JohnMc

There might be some gnashing of teeth and hurried memos to the music department at Pacific Quay this morning as Dougie Payne, Travis bass player, has publicly outed himself on the BBC Sport website. Obviously BBC Sport headquarters failed to pick up on Mr. Payne's loyalties before the interview. I'm sure Richard Gordon and Stuart Cosgrove will have a word, can't be having Rangers fans being portrayed as anything but reactionary neanderthals now, former art school indie band rockers not supporting the 'Tic or some diddy team, that's going to confuse the listeners. "But it has to be said that things are going really well right now. Gerrard has really turned things around and the players he has signed have slotted right in. We are not just getting good results, we are playing really well too."

I thought Roofe, Kent and Morelos were all below par yesterday. Kent flattered to deceive but worked hard, Morelos worked hard and got into some good positions but his finishing was very poor and Roofe was as quiet as I remember him in a game. Dundee Utd deserve some credit for stopping us playing at our most fluent but we controlled most of the match and should have won by a more comfortable margin than we did. For me Morelos was never as good as some thought he was this time last season and he's not as bad as some think he is this season. All strikers go through spells where it's not happening and he seems to be having one just now. He's still our 3rd highest goal scorer for the season though and we're not even half way through. Itten is now putting pressure on Roofe and Morelos for a starting spot, his performance at Poznan and his wee run yesterday gave us a glimpse of the player he is. I've not been very impressed with him until very recently and certainly didn't think he deserved a starting spot ahead of Kent, Roofe or Morelos. But, no one would be very surprised if he starts our next match, he's made the most of the chances he's had. When you analyse our side you can see that Gerrard doesn't like changing the defence much, Balogun and Helander swap in and out but the rest rarely do. Our midfield tends to alternate much more but our forward line, when everyone is fit, tends to be Kent, Roofe and Morelos. As the side is winning and playing well it's difficult to criticise this. Itten will get a chance again soon and if he plays well and scores then I think he'll keep his spot. Of course injuries and suspensions will come into it soon too. Morelos will get goals again, I've no doubt about that, even off form a bit he's still a handful to defend against.

Morally obligated? No, I don't think so, King went into this with his eyes open. He knows better than most that his shares might be worth a lot less than he spent on them. Had he agreed to buy the shares on the proviso that Club 1872 or the greater support would then buy them from him, in a similar way to Budge at Hearts, then I'd feel their was an obligation on our part, but that didn't happen as far as I know. I think it would be better for the long term future of club if significant investors are able to get most of their investment back. I think selling to supporters is preferable to selling to people with no emotional attachment to the club. That might not be possible of course. I don't think it's good for the club if we're seen as a black hole you throw money down without any hope of ever getting it back. Perhaps if the club itself set up a share-buying scheme, where small investors, like Bill up thread, were able to invest into it and they slowly bought existing shares from current shareholders at an agreed rate or at market value, then people like King and Park etc would have an exit strategy and people like Bill, you and me would have the opportunity to own shares. That might mean that in ten years time 'we' and hundreds of others have bought control of the club and that King and the 3 Bears have seen a return on their original investment. Perhaps the money is held in escrow until someone is ready to sell. I'm sure there are a number of hurdles to this back-of-a-fag-packet idea. Currently apathy seems to be the main one and that's what needs changed.

This is a great thread with some important contributions. Yes, it's been tetchy at times but people are passionate about it and that can only be a good thing. While I can see a lot of merit in what Club 1872 are proposing to do I can understand why some are sceptical of the organisation and who ultimately benefits. I'm not sure if that invalidates this proposal though. Before I started working from my bedroom a living like a hermit earlier this year I used to attend conferences and seminars. A regular topic at these events was 'exit strategy'. This basically means how will you leave the business you own. This is harder and more complicated than it sounds. Firstly, if you want to sell your business then it needs to be attractive to someone else. My first feeling when I read about this was that Dave King has struggled to find an exit strategy, and this is the best he's been able to come with. The reality of owning shares in Rangers is you are unlikely to make money from them. You might find ways of making money while you own them; they're good for profile, I imagine many people are impressed by a visit to the directors box, there are contacts to be made and possibly contracts the club needs fulfilled too. But the actual shares themselves are difficult to sell. Rangers are a huge club, but geography dictates that to outside investors Crystal Palace or Burnley are more attractive. They have access to riches we can only dream of. That narrows the field of potential buyers enormously. As things stand investing in shares in Rangers is more than likely going to lose you the investment. Whatever we might think about David Murray he was a shrewd operator and even he wasn't able to sell his shares. Dave King is a sharp cookie, a formidable businessman, tenacious and brave, yet he's already lost millions and I can understand why he doesn't fancy losing much more. In the end if his fellow directors don't want to buy his shares and if his children don't want to inherit them, then he needs to look outside for a buyer. Of all the potential buyers that throws up I think Club 1872 are definitely more positive than an investor with no previous connection to the club for example. Personally I'd prefer Club 1872 owned Dave King's shares than a minor Saudi prince or an American with a couple of minor league baseball clubs and an ice-hockey franchise looking to diversify his portfolio. For me the challenge all this needs to overcome is cultural. The reservations that some posters hold have been well articulated, but they're largely reservations about the governance of Club 1872 and and the efficacy of this particular proposal. I don't see that as at he big challenge, the big challenge is supporter apathy. Listening to the 4 Lads podcast I was alarmed to hear that Club 1872 only has 'around 7,000' members. That's fewer than sit in the Copland Road every other week (before I started working from my bedroom). With 45,000 season ticket holders and an active support of somewhere over 250,000 individuals that 7,000 number is depressingly low. But this isn't just a Rangers support problem or a Club 1872 problem. Clubs all across the UK struggle to attract fan involvement in ownership. Earlier this year Wrexham supporters agreed to sell their club to Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney a couple of fairly successful Hollywood actors with no connection to Wales far less Wrexham. I found this profoundly depressing. Not so long ago poor ownership led to Wrexham FC collapsing and being placed in administration. Sound familiar? Saved by a local car dealer poor finances dogged the club for several more years before eventually their Supporters Trust bought the club. A similar thing happened to Notts County a few years ago, where the Supporters Trust agreed to sell to a middle eastern consortium, with disastrous consequences. You really don't need to look too deeply to find football clubs with unpopular owners or being very badly run. Yet, despite this British football supporters, undeniably passionate and emotionally involved, resist becoming actually involved. So our football clubs remain open to rapacious asset strippers and incompetent chancers. For me that's the big challenge for Dave King and Club 1872, because if the events of the last 10 years didn't stir us from our apathy, then what will? I also suspect our other major shareholders will be looking at this with interest. At some point in the future they will want to dispose of their shares too. Some might have children equally passionate and interested and keen to inherit, but others might want their money back. In the end I believe football clubs should be owned by their supporters. Whether that's a small number of supporters who own large chunks or a large number who own small chunks. What Hearts have done is interesting, and worth spending time studying, but a number of clubs worth far less than Rangers have struggled to create something similar. It seems most supporters simply don't want involved in running a club. I suppose the other question relates to whether people feel grateful to Dave King and what he did for Rangers. Are significant numbers grateful enough to give him £500 each? That's the reality of what's being proposed for me. This isn't so much about buying a significant stake in the club, or who controls Club 1872, both of those things will change in time. This is about whether Dave King should get his investment back or not. If he doesn't we might find it very hard to attract another wealthy supporter should the need ever arise again.

Who is Kinnear? I'm surprised Arfield and Barasic are playing, thought they'd be rested for sure. Decent side, mon' the Bears!!

I suspect TV will want to show the Celtic v Aberdeen match so they'll have a lot of input into the date. I also suspect Celtic will try and hold this match back as long as possible in the hope of getting fans in. It would be ironic if by the time supporters are allowed back into matches Celtic's are boycotting theirs...

I had to listen to the radio to follow our match on Sunday and found it surprisingly enjoyable. Neil McCann, Brian Rice and, I think it was, Paul Mitchel on commentary were quite balanced and insightful. Both Rice and McCann had decent knowledge of some of the Falkirk players and their style of play and both as well as the commentator were very complimentary of Rangers and our performance and our style of play. If you'd just been transported in from outer space and had never listened to Radio Scotland before you could almost have been forgiven for thinking this was normal coverage. I can only assume this aberration was caused by the main Sportsound producers marching on Parkhead to throw sharks at the Glasgow police leaving some junior in charge. I expect normal service will resume on Thursday.

Other than Jermaine Defoe who was missing out for that reason? Zungu, Jack and Aribo were injured, and Edmundson and Jones, even before their party weren't troubling the first team much. Look, I'm not criticising the management, just pointing out that our squad isn't as deep as some think. Even with the strongest squad in a decade we were a couple of injuries away from introducing teenagers the other night. Players pick up knocks and suspensions as the season goes, we've been fairly fortunate so far, that's all I was pointing out.

It's worth bearing in mind that the BBC 'boycott' is a BBC Scotland Sport management decision, not one made by individual journalists or presenters. As we've pointed out in this thread before individual BBC employees have fallen out with specific clubs or managers in the past and it's not resulted in those clubs being largely ignored. Sir Alex Ferguson refused to speak to Alan Green for years, Alan Green was one of the leading commentators on Five Live and Match Of The Day during that time, indeed a much more high profile position than Chris McLaughlin has. Strangely the BBC didn't choose to stop attending Old Trafford, they just sent a different commentator. Likewise Harry Redknapp and Sam Allardyce, both high profile Premier League managers at the time, refused to speak to the BBC, which led to their assistant managers giving post match interviews for several years. Again, the BBC continued to cover their matches in a normal fashion. While I assume Ms McLaughlin supports her brother, it's unfair to criticise her for doing her job correctly. She's welcome at Ibrox and will continue to be if she can do her job in a half competent manner. I mean it's not like the bar is set all that high for the average Scottish football journo; simply treat our club the same way you treat all the others. It's worth reiterating that the BBC aren't banned by Rangers and only one of their journalists had his press credentials refused. It's their choice not to cover our games. Once again this ludicrous decision looks petty and unprofessional. It was easy for them to ignore us when we were in the Championship or stumbling around the SPFL. But now we're the leading side in the country, playing superb football, achieving results not seen by Scottish sides for decades with a high profile, young, charismatic and media friendly manager and their decision to ostracise our support over something this petty surely breaches their own guidelines. Of course the longer this goes on the harder it becomes for anyone to concede ground, so our support suffer for their arrogance and intransigence. The danger for the BBC is nature abhors a vacuum. The hole they're leaving is being filled by others, both professional and not so professional. Glasgow has a new radio station this year, one that's made sport a big focus. There are numerous podcasts devoted to Rangers now too (although some have little quality control around who they invite on...), recently News International launched The Times radio station on DAB. I think you'll see more of this type of media crossover in the future and it's only a matter of time before someone else tries to buy the radio broadcast rights for the SPFL. We might not like Rob McLean, or countless others, but I suspect few are willing to risk their jobs to support what is an increasingly ridiculous stance.

Put me in the 'why didn't we make any subs' camp. I'd have replaced our forward three with Barker, Hagi and Itten and either Davis or Arfield with Helander when it was 2-1. We were clearly struggling to match them at that point as their 4 subs injected freshness and energy to their play. Looking at our bench you realise we're still a bit thin squad wise. It feels like Stewart and Barjonas are simply being kept around to make up the numbers as neither looks like ever playing while Dickson and King are not close to being ready for this level. That grumble aside I can't lose sight of the fact we just went toe-to-toe with Benfica and produced two wonderful matches. Ten goals, some wonderful football from both sides, and, in truth both sides can feel fortunate to have drawn while also feeling they could have won. The simple truth is our first team are now at the same level as Benfica and if we can maintain that this season we'll play European football after Christmas and we'll win the league. No slip ups, no distractions, keep focused and keep playing as we can and it won't matter if they appoint Guardiola assisted by Klopp, this will be our season. We can all see the potential now, we know 55 is in our own hands and if they can keep entertaining us with that beautiful football we play then so much the better.

I think you're mistaken there. When he first came to prominence in Glasgow back during the poll tax protests he played down his club allegiances for fear of alienating potential support and because it wasn't fashionable for politicians to openly support football sides. He played Junior for most of that period so he wasn't seen attending senior matches, but there was no doubt what club he supported, none at all. He was pals with Billy Davies so maybe that's why you think this, but trust me he was always a Tim.

Google tells me I'm 3.7 miles from the old lady of Edmiston Drive so I'm happy at this development, but I have to say Covid is rife in this part of Glasgow currently and I'd be astonished if they allow even small crowds of people to congregate anytime soon near here. As has been pointed out 4,000 in Ibrox won't make much difference to the atmosphere or the coffers, but it's a big deal to St Mirren or Hamilton far less Yoker Athletic or Petershill. I think Glasgow will be one of the last places to see this restriction lifted though.

Thanks Bluedell, a very helpful summary. We really are incredibly fortunate to have the directors we currently have, I'm not sure supporters fully appreciate what they're doing just now. As you say we'll need to start selling good players quite soon, if not January certainly in May. Our wages to turnover ratio feels high at slightly over 73%, but then I guess that's why we made a loss. Celtic's is sitting at around 80% I understand so these things are all relative. Anyway, thanks BD and thanks Mr King, Park and Bennett.

The criticism of McBurnie is ridiculous and you can't help feel his stated club allegiances play a part. It's not like he's keeping someone better out of the team, when Dykes is fit he plays and McBurnie is the sub, it's hard to think of a Scottish striker any better after that. Griffiths, if fit and in form, would probably be picked ahead of him, and it would be hard to argue with that based on footballing ability. But Griffiths is clearly not fit or in any kind of form and it underlines the lack of quality that he's even making the squad currently. The players themselves can see Griffiths isn't fit and must wonder why someone with his attitude is making the squad far less getting game time. For me that's a far bigger talking point for the media, but I won't hold my breath waiting for someone to raise it. In reality Scotland played 3 matches against average opposition, they drew one and lost two, scoring only one goal in the process. Our qualification, whilst very welcome, has helped mask reality. Richard Gordon in particular was highly critical of McBurnie, yet strangely uncritical of the manager who chose and played him. Surprising...

The history of Dynamo Kiev is fascinating, there's a few books on it well worth reading. They not only had state backing during Soviet times but because they travelled to the 'west' regularly for matches they were used as a cover for all sorts of scary stuff. I must have mentioned this before @der Berliner but on my only trip to Berlin I struck up a conversation with my airport taxi driver who it turned out was a Dynamo Dresden supporter. The first match he ever attended was Dresden against Rangers in the old Fairs Cup in the late 60s and he'd followed Rangers results ever since. We were flailing around in the lower leagues at the time and we sympathised with each other's plight as Dresden were doing something similar. Ended up sitting outside my hotel chatting about football for about 20 minutes. He got a good tip.

Peter Lawwell is on the European Club Association board, as such you'd expect he has some insights into what is planned regarding European competition, so Celtic pulling out of this is probably quite telling. There were talks at quite an advanced stage between the Belgians and Dutch to create a unified 'super-league' with clubs from both nations competing. I suspect Covid has interfered with its plans but it was being reported that UEFA were open to it. The Dutch and Belgians are neighbours so the extra travel isn't a big issue, 60% of Belgium speak Dutch and they use the same currency so commercially, culturally and logistically it makes sense. For me it makes sense for the Danes, Swedes and Norwegians to get together for similar reasons. But we're being shoe-horned in as no one else wants us. If the the direction of travel in UEFA is amalgamating domestic leagues then clearly a 'British Isles' league is the obvious one for us to join, but I can only see that happening if the big 6 or so English sides leave and join some NFL style closed league with selected German, Italian and Spanish clubs. We might then be attractive to sponsors and broadcasters playing in a league with sides like Aston Villa, Wolves, Leicester and West Ham. UEFA and the big club sides are involved in an on-going power struggle. UEFA want to keep smaller football associations, like Scotland, onside as smaller FAs help keep the big ones in line on important votes. Even the biggest clubs are very nervous of unilaterally leaving UEFA and going it alone, so it's likely to come down to how much UEFA are willing to give up and what compromises the bigger clubs are willing to accept. It's important, I think, that three of the big 6 English sides, and a number of Italian sides have American ownership or substantial influence now. I suspect they'll be pushing very hard for a closed league structure with guaranteed clubs and no relegation, as works in American professional sport. I also fear it's a matter of when, not if, this happens. I can't see any scenario where we're part of that.

From a commercial perspective it's a league with a combined population of around 30 million, which would make it the eighth largest in Europe. It wouldn't be as attractive as the others as they all operate in one economic area with one main language, this league would have 5 different economic areas, 3 in the EU, 2 outside, 5 different currencies and at a push 3 languages if we group the Swedish and Danish together. In four of these countries English football teams are the best supported club sides. Football isn't even the most popular sport in Ireland and none of their clubs attract any kind of significant support. It has the potential to be a stronger league than the SPFL financially and certainly it would be more competitive, but it'll still be miles behind the big 3 or 4 in Europe. It's not an easy sell.

When you and Bluedell got married which one of you was the bride? To be fair I'm sure you both look good in blue, everyone does.

I struggle to accept that the Glasgow polis are fundamentally anti-Rangers, most of the coppers I know certainly aren't. That said I'm still not sure if Green and co were pursued by people who dislike Rangers or who dislike Charles Green and friends. I still feel there was something deeply suspicious about what happened to us and who benefited from it but that might just be my compensatory control kicking in and trying to infer order onto something that was in fact random and chaotic.

Am I correct in stating there are clubs using this quite extensively now for recruitment? Brentford and Midtjylland are the two I've read about, Midtjylland clearly finding success with it. The inspiration for it coming from Moneyball and the Oakland baseball team's success with recruitment that went against perceived sport wisdom? Baseball, like cricket, has a history of statistics based fandom, something that relatively new to football. I remember being told that professional scouts could watch youth matches and decide in 10 minutes whether a boy had the ability to 'make it' or not. I remember thinking this was bonkers at the time but professionals I've spoken too over the years say the same thing; they can tell very quickly if someone is a player or not. Our recent recruitment has been fairly good at first glance, but is that skewed by the fact we're playing well? Roofe and Itten can't be declared successes just yet, despite Roofe's wonder goal and good all round play he's already picked up injuries that have kept him out and Itten hasn't settled or looked like a guaranteed starter yet. Hagi is as polarising a player as we've got just now, frustrating and vital in equal measure he's got great 'stats' but I suspect would attract a lot of criticism from our support if we were allowed into the ground. Balogun and McLaughlin look like good signings already, comfortable and already easily fitting into the first team when asked. If we look across the city though that's when our signings start to look pretty good by comparison. Outside of Eduarde there's not an obvious player going to move on for big money currently, indeed some of their recent signings have been surprisingly poor. By comparison we look pretty astute, with Kamara, Barasic, Jack, Kent, Aribo and Morelos all capable of moving on to a better league than Scotland's for considerably more than we paid for them. Celtic's issues might be related to their management not getting the best out of the players of course. I find the stats approach interesting but I can't see it changing my views of players based on what I see myself. I'm too much of a dinosaur to be swayed, but I'm glad the club are taking a different approach, as long as it works.

When it started on radio in the 80s it was ground-breaking. Apparently clubs used to get tapes of the show and play them on the bus home from games, but Celtic stopped because the send-up of Danny McGrain was so cruel, and accurate, I should add. Davie Hay didn't come out of it well either, the infamous 'who's the best Scottish player of all time Davie? Pele. He's not Scottish, Davie. Always wondered why he never got picked for the national team.' Apparently Hay was furious at being portrayed as an imbecile (I thought it was funny). It's well past its sell by date though, indeed it's a sad inditement of BBC Scotland that it's still trotted out every year. Johnny Watson's a bluenose but I suspect he's the only one these days.

Pastor Jack Glass once used that very phrase on TV during a debate about education in Scotland, he might have been debating against the said University at the time. From an entirely personal perspective, having not attended either establishment, all I can contribute is that I pulled in Strathclyde Uni's student union but always found Glasgow's fallow ground. In the spirit of this thread my expected xG was better in John Street and that was the only stat that mattered at the time. Of course that probably says more about the young women who frequented both establishments than anything else. Still, happy memories.

It should galvanise the Rangers squad. Again Lennon uses every opportunity to take the narrative away from his team's form and performances and have the media and supporter looking elsewhere. I sincerely hope Rangers ignore this completely. Our players will need to be very careful from now on though, another breach of protocol, how ever it occurs, is likely to see harsher punishment from the authorities.

Yes, you might well be right and it wouldn't be a big surprise if you were.

Carson shouldn't have any obvious antipathy to us, as a Methody educated Belfast 'Prod' you'd expect him to at least have an open mind. I'd be surprised if Carson doesn't at least encourage his Sport's Department to try and rebuild some bridges, but I doubt he'll force it or fire anyone over it. I met his Dad once, we didn't talk about football unfortunately!