JohnMc

In 1909, when supporter’s of Rangers and Celtic suspected the clubs were colluding with each other to increase their revenue, both sets of fans nearly completely destroyed Hampden in response. That was following the replay of the Scottish Cup Final, which like the final also ended in a draw. There had been suspicions for a while both club’s directors were more interested in making money than listening to the support and replays were lucrative. In that instance the fans destroyed parts of the terraces, pulled down the goal posts, dug up large parts of the turf and set fire to the ticket boxes and turnstyles before mounted police were able to restore order. History doesn’t record if any tennis balls were thrown onto the park though. There was no second replay, the cup was declared void that season.

Other than heavy fines for both clubs and much indignation from the media life pretty much carried on as normal afterwards. Following this match the term ‘Old Firm’ was popularised. The belief that both club’s directors were making decisions that were of mutual benefit while maintaining a pretence of extreme rivalry.

In my experience boards of all businesses make poor decisions. For successful, well run companies these decisions are rare and when a poor one is made they’re recognised and remedied. Poorly run companies make more bad decisions than good ones and that usually results in their demise, sooner or later. But even the best run make bad decisions from time to time.

Time will tell if the Sydney Cup turns out to be a bad decision or simply an unpopular one, the two aren’t always the same. There are some intelligent, successful people on our board. That doesn’t mean they won’t make bad decisions, it’s how frequently they make them we should be looking at. I suspect we can’t afford to pull out of this Sydney match as things stand, so the board will need to thole it for now. If we win the league and are guaranteed a Champion’s League windfall we might decide we can afford to take the hit. If we don’t I suspect this type of match will become a common occurrence each season.

As others have said Bisgrove is simply doing his job, there’s no way senior people at the club didn’t know this would be unpopular with at least some of the support. In the end they know we’re unlikely to try and destroy Hampden, or Ibrox for that matter, and we’ll keep turning up, buying strips and TV subscriptions. 

I've not seen this mentioned anywhere but we played Dynamo Kiev in a friendly in 1990. Europe was going through seismic change, the Berlin Wall had fallen the previous year, Poland and Hungary had broken free from Communist dictators and the entire map of Europe was about to change as the Soviet Union was beginning to dissolve, events we're still feeling the consequences of today. For many of us at that time Dynamo Kiev were a 'Russian' side. Many people used the term Russia and Soviet Union interchangeably. Despite some of the great Soviet sides not actually being Russian, (Dynamo Kiev, Dynamo Tbilisi and Dynamo Minsk) there was a lazy shorthand in the West that Russia and the Soviet Union were the same thing. I grew up knowing a few Scottish Communists, I knew a guy who used to go to Moscow every year for the May Day parade and sent postcards home to everyone he knew. But he never explained the geography or ethnic breakdown to me, they were all comrades in his eyes. It's funny looking back. 

We'd played Dynamo Kiev in a memorable European Cup match in 1987, for many who were there it was one of Rangers greatest evenings. Dynamo Kiev were one of the best club sides in the world. European Cup winners in 86, semi finalists the following season they were rightly strong favourites. If you listen to Archie MacPherson's commentary of that match he describes Kiev as 'Russian', something most of us thought at the time. Anyway, that match has been written about a lot and is well documented. So I guess we'd made a connection with the club and somehow this led to a friendly being arranged that summer. 

Again this was unusual as Soviet teams rarely took part in friendlies in 'the West'. But then Europe was changing and Dynamo Kiev, having had successful runs in European competition were better placed than most to benefit from them. 

Anyway, the reason I thought of this match was it was the first time I remember reading about Ukraine being a separate nation from Russia. I had heard the name Ukraine from school history classes, but I'd never thought of it as a country in its own right. Dynamo Kiev had an iconic strip, that wonderful stylised capital D on white shirts and navy shorts, however on that day Rangers presented Dynamo with a new strip, it was a yellow top with blue shorts, the symbolism of which was largely lost on me then but is quite important today. Ukraine hadn't yet become a separate nation, but was clearly taking steps towards it and as arguably their most visible symbol Dynamo Kiev were nailing their colours to the mast. For all intents and purposes Dynamo Kiev were the Ukraine national side, they were certainly the best side in the country and many of their players were already Soviet internationals. 

I wonder if it was Rangers idea to give them the strips, or if someone from Dynamo Kiev initiated it. Dynamo wore them for a couple of seasons as Ukraine established itself as a nation, then they reverted back to their traditional colours. 

Dynamo Kiev have a fascinating history, truly remarkable. Dutch writer, Simon Kuper, wrote an extraordinary chapter on them in his book 'Football Against the Enemy' (a book with a chapter on Rangers too) and Andy Dougan, who wrote for the Evening Times for many years, wrote about Dynamo Kiev during WW2, again an astonishing story. 

As for Miko, he split our support. I remember someone telling me that John Grieg was announcing the sides to a corporate box at Ibrox one day and when he came to Mikhailichenko's name in the starting 11 he muttered "it canny be raining then', I don't think he was Grieg's type of player! 

Whatever lack of fight he might have demonstrated on the pitch he's clearly got no shortage of courage when it really matters. Good luck Alexei. 

4 hours ago, ranger_syntax said:

Mostly fair assessment of the situation.

 

I can't agree about the two high profile signings in January though. The risks associated with Ramsey and Diallo are fairly obvious. The manager must have signed off on them. Do managers get carried away, in the same way as fans, when you give them a chance to sign such players?

 

I'm much more pessimistic about our chances for the league. We can't finish the job with a two goal start at home. Even though we are only 3 behind a complete transformation will be required to win the league.

Both Diallo and Ramsay might still come good, certainly a fit Ramsay would bring something to the side, even if he was only available for our final 6 matches that might be enough. I doubt we'd have signed both without GvB giving his approval albeit they might not have been his first choices. 

I've seen us lose 3-0 at Fir Park to a mid-table Motherwell and nearly blow the title completely. Souness hadn't long left and it looked like his assistant, Walter Smith, might not be up to the job. It went to the final day, we had to win against Aberdeen, they just needed a draw to be Champions. The rest is history. It's going to be a nervy season finale, but sometimes they're the most memorable. 

The jury is always out, that's the nature of football management, particularly if you're the Rangers manager. You're only a run of bad results away from criticism and questions, they know this when they take the job. 

GvB inherited a squad that had hit some wonderful heights last season but was stuttering this season. Our recruitment in the summer hasn't really strengthened us. Sakala reminds me of Lovenkrands, great when he's got space to run into, but he won't contribute a lot against 10 men defences sitting deep. Lundstrom has looked better recently but has taken 6 months to find his form and position. Scott Wright is a bit part player at best and Jack Simpson doesn't seem to have won the confidence of Gerrard or GvB, I expect he'll be back in The Championship in the summer. The least said about the signing of Ofoborh the better. Added to Goldson, Arfield, Balogun, Davis and McGregor all in the final months of their contracts, all senior pros at the club and I expect the guys who 'run' the dressing room and you could see a less that ideal atmosphere to inherit.

In January our squad was weakened. Patterson, despite not making any impact at Everton, was an exceptional talent. Ramsay is clearly struggling with injury and is using us as an attempt to get fit, Dialo is a young player who has tricks but little heart or desire from what i've seen. The young Polish lad might prove an astute buy, time will tell. Add that to Aribo having to go to Africa and come back half the player who left.

None of this is GvB's doing. 

GvB got our tactics so wrong against Celtic it's still painful to speak about it. But he got them so right against Prague and Dortmund. The lack of rotation and subs in recent games has puzzled. I feel that's connected to fitness or illness, I mean it's not like the Dutch don't understand how subs work. I can't help but feel there's more to this than we know. Likewise not starting Balogun, I assume he's not fit enough for two games a week and the management team thought we'd be able to beat St Johnstone without him but not Red Star. I'm guessing, but nothing else makes sense to me. 

Some players have improved under GvB, some have done the opposite. Barasic looks like a shadow of himself, Kamara has lost his spark, Roofe isn't trusted, McGregor is suddenly a weakness. Yet Morelos looks reborn, Sakala started to show something and Bassey is now a first choice starter and Tav looks like he's risen to the challenge. 

Gerrard was always going to be a hard man to replace. Gerrard brought exciting, entertaining football back after a period of ineptitude and ridicule. His presence and charisma, his media savvy and his instinctive understanding of the club and the support were enormous assets for him and the club. Whoever we replaced him with was going to struggle to match that. GvB isn't charismatic, he's not got the profile of Gerrard despite a stellar playing career, he's a different type of manager as well. 

This league isn't won or lost yet. I've been bewildered by some of our performances and angered by some of our decisions recently. But, I still don't buy that our city rivals are the world beaters their support think they are, everything is still to play for, fine margins will tell in the end. I'm backing GvB. For now. 

The purpose of these matches is to help us create top class players, not to win the competition. While winning is always nice and a good habit to form at a club like Rangers, our youth and B teams are there to develop players, not win trophies. Being exposed to sides like Sevilla should help our player's development, or at least some of them.

I think the best we can hope for from the team that played yesterday is a couple of them are good enough to make an impact on our first team and maybe another two or three that aren't good enough for us might command a transfer to another Scottish or English side. The rest will be released and rebuild their careers at a different level. If say Lowry and King can push on and become first team regulars this crop will surely be viewed as a success. 

While I baulk at paying Hearts any sort fee for a player out of contract in 5 months the big picture is winning the league this season and the access to the Champion's League money that brings. That money could stabilise the club, clear our debts and set us up for a decade if used correctly. 

We currently have no natural right back cover and our left back cover is playing at centre half. It seems Simpson isn't good enough, both Gerrard and now GVB have been reluctant to play him, Helander is injured and might be back soon or might not, Balagun is fit again but is also in the final months of his contract as is Goldson. If both remain, no matter how professional both are, would they play through the pain barrier for us, would they risk injury or take a chance with a niggle for us? An injury to Tav and to Bassey or Barasic will see us really stretched and playing either weans or someone out of position, that's far from ideal. Buying Souttar now might be the best bit of business our board ever make. 

Between 2015 and 2018 Connor Goldson only made 32 appearances, a period that also saw him diagnosed with a serious heart defect. He's been almost ever-present since he joined us. 

There's no way our medical and coaching staff don't know all about Souttar's injuries and his recovery, or lack thereof, from them.  I get the concern about Souttar but we either have faith in our medical team or we don't. Football is a small community and everyone talks to each other. I remember buying Oleg Kuznetzov, he'd been almost entirely injury free for 5 seasons, dominating the Soviet league and starring for the USSR national team. He did his cruciate in his second match for us. Every player is a gamble to some extent. 

Rangers first priority should be the health of our supporters, players and staff, everything else should be secondary. Based on the available public health advice the game on Boxing Day shouldn't have a crowd at it. As has been pointed out by others the likelihood of these crowd reduction measures being reversed by mid-January seem slim, so for me whether we go into a winter break now or in early January as planned is fairly moot, we'll all be playing behind closed doors at some point I think. 

The argument that a delay to mid-January will benefit Celtic as it allows them more time to get players fit is fair, but with Balugun, Barasic, Davis and Roofe, all potential starters if fit, also in danger of missing out perhaps a delay might not be that bad for us either. 

The African Cup of Nations taking possibly 3 of our players away for nearly a month is a problem. Losing 3 players does mean we can legitimately ask for postponements of matches but that would really cause fixture chaos, particularly if our next 3 matches are postponed as well. The club is well within its rights to point that out. 

I suspect Rangers, and every other club in Scotland, will be looking to minimise the number of matches played with few or no spectators allowed in. A look at last year's accounts shows just how important having a full Ibrox is for the club's finances, and that applies to every club up here. There's no fat for us to fall back on, losing our biggest revenue stream, again, provides some significant challenges for our board. I can understand why bringing the winter break forward is appealing to many boardrooms, if it means there's a chance of fewer matches being played behind closed doors. Of course no one actually knows the answer to that. Politically these recent measures have been unpopular, and with populist governments in place in Edinburgh and Westminster, it maybe that opinion polls rather than health advice carry more weight around cabinet tables this time round. So maybe restrictions won't last as long as they did last year. Or maybe they will, no one knows for sure. (I'm not trying to make a political point or agree or disagree with Government and public health advice. So don't @ me, I don't care.)

All we can expect of anyone in our boardroom, or any other club's, is to deal with what they know, not what they suspect. For now that means a loss of crowds and revenue for 3 matches. That being the case bringing the winter break forward and so moving those 3 matches to later in the season is the sensible thing to do, even for Rangers. 

As an aside, as none of us really know what will happen, it's worth remembering that Celtic are in the Vauxhall Conference Euro Cup. Despite everything that's a tournament they could reasonably expect to progress quite far in. It's not inconceivable that come March and April Celtic are still playing European matches while trying to fit in 5 postponed SPFL matches around a diminishing fixture calendar. I think our board should be looking to book a tour of Japan for this summer, just in case. 

We're being naive if we think Aston Villa aren't an attractive club for anyone raised in England. They genuinely are the proverbial sleeping giant. They've a big support, based in the second largest city in the country, and a decent history to match. They might have been a yo-yo side in recent times but I'm old enough to remember when Man City and Chelsea were too. 

Aston Villa have ambitious billionaire owners, a decent squad and money in the bank from the sale of Grealish. On top of that Birmingham is only a couple of hours drive from Liverpool, Gerrard could be home with his family every night. 

I suspect Gerrard knows that unless he can turn Rangers into perennial Champion's League participants his managerial pedigree isn't good enough for the Liverpool job currently. But, take a side like Aston Villa back into Europe, have them playing exciting football, maybe win a cup, and he's very much in the frame. Remember Klopp had won the Bundesliga and reached the Champion's League final before he was considered for Liverpool. 

We've not spoken a lot about our recent financial report and what that might mean for the club. Gerrard and his coaching staff are ambitious and our failure to beat Malmo was a huge blow to the club. If we don't win the league this season we might have a problem, we can't keep losing those kind of sums. Having crowds back is a huge help, but we can only balance the books by qualifying for the Champion's League or by selling someone for decent money. 

Gerrard and his coaching team might feel they've taken us as far as they can with the players we have. 

Hopefully that's not the case and he does fancy a crack at winning the SPFL and then straight into the Champion's League next season.