JohnMc

There used to be issues around work permits, I assume there still is. Unless a player was a full international and had played a certain amount of games at that level he couldn't get a work permit for the UK. France and Belgium had different rules on this. I know very little about Sakala but Wiki reports he's played 13 games for Zambia since 2017 so he's close to a first choice international and should qualify for a work permit.

I tend to agree with Bluedell on Simpson's performance at the weekend. What I'd say in Simpson's defence is he's barely played any football. I don't even mean just this season, I mean ever. He's 24 and had only played 20 first team matches (some of them as sub) during his entire time with Bournemouth, his only other professional club. By the same age Conner Goldson had played 106 first team games albeit at a lower level. For me Simpson is a gamble by our scouting department. They're hoping that with development and games there's a player in there Bournemouth had yet to discover. They might well be right, only time will tell. For me Simpson is certainly behind Goldson, Helander, Balogun and Katic depending on how he recovers from his injury. Maybe even behind George Edmundson if he stays in the summer. The Rangers first team is a challenging environment to learn your trade though, we expect our 24 year old centre halves to be close to the finished article and Simpson certainly isn't that. Perhaps a run of games is all he needs to build his confidence, understanding and reading of the game, I have my doubts as to whether he'll get them with us though. Anyway, I refuse to criticise any of our players from Sunday's match, a 4-1 win over Celtic earns you a week off from me.

Good article, well written, good stuff @Rick Roberts

That's a fair point and with our recent history and the perilous state of football finances in general one worth having front of mind. European football is littered with clubs who reached for the stars and fell a great distance afterwards, we all need somewhere to land should that happen.

Actually, on the money bubble point, this might prove important if true - https://www.ft.com/content/80c79e49-3f9b-4ca9-866c-9f39f38683c1?shareType=nongift "BT has opened talks with a number of potential investors as it considers a sale of its sports broadcasting operation, looking to focus on its core broadband and telephony business and blow the whistle on the content business."

From what I can see the Dutch/Belgian league is replacing their national leagues and is viewed by Uefa as a domestic league. The winners of it will then go into the Champion's League, runners up into Europa and so on. I don't know how promotion and relegation work. There are currently talks between the Irish League and the League Of Ireland over a combined North and Republic domestic league now too. In any combined league it probably won't be difficult to point out the clubs who'll be more successful. Ajax, Feyonoord and Anderlecht are simply bigger clubs from bigger cities than Ghent, Willem or Alkmaar and enjoy the advantages that brings. In theory, with equal resources, you'd expect Rangers to be competitive in any domestic league after a couple of seasons. Our support and club structure and culture should allow us to be competitive. Famous last words of course. Personally I think combined domestic leagues is inevitable, it's just a matter of how long it'll be before they happen. The only other question is which version we join. I would prefer if the Scottish league could improve and we didn't move too, but it just seems the momentum isn't in that direction. That said if the money bubble in football bursts, and while it's unlikely it does seem like a ceiling might have been reached, then maybe there's a big reset coming for all clubs.

Celtic's financial problems came later, largely by trying to keep up with Rangers while still being run like a local bowling club. Bosman and freedom of movement can't be overlooked DMAA, that has had a massive effect on football. Aberdeen had players like Willie Miller and Alex McLeish and they couldn't leave without Aberdeen agreeing, even if their contracts were up. Both of those players were exceptional, and could have played at a far higher level (to be fair they played at World Cups and in the latter stages of European competition so they did pretty well). Today a player like Miller or McLeish would have left Aberdeen by the time he was 21 with Aberdeen getting a nominal amount. It's led to wage inflation and agent fees spiralling to absurd levels and on balance has probably not been good for the sport overall. That said Aberdeen's salaries were pretty close to the salaries Rangers and Celtic were paying prior to Souness.

Strangely I think it's more likely than us joining any English league is. Currently UEFA is opposed to combined leagues but that opposition seems to be softening. Suggestions of a combined Dutch/Belgian league and a 'Balkans' league haven't been shot down by Uefa, indeed they've signalled their tacit support. What that will mean for an Atlantic League is anyone's guess. The Dutch/Belgian league is slated to begin in 2025, whether they'd invite us or some Scandinavian sides into it is a possibility. The reason I can't see us going into an English league is I don't think there's any appetite among English clubs to have us in their league. Whereas Dutch and Belgian clubs might well look at us and see a decent support, similar quality and the potential to open up UK broadcast contracts and sponsors who otherwise might not be too interested in it. As I've said elsewhere in this thread what fans want never features highly on decision makers agenda.

Double post.

Undoubtedly, which is why they receive more stick than others when we struggle. If you look at someone like Morelos, even if he's not scoring goals, his work rate and running are obvious and the support tend to cut him a bit more slack. I suspect many of us don't think Hagi or Aribo work as hard as Morelos, so when they're not producing their primary job; creating openings, then some feel they're not contributing anything.

I think Aribo's problem is if he isn't creating chances he looks like he isn't doing anything. Hagi's like that too. I actually think both work hard when they don't have the ball and their movement creates space for others, but a lot of that is unseen and not always appreciated. Aribo was great against Celtic a couple of weeks ago, then less effective against a very defensive St Johnstone, but the whole side struggled to break St Johnstone down. I think to many of us look to Aribo, Kent and Hagi to provide the spark and inventiveness that wins those types of games.

If ever there was an Old Firm match to make your debut in it's this one. There's nothing but pride at stake, it's the perfect match for Simpson to start if Helander is out. Everything we do now should be about getting ready for next season. That said unless there are injuries I expect a midfield of Davis, Kamara and Arfield and an attack of Morelos, Kent and Aribo. Maybe we'll play Roofe instead of Morelos and maybe we'll give McLoughlin a game for the experience. We've options up front but defence and midfield are down to their bones and we don't have many alternatives. Can't see King getting a game unless we've more injuries than we know of. Could see him make a substitute appearance before the end of the season though.

Rangers were rebuilding Ibrox during the late 70s and early 80s, had Rangers been able to invest that money on players it might have been a very different time for us. Also home gate receipts were split 50/50 with the away side, an enormous benefit for every other side in the league, there was very little TV money and sponsorship and no one had thought of corporate hospitality yet. So while Rangers and Celtic were still the richest clubs the gap between us and everyone else was much smaller than now. Also the gap between salaries in Scotland and England was much smaller, the top sides in England were paying more but nothing like the difference we see now. Footballers contract's were very different too, there was no Bosman rule then, the club decided if you stayed or left, the player had far less say in it. This allowed clubs to keep good players for longer or cash in on them when they wanted. Lastly Aberdeen and Dundee Utd were managed by geniuses, something we can all hope never happens again!

From Ness? ? I understand your point but in reality if we assume most Rangers supporters are living in Central Scotland, (simply because most people live there) then away trips to Motherwell, Hibs, St Mirren, Kilmarnock, Hamilton, Livingston, Celtic and St Johnstone are short journeys and even Ross County and Aberdeen are hardly treks. I'm not convinced we'd get much more of an away ticket allocation at EPL grounds either. Belgium, Holland and Denmark aren't much further away than London for most of us. While any Atlantic type league would involve international travel and make it probably prohibitively expensive for most people to attend regularly, I suspect many would take in a couple of away trips each season making a weekend of it. Most of the guys I know who go on European away trips seem to really enjoy them, I suspect they'd love an Atlantic League, although I'm not sure their wives would!

Southampton made a loss of £76 million last year and a loss of £41 million in 2019, apparently they have a wages to turnover ratio of 90%. They finished 11th last season. Even Ajax make an operating loss most seasons (nothing like Southampton's to be fair), they rely on selling players to make up the shortfall. I can't think of any side in the UK that has had tangible on-field success while while being run like a normal business. Much as it pains me to say it the closest in recent years was Celtic, but they had the league and access to Europe all to themselves. As soon as we put a challenge in their model fell apart. I'm not accusing you of being unimpressed by this season, I don't think that. I do think your desire to join another league because there's more money available in it is mis-guided. As I said in my original post I'm not closed to against another league, but it has to be for the right reasons. For me access to more money isn't one of those reasons. For what it's worth I think your view is probably the majority one among our support.

Queens Park won the league at a canter, not only are they now professional but the core of their side is also full-time. That will give them an advantage next season too as League 1 is largely part-time. It would be no surprise to see QP in The Championship within a few seasons. Unfortunately being badly run is inherent in football. Football is almost unique in its ability to attract and accept incompetence, nepotism and corruption at its administrative levels. I was told of a club who appointed a former player to a senior position within its PR department. Not only did this former player have no qualifications for the job he was literally unable to turn on a computer and use basic Microsoft programmes. In no other industry would that man be even considered for a job in that department. This type of appointment is endemic in football. The current Chief Executive of the SFA, Ian Maxwell, has only spent 10 years in any kind of administrative position, yet apparently he's the best qualified person in the world to head up our entire association and its nearly £40 million turnover. Whatever his many faults Sir David Murray was a shrewd and capable businessman, as is Dermot Desmond. Yet Celtic will lose millions this year and I don't need to remind anyone of what state Sir David's tenure left Rangers finances. Being well run in football is very, very difficult if you actually want to challenge for titles and trophies. Look at the finances of the top teams in England. Despite having access to an almost bottomless pit of TV, sponsorship and prize money less than six sides in that league breakeven on a regular basis and none of them challenge for trophies. Leicester City, the one side who've been able to break the 'big club' monopoly in England lost £20 million in their last published accounts. Occasionally one of the big six clubs will make a profit, but that usually involves a run to at least the semi-finals of the Champion's League, and it doesn't factor in the debt they've built up or the colossal investment put in by owners to get them to that point in the first place. As football stands it's impossible to apply normal business rules to it and expect success, if success is measured by on-field performance. The vagaries of prize-money and the effect of a down-turn in form make projecting beyond the immediate future near impossible. Liverpool, arguably the best side on the planet last season, will lose a fortune next season if they fail to qualify for the Champion's League as looks increasingly unlikely. Who would have predicted that this time last year? I can well understand why senior executives brought into football from 'normal' industries take one look at it and decide that even the remote possibility of not qualifying for the Champion's League and access to its money is a risk that must be managed. Which is where ideas like the Super League or even the proposed changes to the Champion's League come from. If you're the Rangers finance director do you pass a budget that allows for Champion's League football? If you don't the budget for signing and paying players will be significantly less, making even qualifying for the tournament even harder and perhaps giving our main rivals an opportunity to claw back some of the lost ground. If you do give a budget that allows for Champion's League football and we sign players based on that income what happens if we don't qualify? Look across the city to see what happens. For me this is why applying many best business practices to football is a waste of time. It's also why I've become so wary of phrases like "investment is needed to progress" and "can utilise our fan base and stature, and be provided with the investment that some PL sides receive, we can move up in the world" because, and I'm mean no disrespect, but they're meaningless phrases when faced with the reality of football in the UK. The reason German club football is healthier is because the entire structure has embraced a different ownership or economic model. Their league is still dominated by one big club, but big clubs can be relegated and smaller clubs can progress without fear of bankruptcy. It's not just the fabled 50% plus one ownership model, although that's a huge part of it, it's the culture around the sport where the focus is on the supporters as much as the players. That simply isn't the case in this country, and hasn't been for a long time. We're playing a cup tie at 6.30pm on a Sunday today and the only legal way I can watch the match is to subscribe to yet another TV channel on top of the the main two I'm already expected to subscribe too, find me a supporter who thinks that's a good idea. I remain unconvinced the popular uprising sparked by the Super League will lead to any genuine change in how football is governed or run in this country, but who knows, maybe it's a turning point. I didn't arrive at this overnight. It's taken decades for me to realise what I actually want from Rangers. They're currently providing it. Unfortunately our finances remain precarious, but at least by focussing on football we've a chance of selling a player or three and balancing the books this summer. How that leaves us for next season only time will tell. In the meantime I look forward to simply being entertained, and that can happen at any level of football.

What's the purpose of Rangers? It's a serious question. Why do Rangers exist, why do we continue nearly 150 years after a handful of teenagers fancied a game of football instead of mucking about in boats? Arsenal, Manchester Utd and Liverpool now exist to provide a handsome income for their main shareholders, sports clubs are their livelihood and they'll follow the path of greatest profit. Chelsea and Man City are more complicated, they can be seen as vanity projects, as 'sports-washing' to put a respectable shine on some people who otherwise might not have the best PR in the west. But it's important for their owners that their clubs are always at the top, whether that's for ego or profile reasons. Barcelona and Real Madrid are intertwined with politics and identity in Spain, both seen as representatives of competing ideologies, and important vehicles for the political and business interests of the people at the top of them. It's similar in Italy too for their big 3 clubs. What are Rangers for then? Our current owners don't seem to be interested in politics and if they're looking for a livelihood they've made a terrible error. In reality I suspect it largely boils down to them wanting the team they support to do as well as possible. Maybe ego and profile play a small part too, but largely it's about the football I think. I've really enjoyed the last 3 years football wise, and I realise that a huge part of that has been down to getting entertained again. Watching Rangers play decent passing football, properly competing in European competition again, developing players into fan heroes and, of course, winning the league. But even last season and the season before, despite the collapse in the league, I enjoyed watching Rangers. We had players that were capable of exciting you and a style that was very pleasing to watch, even if it didn't always prove successful. I realise that's pretty much all I want from Rangers; entertainment, excitement and hope. I want to believe we can win the league or the cup, I want to see us play football that's not kick and rush or punt it up the channels, I want more than that. And I want moments that lift me off my seat, that make me shout out loud, that make me want to post on message-boards and jibber on podcasts. I don't think I'm alone in that either. Football changes. In 1888 Rangers had a rivalry with Vale Of Leven, who were a top side at that time. Within a few years Vale had dropped out of the newly introduced league system. They've been a Junior team for nearly a century now. For much of our history the Glasgow Cup was a competition we took very seriously, both as a club and as a support. It's been a youth competition for nearly 20 years now. Arguably the greatest achievement in our history is winning the European Cup Winners Cup, yet it's not existed as a tournament for over 2 decades now. Football changes, no matter how much I don't want it too. In the future the competitions we enter will change and the rivalries we'll have with clubs will change too. I think, as a club and a support, we have to be open to change. Much as I lament the ending of the old European club competitions, much as I blame the Champion's League and the EPL for most of the problems football now faces, I have to deal with the reality of where we are today. I can be entertained playing in the Scottish leagues, but something needs to be done to improve the standard of player and of football being played. That might involve some pain for us. We might need to share revenue more evenly with our fellow clubs, we might need to increase the number of sides in the league, play each other fewer times, introduce incentives for home grown players. What's not practical is continuing as we are in Scottish football. The standards have been dropping gradually for 30 years, that needs to be arrested soon or we'll need to start seriously looking elsewhere. I'm not against leaving Scotland either. Whether that's a UK wide league, a European League, a hybrid all-the-medium-sized-countries league, whatever, I'm open to it. New rivalries can be created, new trophies can be won. But, and I think this is important, whatever we do we should do it so we can keep entertaining our support. So we can create new heroes, play scintillating football and, hopefully, win things along the way. It should never be about chasing money and money alone. I never want to see us in a league where finishing fourth is a celebrated achievement. I never want to see us in a league where failure isn't punished by relegation. Rangers need finance, I understand that, and I understand that better players command higher salaries and so on. But Rangers don't currently have the best players in the world, indeed you could argue we never have, but they can still thrill and entertain us, that's what Rangers should be about.

Money shouldn't be the motivating factor for moving, we're a football club not a merchant bank. Real Madrid's revenue this season is estimated at over 600 million Euros yet the club's a financial basket case, football should never be measured by money. Norwich might well have revenues double ours, but it didn't stop them being relegated.

Is "reputed to be extremely wealthy" meant to make us feel better or worse do you think? Reputed to support Rangers? Reputed to be interested in football? Reputed to have a love of Scotland? Nah, just extremely wealthy. No wonder the game is in the state it is.

Ironically the Czech Republic national side are basing themselves in Edinburgh for the tournament so I wonder if Kudela would have travelled anyway. He's a first choice centre half for them currently so he'll be missed. He's had a strange career, he was in his 30s before making his international debut, his move to Slavia and their manager seem to have transformed him from a journeyman into a full internationalist. Shame he couldn't manage to be a normal human being at the same time.

There seems to be a determination to keep this incident in the public eye and a few minutes on the national News At Ten certainly helped that. I wonder what the next step is if UEFA's reaction isn't to the club's liking.

Pretty sure this is something that happens after every match as one of the protocols for allowing games to be played. I can't see any way there will be fans back this season and I think we're still months away from a full Ibrox. The issue isn't the stadium itself it's the movement of 50,000 people across the country, sharing cars, trains, buses and of course the subway. Until we're back to level 0 right across the country I think large crowds will remain restricted.

In my mind Cove Rangers are a Highland League side but I see in fact they're second in League 1 with a very decent chance of promotion to the Championship next season. In reality there won't be much between them and the sides at the bottom of the SPFL in terms of player ability, we'll need to ensure against complacency.

Aye, good point!

I assume there is an appeal process with this? Six games feels excessive, even if two are suspended. I assumed a 3 match ban in keeping with Bolingoli at Celtic. Maybe as it's the club's second public breach there's some kind of sliding scale. Of course a fair percentage of our support wanted them thrown out of the club when it happened so maybe some don't feel it's harsh enough. Potentially damaging bans for the club with 2 Scottish Cup rounds falling during it. If we beat Cove Rangers we could get a much stiffer match in the next round and really miss a natural right back and cover at left back. That said perhaps Tav will be back by then.