let's be sporting chaps

[der Berliner 3,249]

Where did I vent any anger at the board?

 

And we are Rangers, not ICT or Albion Rovers. I started supporting the club in the early 80s, so I know what it's like to support a rather sub-standard Rangers team.

 

Well, you do spill some anger on Gersnet on a nigh daily basis. And as for the rest, "we are Rangers" has been commented upon and where and when and if you started to support Rangers et al is all fine and well in writing, what facts lie beyond the monitor screen or smartphone need not to be the same. And that's just a general comment, BTW.

[Gonzo79 13,660]

So can you answer the question in more specific terms - where did I vent anger at the board? That was your accusation.

 

I think you're mistaking anger for disappointment and frustration. Anger usually results in abuse, expletives etc - I think my comments are a wee bit more reasoned than that.

 

If you are content with us losing to teams who haven't actually purchased a player for a good while and finishing 3rd in the league, as well as the endless run of humiliations we are currently being subjected to then that's up to you. You're entitled to your opinion, as am I.

[calscot 0]

I've got a wee boy. His best mate at school is a Tim.

 

It's getting harder and harder to explain to him why he has to support Rangers. We are crap.

 

I don't see why he "has" to support Rangers, surely it should be his choice? But it should be easy enough to explain that just "supporting" the best team at the time, neither shows character nor teaches you anything.

 

My brother did that, started off with Kilmarnock because it was local and his mate supported them; however they weren't good and Alex Ferguson's Aberdeen were winning the most and so he switched. Then they faded and it was Rangers for a while but for once he stuck it, but when Rangers were overtaken by Celtic with Martin O'Neil, and Aberdeen were never going to get a look in, with a Tim girlfriend, he switched to them. Then when we came back to dominate with Walter, he switched to a dominant Man U. He still "supports" them but now, as they are not winning so much, he also supports Real Madrid.

 

To me that's not really supporting anyone, and it's just vicariously stroking your own ego all the time.

 

I think suffering is part of the package that teaches you how to cope with what life throws at you. If most fans didn't subscribe to that we'd have a situation that everyone for each league would only support the top couple of sides with a chance of winning. In Scotland it would mean we were all Bears during NIAR and now switched to all Tims.

 

Maybe you can teach your son it's not all about being the best team all the time, it's about being a part of something and sticking with it through thick and thin. At the moment I'm more proud of the way fans turned up in the 45 thousands and more in the bottom tier than anything on the park. I think that's something bigger than just being at the top of the league at any one point.

[ranger_syntax 3,775]

My brother did that, started off with Kilmarnock because it was local and his mate supported them; however they weren't good and Alex Ferguson's Aberdeen were winning the most and so he switched. Then they faded and it was Rangers for a while but for once he stuck it, but when Rangers were overtaken by Celtic with Martin O'Neil, and Aberdeen were never going to get a look in, with a Tim girlfriend, he switched to them. Then when we came back to dominate with Walter, he switched to a dominant Man U. He still "supports" them but now, as they are not winning so much, he also supports Real Madrid.

 

Jesus wept.

[Gonzo79 13,660]

Anyone who switches team after the age of 5 cannot be taken seriously.

[craig 5,199]

Anyone who switches team after the age of 5 cannot be taken seriously.

 

Not really - allowances should also be given for people who are literally just passing observers. Some just watch for something to do rather than get caught in the tribalism of it all.

 

Calscot's brother simply comes across to me as a passive observer with no real, strong ties to either a team or even the game in general.

 

Not everyone has to pick a team and stick with them forever and ever. I will readily admit though, I am extremely proud of my 13 yr old who has been a Rangers fan since he could walk and, regardless of how bad we are, would never change his allegiance. He was 7 when we were kicked out in 2012.... in his innocence he thought it meant we were no more and asked if he had to find a new club - my response was that Rangers were still here, still the same club, but it would be a long time before he could celebrate real success as a fan again - and if he wanted to switch teams he could - even at 7 he flat out said no chance. Once a Ranger, always a Ranger. All this whilst his little Spurs supporting buddies were switching to Man City when they won the league (Bermudian kids generally support English teams) and playing glory hunter - I was proud of my little fella. And love his passion when he attends this season on his 1st season ticket having moved back to Scotland...

[Gonzo79 13,660]

Fair enough, craig. But there is a difference between a fan and a supporter. I can understand why a fan might switch but not a supporter.

 

I do think the tribalism you refer to becoming less significant (I blame Sky) is a reason why so many kids in Scotland wear Man U, Barcelona and Bayern Munich gear and that's not good for our game.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Gonzo79

[craig 5,199]

Fair enough, craig. But there is a difference between a fan and a supporter. I can understand why a fan might switch but not a supporter.

 

Completely agree.

 

I do think the tribalism you refer to becoming less significant (I blame Sky) is a reason why so many kids in Scotland wear Man U, Barcelona and Bayern Munich gear and that's not good for our game.

 

I don't blame Sky in totality, though they do shoulder some of the "responsibility" - at the end of the day the "product" in Scotland is terrible, so I see little wonder that kids would prefer to "support" a bigger club from a richer league. FWIW, I have only managed one Gers game live this season (Hibs at home funnily enough - and I feel as if the SFA should refund me the cost of my ticket for having their ref cheat me out of what would otherwise have been a good, competitive game) and I enjoyed watching that game far more than I enjoyed being at the Barcelona v Malaga game on Saturday night - I would happily have left the game after 70 minutes on Saturday night - Barca played the ball around nicely but it was pretty boring to watch - an observation both my Mrs and 13 yr old agreed with. We did enjoy the Olympiakos game a bit more but there was much more intensity to it.

 

The game in Europe is completely skewed towards the richer nations. No longer is the game for your average fan, it has been completely hijacked by money. Scotland and its teams simply refuse to actually try to improve the game so that we can get a larger slice of the pie. Simply, we don't need 4 divisions for 42 teams, it is bonkers. If you look at England, most of the cash in the game is because of the EPL and the Championship - 44 teams in total. League One and below and not that many people would be able to tell you the teams competing in it (aside from supporters of such teams) - so, if the EPL & Championship are the profiled English leagues and they only consist of 44 teams... why shouldn't Scotland decide to have TWO leagues - one of 20 and one of 22 - or expand the Championship to 24 teams as is the case in England. Nobody is interested in watching Killie v Accies (no offense to those two teams) 4 times a season. So make some PROPER change, expand the teams in each league, reduce the number of leagues - and then also have a fairer distribution of the collective revenues from TV and league sponsorship.

[ranger_syntax 3,775]

Scotland and its teams simply refuse to actually try to improve the game so that we can get a larger slice of the pie. Simply, we don't need 4 divisions for 42 teams, it is bonkers.

 

It's a discussion for another thread but I don't think that 4 divisions and 42 teams is a significant factor in Scotland's predicament.

[JFK-1 1,675]

Completely agree.

 

 

 

I don't blame Sky in totality, though they do shoulder some of the "responsibility" - at the end of the day the "product" in Scotland is terrible, so I see little wonder that kids would prefer to "support" a bigger club from a richer league. FWIW, I have only managed one Gers game live this season (Hibs at home funnily enough - and I feel as if the SFA should refund me the cost of my ticket for having their ref cheat me out of what would otherwise have been a good, competitive game) and I enjoyed watching that game far more than I enjoyed being at the Barcelona v Malaga game on Saturday night - I would happily have left the game after 70 minutes on Saturday night - Barca played the ball around nicely but it was pretty boring to watch - an observation both my Mrs and 13 yr old agreed with. We did enjoy the Olympiakos game a bit more but there was much more intensity to it.

 

The game in Europe is completely skewed towards the richer nations. No longer is the game for your average fan, it has been completely hijacked by money. Scotland and its teams simply refuse to actually try to improve the game so that we can get a larger slice of the pie. Simply, we don't need 4 divisions for 42 teams, it is bonkers. If you look at England, most of the cash in the game is because of the EPL and the Championship - 44 teams in total. League One and below and not that many people would be able to tell you the teams competing in it (aside from supporters of such teams) - so, if the EPL & Championship are the profiled English leagues and they only consist of 44 teams... why shouldn't Scotland decide to have TWO leagues - one of 20 and one of 22 - or expand the Championship to 24 teams as is the case in England. Nobody is interested in watching Killie v Accies (no offense to those two teams) 4 times a season. So make some PROPER change, expand the teams in each league, reduce the number of leagues - and then also have a fairer distribution of the collective revenues from TV and league sponsorship.

 

I too think they should be looking at an expanded top league with a minimum 18 teams. The move to reduce the top league with the creation of the SPL was with hindsight a very bad decision in my opinion and our game has been on a gradual slide ever since.

 

One of the complaints of the previous setup was that into the second half of the season and later there were too many 'meaningless' games with a bunch of clubs sitting safely in a mid table position with no chance of being in the top clutch and shielded from relegation worries by their position with another bunch below them.

 

As far as i'm concerned there are no meaningless games for the followers of a team and with the current setup come late season you have the entire bottom half all terrified of relegation and due to this terrified to give young guys a chance to show what they can do and it goes without saying that can't be good.

 

I would rather see a clutch of teams sitting in a comfortable mid table position and not afraid to throw some boys into the fray with no fears of relegation keeping them out. Nothing much would change as far as the balance of power goes since the top teams will more or less always be the top teams and the relegation strugglers will more often than not always be relatively predictable from day one.

 

But such a setup would be more likely to encourage development of young players which can from time to time change the fortunes of those lucky enough to develop the gems which can only be beneficial for the Scottish game as a whole and would be as far as i'm concerned no less entertaining at worst.