Leaderboard

Once again we're getting entrenched in a binary argument, when both are valid, IMO. On the one hand, it's certainly true that we are an impatient lot, that are generally unwilling to go through the necessary rebuilding phase and get hooked on a quick fix. We are financially unsustainable. Despite knowing it was front-loaded, we overspent stopping their 10IAR and yet most were still expecting us to keep spending. On the other hand, I do think the solution can be as simple as getting the right appointments and the right structure in place. I do think a good coach solves most of it. I have been of the opinion that we've been dragged one way and the next in terms of planning and rebuilding because we've had too many voices in the boardroom - exacerbated because the fans are too impatient to see anything through unless it bares immediate fruit. I'm hoping the takeover will solve most of these issues.

An xG rolling chart? Woke nonsense. Mine is better...

I've used this site a few times, never been disappointed https://www.blueroomart.co.uk/category/canvas

Take it to Vista print ,or somewhere similar , they'll do any size you like ,and far better quality than a normal home printer too.

You could argue they got lucky due to our poor appointments.

They’d be better with Molly Maguire

The only joined up and consistent part of the last 3 decades is our propensity to lose money. Generally, the mindset of the support is to go along with it, ask for more and ask for it, now. How do we become sustainable under the new owners?

I would also like the new owners to enter into talks with fans regarding safe-standing areas within Ibrox. The current board appear to be absolutely opposed to this for some reason.

Everton get a winner last week when you dont want them to, then concede two late goals when you dont want them to. West Ham cant let Potter go into next season, just get rid and go and pay Brentford for Thomas Frank. Amazing result for Villa, its very close for the CL spots. They have to go to Man City in midweek - on form they can win there.

It's an interesting question and one none of us can answer. For me the real question that's still not been answered is why do they want to buy us? We've had 3 types of owners in 150 or so years. 1. Supporters of the club for who it is an emotional decision - Every owner we've ever had except a handful 2. For the prestige it will reflect on them, to inflate their ego, raise their profile - Sir David Murray 3. An effort to make money - Whyte, Green, Ashley We can remove '1' from their motivation. I think '2' is a stretch too, they aren't Russian oligarchs or Middle Eastern despots with reputations needing sports washed. Which leaves 3. They already own an English side with lot's of potential and that's where the money is, the real money. There's not much money in Scottish football, so their are only 3 ways I can see for them to make money from us. Qualify for the Champion's League, sell players for profits or reduce overheads. I think a lot of fans are hoping for the first option; Champion's League. To do that we'll need to win our league and then get through qualifying, or win the Europa League next season. There's not enough money in the Europa or Conference Leagues to make our owners a serious profit, so it's Champion's League or nothing. What kind of investment would it take to turn our club into Champions and strengthen again to qualify for the Champion's League? Including transfer fees and salaries? Gerrard spent in the region of £30 million on transfer fees to win the league, plus a decent number of free transfer signings. That side didn't qualify for the Champion's League. You add signing on fees, agent fees and of course salaries to that number and you get a big number, just to win the league. Now we might get lucky, our current squad is better than the one Gerrard inherited, and maybe we'll appoint a manager who can do something special with them and a couple of new signings. Plus maybe the wheels come off over the city. That would be a gamble though, money has to be invested in our squad, it's not good enough to win the league as it stands. It's a question of how much. Selling players for a profit is the more attractive option I'd have thought. If you've no emotional attachment, if it's purely about business and winning stuff is a bonus, then developing and selling players is the easiest way to make money. Particularly if you already own the buyer. I mean developing players for Leeds, who if they can get promoted and stay up, not a given for sure, will have access to hundreds of millions just by being in that league is surely the easiest way to make money. Leeds in the EPL will turnover £200 million right away. We'd need to win the Champion's League to make that. So which one of those 2 horses are you going to back? If you wonder how this dual ownership might work have a read about Strasbourg. Currently doing ok in the French League, but very much being used as a support club for Chelsea. Strasbourg are used to buy players not yet ready for Chelsea, then 'sold' onto Chelsea if they develop. It's not about success for Strasbourg, it's about maintaining Chelsea as a cash cow for their American owners. Option 3, cut overheads. After all we only need to finish second to guarantee a crack at European football, fill the stadium and sell our replica shirts. We've already demonstrated that for the last however many years. What if that could be maintained on lower overheads? I mean we might even breakeven this season, much lower salary bill and a decent Europa run. Just keep that going, take a million out a year in management fees, just keep finishing second, how hard can that be? Anyway, my money is on option 2, I'm not discounting 3, and I'm loving the optimism many have for option 1.

Ta, but printer only does A4 looking for A3 or A2.

1 Google Images 2 Make your choice 3 Print 4 Frame

... posted the first video a wee while back. Some US commentator who does a lot of 49ers reporting.

Again, not true. If this board hadn't wasted £11M on NEH we'd be far closer to sustainability than we are now. Now, thata just one example, there are lots more, purely down to this board that have NOTHING to do with the previous boards. The sooner you accept this board are incapable of running a football club the better. Will the 49ers be any better? Only time will tell but as others have said, the answers to some of our issues are simplistic and easy to implement. Get those correct immediately and we have a fighting chance.

No sign of any ump at the moment they lead by four at Hampden

100% but we have to admit and acknowledge that the sustainability of the club is 100% responsibility of the board. If we aren't sustainable or showing signs of becoming sustainable the board take FULL responsibility for this. It's really that simple.

I get that DerB. You talk of 9, but it may as well be 99 years of f**King Up. If we haven't sorted out the fundamental issue, then it remains there needing to be fixed. There is no getting round it, we need to become sustainable. The question is how do we do it? Then there is timescale and my guess is that the support aren't going to like the probable answer. There are many known unknowns going into next season. We will have to wait and see what they are.

Another point: I do think Celtic have been very lucky with a couple of good managerial appointments, and I also think that they will be on the dip over the next couple of years. Rodgers usually implodes once he has a couple of seasons to bring in his own players, which he doesn't have a good record with (last time he jumped before it got bad). They would need another stupendous managerial appointment. I'm actually quite pleased to see them punt £11m on players. They won't get all of them right and it will quickly cut into their cash pile. This is the time. Get our plans in place and see it through.

It's a problem that affects most businesses in the world at the moment, certainly within the western world anyway. Too many overhead opinions and decisions, when in reality it could all be streamlined down to a very simplistic approach, which has been said by Cammy, myself, and even you there. Putting the right people in, having the right foundations etc. While you say we're impatient, we were all prepared in 2012 for a proper rebuild, using the youth and the academy to bring us back to the top with young lads that would be sellable assets or stellar talents for the Prem by then, when the spivs failed, we were patient again as Dave King and Co promised to rebuild us properly, but this is where poor ownership comes to the fore, and nullifies the fault of the supporters - you said it yourself there, they frontloaded us, paying over the odds, desperately trying to stop that one thing, instead of building us up properly. We've been patient. We're passed that with the incumbents, they have ruined it all. To the point we're waiting on a takeover. King&Co are as much spivs as Green, Ashley, Letham etc before them.

So you think we should wake up, smell the coffee, and accept mediocrity? That we should just be happy we exist? Then what's the bloody point mate? Our expectations of challenging for this league aren't farsighted, take on board for example what @der Berliner just said - the gulf hasn't been this massive chasm, and most seasons its us being our own worst enemy that has cost us. You might be happy to be run of the mill just existing, I and many others are not. Anyone taking on this football club has to realise success is expected, and competent able owners would be able to deliver that without spending an exorbitant amount of money. We aren't to blame in anyway. Dave King, The Parks, Bisgrove, Specky Robertson etc, all contributed in turning us into a shit show.

I think we all know the "good old days" are long gone, we're certainly not going to be signing Gascoignes or Laudrups. But I think at minimal we expect our football club to be run properly, and actually properly looked after i.e giving the football department the proper foundations and structures that it needs to succeed. Spending within our means etc isn't a problem, so long as we're still successful and resourceful in other ways, actually having a player trading model that works for instance.

The good old days are long gone but one thing we haven’t had since 2012 is someone/persons who knew how to run a football club we’ve stumbled along like amateurs you only have to look at transfer dealings money paid handsome wage packets seldom if ever get this back for some reason I see to many contracts being allowed to run down new owners first priority,Be Professional run it like a business not a benevolent fund .

Indeed. Imagine wanting the thing you're most passionate about to succeed and do well! What bastards we are, making them run our club like an amateur outfit!! He certainly seems to hold us in the same contempt!

That's exactly what Buster has been saying for months if not years!!!! Us, the mainstay of financial input to the club, who have stick with the club through the relegation, the barron years, the spivs amd now this current failure of a board are "unreasonable" and "impatient" and that's why the board make incorrect decisions! You couldn't make it up. On reflection, we may have found Graeme Park's Gersnet log-in........

So you're saying it's our fault for wanting a winning football club? And not the fault of poor owners and decision makers who couldn't deliver that? It has been said numerous times, it's very simplistic - Put the right people in the right positions, if you're actively able to buy low, sell high, identify a constant source of young talent, while delivering results on the park - then it takes care of itself. Cheaping out and not putting this foundations in place means that we typically overpay, hemorrhage money on staff and coaches, sign poor players, spend money on other projects like NEH instead of consolidating the league from a winning position. It all adds up to being poorly run, on the fault of Dave King and the Three Bears etc, who themselves became spivs, looks at us, we're a joke where the only way out is being taken over. Stop trying to lay blame at us, if it's somehow the supporters fault for wanting a Rangers to be proud of, stop trying to connect dots that aren't there. Dave King, The Parks etc ran us into the fucking ground. Their decisions, their incompetence and poor judgement.

Include the rest of the bit about DK and co 👍🏻 "and again rather than reducing costs and picking the correct appointments and infrastructure, the board gambled when we won the league, decided to spend on legacy projects, have a record of poor managerial appointments, spending money on poor players, nonexistent scouting departments, basically failing to care for the football department." While they inherited problems to begin with, we navigated that and they created their own problems. Their tanking money on shite, has nothing to do with the last guys tanking money on shite.

DK&Co had significant Legacy issues and a team in the lower leagues when they took over. Why ? Because the 'spivs' had ripped the club apart and taken advantage of a gullible support. Why? Because we went bust and they picked up the pieces. Why ? Because of Sir Duped. Why? Because he introduced a culture of paying for stuff with money he didn't have and distract the support with moonbeams and we lapped it up. _----------------_ Ps. Doesn't excuse DK&co from their mistakes. Eg. Retail, etc We need to break the approximately 30 year habit of losing mucho money. Not only that, but the prospective new owners need to make money. How do they do it ?

It really is this simplistic though mate. You seem determined to label this as some sort of insurmountable curse that has plagued us for decades, must all be connected and related to have knock on effects to one another. We got a clean slate when Dave King Three Bears etc came in, and again rather than reducing costs and picking the correct appointments and infrastructure, the board gambled when we won the league, decided to spend on legacy projects, have a record of poor managerial appointments, spending money on poor players, nonexistent scouting departments, basically failing to care for the football department. It really is as simple as putting the correct people in place in terms of scouting and recruiting, director of football operations and managerial appointments. Also ensuring your CFO isn't hoodwinked by crypto scams like Bisgrove was. We've been run like an amateur Sunday league outfit for the last 5 years.

Hahaha And I'll leave you to wallow in crap dished by a board who've taken us to a point where we can't operate and our only chance of improving is to sell to new investors. Our underlying sustainability issues are ALL the fault of the board.

It has NOTHING to do with the current situation. We are where we are due to the current board. For all his faults we can't blame SDM for the catalogue of woeful decisions served up by this board / shareholders. Unless SDM is secretly pulling the strings in the boardroom If you can't understand that, then there is no point continuing this discussion.

Being unsustainable for the best part of three decades is relevant to the current situation. The club, the fan base have become accustomed to chucking money we don't have in an attempt to solve problems. It is the short term fix that we have become accustomed to. It is relevant because it is time we actually recognised the error of our ways and did something about it. Generally, the fan base don't want to know about the word sustainable, they prefer redtop headlines about war chests. Dave King &Co. started it off with financed "constructive losses" and it was planned to last for 3 to 5 years. However, for various reasons we just can't stop spending significantly more money than we earn. At last John Bennett said "we must become sustainable" but after an initial reluctant acceptance, the fans forgot about it. Now the fan base are expectant for a large war chest coming into view. Some new folk to finance the fix. But the new folk want to make money so alongside any actual investment, get ready for sustainability and the associated pain that path will bring. But I forgot that your logic is that if they make right appointments and make all the right decisions, everything will go wonderfully..... How is the weather in LaLa land ?

No LGBTQXYZ flag or minarets on that shirt mock up. Not very inclusive.

Chris Graham, still in the background at Club1872.

A new Brigadoon themed "away" strip is on the way. Well, how often do we actually win things? It's been leaked on-line. Below are a couple of cheerleaders modelling it.... Yanks, eh?

Some interesting, and objective, observations from The Times' football stats and data man, on BF. Barry Ferguson’s tactical notes left Rangers lost in Bilbao The interim head coach’s instructions confused his own side in their Europa League quarter-final second leg and reflect a wider theme from the Premiership Ferguson passes on a tactical note to Tavernier during the Europa League defeat ANDER GILLENEA/AFP Hamzah Khalique-Loonat, Football Data Journalist Friday April 18 2025, 7.20pm, The Times Barry Ferguson initially attempted to bat away questions about his Rangers future but, eventually, bit at one, “I know I can do the job,” he said. The Rangers manager was in a defiant mood. Coaches have a short time to compose themselves after a match before heading into their post-match press conferences, but more often than not, they are still stinging after defeat. This was no exception and when Ferguson spoke, his words came from his heart. So despite advancing his own ambitions to lead Rangers permanently, Ferguson also channeled his emotions as a proud supporter and former player. “I’m just concerned in terms of what happens; I just want my club to get back to where it should be,” he said. “That’s my main concern. Whether that’s me or somebody else, and if it’s not me, I’ll fully support them. I’ll go back and do what I was doing before and get right behind [them], making sure that we get the club back to winning trophies on a regular basis.” This was not his finest hour. The manager had reshuffled and reorganised his team throughout the game via slips of paper delivered onto the field, and they looked lost for large periods of it, as only Bilbao’s errant finishing spared Rangers an embarrassing scoreline. Most of ’recent failings cannot be laid at Ferguson’s door. He inherited a listing side, whose failings look worse because of Celtic’s brilliance in the league, and bravely offered to help right the ship. But that makes no difference to Rangers’ board who, come the end of the season, will have to consider whether Ferguson, at this point in his managerial career, is the figure to lead the club. Underlying statistics suggest that Rangers have got worse under Ferguson ION ALCOBA BEITIA/GETTY IMAGES Since Ferguson took charge in late February, Rangers have won and lost four apiece and drawn two matches. Among those ten games are outstanding results, such as Rangers’ victory over Jose Mourinho’s Fenerbahce, memorable wins, like Rangers’ first win at Parkhead since 2020, and stirring acts of defiance evidenced this weekend against Aberdeen and at Ibrox against Athletic Bilbao. But the performances have not been as convincing; Rangers have been riding their luck, and their defeat to Bilbao was another demonstration of this. The first half was an almighty mess: Rangers had two — extremely optimistic — efforts from range, while Bilbao should have scored four, with Nico Williams (twice) and Oihan Sancet having golden opportunities before John Souttar fouled Maroan Sannadi inside the penalty area to give Sancet a spot kick. The shot count in the first half was 15-2; Bilbao had 268 passes to Rangers’ 175; and 22 touches in the opposition’s penalty area to Rangers’ none. Had Rangers come to play a defensive, tight first-half, those numbers would have made sense. There is logic in soaking up pressure, and playing to counter. Yet, the manager stressed before the match the difference between this match and the first leg was that his team needed to show some quality with possession — within seven seconds of kick-off, they booted the ball out of play. Ferguson’s words were not mere rhetoric, either: Rangers had come to play, but simply couldn’t. They strung together possession sequences of 10 or more passes on just three occasions. The visitors were pinned back by Bilbao, who found it easy to play through their press, albeit more challenging to pick apart their back five. But there was nothing redeeming about their work with possession; the forwards were isolated, the defenders unsure of when and where to pass to, playing short when direct options were better and going long when they were unprepared to contest the second ball — no better exemplified than in the moments leading to Bilbao’s penalty: Liam Kelly kicked long, with not long until half-time. Bilbao made uncontested contact on the first ball, and recovered it near their own penalty area. Dessers ran forward, to apply pressure, but behind him Rangers’ midfield four was disorganised. Bilbao had two midfielders unmarked in the centre of the pitch, and it took just one pass infield to precipitate a break which ended with Souttar felling Sannadi. There were countless examples of similar disorganisation across the opening 45 minutes. Yet across both halves, Ferguson made constant changes to his team, supposedly to fix these issues. These were not small adjustments or tweaks, but fundamental alterations to the team’s structure and how they played. Rangers started the match using a 3-4-2-1 with possession and a 5-4-1 without, but both systems were altered via messages to James Tavernier, scrawled onto scraps of paper, and the captain was then tasked with ensuring his team-mates understood the changes. The confused and unsure reactions of the players as they attempted to slot into position, only to look over to the bench and see Ferguson clarifying via finger motions, meant the changes were often not in effect until two or three breaks in play after the initial message had been passed on. Bilbao, meanwhile, were slicing through the spaces with ease. It was difficult to communicate amid the din, but Rangers’ players looked unprepared. After the match, the manager was unrepentant about how he set his team up, “My formation, I thought, was good enough,” he said. The subsequent first-half tactical changes, he explained, were injury-induced, referring to Ridvan Yilmaz. “You can’t help an injury after 23 minutes, then you have to shuffle, [there’s] people running about and it unsettles us for a small period of time,” he continued. “After getting in at half-time, I have to make another change, and then, obviously, [there’s] changes in the second half — but that’s part of football.” Advertisement The second half, to Ferguson’s credit, showed more promise. When Rangers built out, their structure was visible. The back four, spread across the pitch and supported by a midfield double-pivot, looked stable. With those players in place, the visitors could advance. Combination and approach play followed. Possession rose from 39 per cent in the first half to 50 per cent in the second. The shot count looked more even: Bilbao had seven to Rangers’ five; between the 58th and 69th minutes, Rangers had three to Bilbao’s none. Then came another of Ferguson’s tactical tweaks, and with it went Rangers’ momentum. Even then, Rangers were, frankly, lucky to still be in the game. Ferguson may point to the two penalty decisions he believed went against his team — the first, a shirt pull on Cyriel Dessers, the second a handball — and it’s entirely true that a penalty decision may have changed the course of the game. However, neither of those opportunities appeared to have been caused by Rangers continually stressing Bilbao in the way Souttar’s foul on Williams was. And this performance and Ferguson’s constant tactical tinkering sits among a wider backdrop of Rangers striving to find a playing identity, and somehow alighting on a defensive, counter-attacking gameplan that is not befitting of Rangers. Ferguson’s changes and tweaks have not been working, as evidenced by how his team’s attacking production has worsened, just like their defensive record But Ferguson stood by his changes. “That’s my job, as manager,” he said. “I need to try and find a formula to try and get back into the game. I’m not scared to make changes. “I said that when I took the job, watching Rangers week in, week out, there was no flexibility whatsoever — that’s a difference we’ve made since we’ve come through the door. “Whether that’s a back three, four, or a five, whatever, I’ve got to try, come up with scenarios that can get us back into the game.” The problem is, his constant tinkering quashed Rangers’ chance of a comeback on Thursday, and have left his team more generally without an identiy and idea to draw upon when they need to. The former midfielder has every right to make his case to Rangers that he should be the man to lead the club, that he can find a style of play that can bring the best out of these players, but right now, as Rangers’ performance against Bilbao showed, and the preceding nine games have intimated, it appears Rangers require a steadier, more experienced hand with a greater sense of clarity to return the club to the top of Scottish football. e

The main thing that most people in here, I would assume, are interested in is: how can they invest in the squad. That is, what are the rules binding external money to build a team from essentially scratch. Naming rights, advertising, whatever? While I can't compare them directly, the Anschutz Entertainment Group owns the Eisbären Berlin ice-hockey team (and to no ill-effect so far) and a host of other teams, mainly in the US. Anschutz was one of the co-founders and one of the lead investors of Major League Soccer. In 1996, he became the investor/operator of the Colorado Rapids, his first MLS franchise. The Rapids were then a subsidiary of the Anschutz Corporation. In subsequent years, as Anschutz acquired additional sports teams, it led to the formation of a new division of the company whose focus was sports and entertainment, leading directly to the creation of AEG. the Rapids and National Hockey League's (NHL) Los Angeles Kings as its original members. Since 1996, AEG has held ownership in the Chicago Fire, San Jose Earthquakes, New York/New Jersey MetroStars, D.C. United and Houston Dynamo.[21][22] Currently, AEG is the operator of the Los Angeles Galaxy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschutz_Entertainment_Group Who will be the people in charge remains anyone's guess. The aforementioned Cavenagh, some other chap, anyone of the 49ers franchise? The latter will probably not be looking to extract cash/assets, you would assume.

A rhetorical question i presume.

We tend to lose about 10M a year when we were relatively successful. We need to become a sustainable business then build on that foundation. It isn't easy when your direct rival has already built that foundation and are years ahead of you What has happened is that we continually look for short cuts that of occasion may bear a little fruit but then the bills have to be paid.

Start to cut the cost of the playing squad then extract profit.