challenge the SPFL. I suspect fans of a number of clubs don't see them as fit for purpose and this might be political expediency. Shining the media spotlight on Doncaster and the commercial deals will lead to extra pressure on him. Rangers might have taken the temperature of some other clubs too and feel they have some backing on this. Celtic, the SPFL's main backers are in chaos currently and at their weakest in years, it might be that the timing is good.

What was the cryptic comment about Roofe, Barker and Aribo? Are the isolating from track and trace or have the actually caught the damn thing? Or have they simply got good old fashioned injures and I'm reading way too much into it?

Paterson started the match really well and for first 15 minutes was the best player on the park. I think Brighton put a man wide to stop his runs then and he was a bit quieter after that. I watch Paterson and think he should first choice right back, then Tav comes on and you see his crossing and passing and realise that Paterson still has a bit to go to match that. The 11 that ended the match was a lot closer to our probable first choice starting 11 than the 11 who started the match and it showed. As others have said Kelly, Paterson, Itten and Bassey did themselves no harm today, I didn't think Jones took his chance to impress either his current manager or any potential future ones. Brighton are a better side than any we'll face domestically this season. I know better than to read much into friendlies but I know I prefer a goalless draw to a 6-2 hammering a week before the season starts.

I thought it was just me who didn't mind this strip while the internet in general seems to be up in arms about it. For me the issue this strip faces is the issue all our strips face and that's the sponsor. Their logo feels bigger and more imposing than previous sponsors, I'm sure that's just an illusion. If the 32Red was a little smaller and little less intrusive it would make a big difference I think.

Hahaha! I don't want to know what kind of records you keep! I still think there's little difference between most, if not all, Championship clubs and the bottom half of the SPFL. The difference is the the teams in the SPFL will play against at least 3 or 4 better sides 3 or 4 times during the season, whereas the Championship sides will play against similar quality sides all season long. It's not that I think Dunfermline are significantly poorer than Ross County, I don't. I just think that after spending most of last season at Raith Rovers, a club who play possession based passing football, it was time for him to step up a level or leave. The coaches know more about him than me, I'm just surprised that at 19 they don't think he should be playing at a higher level than the Championship. I expected him to follow the Stephen Kelly model of a season in the Championship then a season the SPFL, like we've done with Ben Williamson. If nothing else a season at SPFL level gives him a bigger shop window and increases any potential fee we could get if we choose to sell him next summer. I guess we have to trust Mulholland and his coaches on this.

If we think he's a top talent why is he spending the season at Dunfermline? I'd expected him to join Livingston or Ross County or St Mirren this season, and see if he could force his way into an SPFL side and if he could then see what his performances are like at that level. I just don't think it's possible to go from the Championship to the Rangers first team. We either think Kennedy is still at least 2 years away from our first team or else he's never going to make it with us, in which case sell him now and let him get on with his career. It's a very strange move.

I'm surprised at the Kennedy move, I thought he'd go to a SPFL club, he's 19 now, he should be playing at a higher level than that. He showed last season at Raith Rovers he can play in that division, I don't understand why another season there is in his or our interest. Frankly, if West Ham did offer £600k, we should have bitten their hand off.

Milngavie looks good in the summer. Nice and inconspicuous for his trips to Waitrose at least.

There was an interesting exchange between Neil Lennon and the SFA's Ian Maxwell on this morning's BBC Scotland Euro Breakfast radio show. Lennon continues to peddle his 'we were treated differently over Covid' line and Maxwell's response left him floundering. It's telling though that it took another guest to correct Lennon rather than one of the money journalists BBC Scotland Sport employ.

As ever the headline is a little misleading, wishing the best side in Scotland had a couple more Scots in it is hardly news. When looking to buy a player Rangers always look at Scotland first. That doesn't always mean the player will be Scottish (Novo, Kamara for example), but there's a higher likelihood they will be. If for example the club is looking for a central midfielder we'll look at who is available in Scotland first. This is perfectly logical as someone already based in Scotland knows the league and is probably on a poorer salary than we'll pay them making a move to Rangers both attractive financially as well as from a football perspective. This also removes all potential issues around settling in, if a player is based in Dundee or Aberdeen they'll probably need to move house but it's hardly a huge upheaval for the player's family. The other attraction of a Scottish player is European squads. There's still a requirement to have a certain amount of 'home grown' players in the registered European squads each season. This is probably why a player like Jamie Barjonas was retained despite never looking like he'd get a game. He was cover just in case we'd a terrible run of injuries. Rangers have signed Murphy, Middleton, Hastie, McLoughlin and Wright in recent seasons and we were seriously linked with Shinnie and McLean. Some have fared better than others, but looking for 'local' players is clearly still a big part of our plan. Now, why Scotland isn't producing better quality players is a whole other thread...

I did wonder when someone was going to take issue with much of the hysterical coverage last weekend has created. Thanks for sharing.

It's more the hypocrisy of it I was trying to highlight. The irony of criticising me for failing to mention something they were indulging in themselves.

I think my point, poorly made as it is, was that politicians have far more power to implement societal change than football clubs do. Politicians can improve schools, indeed that's literally Humza Yousaf's job now. I agree that individuals have the ultimate power to change.

It’s Not What You Say, But What They Hear I made a mistake last Sunday. In a pique of frustration over the inevitability of much of Saturday night’s events and annoyance over some of the coverage it garnered, I sent a Tweet. As Tweets go it was quite long, and was an attempt to remind people that Rangers supporter’s who fight police officers, or themselves, on a Saturday night in town are no more representative of me, or the vast majority of our support, than the Rangers supporter’s who went bird watching, long distancing running or line dancing are. I wish I hadn’t. I’m not a prolific Tweeter and I rarely Tweet about football. If you want occasional photos of my local park, perhaps some obscure research on birds or the occasional insight into international events, maybe I’m your guy, otherwise best ignore me, I’m there to learn, not teach. Prior to Sunday I doubt I’ve ever sent a Tweet that was ‘liked’ more the a dozen times; I’m not interesting or high profile, and I’m okay with that. An hour or so after pressing ‘Tweet’ I was very surprised to learn over 100 people had liked, retweeted or positively commented on it. Almost all seemed to be fellow Rangers fans who had clearly been feeling something similar. This continued for a few hours, numbers increased and my phone battery complained. A couple of friends texted me to say they’d read it and enjoyed it, even my sister, who I didn’t know even had Twitter, called to mock me. All good so far. Then, sometime around mid-afternoon on Sunday, supporter's of the second best side in Glasgow came across my Tweet. The comments changed. I’ve not read them all, there are simply too many and life is too short, but I got the general gist and some clear themes emerged. My claim that it was a “minority” of Rangers supporters who were involved in any disorder on Saturday was widely ridiculed. Also, I’d failed to mention sectarianism, or “anti-Irish racism” as many seemed to call it. Lastly, that drunken, loutish behaviour is recurring and unique to Rangers supporters. The ‘minority’ issue is easily dealt with. I think it’s fair to say Rangers have somewhere around 500,000 supporters. It might be more than that, it might be less, but I think it’s a conservative estimate to suggest that 10% of the population of Scotland would describe themselves as supporter’s of Rangers. Some of them might be nominal, a club they followed as a child but take less interest now, others will attend every match, home and away. The only definition of a Rangers supporter I accept is that they want Rangers to win. Estimates of the total crowd numbers at Ibrox and later in the city centre vary, somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000. 20,000 people is barely 4% of our support, and it’s worth remembering that Chief Supt Mark Sutherland of Police Scotland described that crowd as “largely peaceful in nature”. Even if someone wants to complain that everyone present was breaking Covid guidelines and so at least technically in breach of restrictions, it doesn’t change the fact that the other 96% of the Rangers support weren’t. As for those who actually engaged in vandalism and violence that was a very small percentage of those present and a tiny fraction of the Rangers support. For me those are simply irrefutable facts. I don’t know what ‘anti-Irish racism’ is. As far as I know the Irish and the Scots are the same race. Having lived in both I can also say that in my experience we’re largely identical in almost every measurable way. I’m unaware of any systemic discrimination towards Irish people in Scotland, certainly not in this century at least. I didn’t mention sectarianism as I was unaware of any taking place. I wasn’t there, and I’ve not watched many of the videos that have been circulating. If there was sectarian singing or chanting then I condemn it. The anti-Catholic chants and songs still exist among a section of our support, and, away from the stadium and often after a few drinks they sometimes make an appearance. I wish they didn’t. I expect our board wish they didn’t and I can only imagine what some of our players must think. It’s embarrassing. It would be disingenuous to say nothing has changed in this regard over the years, but it would be equally wrong to say this has disappeared, it hasn’t. I can understand why someone who feels these chants are directed at them reacts with fury when they hear them. That said it surprises me to see how many people liberally sprinkle the word ‘hun’ around their timelines when questioning my views. The refrain, when challenged, seems to be that the word isn’t sectarian and isn’t an idiom for ‘Protestant’. A ‘hun’ apparently is a Rangers supporter. Unless it’s a Hearts supporter. Or maybe an Airdrie supporter, and sometimes even a Morton or Kilmarnock supporter. This is the thing about the English language, the meaning of words changes over time and between people. My children regularly describe something positive as ‘sick’, this puzzles me and makes me feel old at the same time. The meaning of the word ‘sick’ has changed. I took a trip to Belfast before Covid hit. It’s a city I know quite well having lived there for a while a few decades ago, but it’s also a city that’s going through such huge change that parts of it were unrecognisable to me. I decided to do the first time visitor thing and take a bus tour to reacquaint myself. The Belfast bus tour takes you to places that are famous and infamous. It doesn’t hide its past, you see the city warts and all. We visited various ‘interfaces’. An interface is a euphemism for a border, in Belfast that’s where a republican area meets a loyalist area. These are bleak, people-less areas, dominated by high fences and walls, where territory is clearly marked by graffiti. Much of this graffiti is sadly familiar to a Glaswegian and I’d little trouble understanding just whose territory we were leaving or entering. Something unfamiliar did catch my eye though, 3 letters that made a regular appearance as you entered loyalist areas; KAT, and 3 similar ones when you entered republican areas; KAH. The tour guide explained that KAT stands for ‘Kill All Taigs’ and KAH stands for ‘Kill All Huns’. On the streets of working class Belfast it seems that Taigs are Catholics and Huns are Protestants. Not unsurprisingly I’ve recently started to notice these initials in Glasgow too. Now I’m willing to accept that not everyone who uses the word ‘hun’ does mean all Protestants, but that doesn’t mean it’s not what I hear when it’s said. And while some might not use it that way, others clearly do. Meanings change, it’s all of our jobs to keep up with that change, not just Rangers supporters. Lastly, why is it always Rangers? This takes us directly into ‘whataboutery’ country again and I’ve little desire to spend more time there. Suffice to say that over the years I’ve seen violence, first hand, sometimes at very close quarters, perpetrated by supporters of Aberdeen, Dundee, Motherwell, Airdrie, Kilmarnock, Morton, Clydebank, Partick Thistle, Hibs, Hearts, Falkirk, Clyde, St Mirren, Sunderland, Glentoran, Linfield, Cliftonville and, believe it or not, Celtic. Rangers don’t have a monopoly on bams, but I’m not going to pretend we don’t have any either. That there was disorder on Saturday night didn’t come as a surprise to me. I’ve lived in Glasgow long enough to know that there are people in our society for who a Saturday spent drinking will greatly increase the likelihood of them being involved in violence. That hard drinking ‘get mad wae it’ culture is alive and flourishing among a section of our society. I don’t think the blame for that can be laid at the door of Rangers directors, players or indeed me. The Scottish Crime Survey of 2018 recorded that 46% of all violent crime in Scotland is alcohol related. 41% of all prisoners in Scotland report being drunk at the time of their offence, that figure rises to 60% for young offenders. The STAG Trauma Report in 2015 records that alcohol was associated with 33% of all major trauma patients, that number doubles when just recording male patients. Alcohol related death is 7 times higher in Scotland’s most deprived areas and alcohol related hospital stays are 8 times higher in Scotland’s poorest communities. Again, the figures are higher for men than woman. Despite this I’ve yet to read anyone ask what Smirnoff, Buckfast or the makers of MD 20-20 had to say about last Saturday night, far less suggest that everyone who drinks alcohol should be ashamed of themselves and demand action be taken. Rangers draw their support from across Scotland and beyond, but the post industrial heartlands of the central belt are where we draw the bulk of our support. These areas have more than their fare share of economic black spots and deprived communities. None of that is an excuse for violence or religious intolerance. Indeed the majority of people brought up in these areas aren’t violent or bigoted. But the power to change the people who are, to improve their schools, to broaden their horizons, to perhaps give them ambitions beyond the weekend, to deal with whatever demons they currently try and drown and to instil a pride or self worth clearly lacking in some of them doesn’t lie with Steven Gerrard or the Rangers board. It lies, quite squarely, at the feet of those elected to represent these communities; politicians. That’s ironic, because some of them have been very quick to point fingers of responsibility elsewhere this week. It does feel that some people see Rangers as responsible for the actions of everyone who supports them at all times. There were 54 arrests and 429 crimes at T In The Park a few years ago yet no one suggests The Stone Roses are held responsible for that. There is a limit on what the club can do and should be held responsible for. I’m surprised that even needs stated. But then maybe I shouldn’t be surprised, it’s strange that now we have so many ways of communicating with each other more than ever people still only hear what they want to hear.

I don't think he should be in the squad, I don't think Gilmour should be either. Both clearly have huge potential but neither have played anything like enough first team football to warrant a full international call up. Anyway, they're in it now so I hope both of them do very well.

It's come to something when Brian Wilson sounds reasonable and moderate to Rangers fans. It's a fair article and raises some good points.

Yes, there is - https://www.ipso.co.uk/

Congratulations Gunslinger, hope this Saturday goes as well as last Saturday.