Germinal

3 weeks till start of games, but 7 weeks till the window closes.

Just my opinion but I could happily support Rangers without a single fans' body doing any representation at all. Well, maybe the share buying ones, but not the others. Even so, it's symptomatic of us as a club and a support that we may be creating a credible fans body just as the time when we needed it most has passed.

I don't disagree. Even though I still don't see how the context, of even mention of it, devalues the sacrifice to the extent that it becomes an 'insult to the memory', it plainly annoys the hell out of some so probably best left at that.

I can't see why pointing out the context of the sacrifice denigrates it.

Translation: The player's agent is trying to get more money for his client.

You have to admit, it fires the imagination. As one gazes out across the pitch, eyes momentarily caught, like some failed escapee from East Germany, by the wire fences which surround three sides of the ground, one's vision is assailed by the unlovely remnants of Scotland's industrial heritage in the shape (from r to l) of a horrible bit of waste ground which used to house a factory, a horrible new scheme of legoland houses, and the evil smelling, mysteriously sludgy deposits washed up on the shoreline of the Clyde estuary, a slime every bit as redolent of historical industrial effluent as the wheezy denizens of the asbestosis ward in the new hospital on the South Side. Senses reeling by this brutally condensed history of Scotland's problems, and always aware of the Castle Rock lurking behind, a grim revenant of alternative Britons, one's gaze falls upon the pitch, so often the escape for West of Scotland man. Alas, even here, there is no respite; the land with over four centuries experience in producing flat greens for golf and bools has failed to tame wild nature for here, in darkest Dumbarton, the pitch slopeth markedly in the corner. One hopes at least that we avoid an Easter away fixture there, lest the right winger collide with some local kids rolling their eggs down it. Perhaps the club's next appointment should be a psychologist.

Boabby Wood! Fantastic. He can play in the hole, just behind my preferred front two of Goodwillie and Gudjohnsen. The 'Carry-on XI' is shaping up nicely.

I hope you're right about that - we'll see when his agent hears what sort of a wage we'll be offering.

This, a million times. Of all the infuriating, stupid, ludicrous and insane things which have happened over the last few years insisting on sending out a team consisting of 50%+ round pegs in square holes was the thing which most often tipped me from frothing rage into the screaming heebeegeebies.

Well, since I've only just got in, read this from start to finish & now know that MASH are even more at it than I previously thought, I'm thinking that there was definitely value in doing it.

Well, they do think the BBC is against them and they do think it's still run by an establishment cabal. I'm not saying they're right - they're clearly delusional - but the feeling is there, just the same.

My Gran once told me that to be clever was harder to live with than being dense. She was referring to another family member rather than me, sadly, but the point has merit: a vivid imagination, and an awareness of what's going on in the world (rarely cheery) can lead to the spirits being severely dampened in a way that those who sail serenely through their days, unencumbered by the chin scratching problems of the Middle East, or disease in West Africa, are untroubled by. I had never thought that bright people were suffering a drawback, but then life is full of contradictions. For the cerebral football fan, the close season allows far too much time to think about such things, the lack of action leaving the professorial punter to mull over thoughts which can normally be shunted aside in favour of yelling at the ref, the other side, or Ian Black, whichever irks you the most. Strictly speaking it’s not quite the close season, as Scotland are currently playing Qatar before a crowd which couldn’t be more Spartan were it wearing leather shorts and numbering around the 300 mark, but given the dreadful human rights record and limited footballing ability of that nation – I should make it clear I refer to Qatar - I've little desire to switch it on. Talking of Qatar, FIFA's awarding of the World Cup to the Arabian state has been held up as the epitome of all that's wrong with football’s upper echelon, with the resultant slew of skeletons catapulting from cupboards at a rate that will keep Ikea busy for months repairing the damage. Ordinarily I wouldn't give it much thought, but with precious little else to do the chin is stroked and the eyebrow smoothed in concentration. Certainly, FIFA seems about as honestly run as Glasgow City Council and all but the most gullible will surely welcome a new era, should it arise, but was it – is it – all that bad? After all, it was this ostensibly most corrupt body which took the World Cup to Africa, and which plans to take it to the Middle East. These are, all other considerations aside, ‘good things’ which probably wouldn't happen were the decision to be made on logistical or practical grounds, since the alternative - domination of hosting by first world countries, grudgingly interspersed with the odd visit to a South American country - is surely not a means by which the game will evolve worldwide. It's a strange contradiction that an appalling body came up with some good decisions. It maybe by the wrong route, and for the wrong reasons, but the right decisions nevertheless...in some ways. In the reaction to the FIFA news, contradiction abounds. On Friday, Nicola Sturgeon joined the ranks of those calling for a rerun of the World Cup bidding process, should it be found to be corrupt. Which is, I suppose, fair enough, but as noted earlier the result will likely be the biggest boys in the playground taking all the toys again; and anyway, it’s slightly obscene to hear, rising from the south, the far from lily-white voices of English football loudly assert the moral high ground, and even more so to hear their media cheerleaders, surely the last people who have a right to voice concerns about morality, join in. Such contradictions are rarely felt as such by the people or bodies which are held to suffer from them as by others, looking on. The writer Kipling was held to be the poet laureate of Imperialism, yet frequently lionised Indian cultures as vastly superior to British; he seemed to manage all right with these perceived polar opposites. More locally, many Scots football fans like to talk, at length, about how Rangers are dead…then talk, at length, about Rangers with an energy which, had Dr. Frankenstein used it in his lab, would not only have revived the monster but lit up the village below as well. A sad end for the guy who owns the burning torch and pitchfork shop, but notwithstanding that it’s a contradiction which non-Bears seem to carry off without much effort. There’s maybe confusion in my mind between contradictions and perceptions. For the Gersnet reader, the current thread berating the BBC for institutional bias again raises the question of whether we're helped or hindered by the press and broadcasters. But as we're hardly alone in feeling bruised by media coverage, something isn’t right: we can’t all be victmised, surely? I mean, yesterday's Guardian carried a story from within Labour's hierarchy during the general election which reveals that the party felt the BBC were massively helpful to the SNP, and wafted them forth on a fair wind of coverage to their startling success at the ballot box. And yet, in their distaste for the BBC, the SNP are matched only by Rangers fans, with both groups having held protests outside the Pacific Quay bunker, inside which staff cover tremulously before launching more propaganda both for and against everyone. For as well know, many fans from across the city (and across the country) are equally convinced that the BBC operate exclusively on behalf of Rangers FC, which is dead, except it isn't while they're frothing about it on Radio Scotland, while plenty of Bears are convinced that the same body gives one club in particular a ridiculously easy ride. Unless the media operates by picking on everyone all the time, someone’s got it wrong. Maybe it would be the ultimate contradiction were Rangers fans and the SNP to organise some joint protest at that sounding board for everyone's angst, BBC Scotland. Watching their coverage of both football and politics I struggle to understand why anyone thinks they are pro-SNP or, even more laughably, pro-Rangers, but everyone needs an Aunt Sally to chuck coconuts at, I guess. The BBC, and BBC Scotland in particular, seems able to unite Rangers and Celtic fans in a way not seen since that lad drove a jeep into Glasgow Airport and, despite being in flames at the time, was promptly set upon by a posse of vengeful Glaswegians, delighted to put the boot in against a common enemy. I’m far from immune to all this - as a Rangers supporting SNP voter I feel I have the pleasure of being held in contempt on both counts by most media outlets, as well as plenty of Rangers fans. The campaign trail offered many opportunities for the Bluenose voter to accuse me of being a twice-over traitor. Not a single person mentioned it, though, despite my being very clear where my allegiances lay when the subject of the fitba came up, as it always does in the west of Scotland, which suggests any link between football and politics is pretty tenuous. And anyway, given the election result, it's pretty certain that a great swathe of Rangers fans voted for the SNP, so maybe that's not such a great contradiction after all. Yet we’re still portrayed as the club of Unionism, and for some simpletons on social media there’s nothing to pick between the Orangefest in George Square this weekend and the people who follow follow at Ibrox. The argument doesn’t hold water, from any side. After all, if Rangers fans were as homogenously against the Nationalists as some like to claim Brendan O'Hara would hardly have romped to victory in Argyll & Bute, while, equally, Mhairi Black's victory in Paisley suggests Celtic fans don't give much thought to football when voting, given her widely broadcast youthful view of them. I don't suppose these examples, backed up by the votes of tens of thousands of West of Scotland people, will persuade the most 'vigorous' on whatever side. Nothing will. But it does highlight, for those who care to see, that football and politics are as firmly separated in Scotland as Gwyneth Paltrow and him out of Coldplay. Whatever expressions of political views fans come out with in years to come, I don’t suppose they’ll pay much attention to the impressive levels of indifference their best efforts have generated across the country. Yet some people will defend them, and berate them, and devote hours and hours of their time online and on air to something which has become, deservedly, super-niche. If you’re looking for contradictions, look no further. PS - Someone on the radio yesterday made the very good point that Barcelona, most beloved of world clubs, happily run rings round the opposition with Qatar Airways emblazoned on their shirts, and face no opprobrium whatsoever. It's a funny old world!

Thought it might be news on the new manager

I don't want to sound stupid, but who's the guy in the picture with King?

Any manager with a decent reputation will be able to attract a decent level of loanee. No club in its right mind would have loaned players to us over the last few years, which explains why we ended up with half a dozen of Newcastle's walking wounded. But if clubs think their players will return more rounded, exposed to perhaps lower quality but higher pressure then it doesn't have to be Claudio Ranieri...anyone half decent will do for that part of the job.

I will do one if you like?

Leave plenty of time for a breather! Lot of stairs, as you'd imagine. Seats are no more or less comfy than anywhere else but I feel I'm cuddled in with the person next to me a bit more than other areas. Might be more to do with me getting fatter, though.

Nothing worse than a dead rubber on the end of your campaign. Very nasty.

Going to be a long summer for those who insist on buying these papers. Why anyone does, I cannot understand! The Scotsman, whose news online I sometimes click on, is the most Unionist paper in Scotland, so I'm surprised to hear they are anti-Rangers. They're certainly lacking when it comes to language - wtf is a 'right of passage'? And that filler from The Herald...not for me, thanks.

I'm happy enough to see things out and see where we are once the dust settles. While the elements of this thread veering toward 'burn the witch' are scarcely a rush to judgement as usual we are not in full position of all the facts, and making an absolute decision from that position is premature.

Wouldn't bother me at all. Maybe we need an experienced hand to steady the ship before, hopefully, going for the young dynamic manager many want to see. It'll certainly be reported as being unimaginative but it might not be the worst thing in the world if Advocaat installs a sustainable, workable set up. Whether he'll want to do that, that's another question.

Notice the elegant subtlety, so reminiscent of his play, with with Sutton removes the blame for playing crap from his fellow professionals, whose integrity he would never question, and shifts it onto Calderwood, who is a known Bluenose. Would that I were as cunning as Chris! Really, we are up against intellectual colossi when we take on these people. It's an unfair struggle, in many ways.

Again, suggesting that the AIM has standards of any sort does not make for a persuasive case.

This is not a promising opening for an article that wishes to be taken seriously.

Whoever wrote and/or edited that wants sacked.