JohnMc

What's particularly disappointing is none of the 2019 Alkas Cup winning side have made the step up to our first team. There were boys in that side that really looked like they could make it, yet none of them have. Nathan Young-Coombes is currently without a club. Kai Kennedy was named player of the tournament, he plays for Queen Of The South now, Aaron Lyall at Morton, Ciaran Dickson is in prison, captain Kyle McClelland was released by Rangers and played for Coleraine this season. Adam Devine is still with us but for how much longer, and Lewis Budinauckas but as he can't get into the Thistle team on loan currently, I'm not confident he's displacing Kelly or Butland anytime soon. Alex Lowry was the one who probably had the best opportunity but he's currently not troubling the Wycombe Wanderers first team very often. It's not too much to think that at least a couple of those players could have become decent squad players by now at least. You wonder if winning that tournament, and the adulation and expectation that followed it, was the worst thing that could happen to them. If Birmingham want to keep our players I can't imagine we'll be making that difficult for them.

We don't have control but we do have influence, any owner of Rangers needs the fans onside or else it's going to be a very bumpy ride. There's a difference between being cautious and being sceptical. I've concerns and I'm surprised more of us don't too. In terms of analysing what the owners have done at Leeds they've spent two seasons in the Championship, losing in the playoffs and then winning the league. Unusually they stuck by the manager who lost in the play offs. That paid off and I suspect it wasn't a universally popular decision this time last season. Off the pitch Leeds have lost an eye-watering amount of money. Even with parachute payments they lost over £60 million last season following on from a loss of over £30 million the season before. They sold a couple of their better players last summer for big money so this season, while many assume it will be loss making again, shouldn't be as bad. They do run a significant risk of falling foul of the financial fair play rules and they'll need to strengthen their squad if they've to have any hope of staying up next season, so an interesting summer ahead for them. Now, I don't follow English football closely but I have read people say that it's almost impossible to stay up without breaking the financial rules, the gap in quality between the divisions is so big now. So maybe they're gambling they'll be able to survive even if they are penalised. What, if anything, can we divine from that? Making a profit hasn't been their first action. They stuck by a manager who didn't deliver first time around. They sold popular and valuable players. Leeds got promoted. Leeds have made huge losses and still owe a lot of money in transfer fees. Now, Leeds are by far the biggest club in the Championship and getting them promoted, while still receiving parachute payments, is surely the least you could expect. That said promotion is no given from that league, it's hard won and most fail. I remain cautious, I don't think they're spivs, I don't think they're Craig Whyte. I do think they might be willing to gamble with us, and then walk away if it doesn't pay off. They have no emotional ties, we're a business opportunity to them, nothing more than that. Where that might leave us is a concern. Let's see what they say and then what they do.

Is it just a Scottish thing where everything must be either black or white, it can't be both? It's surely entirely understandable for the CEO and board of the club to feel that an enormous banner showing a figure pointing a gun in the general direction of the away support isn't the kind of image they feel represents them, while also thinking it's not literally calling for anyone to be shot and is entirely in keeping with the type 'edgy humour' associated with ultra groups. It's also fair to think the reaction from media and politicians is farcical. Those are not competing ideas. Likewise, you can feel the events of October the 7th in Israel were horrifying, barbaric and carried out by monsters while still feeling that a lot of what is happened since then in Gaza and beyond is also horrific and barbaric. You can utterly condemn Hamas and also believe that many of Israel's subsequent actions are also worthy of condemnation. Again, I don't see why these need to be competing viewpoints. Lastly, it's ok to be unhappy with the current board and senior management at Rangers and also be very wary of the likely new owners. Because you are unhappy currently surely doesn't mean you should welcome any change that comes. Many were very unhappy with Sir David Murray, and so welcomed Craig Whyte without question. There were influential fan groups offering unwavering support for him right up to us going into administration, this support seemed to be based on the fact he wasn't SDM. I'm not saying the 49rs people are Craig Whyte, all I'm saying is you can be wary of their motives and nervous of their aims while still feeling change is required. Again, these shouldn't be competing ideas.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Are we blaming the board for the loss to Malmo? Should they have taken the club further into debt to appease Gerrard and perhaps stopped him leaving? Did many think GvB was terrible choice of replacement at the time? I do hear people say we should have sold Morelos and Kent when they were at their peak. Again, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Had we sold them there would be posters on here criticising the board's lack of ambition, being only interested in money. I feel there's a lack of realism around much of the criticism the board get. I mean the OP suggests you "could pick any half a dozen fans from the crowd and they would formulate and action a better plan to run the club" which is a nice soundbite but is also total and utter bollocks. It's such a ludicrously naive statement. That so many can't look at the people on our board, at their past achievements, at the ability so many of them clearly have, at the time and money they've poured into the club and realise that actually, if they weren't able to achieve everything we all wanted, that maybe, just maybe, it's a much harder job to do than most of us seem to think it is bewilders me. The simplicity so many approach this with is staggering. This board leave the club in a much better place than they found it, they should be thanked for that.

As we continue to document the board's many failures and play down their occasional successes, I wonder if someone might show me which other European leagues the club with the second highest budget finishes above the club with the biggest budget on a regular basis? For me this is the big elephant that everyone seems to ignore while criticising the club. In Germany Bayern were champions 9 out of the last 10 seasons. In France PSG have won 8 of the last 10. In Spain Athletico have won 1 title, the remaining 9 shared by Real and Barca. In Holland PSV have 4 titles, Ajax 3 and Feyonoord 2 (no title awarded in 2020). In Sweden Malmo have won 7 title since 2014. You get the picture. The disparity in finance makes a massive difference in modern football, in almost every league in Europe. Celtic have spent more on transfers than Rangers every season this decade. Frankie made the interesting point over the page that Celtic have dethroned Rangers as the most successful club on the pitch and the establishment club off it. Fair enough, but the dethroning of the club as the 'establishment club' didn't take place under this board, that happened a number of years ago. The club with the second highest budget finished second.

Here and in general. If you're not seeing any cheerleading then maybe you've become inured to it. I don't think there is any comparison between the current board and SDM. Whatever failures they have they own them. I don't have the same hatred for our board that some seem to harbour. Whatever their faults I'm more comfortable with them than whatever venture capitalists we've got coming next. I know, i'm an inveterate loser who is happy finishing second every season.

We know what's going to happen. If the team is competing for the league, winning games we're expected to win and giving Celtic a challenge then the majority of fans will be happy. If we're 10 points behind them by November, our new players haven't bedded in and we've just dropped points at home to Falkirk then the pitch forks will be out. It'll be the manager who gets it first, but eventually Thelwell will come under fire and finally the board if nothing changes. Sacking a manager every autumn keeps the fans from outright revolt. A decent percentage of fans couldn't care less who owns the club and who runs the club, if we're winning the league. Look at the SDM years if you think I'm exaggerating. If we're finishing the league as Champions then our new owners could strip the oak panelling from the Main Stand and sell it for fire wood and many in our support would turn up and help them shift it. We're being sold to total strangers, people with no connection or affection for our club, people who's motives we can only guess at, and I'd say the majority of our support are welcoming them with open arms and a decent number are actively cheerleading them. There's little sense of nervousness, no worry or concern from an awful lot of people. Those who do have concerns are told they're happy settling for second and have no ambition. Like most of us I saw our club teeter on the very edge of oblivion not that long ago. It amazes me how many of our support are happy to gamble it all again. It was interesting learning about Athletic Bilbao again recently. A club with an identity, with a purpose, who know exactly who they are.

Yeah, I am a bit doom laden recently, that's fair. Still surprised he wants to leave Everton just as things are finally looking up.

The lowest form of wit, what can I say. I know nothing of this person. Everton strike me as a basket case of a club massively underperforming and really badly run. Now, perhaps our new man performed heroic work under really difficult circumstances or he was a large part of the problem. I don't know which. Seems surprising he's leaving just as some stability and investment arrive.

It would be amazing if he could bring to Rangers the success Everton have enjoyed over the last two decades.

Yeah, it's poorly named, I agree.

No, you're getting confused. It refers to this https://www.unibet.co.uk/zeromission It's on our shirts this season.

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.

I lived just north of Belfast for a few years during the 1990s. I was there during the 'end' of the troubles and for the Good Friday Agreement, indeed I voted in favour of it. There were 322 people killed during the 1990s alone, 854 during the 80s and over 2,000 in the 1970s. Everyone in Northern Ireland was affected, directly or indirectly. As a Glaswegian I arrogantly thought I had a grasp of the place before I went, I didn't. Like so much in life Northern Ireland is far more nuanced and complicated than some like to portray it. The Good Friday (or Belfast) Agreement was a compromise. It was very difficult for some people to accept it, I knew people who couldn't. I understood why too. For me it came down to stopping the killing. Those numbers of dead above, that would have continued. There are people today alive who otherwise wouldn't be. It's that simple. No one got what they wanted. Republicans had to admit they weren't getting a 'united Ireland' through violence, the only way that was going to happen was through democratic means and that might take generations, if ever. Unionists had to accept that a 'united Ireland' was a legitimate aim as long as it was achieved through the ballot box. Everyone had to accept murderers, sociopaths, gangsters and monsters were not only going to get away with their crimes, but be allowed into civil society, take up important roles of state and have their past whitewashed. Northern Ireland is a better place to live in today than it was when I moved there. It's certainly not perfect, far from it, but police officers can now tell their neighbours what they do for a living, teenagers can work anywhere in the city without the genuine fear they could be abducted and murdered on their way home. That's progress, believe it or not. The price of this is accepting people who were responsible for a lot of the violence, anger and murder now have important roles, make decisions, and walk like statesmen and women. It's a bitter, bitter pill, but surely better than the alternative. I think so, at least.

The fact this isn't actually a story aside if an elected MP on a charity bike ride requests to stop at Ibrox to help raise publicity for it are Rangers expected to say 'no', we don't like the party you're in? I'm fully aware of who and what Maskey is, stands for and excuses, and I doubt there's many votes in a visit to Ibrox for him. Parts of the Shankhill and the Village are in his constituency, so while he literally doesn't represent most of those people he is their MP too. To criticise the club and the board for for allowing them to visit is unfair. Raising £25k for MND research isn't to be ignored either.