JohnMc

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.

I think I lean more to Real Sociedad as my Basque club, it's the blue colours plus Arteta. Athletic Club are fascinating, I admire their signing policy and love how they built their new(ish) ground. I'm uncomfortable with some of the politics their fans bring (as I am with Rangers...). They'll love the St Etienne bike in our boardroom, cycle racing is more popular than football there.

Yeah, peak Morelos was so good at that. I think that's why others scored so much more then too, he occupied at least one, often 2 defenders, was still able to either hold it up, lay it off or draw a foul allowing Kent, Aribo, Arfield, Roofe etc to use the space he'd created. Igamane has shown moments that he might be able to do this, but he's not there yet.

Thanks, that's really helpful. So our XG goes up if we create 'better' chances, not if we change centre forward? But a more clinical centre forward should score more goals? I don't have a problem accepting both those statements as true. So when someone says that Dessers misses a lot of chances it's true, it's just that they're not considered 'easy' chances by whoever compiles this data. My main criticism of Dessers earlier in the season was his work outside the box. I felt his hold-up play and link-up play was poor and so if he wasn't scoring he wasn't contributing anything. That side of his game has improved, his all round contribution is better now.

See the stat above of 12.52 for Dessers. Is that based on studying Dessers performances/chances alone, or does it take in other centre forwards as a comparison or what? What I'm trying to understand is if another striker was our centre forward would their XG be different or is 12.52 XG what's expected of a Rangers number 9 based on our play/chances created etc?

Surely you'd expect a professional keeper to keep their first goal out? Maybe not hold it but certainly palm it away. He might have seen it late and it was well struck but I thought he was at fault for that goal.

I'll try again. What aspects of your traditions and beliefs aren't being catered for? You keep alluding to this.

Go on then, what part of your culture isn't being catered for?

You keep pulling at that thread, you should take it up with UEFA. Was the banner meant as a threat? It was so clumsily written it's hard to know.

Do they? Who are these people?

For the first 40 or so years of our existence Rangers were no more Protestant a club than Partick Thistle or Falkirk or Arbroath were. The later arrival of that Protestant identity was down to a number of factors. Rangers rise from being simply another football club to being recognised as one the most attractive to watch and the success that brought. Queen's Park's decision to remain amateur and not embrace professionalism. Queen's Park were one of the most famous clubs in the country, hugely influential and successful in football's formative years. By the turn on the 20th century they were already struggling to attract the calibre of player they were used to and losing support. Partick Thistle moving from Partick to Maryhill. Glasgow was a city of 'incomers' in the early 20th century. Family allegiances to clubs didn't yet exist in the way we see them today. Men, and it was almost exclusively men, would finish work on Saturday and many would go and watch a game close to them. Maryhill was a lot harder to get to from Partick and the west of the city, Govan had great transport links and an attractive and successful football team. So thousands of men went to watch Rangers and a habit was formed. Rangers started to attract supporters from all across the city. Not being Celtic. Celtic were successful almost from the day they first played. They had lots of money and were clearly looking to attract the Irish Catholic population of the city, something they did successfully. Many of those not from that background didn't see Celtic as the club for them. Irish home rule became increasingly divisive politically and increased a feeling of 'them and us' in cities with big Irish populations, like Glasgow. Protestant immigration from the north of Ireland. Around a quarter of all the Irish who came to Scotland were Protestant. Many brought with them their culture, for some that included Orange institutions, with numbers swelling during the late 19th and early 20th century. So Rangers changed as it's support changed. We became the 'Protestant' club and the unionist club. We didn't set out that way, it was simply that the city changed around us. The city is changing again, those of us who live in Glasgow can't help but notice. At the same time our players are changing too. My formative years watching Rangers the entire starting 11 were Scots. Robert Pryrz and John McClelland were seen as exotic. My son's heroes are Columbian, Moroccan, Nigerian and Cameroonian. Whether some like it or not our support is changing too. I know supporters who have no religion, indeed strongly dislike organised religion. I know supporters who are strong Scottish nationalists. Supporters who are Marxists. I know practicing Roman Catholics who support Rangers, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and or course Muslims. Many of these people have no attachment to loyalism, Orangism, even Unionism. But I've yet to hear one of them say they want to see Red Hands and Union flags banned from Ibrox, or loyalist songs banned. If your culture is so threatened by our club welcoming a small number of its supporters to enjoy a cultural and religious ceremony then maybe it's got bigger problems.

I don't think luck has anything to do with those stats.

During the Battle of Aisne, on the Western Front of WW1, two men were given the unenviable task of capturing an enemy machine gun post. It was a suicide mission, nevertheless the soldiers followed their orders and attacked. One of the men was Private George Wilson of the Highland Light Infantry, the other man’s name hasn’t been recorded for posterity. Private Wilson received the Victoria Cross for most conspicuous gallantry, a medal you can still see today as it’s displayed in the HLI museum in Sauchiehall Street. Wilson survived the mission and the war. His comrade that day was killed before the enemy machine gun post was secured. Writing about the nature of fate and luck Sergeant Thomas Painting, who was present at the battle, retold the story “Private Wilson from the HLI and one our men attacked a machine gun. Our man got killed but Wilson captured the position. Wilson got the Victoria Cross and our man got a wooden cross, that’s the difference.” Luck, fate or whatever you want to call it is that most elusive and valuable of commodities in football too. Sure, you make your own luck. 30 years from now history will record that Cyriel Dessers scored an injury time winner in a classic 4-3 victory. It’s unlikely anyone then will care that he had 10 or so good chances to score before that. He scored the winner, that’s the only stat that counts. Lucky Cyriel. Lucky Rangers to have him. Unlucky Dundee to keep allowing him to get chances. Luck has been on my mind watching Rangers this year. Had James Tavernier not missed a stoppage time penalty against Queens Park we’d probably have gone on and won that cup tie. Lucky Rangers would have been the gist of the headlines. Clement would have hung on for at least another few weeks, almost certainly until the Fenerbace tie. Luck had something else in mind, no VCs for Phillipe. Barry Ferguson might just be a lucky manager. Certainly he’s incredibly lucky to actually be the Rangers manager. He’s not nearly qualified for the job, indeed I’d argue he would have been lucky to ever get another senior managerial job following his stints at Kelty and Clyde. Yet now he’s managing the biggest club in the country. Not only was Ferguson out of work and available, but so were Allan McGregor, Neil McCann and Billy Dodds, who along with Issame Charai have been unable to fix our defensive frailties but have found a bit of steel from somewhere. A lucky find. Incredibly, Ferguson’s Rangers have yet to win a match at Ibrox. The Fenerbace game was actually a horrible performance, lacking in everything we’ve come to expect from Rangers in the Europa League. Yet we’ve all forgotten about that because Jack Butland chose that moment to re-find the form that made him an England international once upon a time. A 2-0 defeat that felt like a win. We left Ibrox relieved and ecstatic, almost forgetting we’d carried a lot of luck that evening. Our support returned to Parkhead and watched Rangers deservedly go in ahead at the break, before succumbing to Celtic’s Japanese footballers once again. We know how this story normally ends, yet this time it didn’t. Celtic’s defenders decided defending wasn’t for them, Igamane got the break of the ball and delivered a finish so beautiful that should also be displayed in a museum in Glasgow for everyone to admire. Ferguson’s Rangers seem to have all the same weaknesses as Clement’s, yet somehow they feel different. I think, and I say this quietly so as not to break the spell, but I think we’re carrying some luck for what feels like the first time in years. The Dundee disallowed goal, their point blank miss in the second half, oh we’re definitely carrying some luck. It’s about time frankly. Napoleon was once criticised for winning battles through luck. He replied that he’d ‘rather have lucky generals than good ones, lucky ones win battles’. Is Barry Ferguson a lucky general? I hope so. Unlike 8,500,000 others Private Wilson VC survived the First World War and returned to Scotland to resume his life. However, Wilson was taken by TB in 1926 without reaching his 40th birthday. Everyone runs out of luck, eventually.

Do you mean 'why'? Or are you actually a native American saying hello to me? Maybe that's what you mean by Western cultures.

Who decides what's "incompatible with Western cultures"? Indeed, perhaps you could explain what you mean by Western cultures? Is that yogurt made by cowboys?

Seems the right thread. https://x.com/RangersFC/status/1906753357789929803

Maybe, but it's semantics and I doubt UEFA will see it that way. I also doubt the club will make a defence based around whatever the banner meant, I suspect they'll point to the fact the club aims to be as inclusive as possible and the banner wasn't sanctioned and has been criticised and hope for leniency.

"Further, the club has also been charged by UEFA for the throwing of objects at the home match with Fenerbahce. This is becoming a regular occurrence, not just at Rangers matches, but across stadia in Scotland. Indeed, our players and staff were targeted with missiles at Parkhead on Sunday." Literally in that statement.

I've no idea what 'defend Europe' means either, but it's open to interpretation. Keep - retain, maintain, resist Woke - fuck knows what they mean, dog whistle term for something that wasn't around in the 1950s. Foreign - something not of this country, not of this culture, different from 'us'. This is the problematic word for me. If it had said 'keep woke ideologies out' it's political, the use of the word foreign changes the meaning for me. Ideology - a concept or system of ideas. Out - away, not near us. As I said only those who wrote it know what they meant, but its ambiguity is a problem, it can be read a number of ways and one of those ways is as racism.

Did you actually read the club's statement?

Hey, it's bad enough Dell is bringing women to the fitba, just how woke is he?

In that case you should ask the club. I don't think that's what the banners was about but who knows, maybe it was.

Knock yourself out, Dell. I mean it's got very little to do with the banner and the charge, but if it's important to you raise it.