JohnMc

Complete speculation mate - we have absolutely no idea - and that is the most frustrating thing.

We have some idea, it's not hard to get the ball-park. It might be a wee bit more but it's not significantly more and indeed it might be a lot less.

There are shades of 1983 about this. This year we weren't able to attract our first choice Director of Football, our incumbent being at best second choice for the job. Back in 83, before directors of football were invented, we searched for our eighth manager following the end of legend John Grieg's reign.

Our board's first choice was ex-player and Govan boy Alex Ferguson who was doing amazing things with Aberdeen. The Aberdeen board responded by making Ferguson the best paid manager in Scotland and he signed a new contract at Aberdeen. We then turned to Jim McLean, brother of former player and assistant manager Tommy, McLean had transformed Dundee Utd into title winners and European contenders. McLean was interviewed but ultimately chose to stay with Utd, again securing an improved contract in the process. Finally we turned to Motherwell manager Jock Wallace. Wallace had previously enjoyed great success with Rangers before leaving mysteriously after winning the title. Again, the reason for that is always assumed to be money, or lack of it. Wallace joined Rangers second time round as probably the third, maybe even the fourth, best paid manager in Scotland. That reign wasn't a success.

This time round I reckon we'd be able to significantly improve the annual salary of any other Scottish domestic manager outside of Rodgers. If we can't then there is literally no chance of us over-turning Celtic in the foreseeable future. That's the pool we're fishing in, the £600,000 a year and under market. What does that buy you? Well Gordon Strachan was on around £500,000 a year at Scotland, Michael O'Neill is on something similar at Northern Ireland. So to attract him for example you'd need to seriously improve his salary. As a comparison his near namesake and ex-Celtic manager Martin is on double that managing the ROI.

From England we can forget about attracting anyone from the top league or even someone recently out of work like De Boer or Keoman. Although fired they will still be getting paid their salary, and taking a new job will see that end, so we'd need to match what they were on and we simply can't afford that. Keoman was on £2 million a year at Everton it's reported, De Boer probably half that at Crystal Palace.

Whatever happens expect to be disappointed, we are not in a position to attract a top manager. That doesn't mean we can't get the right man for the job, but it will require some genius and incredible foresight to achieve it. Perhaps someone who is a current number 2 somewhere, or managing at a lower level who someone somewhere has seen something in. Souness was a huge call to make manager. No managerial experience, never played in Scotland before, not even any coaching experience before. But what a call he turned out to be. So, it's not impossible, there's someone out there who can galvanise and transform us.

So it doesn't surprise me this is taking a long time, what's annoying is they didn't start looking long before they did.

I'm not trying to be funny when I say I don't think Billy Davies is in good health. I'd be very surprised if anyone in football is seriously considering him for any jobs currently.

To make a political point you're deliberately conflating a legal right to vote, in accordance with the laws of this country, with an inferred denial of those voting rights for nefarious reasons. The simple fact is that there are people who are allowed to live in this country but do not legally qualify for voting rights, which is also the case in every other country. But I'll say it again, none of the people you originally mentioned have been denied the right to vote.

 

It would actually be a denial of democracy if people with no legal right to vote were then allowed to vote and influence the governance of the UK, possibly at odds with the broad wishes of its citizens. How about 12 year olds, are they being denied the right to vote? Or members of the police or military, should they be allowed to vote? Or illegal immigrants, or convicted terrorists, or the certified insane?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news Bill but police-officers and serving soldiers already can vote. Why would you want to deny them a vote?

Illegal immigrants? The certified insane? Really, could you build any more strawmen?

It used to be the law that woman couldn't vote, were they not being disenfranchised Bill? Or was that a denial of democracy too? Those pesky suffragettes wanting a say in the country they live in.

If you want to make the argument that Gonzo's wife shouldn't be allowed a say in who governs the country then go right ahead. But don't fall back on semantics to cover whatever political or social views you hold.

They can of course take up citezenship and vote.

Why, Irish citizens don't have too? Neither do Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, Bangladeshis or Pakistanis. Yet a Dane who has lived here for 20 years, who has a full time job and a wife and 3 kids all born here can't.

Anyway, we're rapidly going off topic. My original point stands, over 10 million people in the UK aren't allowed to vote in General Elections, and millions more are completely unengaged by current politics. That's not right in any democracy.

Quite.

 

Paying tax is not an essential criterion for the right to vote.

 

You have to wonder why JohnMc mentions it at all.

I mention it because these people are literally disenfranchised and you seem so hung up on the literal meaning of words that you'd dismiss 7 million other people who are excluded from voting. That's us at 10 million people who live in the UK who can't vote, but still, nothing to see here, move on. The fact 'EU nationals' (apologies, for using shorthand instead of typing out the names of every country in the EU) can vote in local elections in the UK only further underlines their literal disenfranchisement in general elections.

Yes.

 

I don't think it's a prerequisite to success. Rodgers had no experience of the 'Scottish game', and neither did Tommy Wright, Steve Clarke or Steve Robinson.

C'mon, Stevie Clark played for St Mirren and Scotland is actually Scottish, Tommy Wright was an assistant at St Johnstone before getting the job, likewise Steve Robinson was assistant manager at Motherwell under Baraclough. Rodgers I'll give you.

Or Turkish going by his name. There's a big Greek population in Australia though.

Aren't Australia one of the strongest nations in Asian football? Has he really done remarkable things? Japan, S. Korea and Australia are the perennial qualifiers from Asia, no? Since Oz joined the Asian FA they've not failed to qualify for the World Cup.

I'd never heard of the guy before today.

None of the people mentioned have been deprived of the right to vote.

Okay, how about the 3 Million EU nationals living, working and paying taxes in the UK who aren't allowed to vote in UK General Elections? Do they fit your narrow dictionary definition okay?

I'd ask you to read again about the million or so people who dropped off the electoral register in 2015, most without realising they had. There might not be Jim Crow laws in place but there's a tacit acceptance that many of those people might not have voted as the government of the time wanted.

Gaffer speaks for me on this thread. That's very sad news.

Very few, if any, are disenfranchised.

I disagree.

In terms of those who are literally disenfranchised the Electoral Commission put that number around 7 million people, nearly 15% of the population eligible to vote. There are various reasons for this, some people clearly don't care and choose not to register, but there are other reasons too. A change in the law in 2015 meant households could no longer register people to vote, individuals had to do it themselves. This led to a large drop in registered voters. You've also got a significant number of people who have defaulted on debt, child support, credit card bills, council tax that type of thing who 'disappear' for a number of years. These people are still part of society but often working in the black economy or not working at all. I personally know a number of guys who have gone through bad divorces and almost dropped off the edge of society. They aren't registered to vote, they don't pay taxes, they no longer contribute to their communities.

Then you have the people who are figuratively disenfranchised. There are millions of people around the UK who simply choose not to vote. There are constituencies in this country where almost half of the residents don't bother voting. These are always some of the poorest and most deprived areas in the country. It can be no coincidence that a significant percentage of the poorest and most socially excluded people are not engaged with mainstream politics. I mean it's ironic, but it can't be a coincidence. For local elections the figures are even worse.

The majority of Bears are working class Unionists. In reality, no party truly represents us...not since Labour were infiltrated by RCs.

 

That's just my opinion.

It is indeed just your opinion.

For a start there is no 'us'. We're not homogenous, we come from a myriad of backgrounds, beliefs and experiences. Wearing a Rangers scarf only tells you what football team I support. It gives you no insight into my religious, political, social or cultural beliefs.

Frankie ran a poll on here at the time of the referendum and, surprise surprise, it showed 'us' to be largely inline with the rest of the country when it came to voting intentions.

There are reasons why politics in the West of Scotland seems to have such a Roman Catholic dominance, and they are worth exploring and understanding. It's also worth exploring why so many working class people have become disenfranchised by politics and never vote.

"babes"? Who writes this crap?

All youngsters at Man Utd are described as so, it's a journalistic law dating back to the time of Busby!

The Polis are an unusual organisation. I've known coppers with the sickest sense of humour, where literally nothing was out of bounds to joke about. When challenged they'd explain it was their way of dealing with what they saw and dealt with on a regular basis. I don't know the person involved but I see she heads up the Human Trafficking division; can you imagine what she must see and hear about on a weekly basis? Just try and imagine what kind of individuals she must have to deal with. If that doesn't harden you and change your tolerance of what's acceptable to joke about and what isn't then I don't know what will.

I suspect this is a personal thing. The person who made the complaint might dislike her, be envious of her success or have a problem with a woman giving orders, who can tell. But 'common-sense' left the police force a while ago and senior police in particular should be aware of who they can speak openly in front of and who they can't.

It's a shame, none of this has the slightest bearing on her ability to do her job after all.

The Sun (I know) reported that Coleman was approached. If he turned us down in favour of basket case Sunderland, what does that tell us about the state we're in? Haven't heard that MON was approached. Is that true?

Reading my post again I can see that part could be misread. I meant both have been approached by others for their manager's position. Coleman by Sunderland and O'Neill by Scotland. I've no idea if Rangers approached either of them, the point I was trying to make was if we'd been waiting until their international commitments were over then we should have acted by now, as others have.

Thanks for the kind words everyone. Despite everything it was a good day. My Dad and I were annoyed by the score but to be honest the kids weren't really, they just enjoyed the whole experience and want to go again! Mission accomplished.

It was funny to see the stadium through their eyes. The big banners at the megastore and opposite the ground really caught their attention and they wouldn't go past them until I'd named all of them and explained who they were. The Greig statue and the gates were big highlights too again lots of questions. We were in the Club Deck so they couldn't actually see all the other stands, but they were really taken with the Union Bears (?) the guy with the megaphone and the drummers were a big attraction, I expect them to ask if we can sit near them next time...

And Gaffer, I laughed when I read your post. I try not to swear in front on my children for obvious reasons, but they heard some fairly industrial language yesterday (not from me although I felt like it on several occasions!). I noticed them sniggering when someone near us let rip with a stream of some fairly justified obscenities at Windass. It reminded me that going to the football as a kid is also about mixing with grown ups, doing what grown ups do, that's also part of the attraction of the match. As long as they don't repeat them in front of their mother or Granny it should be okay...

Which begs the question: what do you expect from the Board? Realistically that is. For we see lots of unrealistic stuff being flung about here and elsewhere.

Whether you agreed with Pedro's dismissal or not it was clear fairly early in the season that he 'might' need replaced, it's astonishing that a list of possible Rangers managers, based on salary expectations, cost to remove them for current position and suitability for the job wasn't drawn up by the board then. I mean surely the list of 2nd, and 3rd choice candidates to replace Warburton is still in drawer somewhere!

If, for reasons of cost, we're not able to attract a top European manager or one with English Premier League experience then fine, if our budget means we're looking for managers from smaller leagues, like Scotland, or out of work managers then again that's fine, draw the list up from those guys. But why nobody has been approached far less appointed is bewildering. If it's to be McInness then get the job done, why wait? If it's to be Allerdyce or McLaren or McLeish then again why the delay? If it's someone else already in a job then make the approach and if it's rebuffed move on to the next person or go back with a better offer. If it was an international manager we want and we needed to wait until after the play-offs then why has nothing happened since? Both Coleman and O'Neill have been approached and in one case appointed already.

So what puzzles many of us is that surely the board realised that Pedro might not make it at least a few weeks before he did leave, that's five weeks now. That's a long time in any profession, far less football. I understand the need to be careful and carry out diligence and all of that but this is a surprisingly long time. If they were expecting to hear from someone and they haven't yet then make contact with him. If the board is split on this then find resolution to it, that's how boards function.

If it came down to a choice between Wright and McInness I'm not sure which one I'd choose. I really admire what Wright has done at St Johnstone on a considerably smaller budget than McInness has. It's a big step up to Rangers though.

HSBC have 19 genders/sexes/whatever they're called this week listed at present, John, which kind of rubbishes your first point.

Really, 19? Bloody hell. Who knew reformed heroin dealers would be the vanguard for gender fluidity.

Rousseau (the philosopher, not the poster) said something about the best societies expanding with procreation. The issue for me isn't homosexuality itself, it's the promotion of it. There is a difference between tolerance and approval.

Again though that's not what this is about, is it? It's about accepting people whatever their differences. I'm not sure there is a difference between tolerance and approval. If you don't approve then you must disapprove and we're into fairly shaky ground if that's the case. It's like saying you tolerate someone who is left handed or is going bald. It's not something people have a choice in, I mean you could tie their hand behind their back or insist they have a hair transplant, but you're simply suppressing something they've no control over.

My son wasn't traumatised by the bloke's arse (thankfully, he was looking in another direction). But thanks for your kind words.

Yeah, fair enough. It was a dickish thing to say, I apologise.

I'm taking my two sons to Ibrox for the first time this Saturday. Hamilton Accies at home under a caretaker manager perhaps wasn't the match I envisaged would be their first when they were born but we're all out of big European nights and glamour friendlies currently.

My first match was John Greig's testimonial game in 1978. In truth I was too young to appreciate it but my dad so admired Greig he wanted me to see him play and he wanted to pay tribute to him. We played a Scotland select and I've only a few memories of it. One was the Nottingham Forest winger John Robertson's family sitting behind us and supporting Rangers. He later became assistant manager at Celtic, I always wondered how they felt about that.

My Dad is coming on Saturday too, along with my brother-in-law (who is actually a St Mirren fan!) and two of his sons, my nephews. It'll be their first Rangers game too. My youngest is a year older now than I was in 1978 so I'm not sure how much he'll remember about it when he's in his late 40s. Neither of my boys are as interested in football as I was at their age, but they both say they support Rangers (my wife laughed when I 'd say to people I'd let them choose who they supported, she's right, that wasn't ever going to happen) so they're very excited about it.

Anyway, I don't always agree with everyone on Gersnet about everything, sometimes even I realise I'm being a thrawn at times. But I'm strangely emotional about Saturday, it feels like a big deal.

Also, if you could try and not swear too much on Saturday that would be great!

You would assume that quite a few former Celtic people are quite normal and decent folk and don't belong to the hate-brigade that developed from the late 90s onwards. They most likely dislike or hate us on a "different level".

I've not met that many ex-Celtic players but I have met a few and most were surprisingly friendly and warm about Rangers. I think ex-players do view things differently to supporters. I was at a function a few years back and Frank McAvennie was there. I'd him down as ned, nothing more. But I was really surprised by him. He not only spoke well, his anecdotes were very funny, he was self-deprecating and when he realised there were a few bluenoses there told some cracking stories about Souness. I wanted to hate him, it was annoying!

It's an interesting thread this one.

Darther complained there are "sooooo many labels", I think there are four, maybe a couple more, it's not exactly a difficult number to count either way. As for fear of offending someone, if you do, apologise, ask what term you should use, use that one and then move on. It's not that hard.

It also seems to get rolled up with other grievances people have with current society. I mean this has literally got nothing to do with poppies being sold at someone's work, or what kind of toilet's Starbucks has, literally nothing. Likewise whether someone got their knob out in front of Craig's wife or traumatised Gonzo's son by having an arse. There are already laws regarding that, make a complaint.

Also that apparent teacher being suspended, you might want to hang on before shouting about that one too much. There's more to come out about his behaviour, his disregard for rules and the 'evangelical' zeal he's got for imposing his beliefs on children he's supposed to be teaching academic subjects too. The Christian Legal Centre are Tea Party wannabe creationist loonballs, be interesting to see how many of us would want him teaching our kids.

Anyway, I'm pleased the club are willing to support openness and welcome all to the stadium.

I've met Jim Craig a few times and I quite liked him, he's smarter than your average ex-player. Unfortunately I also think he's correct in his observation about Ibrox.

This isn't about "celebrating" anything, it's about saying to some people who might feel marginalised or that they have to hide who they are shouldn't be scared or nervous about coming to watch Rangers. If your son or daughter asks about the rainbow laces (and, frankly, your kids will already know about them and will probably explain them to you) it's not a difficult conversation to have. It's about saying everyone is welcome, there isn't anymore to explain than that.

There are almost certainly homosexuals in the current Rangers squad, but they haven't come out. I'd be astonished if the Rangers women's side doesn't have some lesbian players too. These people exist, they are part of our communities, they're your son or daughter, nephew, they are someone at work. I went to school in the 70s and 80s and if someone had come out as gay at my secondary I genuinely worry they'd have been kicked to death. I can remember guys who got a terrible time at school because there was just something a wee bit different about them. Isn't it better now?

All this being hung up on genders and fluidity, where does it mention any of that in the story? It's not about whether you think men can become women or the reverse, it's about whether someone should feel safe and comfortable being themselves at a Rangers match. The very fact that we're even discussing this on Gersnet is proof that campaigns like this are needed and can work.

One of my favourite songs is Daniel by Bat for lashes

Here are the words of the 1st verse

 

 

Daniel when I first saw you

I knew that you had a flame in your heart

And under our blue skies

Marble movie skies

I found a home in your eyes

We'll never be apart

 

 

It wont catch on as its a bit slow but the words kinda fit, just change movie to staircase.

I found a home in your eyes? Are we encouraging him to score or asking him on a date?