amms

I wasn't comparing them just as managers but their contribution to the club as a whole. McCoist is currently 50 years old. When Struth was 50 he'd been the assistant manager of Rangers for 6 years, a period that brought 2 titles but also coincided with WW1. He became manager at 44 and by the time he was 50 he'd managed the club to 4 titles out of a possible 6 and 2 Scottish Cup Finals which we both lost. There was no League Cup at that time. Struth never played for Rangers, indeed he had no connection to the club prior to joining as assistant manager that I can see. McCoist is now 50. He became assistant manager of the club at 44 (6 years later than Struth). Like Struth the club won 2 titles whilst he was assistant manager. It aso won 2 Scottish Cups and 3 League Cups and was a finalist in the UEFA Cup. In the 2 seasons McCoist has been manager he has won one 3rd Division title. Now the water is further clouded when you factor in McCoist's playing career. 10 League Titles, 3 Scottish Cups and 9 League Cups, 2 European Golden Boots, 61 International Caps and 19 goals for his country. He is also the club's record goalscorer and has made more appearances as a player for Rangers than all but two others. So as things stand Struth has the better managerial record and that is unlikely to change even when/if McCoist reaches 6 years in charge of the side. However their records to date aren't miles apart and McCoist has achieved significantly more prior to becoming manager, (Struth's overall managerial record is unlikely to be beaten I'd venture). What is always difficult to measure is the intangible. Struth took over Rangers in a time of tragedy. Manager William Wilton had died in a boating accident, Celtic had dominated the previous two decades in Scotland and really were the dominant club. Struth galvanised Rangers and proceeded to build several sides who dominated in Scotland and held their own elsewhere too. As we all know McCoist has faced experiences no other Rangers manager has. He has done so in exemplary fashion, holding the club together at times and starting a rebuilding process with limitations that no other Scottish manager has ever faced. Time will tell how Ally turns out as a manager but even if it ends in failure his contribution to the club, both what the record books show and what he's given that can't be measured should ensure that he is always spoken about in the highest regard and in the same breath as our greatest ever servants.

Thanks. You must be abe to understand why some, and I include myself in this, were very unsure about 'the club' last summer. The need for continuance, to see the connection to the past was essential and for many Ally McCoist was the only sign of it. Most of the players had gone, the board had gone, we'd failed to get a CVA and the 'newco' was an unfamiliar concept to most of us and the utter disbelief and disappointment that this had happened to us was causing a trauma throughout many in the support. Green was an unknown quantity, many were rightly suspicious of him, he'd no currency with us. Throughout it McCoist was the the recognisable voice, the familiar face and for many, rightly or wrongly, the only person they trusted. You could argue that without McCoist 'the club' might have been stillborn last summer, without his support Green would have struggled to sell season tickets or indeed field a side. Whilst 'the club' is all the things you said it is a number of individuals have contributed much, much more to it than most others have. Ally McCoist deserves to have his name spoken in the same way as our founders or Mr Struth now. His contribution to the club both on and off the field is now difficult to measure. I remember a long time ago on Rangersmedia debating who was the greatest ever Ranger with Manticore. He, rightly, said Struth, but if you compare what they both achieved by age (ie Struth's record when he was the age McCoist is now) then McCoist is a serious contendor for that title. I don't think anyone thinks McCoist is capable of emulating Struth as a manager, I doubt even McCoist thinks that. But that should never detract from what he has and continues to contribute to the club. No one is bigger than the club, but without some individuals the club would be a lot smaller than it is, one of those individuals is Ally McCoist.

What is 'the club'? Can you define it, what does it consist of? I'm not picking a fight I'm genuinely curious what you mean by 'the club'.

But you haven't answered his question, no one can understand it because you've not yet supplied an answer.

Sheils should be sold just for wearing those boots in that picture!

And Ryan Giggs too I just read.

Good stuff Frankie.

See, much as it's clearly the sign of a damaged mind being 'anti-Rangers' isn't illegal or even unusual. Are you suggesting we ban people who don't like us, surely that is curtailing free speech? If someone writes or says something that is libellous or slanderous then they can be sued. If it is simply inaccurate a complaint can be made, these avenues are open today and always have been, banning someone doesn't change that. But most importantly choose not to buy it or listen to it. Pure economics will stop it far quicker than any ban will. Rangers are written and spoken about by the media because people are interested, that's the reason it is encouraged, if we were more discerning the problem wouldn't be as big as some thing it is.

Yeah, I'm not sure I'm worried, but he wasn't impressive I agree.

I'm all for holding people to account, I'd support legal action if the club are defamed and I've absolutely no problem with the club or the support publicly criticising journalists when they produce something that is wrong. Whilst you aren't arguing against free speech enforcing a ban on someone because you don't like what they write is an attempt to restrict free speech. There are laws in place to protect against against libel, there are no shortage of outlets for the club or the support to voice their displeasure at inaccuracies. Most of all bans simply don't work, they make no discernable difference to the journalist.

Jeez, we're a tough audience. For me it was actually a very good interview, considerably better than we've come to expect from the club. As Anchorman rightly predicted it wasn't Frost/Nixon but Traynor still asked a number of the questions that have been getting asked by plenty of people on here. So be fair, it wasn't a soft soap effort, it was professional, well produced and enlightening in some areas. Now if the criticism is regarding McCoist's answers then that's different. He was clearly uncomfortable with some of the questions, I got the impression he didn't want to publicly criticise Adam Owen and he handled the footballing philosophy question badly. But c'mon, it was a decent interview and gave a fair insight into Ally's thinking.

I don't know, ask the CEO of Rangers.

If only life was so simple. James Traynor was once banned from Ibrox, how'd it affect his career? Banning journalists doesn't work. Alex Ferguson refused to speak to the entire BBC for years, what difference did that make to them? We're currently not speaking to BBC Scotland, what affect is that having, who actually loses out in that? Banning someone like Tom English from Ibrox will do very little to his career. It will prevent him from attending half of our matches in person but it doesn't stop him writing about them or writing about Rangers. If people don't like what Tom English writes then don't read it, ever. If no one reads his stuff no one will pay him to write it, it's simple economics. But the piece in question in this thread was replied to in an excellent way by one of the Rangers Standard guys, that was a far better response than banning him. Journalists shouldn't be banned in a free society. If you dislike what someone writes then challenge them on it, if that doesn't work then don't read them, don't buy their paper or listen to their show. Understand that writing an article on Rangers almost guarantees readers, whether the journalist is banned or not. We hold the power here, not them.

double post.

Serious question, what do you think that would achieve?

How long are we going to have Blackthorn on our strips? It's just wrong, everything about it is wrong. Other than a few inbreds in rural England do they really think adult males are going to start drinking cider? This is marketing folly, cider will remain the preserve of 15 year olds fortifying themselves before a school disco and as the base for stag night cocktails, nothing else. Plus their logo offends my sense of symmetry. That thing they've done with the 'T' would be fine if they were Backthorn, it would be fine in a nine letter word, 4 letters either side, perfect. But this cramming the 'L' and the 'A' together is everything that's wrong with modern society. IT DOESN'T FIT, IGNORANT BASTARDS. That bloody stupid underline doesn't reach all the way along either, what are we to read into that exactly, what is the underlying message that subliminally delivers? Well i'll tell you, they are saying the B and the N don't matter, ignore them, they are worthless, they have no value. Lackthor that's the true message being delivered, how dare they suggest we lack Thor? We might well be missing some a Scandinavian wing god currently but they don't have to rub it in. Thor, the god of thunder, and as Fleetwood Mac so eloquently said "Thunder only happens when it's raining, players only love you when they are playing". These apple squeezers they mock us, they laugh at our unrequited love for players who'll fuck off to Everton or Stoke reserves for a couple of grand extra a week and a baby Bentley. It's wrong I tell you, these people with their rancid liquor, really aggravating namestyle and subliminal condescension must not be tolerated. The black and red socks are good though.

That's the second of your posts I've laughed out loud at today. I take your point, sport in particular attracts hyperbole, it's almost the default position now, I blame Sky. I blame them for many things to be fair.

I'm quite interested by this. The club have a real chance to engage a support generally disillusioned by the media, but it'll need an edge. If it turns into a Govan Pravda then it'll miss its chance, but honest, no punches pulled stuff would be good. We forget that McCoist speaks well and is smarter than the average bear but I'm not sure Traynor is a TV interviewer, we'll see.

I meant specifically in terms of McCoist's appointments. McCoist didn't appoint either of those two, did he?

That's an interesting observation, who do you have in mind? I can only think of Durrant and Jim Stewart as ex-Rangers players, none of the rest played for us that I can think of. I know Gordon Durie has been linked to us today, has he actually got the job?

What you've described is what happens out in the 'real world' but football is a parallel universe where real world problems and solutions rarely apply it seems. I suppose if McCoist is being judged on results and is given a budget to achieve them then how he spends it becomes his sole responsibility. I guess Director of Football with a first team coach is closer to the model you describe.

'Jobs for the boys' is a criticism I've seen levelled at McCoist over the last couple of seasons by various fans. I read it again just now on the 'Henry' fitness coach thread. I was driving home late last night listening to FiveLive, they had an interview with Terry Phelan who was the Assistant Manager of Man Utd until a few weeks ago. Now it would be hard to argue that anyone in the world is better qualified to be the assistant manager of Manchester United than Phelan, however David Moyes doesn't think so and is bringing in his own choice as assistant. Is this also a case of jobs for the boys? Moyes has also brought in a new first team coach and goalkeeping coach (ex-Ger Chris Woods) dispensing with the services of the existing pair who were doing those jobs fairly well I'd have thought, again is this jobs for the boys? Owen Coyle was on the same show, he was asked about Phelan leaving Man Utd and he explained that since leaving St Johnstone he has always brought in his own backroom staff to every new club he's joined and dispensed with the incumbents. He needs people around him he can trust from day one was his reasoning. This is clearly what happens in football it isn't just McCoist who surrounds himself with people he knows. I can't decide if it is a good or bad thing though. I guess the manager needs to have people he can trust carrying out the tasks he sets. He needs to be able to work with them in a fairly high-pressured environment, the nature of football and the culture of the dressing room does make it fairly unique, many of the normal business rules simply don't apply in that context. Seeing as it is a widespread and normal practice in football to do this why does McCoist get criticised for it? Also is it a good practice?

As a follow up this story is the front page lead in this morning's Daily Record, including what team the perpetrators and the victim support. It's an appalling story which shows Glasgow in a terrible light.

See I've only one issue with the fines the SFA gave us last year, we did go into Administration and the rules state clubs who do this should be fined, and that's that these is little point fining a financially crippled club. I also think we did bring the game into disrepute when we didn't pay PAYE etc. I also think Hearts have done the same and I think they will be fined. I just don't think they should be, and I don't think we should have been either. The EBT investigation was the SPL, that was always political and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

The SPL couldn't fine Dunfermline as they were not in the SPL when they went into administration but I think it is the SFA fines most are angry about to be fair. I still expect Hearts will be fined by the SFA I just don't think they should be. Two wrongs don't make a right and Hearts being fucked by the SFA won't make me feel any better about what happened to us. The fact, and it is a fact, that supporters of other clubs are reacting to the situation at Hearts and the one at Rangers differently comes as no surprise now. The venom and hatred we engendered stunned me, Hearts simply don't matter that much to most people who aren't Hearts fans, that's life.