JohnMc

I think next season is our real opportunity to win the league. Realistically they've got more money and a better squad to start with, however they either go into next season with Lennon in charge or with a brand new manager, either way that will create some upset in their dressing room. Their players were signed by a different manager, one who largely got the best out of them. Their next manager might not. Either way there's a period of flux, settling in, and getting used to new rules, tactics and so on. When Gerrard joined Rangers really the only way was up, we were playing so poorly last season that as long as he showed progress he was going to get the backing of the support. It won't be like that across the city next season. They're a treble winning squad and they'll win at least the double this season, so any stumble or drop in that standard will bring criticism from the support, a drop in attendances and unrest. That's our chance. We've a season under our belts, an okay squad that needs strengthened, if we can get that right we can win the league next season. Their support will turn on their manager and their board if they stumble at all, for all their jubilation at the weekend I know a few who are far from happy with Lennon already. I'm not normally a 'short-termist', but this summer I am. If we can win the league we stop their Champion's League money and then they do have a problem, a serious problem. The playing field is level then.

It might be a controversial opinion but I think we need to be signing players who can improve our first team and command a starting place from day one. I understand the mid to long term logic of signing a Greg Docherty or a Hastie, but we need to be winning the league next season, is Hastie ready to help us do that? I haven't seen enough of him to know, but this window I'd be happier if we were signing experienced professionals rather than promising young players.

Wasn't Dirt Road only published last year? I read How Late It Was, How Late and never felt the need to read any of his books again, perhaps that's unfair of me.

I've got to be honest I wasn't looking forward to the pod last night, it was the last thing I felt like doing. But it was cathartic and the time flew in and as Pete says Stevie Clinton helped lighten the tone.

Gary Mackay-Steven??! You've got to be at the wind-up dB.

I agree Stensaas wasn't as good a player although I quite liked Vidmar. Maybe we'll do a podcast on that season and why we fell just short. For me the issues around Gascoigne, Laurdrup signing a pre-contract with Chelsea, key players like McCoist and McCall knowing they were leaving as well as John Brown retiring that summer were much bigger factors. The biggest issue was Smith basically being sacked half way through, no way that didn't affect him and the team. I also think losing Amo to injury for most of the season was key, for all his faults he'd have made a difference to our defence that season, Gough returned and did a job but he wasn't the same player. Of course if Negri had just kept scoring goals they could have played me at left back and won the league!

I think that's exactly why we signed Robertson. That's not to say he wasn't a decent player, he was fine, I just think he benefited from playing in an exceptional side. I certainly don't think selling him played any major part in us not winning the league.

Got to disagree with most of the posts. Robertson was an SPL quality full back who had the good fortune to have a magician playing in front of him for most of his time with us. I can't understand how anyone can favourably compare him to Numan, Numan was a much higher calibre player in my opinion. I liked Robertson, but he benefited from the '3 foreigner' rule.

For our continued survival it makes sense we're able to develop our own top class players. We can't buy top class ones anymore, so we'll need to create our own. Sure, they won't stay for long if they're genuinely good, but that's also a financial necessity these days. This is about more than someone's like or dislike for the Scottish national side. Rangers will always be a real pull for young Scottish players, so the better they are the better we'll be. Lifting the quality of player is in our short and long term interest.

There's no link to the original story in the opening post for me so I'm guessing the gist of it from the replies. Aside from any hyperbole or sensational nonsense he's spouted I actually do think that Rangers and Celtic, as well as the other leading sides in the league are largely to blame for the quality of player Scotland produces. We've been through this before on Gersnet over the years, but for some reason we're able to field highly competitive sides with some real standout individual players at youth level, yet for some reason these same players don't develop in the same way as they get older. We used to blame a 'booze and diet' culture but that's not it, sure some might but most young players are surprisingly focussed and aware of things like that. The issue is how we play football in this country and how young players are developed. We need to take our share of the blame for that. I remember a few seasons back Hamilton brought through MacArthur and McCarthy, both went onto to have international careers and play at the highest level in England. Hamilton were then relegated. This, for me, is part of the problem, any side that focuses on youth development will be punished in our current league. Our league is set up to reward managers who bring in journeymen from the English lower leagues who can fight, scrap and run all match, that keeps you in the league and keeps the manager in a job. In the end Rangers and especially Celtic are the most powerful and influential clubs in the country, until we demand changes this decline will continue. While following Scotland lost its appeal a long time ago, I still don't want to see us horsed by countries with fewer resources and little footballing culture. No disrespect to Kazakstan but we should be beating them. In the end Scotland hasn't produced a player of genuinely international ability in a long, long time, that should concern all of us.

Great show, well worth a listen, just the right amount of despair, frustration and realism with a little sprinkle of hope.

I've not heard much of them recently so it might not have been mentioned but where does Cosgrove sit with the up coming "The Rise and Fall of Anti-Catholicism in Scotland" by Professor Tom Devine? From the previews and interviews I've read it seems the eminent Professor is playing down 'sectarianism' and saying it's really not much of an issue anymore. Indeed the quote I read he said the issues at football aren't sectarianism but simply hooliganism. Seeing as he's widely recognised as the leading historian in the country just now he might even know what he's talking about. I can't imagine that's going to sit well with some.

Ah, now c'mon, Patrick Hamilton was a Glaswegian, when he went to the East coast you lot martyred him. Maybe he asked for vinegar on his chips? Now Gonzo, you know the one thing that unites east and west coast Scotland was the referendum, we all voted to remain in the EU, remember? ?

It must give you all heart to know that despite your funny voices and, I assume, many genetic problems, you can come west and not only survive but indeed thrive among normal people. I feel particularly proud this Friday afternoon.

Glasgow has always welcomed refugees into our bountiful arms, just don't speak...

"Bairns"? I demand all supporters go through a Govan elocution lesson! You'll be slipping 'ken' into articles soon if we don't intervene Frankie, this is for your own good... Great stuff, eastern patois apart, enjoyed it.

Finally got round to listening, good stuff guys and gal. Sorry to hear about Ross, hope everything is okay there.

This is on the BBC website today. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-47459485 "The safety of fans at Scottish football stadiums is to be highlighted as a key concern in a review on match policing, BBC Scotland has learned. The report, due to be published on Wednesday, says inconsistencies in stadium checks by local authorities could leave fans at risk." The authors and their chosen 'fans' contributor aside the pertinent point is alleged inconsistency from local authorities over stadium security. It's sort of relevant to the thread I thought.

Rudden's doing well in a poor Falkirk side it seems, that's a great goals to games return. All the academy players will benefit from playing first team football but is their much to be learned playing at Lowland League level? I really hoped Hardie would push on and become a first team regular at Livingston, but it doesn't seem to be happening. Shame.

They're hardly strawmen. The biggest problem "safe standing" has is the people who'll use it and the people charged with managing it. How's that a strawman? There are simply too many previous examples of the people in charge of football supporters not doing their jobs properly. If you've not experienced being treated like an animal by stewards, police or other clubs then you've been very fortunate.

It wasn't supposed to happen in terraces either, but it did. I understand that the design is different and the 'barrier' for every row is meant to reduce the possibility of surges, usually the most dangerous aspect of terraces, but my concern remains not so much with the design but with the humans who'll be managing and using it. As Pete says I think it's inevitable at some match somewhere more people than are meant to will get access. It's simply harder to police and to manage than seating is.

As I said above it's all safe until you cram too many people into it or you don't maintain it correctly. My experiences have led me to mistrust organisations charged with keeping football supporters safe.

Are you confusing engaging with agreeing?

There was a nuclear reactor in England called Windscale, there was a fire there in the late 1950s causing a level 5 radioactive leak into the atmosphere. It was a big scandal, not only around the danger to health but also accusations of Government cover up and ongoing concerns around nuclear power. You might not have heard of Windscale because when the nuclear industry did research into public opinion some 20 odd years later they discovered many people distrusted it and whenever they heard the name Windscale they immediately associated it with nuclear leaks and safety concerns. The nuclear industry in the UK did what all clever businesses do when faced with this issue, they changed Windscale's name. So instead of Windscale today we say Sellafield. It's the same place with the same history but for anyone under the age of 35 the name Windscale means very little and Sellafield is a place where schools go on trips. Changing the name is a great marketing trick, it's surprising how many people accept something is different just because the name is. You call it 'safe standing' if you want, it's terracing, pure and simple, that's what it is whatever you choose to call it today. It's a tiered standing area with concrete steps and crush barriers, that's a terrace RS, same as it ever was. I don't think terraces are intrinsically dangerous, but people can be, and as long as people are involved in their upkeep, policing and management it's a hard no from me.

He was, almost all of the United Irishmen were including a number of clergymen. Wolfe Tone was dead nearly 60 years before the Fenian Brotherhood was formed though, he had nothing to do with it. This is the problem with words, their meanings change. I suspect many people who use that word use it as a derogatory term for RCs, some use it to simply mean Celtic supporters, others use it refer to violent Irish nationalists and lastly some use it as a term to describe anyone they see as anti-Rangers. If we look at Steve Clarke it's hard to argue those calling him a "sad Fenian bastard" were referring to his strong views on historical Irish history, because as far as I know he's never spoken publicly about these views. So maybe not everyone who uses that word is as concerned with its origins, just what it means to them today. I was in Belfast yesterday, my first visit for pleasure for a while. I used to live there back in the 90s and it was interesting to see the changes since then. I went full tourist and did the did the bus tour, it was cold and wet but still interesting. The tour guide explained that he couldn't describe the various paramilitary organisations as terrorists, because the bus went through areas where they were still quite prominent and they didn't like that word. So he called them "combatants", they were okay with that word he told us. Now some people I know would be furious at that, they're terrorists pure and simple and no other word should be allowed to dignify them. I know others who see them differently, indeed they perhaps even view some of them honourably. Words matter and how people take their meanings matter. Whether you mean it or not, indeed whether those singing it mean it or not, the word 'Fenian' is taken to mean Roman Catholic by many, many people, that's just a fact. On that tour yesterday, towards the bottom of the Crumlin Road there was republican graffiti. Amateur stuff, not the organised murals, just spray paint marking territory. It caught my eye because it contained the short three letter phrase "KAH". That's an abbreviation for "Kill All Huns" and you'll see it throughout Republican areas of Northern Ireland. There are people here who'll tell you that the word 'Hun' isn't sectarian, they'll give you some convoluted meaning, saying it can't be sectarian because they use against Novo and McCann. But be sure that the guy who wrote that phrase on that wall in that particular area meant it to be sectarian, he meant 'Protestants' when he wrote it. The meaning of words changes, and there's very little any of us can do about it, accept it and move on.