JohnMc

Remind me of our results since Beale took over? Beale instructing our players to allow Thistle to score not only didn't affect the result of the match, it has literally no bearing at all on the next match, none whatsoever.

Yes, well you shouldn't have built one then.

West Ham would have won the Champion's League by now had Di Canio not caught that ball... Richard Gough once ordered our players not to score against Hearts after they'd been reduced to 8 men in a match at Ibrox. When does the petition to strip him of his place in the Hall Of Fame begin? I could understand the anger this seems to be generating if we'd lost yesterday.

Raskin could join this week, have a blinding next few months in our first team, so much so that someone offers us £5 million for him in the summer. Beale and Wilson would like geniuses then. I can understand the disquiet over buying someone who is 'free' in 6 months time, but a bird in the hand and all that, and I sincerely hope our players and management haven't given up on this league, far less the cups.

Changes are coming to European football, whether supporters want it or not. The question is will we be part of it. The imbalance in finance between the English league and the rest of Europe is stark, FIFA's report on transfer spending last year lays that out - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64412215 This was largely behind the 'Super League' debacle last season, and while that has been shelved for now, the reasons for it haven't and it, or something very like it, will rise again and soon. I doubt we'll be invited into the elite league, but there's going to be a shuffling of the chairs in club football in the coming years and it will affect us. I mean no disrespect when I say that it's not right that we compete in a league with clubs most of who literally have a turnover that's a fraction of ours. Likewise when we go into the Champion's League we're the minnows, at least financially. The obvious next step is some sort of pan-European league. The Americanisation of sport in Europe is well underway, and while closed leagues are still unpalatable for most there's a chance of a pyramid and so clubs like ours have a pathway to the top. What form that league will be is anyone's guess. Rugby union in Europe has an English league, a French league and an 'all the rest' league. The English clubs aren't dominating like they used too, the 'all the rest' have sides that are very competitive as do the French. For me our current custodians job is to keep us solvent and competitive at the Europa League level, the second tier of European football, until the future becomes clearer. I suspect an 'all the rest' league isn't so far away. The fabled Atlantic League with Belgian, Dutch, Scandinavian, Swiss and maybe some eastern European sides as well as Scotland seems likely to me.

Morelos to Inter isn't as ridiculous as it first sounds. Italian club football isn't at the standard it once was, you could argue it's only the fifth strongest league in Europe now. Plus in recent years Scottish players have done relatively well in Serie A. Aaron Hickey and Liam Henderson both settled quickly and did well there, now Josh Doig and Lewis Ferguson have continued that trend. A fit, focussed Morelos would do well in that league and for a relatively small outlay he must be on a few Italian sides radar.

Depending on what his remit is I don't think its worst appointment the club has made. He's a former Holyrood politician and someone who has held various roles, some senior, at the BBC, he must have an intimate understanding of how both work. We've not enjoyed good relations with either of those institutions for a long time now, and whatever your views surely an improved relationship with both is beneficial for the club. I'm guessing, so there's every chance I'm wrong, but my take is Morrison has been brought in to try and create a better relationship between the club and the large public institutions that run and influence much of Scottish day-to-day life. That won't be easy, I wish him luck as I think he'll need it.

I don't catch Off The Ball often these days but I caught some of it on Saturday. They'd a couple of ex-refs on and I assume they'd hoped to further fuel the Ange bonfire that Scottish VAR and refereeing was being placed upon. Instead, at least while I was listening, the ex-refs laughed at the ridiculousness of these allegations of bias against the Celtic. One of them, (was his name Conroy?) explained he was a Celtic fan and once got pelters from his pals for chalking off a Celtic 'goal' against us. Both easily explained the 'hand ball' rule and expressed surprise that Ange and co didn't know it. Cosgrove sounded uncomfortable at this breaking out of common sense, Cowan, to his credit, mocked Celtic and their acolytes.

Great question. Separating the 'club' from the 'support' for a moment, although both are intrinsically linked in reality. Our claims to be the 'world's most successful club' might be factually accurate but don't really hold much value under serious scrutiny, I mean are we really claiming to be more successful than Real Madrid or Liverpool? I could check but I think Linfield have now won more domestic titles than Rangers and no one is claiming they are the world's most successful club. But domestic success is still clearly a part of our 'brand'. You ask any football supporter in Europe to name a Scottish football club and they'll know Rangers. When we reached the Europa League final last season the Chairman of Frankfurt welcomed our semi final victory by saying something like 'it's great the final is being contested by two traditional clubs'. This was partly a dig at RB Leipzig who are universally disliked in Germany, but also a nod to our history. There are not many organisations who reach 150 years old, we had a history with Frankfurt, having famously played them in the 1960s, and they knew this. Add this to Ibrox Stadium, again an organisation that has had the same home for over a century, and a home with a building as magnificent as our Main Stand, is impressive. So I'd venture that 'tradition' is part of our brand. We're not Man City, or PSG or Chelsea where everyone knows that success has been bought by oligarchs and sport-washing, and while success brings fame and adulation, none of those clubs have what we have now. So 'tradition' being a 'real' football club that exists purely for the love of the sport for me is key to the club's brand today. Now we're obviously not the only club who can claim that. but we should be careful about protecting it. Another term that's often used to describe Rangers is 'the quintessential British club'. I've never been entirely sure what that meant, as 'British' is such a difficult term to define. Undoubtedly a good percentage of our support embrace this, and while in recent times the club hasn't made any statements that were overtly political or about national identity, we do fly the Union flag and, famously, toast the monarch. So being 'British' however complicated that might be, is currently part of our brand. Is being 'Scottish' part of our brand? It was when I started following Rangers. As ridiculous as it might seem today the bulk of the Scotland support was made up of Rangers fans up. I went to every Scotland home match from the early 1980s to the early 90s. Something changed then. I don't know if it was the influx of English players under Souness, something that had never happened in Scotland before, or the start of the decline of the Scotland team as a force in international football, but something changed. I'd still watch the games but no longer attended, but I never missed a Rangers match. Gradually my interest has wained and I don't think I'm alone in that. I was barely aware we were even playing earlier this week. That's me, and I fully accept others will feel differently. But I don't think it's inaccurate to suggest a gulf lies between the Scotland side and many Rangers fans. Many of us don't feel an ownership of the national side, and we should, it's our side too. I lived in Belfast for a while and Linfield supporters see the Northern Ireland side as theirs, as do Glentoran and Crusader's fans, in a way that I don't think we do anymore. Indeed I'd say NI based Rangers supporters feel an ownership of their national side. We can analyse the many cultural, footballing and political reasons for this and never solve it. But once you leave Scotland there is no doubt at all that the rest of the world see us as a Scottish side. Whatever our slightly complicated relationship might be, to a German or a Dutch football fan Rangers are Scottish, indeed often we're one of the few things they associate with Scotland. We're based in Scotland, most of our support is based in Scotland, we play in blue and have a lion rampant in our badge. So, Scotland is part of our brand. Is Glasgow part of our brand, or even Govan? To an extent it is but it’s not something we make enough of I feel. But both are closely associated with us so it’s part of our brand. Is Protestantism? It wasn't at the beginning, or indeed for the first 3 or so decades of our existence. But it would be mendacious to pretend it didn't become a defining tenet of who we are. But is it today? I'd venture that the club like to keep it at arm's length. That said we have a club chaplain from the Presbyterian tradition and whenever services are conducted around the Ibrox disaster for example they are normally officiated by the Church of Scotland. But today I don't think our club is any closer to reformed Christianity than say Hearts or Aberdeen are, both of who I suspect would also look to the main denomination for guidance when the need arose. In my opinion the support are a bit schizophrenic on this. While I'd say the majority of our support are at least culturally or traditionally 'Protestant, I suspect most don't darken the doors of their local Kirk very often. Religion plays a smaller and smaller part of most Scot's daily lives, I'd say most Rangers supporter's have no real religion if you pushed them on it. Yet, we're still seen by many people as being a 'Protestant' club, whatever that means. Clearly part of this is connected to our main rival's clear association with Catholicism. If they are one thing we must be the other. It's also true that some supporter's have an association with organisations like the Orange institutions and much of the trappings of that, such as songs, have become associated with Rangers too, and still are. Songs and chants with a strong Loyalist influence, largely from Ireland, are still popular with a large section of the support, as are some that can only be described as 'anti-Catholic'. For me I don't believe we're in really a 'Protestant' club anymore, but it would also be wrong to pretend others might disagree. It's part of our 'brand' in some shape or form. I worry being ‘anti-Catholic’ is also seen as part of our brand by some and I’ve personal experience of some who think we’re ‘anti-Irish’. My biggest frustration is I don’t think we can genuinely associate any clear football related themes to our brand. We’re not Ajax for example and their association with producing their own players. We’re not Liverpool or Man Utd or Spurs where a particular type of attacking football is associated with them. If anything in modern times I think we’re seen as a club who buy success, who can outspend most of their rivals. We don’t have a reputation, at least in modern times, of producing our own players and our style of football changes with every new manager. I’d say that was different 100 or so years ago when we were the ‘speedy and light blues’ and viewed as one of the most attractive and progressive footballing sides of the time. I suppose in Scotland we’re still viewed as a side who ‘wins trophies’, even if it’s not so accurate in the last decade. But that’s a domestic brand and rather than an international one. It’s a mixed bag. We could, and should, have some footballing themes to help define our brand. Certainly developing young players is something the board are actively pursuing but it takes a lot of successes and a while for that to become a reality.

It would hardly undermine the manager if Stewart Robertson or someone on the board did an interview in Rangers TV where they explained the board's delight at finally qualifying but their disappointment at the performances in the Champion's League. The reality check regarding the levels we are striving to reach, the challenges the coaching team have faced regarding injuries to the squad and the confidence the board have in GvB and the need for patience and backing from the support while injured players return to the team. I mean that's hardly controversial or indeed unexpected. A lot of the support might not agree with it but it would let everyone know where they stand. As ever directors can change their mind at any time in the future. For me the fact they haven't done this is more telling regarding how the board are feeling about things. I wonder if there's a split in the board currently regarding our manager.

I suspect his defence will be "but it can't be sectarian cause I'm a Proddy too". I've some sympathy for the posters who are neither offended by the phrase nor see much point in escalating the tit for tat 'I'm pure offended' that often dominates online discourse. Like all words the person using them and the tone in which they are delivered makes a huge difference to that word's meaning, whether intended or not. As Ascender says up thread being called a 'hun' by a friend or acquaintance in a friendly conversation rarely causes any offence and neither is it meant too. However a complete stranger shouting Kill All Huns at you on a dark night might elicit a different response, and again I suspect that would be deliberate. I imagine this Aberdeen fan's defence will be along the lines that he feels 'hun' has no sectarian meaning, to him it's simply a derogatory term for Rangers supporters. I also suspect he'll be able to show numerous examples of this, maybe he'll ask Stuart Cosgrove to give evidence in his defence, it's a term he's used a bit in the past after all. It'll be an interesting defence and assumes that bringing a banner saying 'kill all Rangers fans' to a ground holding nearly 50,000 Rangers fans is otherwise perfectly acceptable behaviour of course. From a personal perspective, like all of us, I've been called a hun on numerous occasions. Often it was jocular and delivered by someone I knew, no offence was meant and none was taken. On others I was fairly sure the person was intending to insult or intimidate me, it was meant aggressively. Sometimes it was said in my company by someone who forgot I was there and their reaction when they realised I'd heard was often telling as to their intention and meaning. I'd a girlfriend many years ago who described me as a 'practicing hun' to members of her family when the subject of football inevitably came up. That relationship wasn't destined to last. The meaning of words changes. That's simply a fact about the English language. No matter how much we might wish it otherwise, the meaning behind how we say something, or these days type something, isn't always the meaning that someone reading it will take. On a return trip to Belfast a few years ago I noticed the term 'KAH' sprayed close an intersection where Unionist and Nationalist areas joined. Graffiti and murals have long been used in Belfast to designate territory and I found them a very helpful navigation aid when I first moved there. For those unaware KAH stands for 'Kill All Huns', and it was sprayed as a territorial marker, letting everyone know what area you were entering. Do we think the person responsible meant 'Rangers supporters' when they left that mark? We can only speculate, but personally I'm in no doubt at all that in that context it meant 'Protestant' or at the very least 'Unionist', although those terms are often interchangeable. Whatever that Aberdeen fan's intention, it's naive in the extreme to think that some people who use that word don't see it as a derogatory catch all term for Protestants. Like a number of other words that were once fairly commonly used it's probably advisable to avoid using it at all now.

As Bassey proved, a good 6 months is all it needs to for one of our players to become a target for richer clubs. Tillman, as a creative player, could easily command a fee similar to Bassey if he can develop his game. There's an argument he's not worth what Munich want for him currently, but the potential is there and with more games and good coaching he could become someone who is in demand. I'd also say King could be a target for English sides if he can continue his progress. Spending £6 or £7 million on a young player like King isn't a big deal for a lot of clubs down there. King isn't worth that now, but again the more he plays and improves the more chance it will happen. Strangely, for this model to succeed, it's really important that Paterson, Aribo and Bassey excel at their 'new' clubs. Even players who might leave for very little in the summer, if they are able to hold their own in terms of the overall quality of the new leagues they play in the more interest that will generate in our players.

I suspect the Europa run has inflated our wage bill. While Paterson and Gerrard are indeed 'one offs', we've already sold Bassey and Aribo which should have generated more. Qualifying for the Champion's League should provide a similar amount to the Europa run. Hopefully that's Sports Direct finally gone from our lives. Paying off the loans is a good thing I think, I suspect there will be more to pay off in the coming seasons. Overall a pretty good set of accounts considering where we were when this board took over. For all the criticism they've had recently they've delivered stability and all being well it's a sustainable model.

Manchester. Both United and City have made the final. Can't think of many other countries that have 2 cities with 2 semi finalists. Neither Torino nor Lazio have reached the last 4, so just Milan with 2 clubs, Espanyol haven't so just Madrid in Spain, Boavista haven't so just Lisbon from Portugal. Can't think what German cities have 2 strong sides, Berlin certainly hasn't had 2 semi finalists and 1860 Munich haven't reached the semi final.

The owner of the Phoenix Suns looks like just the kind of guy we'd want owning the club... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/basketball/62899194 The Phoenix Suns owner Robert Sarver has been suspended for a year and fined $10m after an NBA investigation into claims of racism and misogyny. The NBA found Sarver "engaged in conduct that clearly violated common workplace standards". It found evidence of "racially insensitive language, unequal treatment of female employees and sex-related statements and conduct".

And the owner of the Phoenix Suns would want to own Rangers why? Rangers going back to the 'sugar-daddy' model is a retrograde step. I know of no supporters who think the majority of our players 'play for the shirt', they're professionals in a professional era. The thought of an American 'sports entrepreneur' buying Rangers is utterly depressing. We're not a franchise.

I didn't read Dave King asking about Mygers, disabled access, pricing or any of the other things you mentioned in your point. Did he raise them? As others have said we have reinvested in the squad. You might be unhappy with who we've reinvested in, and that's fair enough, but it's not accurate to say it hasn't happened. Aside from the 7 new first team squad signings and 11 development squad signings, that from what I can see cost in excess of £10 million in transfer fees, we also gave new contracts to Goldson, Tav, McGregor and Davis, each of who will have received a decent signing on fee on top of agent fees. I hope we've still got something left over after selling Bassey, Aribo and Itten and we're able to strengthen again in January. We didn't know if we were going into the Champion's League until a couple of weeks ago. I suspect we did have signing target(s) if we qualified and for whatever reason they didn't pan out. I don't know if I expect the club's directors or manager to announce publicly we tried to sign someone and he chose to stay where he is. All that aside I'm not sure what other communication you expect from the board and on what subjects? Dave King can pick up the phone to the board anytime he wants, he's a major shareholder he gets to ask questions if he wants. He's stirring trouble in my opinion, I'm grateful for all he's done in the past but I think he's at it currently.

When people say Dave King has a point, what point is it he has? How quickly we forget just what a financial basket case of a club we were until very recently. A reminder our last published accounts showed our "pre-tax loss widened from £17.8m to £24.7m (£24.2m after tax), as revenue fell £11.3m (19%) from £59.0m to £47.7m, partly offset by increases in other income, up £1.4m to £3.4m, and profit on player sales, up £1.0m to £1.7m, while expenses were down £2.3m (3%)." Where the fuck do we think the Europa League money has gone? There's no way Dave King doesn't know that either. We were a club haemorrhaging money until very recently, this shouldn't come as news to any supporter to pays the slightest attention to the club. To say that the board aren't communicating on this is very strange, what exactly is it people expect them to say? We've been told many, many times that the only way the club can function is by either qualifying for the Champion's League or by selling players. This can't come as news to anyone. So, had everyone forgotten this? We didn't qualify for the Champion's League last season, even with the Europa League run it's debatable if we'd have gone into the black without the sales of Paterson and Aribo. Another thing I'm always curious about when this comes up is do supporters expect the directors who have covered these losses for several seasons to write that money off or do we think it's okay for them to get some or all of it back? I don't think our support are in the remotest way yet ready for the reality of what it takes to run a club like ours in the Scottish league system and not have a sugar daddy pick up the slack. This, this now is reality. Sell our most valuable players, search for bargains to replace them with. That's what we did in the summer, that's what we'll need to do every summer unless the SPFL sign a new, and very different, TV deal with someone.

I know the day after our second heavy loss in a row isn't the day for considered analysis, we're angry and we need someone to blame. That said the season is long and we're not far into it yet, Real Madrid lost at home to a side from a country that doesn't exist last season and still won the tournament. We're not Real Madrid, I accept, but we've not become a bad side over night, as quickly as things have turned sour they can improve again. I can't help but feel the exertions of last season are still taking their toll. We played 65 competitive matches last season, from July to mid-May. Only one of those matches could be described as meaningless, away at Hearts at the end of the season, almost every other one was a 'must win'. As a comparison Ajax played 47 competitive matches last season. Tav, Goldson and Kamara played over 50 games each last season (excluding Kamara's international appearances), Kent, Lundstrum, Barasic and Arfield played only a handful less. That's the core of our side. That Tav has a niggly injury and Goldson, Kent and Lundstrum are a yard off the pace can't be coincidence I feel. What this will mean for the rest of the season I can't say, but it seems clear we'll need the 'squad' a lot more in the coming weeks at least. Hopefully Davies has returned to fitness and Lawerence is only a week or two away. Likewise a fit and focused Morelos returning would be timely too. I'm not sure we have adequate replacements for Tav, Kamara, Kent and Lundstrum, so some younger players might need to be given time, something we're not good at. I get we all want to blame someone; Gio, Goldson, Ross Wilson, the board, anyone. It might get worse before it gets better, but I feel we have the right manager in place for this transitional period, I'm not sure a change of direction now would actually help.

Lovelace, Stevens and Nsio all came on against QOTS but I think it's fair to assume they'll be on the fringe first team this season.

A little surprised how downbeat so many seem to be. Not buying someone in the last weeks of the transfer window doesn't mean we don't have any money. We have been planning for this transfer window for months, it might be that everyone was happy with the business we did early and only if we were forced to sell someone were we likely to look at bringing someone else in. I think the people in charge of the club currently have shown they're not incompetent, quite the opposite. Maybe we need to have some faith. As a support I feel we've long forgotten that the youth and B teams are there to supplement our squad. That's quite literally the point of them. For a club of our current size, playing in the league we are, it's essential we're able to bring through our own players. Some will flourish and bring us big transfer fees, some will simply provide cover and not make the final step up. But we need to realise that's a large part of the future for us, if we are to have a future. We have to expect players like King, Lowrie, McCann, Devine and Ure to play 10 to 15 matches this season. Sometimes as subs, sometimes in cup matches and sometimes in our biggest games because senior players are injured or suspended. Rangers have to become a club that's recognised for developing and promoting younger players. Now that Patterson is starting regularly at Everton and Bassey at Ajax that will help build that reputation. We need more of them and perhaps we have them, they just need a chance to play. I don't know if Ridvan can speak much English, but I do know he's not long turned 21 and is living in a new country that's culturally very different from everything he knows, playing for a club with high expectations. That we're breaking him in gently smacks of good management to me. The Govan front can destroy the confidence of even the best fullbacks, two misplaced passes in a game we're struggling in and they'll be on his back. Plus, Borna is playing relatively well currently. Again, have a little faith. Lastly, I fully expect to see Morelos back to his best in the next few weeks. His public telling off and the side progressing without him will have provided some incentive to sort himself out. He wants to play in the Champion's League, every player does. Oh, it goes without saying that should we lose our next two matches I reserve the right to revise all of the above and berate everyone at the club for not splashing the cash.

Ironically other than scoring I didn't think Ure did very much. His goal was well taken and should be applauded, that it came from a piece of poor control by him in the first place adds to the irony. If that points to him being a 'lucky' striker I'll take that. I think the last forward we actually produced was Gary McSwegan so we're well overdue someone coming through that can score goals. I look forward to seeing him get some more game time this season. I thought King did well, he was partnered with an experienced player but not a defender so he had to take more responsibility. He could do with a Goldson or a Helander (or a Weir) beside him for a few months to talk him through games. Ridvan and Devine also played well I felt, both are a bit slight but they'll get game time as the season goes on. I worry that Matondo is this season's Diallo/Oduwa/Zalalem/Weiss. A player with loads of ability and clear potential but missing the certain something to pull it all together.

This is really perceptive. I remember a while ago a continental manager talking about 'pressing' and how the trick is knowing when to do it. His point being that no side can do it all the time, it takes too much energy and good sides pick when to do it. As DMAA has said we created the mistake, first Laurence closes down the blonde fullback, Kamara closes out his forward pass so he's forced to pass back to the centre half, Colak then closes the centre half forcing the pass to keeper, the only pass available as Kent and Tillman have moved up stopping a pass to the other centre back. The keeper should have punted it but he needed a touch because of the hurried pass to him and as Colak was sprinting onto him he had only one possible pass. Everyone knows what happened next. But DMAA is right, this was no accident, it was tactical and done really well, something I didn't fully appreciate watching the game live.

Haven't Mr Powar and Ms Mir gone their separate ways? I'm sure I read an article about 'single parenting' she wrote. If i'd sent my weans to Bearsden Academy and they'd left being a Celtic fan I'd want my money back.

Hope you're both feeling OK and you have a speedy recovery.