Leaderboard

Maybe because there is no fixed identity. It evolves alongside society (which has changed significantly in most of our lifetimes) and on top of that, the club means different things to different people. For me, Rangers FC is a football club, first and foremost but is also a sporting focal point for many Scots of a Protestant background and more so recently (thanks to devolution and the rise of Scottish nationalism), Unionist Scots. It's also about winning.

Of course! I was just meaning I find it impossible 👍

Outstanding .

TOTALLY AGREE this will mean nothing to the majority of our team nly to the choir that sings it and most of them will be lucky to know about him.

Taking the question slightly off track. There's where we've been and then where we're going. Any successful club (or anything) takes a route that allows it to survive and then thrive. That means it has to adapt and change over time. We have at times went down dead ends with our identity. We are at a place where we havent had the biggest turnover in Scotland for some time so we need to ensure we arent limiting ourselves there - that doesnt mean selling out or chasing any passing ambulance. My philosophy on this is simple, if we are holding on to something/anything that limits our potential then its not good for Rangers (e.g. stop singing about the UVF and Bobby Sands). As others have said, the traditional football club angle is one that stands out. A rich and varied history. It also a great selling point, as we'll always be older than most clubs. Our last 10 years and the Europa runs focused on hard work, over-coming adversity and getting behind the team. Our current predicament shows as a support we clearly value standards, fitness, winning and winning well. We also value and respond to strong leadership. That could be Gerrard or King, but also the club itself being the leader and statesmen within the Scottish game. Again, something currently missing. I guess what defines the brand are the parts you actually miss when it's taken away.

Let's face it, Presbyterianism is dead on its arse and everything that used to be distinctly Scottish is going the same way. Rangers 'brand' was linked to both. We all need to be more emotional, rely on others, play the victim and behave like entitled children nowadays. Gone are the days of thrift, tight-fistedness, taking responsibility, getting on with it and pulling your socks up. Give it 100 years and we'll be almost identical to Celtc.

I'm a church going Presbyterian who is proud to be Scottish and British who supports Rangers. To me these aren't necessarily linked to others they will be linked. I'm not afraid to champion all of the above, but they are my personal opinions which I chose not to "force" on others.

I'd say most posters on this thread have covered one or two of the same things. It's what the majority of Bears think and also how the neutral observers (noted when reading foreign articles) and our enemies see us: Protestant and British. Some Bears don't want to be associated with these two things, others are just a bit uncomfortable with it but most are quite proud of it.

But each supporter will have a different answer, defining characteristics will be different between supporter to supporter. To me it's the charity work the club undertakes, to someone else it'll be the links to loyalism and royalism, to someone else it'll be links to Union Bears or ICF and fighting fans from other clubs, for someone else it will be family tradition. There are endless answers, not just one. All legitimate answers and all personal to each fan.

I know it's not a very original choice, but I have a clear memory of declaring "That is the best goal I've ever seen!" when it happened.

The reality is Rangers are many things to many people. From simply a football team to a whole identity, and everything indetween. There isn't and shouldn't be a "fixed" identity but we should always embrace or history and our "culture" (perceived or otherwise"). We should and are a "broad church" and the "identity" will change generation after generation. Things that should remain constant are our charity foundation and the work it does locally, nationally and internationally. This work has rightly received acclaim locally, nationally and internationally. There is no right or wrong answer to the original question.

But it's great fun trying 🙂

It's impossible to pick one goal as the best! there are so many great goals to choose from

Having mainly attended matches on supporters buses, I've witnessed many examples of fans who treat football as a side issue. Supporting Rangers is just an excuse for a day out and a piss up. I've never really understood that but it's certainly not uncommon amongst our support.

You need to apply your Joker. Jokers applied to a game will double your points on that match, and can be used only once per round. Just indicate the match to which you'd like to apply it.

I'm not really sure. So many to choose from. Wee Barella's goal for Inter v Sampdoria a few weeks ago was an absolute peach - the type of goal I dream about scoring. Lovely first touch and then BLAM!

The responses to this topic have been fascinating and far more revealing than anything I had expected or hoped for. The main revelation is that no one seems able to describe the Rangers identity or what the club stands for, which is a little surprising given how much time we all spend focussed on the club and the emotional capital we devote to it. Yet no one has been able to express with any clarity what values they associate with Rangers. Far more time has been devoted to suggesting what isn't part of our identity. This hasn't exactly come as a surprise, since I've experienced the very same difficulty. I'm grateful to@JohnMc for his lengthy and intelligent analysis but even he restricted himself to examining certain key attributes, each of which he then rejected as core brand criteria. Almost everyone else either deflected or were otherwise unable to contribute. For such a dedicated support to be unable to make a coherent assessment of the Rangers identity is rather mystifying - but it surely tells us something very important about the club, the support and the image projected by both. You might even conclude that we lack any clear sense of identity, that there isn't actually anything obvious we stand for. Or is it, for the sake of debate, that we don't actually like what we think the club stands for, especially in recent times? Are we experiencing a crisis of identity because we know the club hasn't come close to matching what we would like it to be? I say this because several people dwelt on what they thought we should be, as opposed to what we are. Why does something as fundamental as identity cause so much difficulty?

The beer issue is kinda underhanded by the Qataris. Give us your money, and the exposure commensurate with that, but not your sin. Highest of hypocrisy. However, in their defense, Budweiser is horse piss.

Gaby Logan, Gary Lineker and Gary Neville will have to be so brave to cover matches over there, given their love of equality and human rights. So very brave. Thoughts and prayers etc.

No interest in the world cup at all.

Modern life is rubbish.

The whole thing is about as fake as a plastic todger

The Valentine and Niven comedy show even more scary was the horrors hit the woodwork four times that day

I never think of 1957. I’m not that senile.

Agreed, perfectly put.

My love affair with football is already dwindling. The idea of Sean Dyche coming to the SPL to win ugly with Rangers would be the final nail in the coffin.

As ever John, your post hits the nail directly on the head. Bravo sir.

To be honest, I don't think Hagi reached his potential with us before his injury, so I'm hoping he comes back even stronger with a good run in the team.

It wouldn't be a Rangers support without it. Build the effigy, to set it alight.

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's a meaningless friendly , so we'll probably win, but with yet more injuries to whatever key players we have left.