JohnMc

Really Darther? C'mon, you simply can't compare professional football to 'normal' work no matter how hard you try. You can compare it to 'showbiz' or music maybe but not anything that you or I would recognise as 'work'. I don't know what you do for a living but I'm willing to bet no one scouted you to do it when you were still at primary school, you didn't have a succession of peers and adults telling you how fantastic you were going to be all through your early teens and no one offered you £100k a year plus to do it when you were 18. It is in no sense of the word a "normal workplace" and players asking to double, triple or multiply by ten their salary happens fairly regularly. It's a short career, it's ridiculously overpaid and far too much importance is placed on it, but it is what it is and that is most certainly not normal.

Darther, football isn't like 'normal' work, and you must know that. There is little point in making comparisons between professional footballers and call centre workers or joiners.

Bates is just the latest, I was really highlighting the pattern of letting our better young players leave and the potential folly of that. I think we'd all agree that Martin and Alves haven't shown themselves to be considerably better than Bates and Wilson and neither offers much long term either, unlike the two we've allowed to leave for nothing. We seem to be able to produce about 1 player every couple of seasons currently, but so far all have left the club before they should have. It doesn't strike me as great business or football business.

I understand all that, however surely his first choice was to stay and play for Rangers and if he's earning that kind of salary then a deal shouldn't have been beyond us I'd have thought. In the end he needs replaced, as does Wilson, and there's no guarantee those brought in will be better or cheaper. In the end there seems little point in having a youth system and scouting if we let half of them leave for nothing.

To an extent I agree. However, Russell Martin isn't playing for nothing, neither is Murphy or Alves or Dorrans. If we'd taken some of their salaries and offered them to McKay, Wilson and Bates would be worse off today? Gilmour clearly had his head turned by the bright lights and yime will tell just how he develops, but the rest could have stayed I think.

Telfer is a funny one, his move the Dundee Utd ultimately didn't work out. Utd though were clearly a basket-case club (ironic, I know) being run by an ego driven trust fund child who was more interested in pleasing the unhinged in his support and the media than in properly running his own club. Hence their current position. Had he stayed would things have been different, it's hard to know, but he seems to be finding the Dutch second tier a challenge now too. McKay might be an enigma but I'd love to have kept him, managed properly he's a good player. As an aside I stumbled across Rhys McCabe last week when on holiday. He's playing for Sligo Rovers, jeez there's a career that didn't fulfil it's potential.

I was away last week when Bates to HSV was announced, and so much has happened since it's been forgotten about. One thing that struck me was our recent record in retaining home grown players (I know Bates came from Raith Rovers but he's still a young, Scottish player who developed at the club). If different decisions had been made our current squad could have Lewis MacLoed, Barry McKay, Danny Wilson, Billy Gilmour, Charlie Telfer and David Bates in it. We've never adequately replaced MacLoed or McKay and we're going to have to spend money replacing Wilson and Bates. Now each left for different reasons but you'd think we could create an environment at the club where promising home-grown players wouldn't want to leave, for any reason.

I think you miss-read the dynamic of the dressing room. Miller and Wallace are not unpopular with the players, far from it, they speak for the players. This belief that you should keep your mouth shut if you disagree with something at work also puzzles me, particularly if you are in the right. If you are an experienced and able employee it is beholden on you to speak up when faced with management incompetence. There may well be consequences to face, but it doesn't change the fact it is the right thing to do. Whatever way we look at this the club and the team on the park aren't being managed well. The club captain in particular should be raising this and in the sanctity of the dressing room sounds like the perfect place to do it.

Tam McManus was on Radio Scotland last night. He claimed to know what he was talking about and said the issue was around Murty refusing to discuss the game in the dressing room straight after the match. Both Wallace and Miller wanted to and started to, this led to a stand off and harsh words. Make of that what you will. McManus told another story about a Hibs dressing room following a drubbing from Hearts where actual physical fights broke out between players and between management. As he said that sometimes happen when passions are high and tempers lost, but in the manner of boys in the school playground by the next day it's all sorted and everyone gets back on with things. Professional football has its rituals and one of those is the dressing room post match where strong words are spoken, criticisms aired and accusations made. The more I hear of this affair the more I feel Wallace and Miller were doing what they thought best. Whatever we think of him Murty has clearly 'lost the dressing room' and dispatching Miller and Wallace won't change that. The manager of Rangers needs to be the strongest personality in the building, that's not the case currently and until it is we're going to see issues like this arise.

You've clearly not met my father. The sanctity of the dressing room is surely the perfect place to raise problems. Also they're professional footballers, not robots, sometimes people speak in the heat of the moment, it's not the end of the world and can be dealt with later when everyone has calmed down.

Before the online lynching of Wallace takes place it's worth remembering that he remained with our club when we were put into the 3rd division. He could have left and got himself a huge signing on fee as a free agent, he could have kept his Scotland career alive and he could have enjoyed a career at a higher level than we were playing. He didn't, he stayed. I understand the 'must always back the manager' mantra, however, it's not true. Sometimes the manager is wrong. He was wrong on Sunday. Like most of us I don't know what was said, but it couldn't have been any worse than I was saying to my father after the match. Sunday was a disgrace and if club captain told the manager that I personally don't have a problem with it. The club is being badly run, we are making poor choices, someone should speak out.

I watched that Si Ferry/Ally McCoist video last night, it's pretty good actually. McCoist tells a story I'd not heard before. In training on a Friday under Souness they'd play Scotland v England bounce games and Souness would play for England. 'Scotland' were winning one week and started showing off, Souness took it badly and put a crunching tackle in on Ian Durrant, flattening him. As McCoist tells it Durrant sprung straight back up and turned to Souness and said "is that the best you've got?" Souness reacted by saying "no, this is" and punched Durrant sparking an all out brawl between the players. Half an hour later Souness walks into the dressing room and congratulates all the players telling them that's the spirit he wants to see! I can't see Murty doing that somehow. Managing a group of young men sometimes requires unconventional skills.

If senior players weren't angry on Sunday then that would be news. Everyone of us knows Murty mis-managed the side on Sunday. His tactics were wrong, his motivation was clearly lacking and his man-management was appalling. I'm actually pleased to hear the club captain and most senior player were furious after that performance, so was I. Both Miller and Wallace have played in Rangers sides that have beaten Celtic, maybe someone should listen to them instead. I'm reluctant to criticise Murty too much, he shouldn't be in the job and he's done as well as could be expected under the circumstances, but he got it dead wrong on Sunday and there is no hiding from that.

Whenever I hear anyone say 'you're not the same club' I smile as I realise they've no grasp of what supporting a football club is all about. Football is about emotion, not logic, it's about memories and incredible highs and moments you'll never forget your entire life. It's also about players who help create those emotions and memories. Ray Wilkins should be a footnote in Rangers history and in our memories, but he's not and that's why football isn't about company records, balance sheets and HMRC. He was well passed his prime when he joined, he was a diminutive, balding Londoner, and at that time not an obvious Rangers cult hero. Yet in only two seasons he was able to capture the imagination of everyone who watched him. His range of passing, his ability to find space and his superb work rate, even at that stage of his career, immediately endeared him to our support in a way some players who stay at the club for twice as long never achieve. It wasn't just 'that goal' either, although it helped. It was the simple fact that that he was a talented footballer who entertained and made watching Rangers a pleasure. Remember, whilst the 'revolution' might have been going for a couple of seasons by then most of us had still endured seasons of Dougie Bell and Kenny Black before that, watching someone like Wilkins was still a revelation. What also became clear was Wilkins was a gentleman off the park too. Patient with supporters and polite with the media he made friends and won admirers. Ray Wilkins is one of the reasons that football is magical. In only two years he became one of our most popular players, he received a standing ovation in his last match, even Scotsport did a feature on him. That wasn't meant to happen, he was only supposed to be a bit of cover, some experience around the club to help young Durrant and Ferguson(s) develop. Yet he went on to become a player inducted into our hall of fame. After only two seasons. Can you imagine a player today doing that. I never met Ray Wilkins yet his untimely passing upsets me far more than it should. A wee bit of the magic slipped away, but most of it will stay with me forever.

Hodgson has done well at Palace since taking over, that's De Boer's biggest problem currently. That aside i'm not convinced a high profile Dutchman is what we need currently. He's not going to be able to spend much money, the nucleus of the squad is already in place and it has a Scottish/British core. We need someone who can organise and motivate those people, is De Boer that person?

He was discarded by Matin O'Neill after initially doing well under David O'Leary prior to O'Neill taking over. Likewise he was discarded by Roy Hodgson when he took over after being bought by his predecessor Sanchez. My point in this is that a player can do poorly under one manager but very well under another. Many, many players who enjoy successful careers were at one time described as "flops". People forget that Gareth Bale was dropped in favour of Assou-Ekotto something that was warmly greeted by the Spurs support at the time. Describing Moult as a "flop" is as accurate as describing Davis as one.

Ally McCoist was a "flop" at Sunderland. Brian Laudrup was a "flop" at Fiorentina. Steve Davis was a "flop" at Aston Villa and Fulham. James Tavernier was a "flop" at both Newcastle and Wigan. Sone Aluko was a "flop" at Birmingham City. Some careers go backwards before they go forwards again.

It might be a little off topic but I'm not comfortable with the 'Granny' rule in international football either. Parents, I think, is different, but one grandparent, who you might never have met, shouldn't make you eligible. I'm no blood and soil nationalist, but representative sport should be representative I think. The nonsense we see in Cricket and Rugby shouldn't be allowed to happen in football, although it is currently in some countries. Oddly, I'd have been more comfortable with someone like Novo playing for Scotland, a guy who came here as a young man, spent almost his entire career here, married and had children locally and stays here now, becoming 'Scottish' rather than some of the players we've brought in through the grandparent rule who clearly have never considered themselves Scottish, lived here or ever will later in life. It's a difficult subject, how a person identifies is a private matter and subject to all sorts of influences, but from a footballing/general representative sport perspective I'd tighten the rules. As for the Celtic spine I think it's fair to say, no matter how repulsive he seems, Griffiths is Scotland's best striker currently and would start when fit, likewise I'd expect Armstrong and Teirney to make the starting 11. I'm not sure who else they think should start since Brown quit, again.

If you ever want to really annoy an Aberdeen fan tell them that when Aberdeen FC play five-a-sides at training and the players split themselves into two teams and the teams they pick are Rangers fans v Celtic fans. That's true too.

I lived in Northern Ireland for a few years back in the day. I'd only been there a couple of weeks and Rangers and Celtic were scheduled to play on the Sunday, which also happened to be St Patrick's Day. Not knowing the lay of the land all that well I wanted to watch the match, but avoid being shot, and reckoned the local Royal British Legion was a safe bet for Bear friendly atmosphere. I explained my situation and was welcomed in, but was very surprised to discover a much more mixed crowd watching that you'd get in most pubs in Glasgow. I was also surprised to fall into to company of a few well dressed guys, literally in their Sunday best having come directly from church, who were drinking Guinness, wearing a sprig of shamrock in their buttonholes whilst cheering on Rangers. They explained to me that St Patrick was for everyone on the island. Northern Ireland is a more complicated and nuanced place than I'd originally thought.

So does that mean if you were born on the island of Ireland you must be Irish?

I've known Scottish RCs of Irish ancestry who had a deep hatred for the IRA and I've known some who were broadly supportive. I've known more of the former than the latter. Most people with an Irish lineage I've met, whether Scottish, English, American or Australian were broadly supportive of Irish nationalism and the concept of a 'united Ireland'. Most were unhappy about car bombs and the like though. At the same time I've known, and still know, a few Celtic fans who'll freely admit to belting out Provo ditties at the football but wouldn't dream of publicly supporting the IRA, indeed I even knew a serving soldier who did that, and he spent 3 bloody years serving in Northern Ireland. I think you need to be careful not to equate nationalism, whether it is Irish, Scottish, Catalan or wherever with violent republicanism. Trying to achieve constitutional change through democracy is very different from shooting farmers sons in border villages. I'm not sure if that answers your question?

I think the question you raise is valid, I'm not sure the conclusion is though. Let's be clear, if there was votes in it every politician would say they were Rangers supporters. They would feign an interest in all things Govan, lie about attending famous old matches and have their photograph taken with players every opportunity they could. But they don't, and the reason they don't is because there are no votes in it. Maybe the opposite. That's not just the SNP though, that's pretty much every party. There's been the odd Tory, Labour and indeed Scottish Socialist politician who has spoken about being a Rangers supporter, but none in the way say Brain Wilson spoke about being a Celtic fan, George Foulkes did about Hearts or Gordon Brown did about being a Raith Rovers fan. Why is that? It cuts across political belief FS, it's not just an SNP thing. The truth is you've seen plenty of MPs and MSPs of all parties publicly declare allegiance to Celtic, and countless other sides, without concern it'll effect their chance of election. I mean John Reid was a Celtic director whilst being MP for bloody Airdrie! For me there are two things to consider. Firstly is that Rangers supporters don't hold set political views. Thousands of Rangers supporters must have voted Labour for decades, thousands now must vote SNP. In truth a Rangers supporter from Bearsden is likely to vote differently from a Rangers supporter from Drumchapel. Social class, upbringing and family influence have a far, far bigger influence than where they go on a Saturday afternoon. Like wise I suspect a Rangers supporter based in the Aberdeenshire coastal towns might hold quite different political views and have quite different political priorities to one raised in inner-city Glasgow or a post-industrial rust belt Lanarkshire town. Indeed supporting Rangers might be the only thing they have in common. Second thing is Rangers are simply not fashionable for the chattering classes to support. The BBC can maintain a faux boycott of our ground and players and there is barely a murmur of complaint. Rightly or wrongly we're seen as out-of-touch with mainstream popular opinion. Despite most people in Scotland being 'unionists' flag waving about it makes people uncomfortable, it's not what most 'unionists' do. Subjects like Orange Walks and Northern Ireland don't engage mainstream unionists in Scotland, indeed I'd venture they actually repel them. As the country becomes increasingly secular all public expressions of religion are less and less popular and expressions of what many perceive, rightly or wrongly, as bigotry are quite unpopular. As a support and as a club I don't know how we address this. We've no political influence, very little media influence and are increasingly being pushed into the margins culturally.

I find these threads depressing. When Gersnet did an unscientific poll of members voting intentions around the referendum I seem to recall is showed around 40% planned to vote 'Yes', so pretty close to how the vote actually went. That should come as a surprise to no one. Rangers supporters are a broad church, from all walks of life, backgrounds and beliefs. The only thing we have in common is wanting the team in blue to win, that's it. If anyone doesn't know many Rangers supporters who also currently support the SNP I'm very surprised. I know lots and they seem perfectly capable of holding both views without any problem. One reason it's depressing is we used to have the same debate when Labour ruled in Scotland. Posters on various forums moaned about how Scottish Labour was anti-Rangers, how all councillors were Tims and all MSPs out to get us. I'll be frank I personally feel I've more in common with the SNP than with Vanguard Bears, and I didn't even vote SNP at the last couple of elections. That's just me, others will feel very different. That's fine too. Rangers takes up a disproportionate amount of my time and interest. I'm interested in the culture around Rangers and our support, it's been interesting watching how Scottish society has changed in the last 40 years. But other Rangers supporters don't define who I am, what I believe in, hope for or expect from my politicians. Rangers, and our support, have an image problem with some in our society. That section who work in the media and many who enter politics, who often hold 'popular liberal' views, who subscribe to much of what we currently see as 'opinion' in the media are not attracted by Union flags, 90 minute bigotry, and apparently (often wrongly ascribed) right wing views. That's how some see us. Whether we like it or not they control communication and shape popular culture. That's a problem for the club going forward.

As a guy at the wrong end of my forties I'm aware that criticising the behaviour of younger guys at the football is in danger of making me sound like a letter writer to the Daily Mail. Truth is I'm not sure I fully 'get' Ultra culture. I 'get' singing at the matches, all match long if possible, I think all of us go through that phase in our teens. When I was younger if you wanted a sing-song you went to the East Enclosure or the Copland Road, and if you didn't you went to the Govan or the Main Stand, it was easier to choose 'what kind' of supporter you wanted to be back then. Back then, the 80s, there was violence at matches, some of it organised and some of it spontaneous, and for some guys that was as important a part of the match experience for them as buying a programme or having a pint after the game is to others. I was at school with guys who were 'ICF' and a few who were Thistle casuals too. You know those guys went to every match, home and away, and from time to time I bump into them again and some still do, but they don't meet in train stations and get into fights anymore. They grew up, they got married, they had kids, they used up all the extra testosterone that flowed through us when we were 17. Thing is other supporters would get angry with them. Often with justification. They looked for trouble and sometimes people minding their own business got caught up in it, they got us a bad press, the club helped the police try and single the ring leaders out. So are these guys the current day equivalent? Young guys with too much time, energy and testosterone? Before the casuals in the 80s there were gangs of skinheads, before that guys with Union Jacks draped over their backs, long hair and flairs, I'm sure their were Mods or Rockers or whatever before that. Bloody hell, The Billy boys were a razor gang who sang at the football to let everyone know they'd crossed the city from Bridgeton to Govan. So I don't want to get too pious when I criticise these 'Ultras'. The flyer was stupid, the banner is asking for trouble and the balaclavas invite people to misconstrue who they are and what they're about. Young men do stupid things when they are young. I suspect a number of these guys might be a bit embarrassed in 15 years time when they look back at this. In the end the club can't be seen to condone the flyer or the banner. I don't condone it, it's a stupid use of language and a disturbing use of imagery. But it's not aimed at me, I'm old, and responsible and have zero interest in trouble or, frankly, even singing these days. I think these guys are fans, real fans, I think they are misguided in some of what they do and deserve criticised for it, but I think we also need to be careful we don't give this more significance than it deserves. It's the 'young team' at the football, same as it always was, indeed considerably smaller than it was in my day.