Bill

It's ridiculous and strangely petulant thing to say. If they're not a good side then what does that make us?

I don't suppose there's a Rangers fan whose heart didn't sink a little when he saw the team selection with Lundstram and Kamara in the centre of it. We got exactly what we knew we would from that midfield pairing - ponderous square passing, sucking the energy out of the team. We've seen it so many times that there was never any doubt we were going into this contest with our hands tied behind our back. Worse still, Tillman joined them and virtually disappeared from view. There still a lot of dead wood in this squad. With contracts being the way they are it takes time to re-shape a whole squad but there no excuse for selecting Lundstram ahead of Jack and Kamara ahead of Raskin, nor for leaving Tillman on the park for so long. It was no accident that Celtic were such hot favourites but it's dispiriting to see manager after manager persevere with players who should be nowhere near first choice in a cup final.

The entire thing hinged on that crazy midfield selection. The difference when Jack and Raskin came on spoke volumes. You would think Beale would know by now who he can and can’t trust.

Completely fell out of the game in the final five minutes or so and their goal looked inevitable. The midfield selection looked iffy before the game started and by half time all doubts had been realised. If we don't make changes at half time this game will be out of reach before we know it.

Are you a betting man?

The shitshow is turning into a comedy routine.

Kamara and Lundstram instead of Jack and Raskin? Beale must know something we don't.

I wonder how many voted in that poll. I thought that money was for buying shares (don't laugh)

Yes, sometimes it's hard not to think everything about this shithole is second rate.

Rangers 2 Celtic 1 FGS - Tillman

Watching that compilation I have to admit Laudrup was OK at times

When we say "safe standing" we come from the viewpoint of "safe sitters" and eulogise about the freedom and "atmosphere that standing would bring. However, some of us remember standing on those long ago terraces, even before segregation of crowds was introduced, and it was far from jolly or comfortable, or even remotely civilised. "Safe seating" was brought in for very good reasons and the effect has been positive and welcome. Given the identity of the groups involved, I've little doubt some of the less savoury aspects of football crowds would return and the club would inevitably suffer. Modern safe standing is clearly different from the old days but I've a feeling the motives of those pursuing it haven't changed much at all. We can live without it and probably should.

It sends an all too familiar message to the average supporter.

Exactly so. If we don't know the qualifying criteria, do we know who makes the decisions?

I've seen the omission of Wallace and McCulloch mentioned several times on Twitter in recent days. You'd think if "service to the club" is a selection criteria then they would have qualified and then some.

Thanks @gaspard. At least 2, 3 and 4 are measurable but 1 and 5 seem harder to quantify. On that basis, Sam English spent 2 years at the club, made only 72 appearances and won 2 trophies. Graeme Souness made 73 appearances and won one trophy. Ray Wilkins made 96 appearances over 2 years and won two trophies. I'm happy for everyone whose name appears on the HOF board but there should be meaningful criteria if it's to stand for anything. It won't change anything but I'd suggest something along the lines of a minimum of 5 years with the club and 200 games. The number of trophies is significant but less important and "exceptional abilities" is a nonsense.

I suppose it all depends on where we want the bar to be set. How special do we want a HoF to be? I've no idea how they actually decide who's in the HoF. Is it reserved only for the best of the best or is it something awarded to everyone who made a decent contribution. Personally I'd prefer the former but since some are already there who wouldn't meet my criteria, the game's already a bogey as far as I'm concerned.

Tavernier's free kick was spectacular, brilliant even, but he was still abandoning his defensive duties too often. Borna on the other hand continues to confound my opinions of 4 months ago and maintained his rich vein of form. Without Greegs we could easily have conceded 2 goals. But the stars of the show were definitely the new boys in midfield. Hard to separate the two of them but I felt Cantwell made the biggest impact overall.

Do you know if there are any specific qualifying metrics, any actual basis of selection? Or are inductions merely subjective individual choices? Why isn't there any supporter participation? Seems to me that MyGers would be a perfect vehicle.

I can only speak about players back to the late 1950s but it seems to me certain names in the HoF do not deserve to be there. Ray Wilkins was only with us for 2 seasons and made only 96 appearances. Graeme Souness made a mere 73 appearances. How the hell do these two stand beside the likes of Greig with 755 appearances?

That makes good sense to me although I could be persuaded to make it ten per decade

Completely agree. It's ridiculous to induct current players. This just devalues the whole concept of a Hall of Fame. I'd even go further and say no one should be inducted until at least 5 years after they stop playing for Rangers. If there really are no deserving ex-players then no one should be inducted.

...... and revamp the ticketing service

What are these special fans groups and how many of them routinely turn up at Ibrox?

No problem - as long as they pay for it themselves. I come from a generation that didn't need different group identities to think of themselves as Rangers fans, so perhaps I've less tolerance of needy people who have to have special considerations like safe standing.