JohnMc

Not sure if any of you heard the remarkable Arsene Wenger stat from the weekend. Apparently Arsenal's Saturday starting 11 was the first time since 1986 that a player who didn't feature in an Arsene Wenger managed Arsenal side didn't start. So 37 years give or take a few months. As you do I started to think of a Rangers equivalent. Best I've come up with is 59 years although I can't say a player started every match in that period. So here's my workings - Jimmy Gordon joined Rangers in 1907, played 315 times (won 10 Scotland caps) and left the club in 1920, the year Bill Struth became manager. Struth took over in May of 1920. I don't know what month Gordon left though. Fast forward to Eric Caldow. Caldow was signed by Struth in 1952 and played for Rangers until March 1966. An unbroken 59 year connection with Bill Struth (I think). Happy for someone to correct or improve this. BTW Reading about Jimmy Gordon he apparently played upfront, in midfield, in defence and in goal for the Rangers first during his career. Love that.

Beale is a new manager, in his career he's spent all of 9 months as the man in charge. That's not long and as such we have to accept he'll make mistakes. The midfield chosen for the cup final didn't perform. I can understand why he chose to go with the experience of Kamara and Lundstrum to balance the youth of Tilman. There is absolutely no guarantee that had he started Raskin and Cantwell the match would have finished any differently. Starting is different from coming on as a sub. What's important about Beale is learning from his mistakes. We play Celtic again in a few weeks, it'll be interesting to see what we do differently then. Beale is a gamble, we're gambling that someone recognised as a very good coach can become a very good manager. It's not going to happen instantly though, he'll need some time and support. Wether he'll get it is another matter. Pedro's big downfall was his inability to learn from his mistakes. Fingers crossed Beale is smarter, and luckier.

I stand corrected, I didn't realise McCulloch was already in the Hall Of Fame. I couldn't find a definitive list of who was in it. My internet skills are clearly as poor as my memory these days!

What I find interesting is two players, McGregor and Davis, are honoured despite both leaving the club when we went onto administration. Yet two international players who stayed, McCulloch and Wallace, are ignored. Now we can debate motivation, stage of career, earning potential and so on, but both could have played at a far higher level than the bottom divisions in Scotland at that time. As it happens I don't really blame Davis and McGregor, or any of the players who left. It's a short career, there was enormous uncertainty around the club, the new owner, Charles Green, even then didn't fill you with confidence. But, both Wallace and McCulloch made different choices and so provided experience and leadership at a time when we were looking like playing children in our first team. Whatever your views on their ability I find it surprising they've been overlooked when some of their contemporaries are being inducted.

I remember a number of years ago, ironically against Thistle again, Iain Ferguson being criticised for chasing the ball following a similar incident. Someone went down and the ball was put out, it was thrown back to Thistle by us, then Fergie chased their players not allowing them to dwell on it. The Thistle fans howled, their players remonstrated but as the game was tied and it felt like Thistle were wasting time Fergie wasn't for letting them pass it among themselves. At the time I fully supported him doing it, I felt Thistle were taking advantage of the unwritten rule, using it to their advantage, trying to slow the game down, stop our building momentum. So for me there isn't a line, I don't see this as club specific, I see it as circumstances specific. I'd have no problem supporting the manager and players doing the same thing, in the same circumstances, against any other side, even 'them'. In different circumstances though, I might take a very different view. As this thread has demonstrated, this isn't a black and white issue. We all see things differently and I suspect if this ever does happen again there will be disagreements, again. Interestingly I just watched the Leeds/Aston Villa incident from a few years back. It's slightly different but the outcome was the same, Leeds letting Villa walk in a goal. What I noticed though was the Leeds supporters booed and jeered it, they weren't happy about that decision, made by a very popular manager in Biesla. So maybe @Bluedell is onto something in his observation that those at the game and those watching on TV saw the incident differently.

That's fair, Bluedell.

Since we're reading so much into this let's consider for a moment what might have happened had Beale ignored Thistle's protests and said 'play on, tough'. He'd have certainly created an angry and highly motivated opponent for a start. I expect more than one Thistle player might have fancied some old-fashioned retribution on Tillman too. The referee had already shown himself to be lenient when it came to Thistle, so quite what protection Tillman would have got we can only speculate about, but not much isn't a wild guess. That's before we even consider the off field reaction. Pressure for a replay in the manner of Arsenal a few years ago would have been doing the rounds by now not to mention the demonisation of Tillman. The more you look at it not only was it the right decision for reasons of sportsmanship, it was the pragmatic decision all round.

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.