JohnMc

To an extent I agree. However, Russell Martin isn't playing for nothing, neither is Murphy or Alves or Dorrans. If we'd taken some of their salaries and offered them to McKay, Wilson and Bates would be worse off today? Gilmour clearly had his head turned by the bright lights and yime will tell just how he develops, but the rest could have stayed I think.

Telfer is a funny one, his move the Dundee Utd ultimately didn't work out. Utd though were clearly a basket-case club (ironic, I know) being run by an ego driven trust fund child who was more interested in pleasing the unhinged in his support and the media than in properly running his own club. Hence their current position. Had he stayed would things have been different, it's hard to know, but he seems to be finding the Dutch second tier a challenge now too. McKay might be an enigma but I'd love to have kept him, managed properly he's a good player. As an aside I stumbled across Rhys McCabe last week when on holiday. He's playing for Sligo Rovers, jeez there's a career that didn't fulfil it's potential.

I was away last week when Bates to HSV was announced, and so much has happened since it's been forgotten about. One thing that struck me was our recent record in retaining home grown players (I know Bates came from Raith Rovers but he's still a young, Scottish player who developed at the club). If different decisions had been made our current squad could have Lewis MacLoed, Barry McKay, Danny Wilson, Billy Gilmour, Charlie Telfer and David Bates in it. We've never adequately replaced MacLoed or McKay and we're going to have to spend money replacing Wilson and Bates. Now each left for different reasons but you'd think we could create an environment at the club where promising home-grown players wouldn't want to leave, for any reason.

I think you miss-read the dynamic of the dressing room. Miller and Wallace are not unpopular with the players, far from it, they speak for the players. This belief that you should keep your mouth shut if you disagree with something at work also puzzles me, particularly if you are in the right. If you are an experienced and able employee it is beholden on you to speak up when faced with management incompetence. There may well be consequences to face, but it doesn't change the fact it is the right thing to do. Whatever way we look at this the club and the team on the park aren't being managed well. The club captain in particular should be raising this and in the sanctity of the dressing room sounds like the perfect place to do it.

Tam McManus was on Radio Scotland last night. He claimed to know what he was talking about and said the issue was around Murty refusing to discuss the game in the dressing room straight after the match. Both Wallace and Miller wanted to and started to, this led to a stand off and harsh words. Make of that what you will. McManus told another story about a Hibs dressing room following a drubbing from Hearts where actual physical fights broke out between players and between management. As he said that sometimes happen when passions are high and tempers lost, but in the manner of boys in the school playground by the next day it's all sorted and everyone gets back on with things. Professional football has its rituals and one of those is the dressing room post match where strong words are spoken, criticisms aired and accusations made. The more I hear of this affair the more I feel Wallace and Miller were doing what they thought best. Whatever we think of him Murty has clearly 'lost the dressing room' and dispatching Miller and Wallace won't change that. The manager of Rangers needs to be the strongest personality in the building, that's not the case currently and until it is we're going to see issues like this arise.

You've clearly not met my father. The sanctity of the dressing room is surely the perfect place to raise problems. Also they're professional footballers, not robots, sometimes people speak in the heat of the moment, it's not the end of the world and can be dealt with later when everyone has calmed down.

Before the online lynching of Wallace takes place it's worth remembering that he remained with our club when we were put into the 3rd division. He could have left and got himself a huge signing on fee as a free agent, he could have kept his Scotland career alive and he could have enjoyed a career at a higher level than we were playing. He didn't, he stayed. I understand the 'must always back the manager' mantra, however, it's not true. Sometimes the manager is wrong. He was wrong on Sunday. Like most of us I don't know what was said, but it couldn't have been any worse than I was saying to my father after the match. Sunday was a disgrace and if club captain told the manager that I personally don't have a problem with it. The club is being badly run, we are making poor choices, someone should speak out.

I watched that Si Ferry/Ally McCoist video last night, it's pretty good actually. McCoist tells a story I'd not heard before. In training on a Friday under Souness they'd play Scotland v England bounce games and Souness would play for England. 'Scotland' were winning one week and started showing off, Souness took it badly and put a crunching tackle in on Ian Durrant, flattening him. As McCoist tells it Durrant sprung straight back up and turned to Souness and said "is that the best you've got?" Souness reacted by saying "no, this is" and punched Durrant sparking an all out brawl between the players. Half an hour later Souness walks into the dressing room and congratulates all the players telling them that's the spirit he wants to see! I can't see Murty doing that somehow. Managing a group of young men sometimes requires unconventional skills.

If senior players weren't angry on Sunday then that would be news. Everyone of us knows Murty mis-managed the side on Sunday. His tactics were wrong, his motivation was clearly lacking and his man-management was appalling. I'm actually pleased to hear the club captain and most senior player were furious after that performance, so was I. Both Miller and Wallace have played in Rangers sides that have beaten Celtic, maybe someone should listen to them instead. I'm reluctant to criticise Murty too much, he shouldn't be in the job and he's done as well as could be expected under the circumstances, but he got it dead wrong on Sunday and there is no hiding from that.

Whenever I hear anyone say 'you're not the same club' I smile as I realise they've no grasp of what supporting a football club is all about. Football is about emotion, not logic, it's about memories and incredible highs and moments you'll never forget your entire life. It's also about players who help create those emotions and memories. Ray Wilkins should be a footnote in Rangers history and in our memories, but he's not and that's why football isn't about company records, balance sheets and HMRC. He was well passed his prime when he joined, he was a diminutive, balding Londoner, and at that time not an obvious Rangers cult hero. Yet in only two seasons he was able to capture the imagination of everyone who watched him. His range of passing, his ability to find space and his superb work rate, even at that stage of his career, immediately endeared him to our support in a way some players who stay at the club for twice as long never achieve. It wasn't just 'that goal' either, although it helped. It was the simple fact that that he was a talented footballer who entertained and made watching Rangers a pleasure. Remember, whilst the 'revolution' might have been going for a couple of seasons by then most of us had still endured seasons of Dougie Bell and Kenny Black before that, watching someone like Wilkins was still a revelation. What also became clear was Wilkins was a gentleman off the park too. Patient with supporters and polite with the media he made friends and won admirers. Ray Wilkins is one of the reasons that football is magical. In only two years he became one of our most popular players, he received a standing ovation in his last match, even Scotsport did a feature on him. That wasn't meant to happen, he was only supposed to be a bit of cover, some experience around the club to help young Durrant and Ferguson(s) develop. Yet he went on to become a player inducted into our hall of fame. After only two seasons. Can you imagine a player today doing that. I never met Ray Wilkins yet his untimely passing upsets me far more than it should. A wee bit of the magic slipped away, but most of it will stay with me forever.

Hodgson has done well at Palace since taking over, that's De Boer's biggest problem currently. That aside i'm not convinced a high profile Dutchman is what we need currently. He's not going to be able to spend much money, the nucleus of the squad is already in place and it has a Scottish/British core. We need someone who can organise and motivate those people, is De Boer that person?

He was discarded by Matin O'Neill after initially doing well under David O'Leary prior to O'Neill taking over. Likewise he was discarded by Roy Hodgson when he took over after being bought by his predecessor Sanchez. My point in this is that a player can do poorly under one manager but very well under another. Many, many players who enjoy successful careers were at one time described as "flops". People forget that Gareth Bale was dropped in favour of Assou-Ekotto something that was warmly greeted by the Spurs support at the time. Describing Moult as a "flop" is as accurate as describing Davis as one.

Ally McCoist was a "flop" at Sunderland. Brian Laudrup was a "flop" at Fiorentina. Steve Davis was a "flop" at Aston Villa and Fulham. James Tavernier was a "flop" at both Newcastle and Wigan. Sone Aluko was a "flop" at Birmingham City. Some careers go backwards before they go forwards again.

It might be a little off topic but I'm not comfortable with the 'Granny' rule in international football either. Parents, I think, is different, but one grandparent, who you might never have met, shouldn't make you eligible. I'm no blood and soil nationalist, but representative sport should be representative I think. The nonsense we see in Cricket and Rugby shouldn't be allowed to happen in football, although it is currently in some countries. Oddly, I'd have been more comfortable with someone like Novo playing for Scotland, a guy who came here as a young man, spent almost his entire career here, married and had children locally and stays here now, becoming 'Scottish' rather than some of the players we've brought in through the grandparent rule who clearly have never considered themselves Scottish, lived here or ever will later in life. It's a difficult subject, how a person identifies is a private matter and subject to all sorts of influences, but from a footballing/general representative sport perspective I'd tighten the rules. As for the Celtic spine I think it's fair to say, no matter how repulsive he seems, Griffiths is Scotland's best striker currently and would start when fit, likewise I'd expect Armstrong and Teirney to make the starting 11. I'm not sure who else they think should start since Brown quit, again.

If you ever want to really annoy an Aberdeen fan tell them that when Aberdeen FC play five-a-sides at training and the players split themselves into two teams and the teams they pick are Rangers fans v Celtic fans. That's true too.

I lived in Northern Ireland for a few years back in the day. I'd only been there a couple of weeks and Rangers and Celtic were scheduled to play on the Sunday, which also happened to be St Patrick's Day. Not knowing the lay of the land all that well I wanted to watch the match, but avoid being shot, and reckoned the local Royal British Legion was a safe bet for Bear friendly atmosphere. I explained my situation and was welcomed in, but was very surprised to discover a much more mixed crowd watching that you'd get in most pubs in Glasgow. I was also surprised to fall into to company of a few well dressed guys, literally in their Sunday best having come directly from church, who were drinking Guinness, wearing a sprig of shamrock in their buttonholes whilst cheering on Rangers. They explained to me that St Patrick was for everyone on the island. Northern Ireland is a more complicated and nuanced place than I'd originally thought.

So does that mean if you were born on the island of Ireland you must be Irish?

I've known Scottish RCs of Irish ancestry who had a deep hatred for the IRA and I've known some who were broadly supportive. I've known more of the former than the latter. Most people with an Irish lineage I've met, whether Scottish, English, American or Australian were broadly supportive of Irish nationalism and the concept of a 'united Ireland'. Most were unhappy about car bombs and the like though. At the same time I've known, and still know, a few Celtic fans who'll freely admit to belting out Provo ditties at the football but wouldn't dream of publicly supporting the IRA, indeed I even knew a serving soldier who did that, and he spent 3 bloody years serving in Northern Ireland. I think you need to be careful not to equate nationalism, whether it is Irish, Scottish, Catalan or wherever with violent republicanism. Trying to achieve constitutional change through democracy is very different from shooting farmers sons in border villages. I'm not sure if that answers your question?

I think the question you raise is valid, I'm not sure the conclusion is though. Let's be clear, if there was votes in it every politician would say they were Rangers supporters. They would feign an interest in all things Govan, lie about attending famous old matches and have their photograph taken with players every opportunity they could. But they don't, and the reason they don't is because there are no votes in it. Maybe the opposite. That's not just the SNP though, that's pretty much every party. There's been the odd Tory, Labour and indeed Scottish Socialist politician who has spoken about being a Rangers supporter, but none in the way say Brain Wilson spoke about being a Celtic fan, George Foulkes did about Hearts or Gordon Brown did about being a Raith Rovers fan. Why is that? It cuts across political belief FS, it's not just an SNP thing. The truth is you've seen plenty of MPs and MSPs of all parties publicly declare allegiance to Celtic, and countless other sides, without concern it'll effect their chance of election. I mean John Reid was a Celtic director whilst being MP for bloody Airdrie! For me there are two things to consider. Firstly is that Rangers supporters don't hold set political views. Thousands of Rangers supporters must have voted Labour for decades, thousands now must vote SNP. In truth a Rangers supporter from Bearsden is likely to vote differently from a Rangers supporter from Drumchapel. Social class, upbringing and family influence have a far, far bigger influence than where they go on a Saturday afternoon. Like wise I suspect a Rangers supporter based in the Aberdeenshire coastal towns might hold quite different political views and have quite different political priorities to one raised in inner-city Glasgow or a post-industrial rust belt Lanarkshire town. Indeed supporting Rangers might be the only thing they have in common. Second thing is Rangers are simply not fashionable for the chattering classes to support. The BBC can maintain a faux boycott of our ground and players and there is barely a murmur of complaint. Rightly or wrongly we're seen as out-of-touch with mainstream popular opinion. Despite most people in Scotland being 'unionists' flag waving about it makes people uncomfortable, it's not what most 'unionists' do. Subjects like Orange Walks and Northern Ireland don't engage mainstream unionists in Scotland, indeed I'd venture they actually repel them. As the country becomes increasingly secular all public expressions of religion are less and less popular and expressions of what many perceive, rightly or wrongly, as bigotry are quite unpopular. As a support and as a club I don't know how we address this. We've no political influence, very little media influence and are increasingly being pushed into the margins culturally.

I find these threads depressing. When Gersnet did an unscientific poll of members voting intentions around the referendum I seem to recall is showed around 40% planned to vote 'Yes', so pretty close to how the vote actually went. That should come as a surprise to no one. Rangers supporters are a broad church, from all walks of life, backgrounds and beliefs. The only thing we have in common is wanting the team in blue to win, that's it. If anyone doesn't know many Rangers supporters who also currently support the SNP I'm very surprised. I know lots and they seem perfectly capable of holding both views without any problem. One reason it's depressing is we used to have the same debate when Labour ruled in Scotland. Posters on various forums moaned about how Scottish Labour was anti-Rangers, how all councillors were Tims and all MSPs out to get us. I'll be frank I personally feel I've more in common with the SNP than with Vanguard Bears, and I didn't even vote SNP at the last couple of elections. That's just me, others will feel very different. That's fine too. Rangers takes up a disproportionate amount of my time and interest. I'm interested in the culture around Rangers and our support, it's been interesting watching how Scottish society has changed in the last 40 years. But other Rangers supporters don't define who I am, what I believe in, hope for or expect from my politicians. Rangers, and our support, have an image problem with some in our society. That section who work in the media and many who enter politics, who often hold 'popular liberal' views, who subscribe to much of what we currently see as 'opinion' in the media are not attracted by Union flags, 90 minute bigotry, and apparently (often wrongly ascribed) right wing views. That's how some see us. Whether we like it or not they control communication and shape popular culture. That's a problem for the club going forward.

As a guy at the wrong end of my forties I'm aware that criticising the behaviour of younger guys at the football is in danger of making me sound like a letter writer to the Daily Mail. Truth is I'm not sure I fully 'get' Ultra culture. I 'get' singing at the matches, all match long if possible, I think all of us go through that phase in our teens. When I was younger if you wanted a sing-song you went to the East Enclosure or the Copland Road, and if you didn't you went to the Govan or the Main Stand, it was easier to choose 'what kind' of supporter you wanted to be back then. Back then, the 80s, there was violence at matches, some of it organised and some of it spontaneous, and for some guys that was as important a part of the match experience for them as buying a programme or having a pint after the game is to others. I was at school with guys who were 'ICF' and a few who were Thistle casuals too. You know those guys went to every match, home and away, and from time to time I bump into them again and some still do, but they don't meet in train stations and get into fights anymore. They grew up, they got married, they had kids, they used up all the extra testosterone that flowed through us when we were 17. Thing is other supporters would get angry with them. Often with justification. They looked for trouble and sometimes people minding their own business got caught up in it, they got us a bad press, the club helped the police try and single the ring leaders out. So are these guys the current day equivalent? Young guys with too much time, energy and testosterone? Before the casuals in the 80s there were gangs of skinheads, before that guys with Union Jacks draped over their backs, long hair and flairs, I'm sure their were Mods or Rockers or whatever before that. Bloody hell, The Billy boys were a razor gang who sang at the football to let everyone know they'd crossed the city from Bridgeton to Govan. So I don't want to get too pious when I criticise these 'Ultras'. The flyer was stupid, the banner is asking for trouble and the balaclavas invite people to misconstrue who they are and what they're about. Young men do stupid things when they are young. I suspect a number of these guys might be a bit embarrassed in 15 years time when they look back at this. In the end the club can't be seen to condone the flyer or the banner. I don't condone it, it's a stupid use of language and a disturbing use of imagery. But it's not aimed at me, I'm old, and responsible and have zero interest in trouble or, frankly, even singing these days. I think these guys are fans, real fans, I think they are misguided in some of what they do and deserve criticised for it, but I think we also need to be careful we don't give this more significance than it deserves. It's the 'young team' at the football, same as it always was, indeed considerably smaller than it was in my day.

I was too annoyed to post yesterday, in some ways that defeat hurt more than the real doings we got last season. Having slept on it I'm a bit more rational about it now. For me experience won the day. They'd lots of it and we only had it in patches. Three Glasgow derby debutants, a very inexperienced central midfield, and a defence that showed a lot of uncertainty when put under pressure. A more experienced side would have taken control when we went 2-1 up. A more experienced side would have disrupted play with little fouls, slowed it down and kept possession, instead we allowed them to step up and dictate the match. Might it have been different if Jack, Dorrans, Russell and Wallace had been fit, maybe. Certainly I felt we were naive at times, particularly when they ran at us. Their first and third goals were poor to lose. They were well taken but neither player should have been given that time and space in the first place. They gifted us the first and deservedly went down to 10 men, we should have been good enough to take something from the match. The real test of Murty and this side now is how they react to this. They must be gutted, they'll know what a great chance they just passed up. If they can lift themselves for the next couple of games, and put this behind them quickly then they've got a chance to become the team they need to be, if this starts a slump then I'm afraid changes are needed. I hope Murty can regroup and lift them because we're not that far behind.

Don't get excited, I don't have a spare either I'm afraid. However, a few years ago I gave my ticket to a Bosnian acquaintance. He lives in Glasgow and is a Red Star fan but hadn't attended any matches locally. He went to the match with my Dad, Rangers won, the place was bouncing, everyone was happy (well everyone near him) and he still talks about it as the social highlight of his stay in Glasgow. I think because we live with this match, and always have, we sort of take the atmosphere and energy of the game for granted. For outsiders it remains an amazing experience and you sometimes need to see it through their eyes to be reminded of how special it can be. Hope you find a ticket for your friend, there are cities I think Rangers have a connection with and Moscow is one of them.

Thanks Frankie, I seem to have attached the piece too, I don't know how I did that or how to remove it, perhaps someone else can?

The plan for Glasgow was very different to what we have today, the city was going to be unrecognisable in many, many ways. Some plans just don’t work out. Emerging from the horror and brutality of the Second World War Glasgow was surprisingly unscathed compared to many other European cities. Yes, it had suffered bombing in the early part of the war and, of course, nearby Clydebank had experienced extensive devastation but the centre of Glasgow, the heart of Scotland’s largest city, the industrial powerhouse of the empire, the beating heart of the heavy industry that powered much of the world, was largely intact. That was the problem. In 1945 Glasgow’s Master Of Works and the city’s Chief Engineer, Robert Bruce, produced plans that would have transformed the city centre. Not only would the majority of warehouses and markets that today make up the Merchant City have been demolished but so would Central Station, the Mackintosh designed School of Art and, arguably the city’s finest building, the City Chambers. These awe-inspiring architectural masterpieces would have been pulled down and a new ‘Modernist’ inspired city centre built in their place. Try and imagine a new city chambers built on the north bank of the Clyde, with new law courts beside them. The city would have two new train stations, one roughly where Queen Street Station stands today and new huge ‘South Station’ built on the south side of the Clyde close to the river. Literally thousands of new buildings would need constructed, business and people would be decanted, streets disappear, familiar landmarks reduced to rubble and replaced with grandiose civic centres and new arterial roads. Its scale and ambition was breath taking and it was actually given initial planning approval by the city corporation. An exhibition at the Kelvin Hall was planned for 1947 where the plans for the new city would be shown to the public. Thankfully a mixture of public concern, political influence and simple economics led to the Bruce Plan being shelved before the exhibition could take place. Whilst you could admire the ambition of Bruce, he lacked the understanding of what makes a city great; namely it’s people, and you underestimate the people at your peril. This weekend might just see another plan for Glasgow begin to unravel. Rangers weren’t meant to challenge again. The club had been dealt if not a fatal blow certainly enough hits to put it down and keep it down for a long time. Or so some people hoped. With unfettered access to the Champion’s League and all the money, profile and prestige that goes with it Celtic, this weekend’s visitors, were ideally placed to capitalise on whatever Machiavellian plans European football’s elite have next. They could hoover up all the sponsorship, corporate hospitality and public identity the city has to offer too, after all who was going to stop them? Rangers, a seeming basket case a matter of months ago, were a club unable to attract the Rangers supporting, Renfrewshire based Aberdeen manager, a club unable to win three games in a row, a club unable to defend a lead at home. Yet, here we are. Where are we exactly? Well, we’re second in the league, unbeaten in the last six matches and have only lost once this year. So we’re not where we want to be but we’re a lot closer to it than we have been for a while. It’s not just the victories that have excited the support, it’s their manner too. We’re fluid, fast and well balanced. Goals are being scored across the team, chances are being created regularly, players are linking up well, there seems to be an understanding now particularly middle to front. More pleasingly we seem to have some fight about us again. We win the 50/50s now, we’re competing all across the pitch, we’re not being bullied and put off our game. It’s remarkable to write this, as this team is really only two months old. The signings of Murphy, Docherty, Martin, Goss and Cummings have galvanised, strengthened and improved a squad that stuttered from week to week prior to their arrival. Added to that we’ve seen Tavernier and Windass emerge as important players, Bates now looks like a Rangers defender and Morelos gets the kind of service and support his superb forward play deserves. This has all been achieved under the guidance of a rookie youth team manager forced into the hardest job in Scottish football whilst the club very publically courted someone else. It’s funny how some plans don’t work out. Before I get too carried away a word of caution. This Celtic side are still capable of scoring goals and winning matches. Their form hasn’t been as good as last season but it’s still better than anyone else in the league and we’d do well to remember that. They have some injuries and some players seem to be out of form, but they’ve still only lost 2 matches all domestic season and have the experience and confidence to harm us if we’re not careful. Whatever our current feelings of renewed confidence we’ve not beaten Celtic since that glorious day at Hampden 2 years ago and a lot has changed at both clubs since. Sunday will be a stern test and one we’re not favourites to win. I’d be surprised if our starting XI is very different from the side that’s largely picked itself in recent weeks. If fit I expect Murphy to return to the side at the expense of Cummings. Foderingham should also return for league duty. Tav, Bates and Martin should start alongside the only real quandary in the side. A fit Wallace should be our first choice left-back but I’m not sure he’s as fit as he needs to be yet. A run out in a friendly against a Championship side is no preparation for a top of the table challenge. If fit John will start, if not I expect Halliday to play at left back. I expect a midfield of Candieas, Goss, Docherty and Murphy with Windass and Morelos up front. That side has four players making their ‘Old Firm’ debut, a match where experience counts and our central midfield is young and has only played a handful of matches together. Amid my expectation and optimism the realist in me is a little nervous. Despite that we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that it wasn’t meant to be this close. We were meant to be languishing somewhere between Aberdeen and Hibs, turning baliffs away from Edmiston Drive, watching our best players leave for sweetie money and our signings struggle to meet expectations. We’re supposed to be bystanders watching Celtic’s procession to another league title and potential Champion’s League spotlight. That was the plan. Sometimes even the most ambitious plans, whether well intentioned or nefarious, don’t come to fruition. Glasgow doesn’t belong to Celtic, never let them forget that, this is our city too and they don’t get to redesign it without our permission. It’s pleasing we’re not giving it again.