JohnMc

It would be interesting, but probably impossible, to define a 'legend'. By most measures Barry ferguson is a club legend, yet I'd wager quite a few would be unhappy to describe him as that. Is Mo Johnston a legend? What about Gazza or Brian Laudrup? (Did you know Brian Laudrup was actually Austrian by birth? I didn't know that until very recently). You have to have done something exceptional to achieve legend status.

I remember being very excited when we bought Iain Ferguson from Dundee, he was seen as a real talent back then. He was a frustrating player, he'd real ability but it just didn't work out at Ibrox. He stood in front of me in the queue for the Odeon in Renfield St once, he was much smaller than I expected but that didn't seem to matter to the absolute stunner on his arm. Embarrassing to describe him as a legend in the context of Rangers but Dundee Utd and Motherwell fans might.

I worry that 'safe standing' is an oxymoron. Safe standing requires the club, the police and the local council to do their jobs, professionally, diligently and consistently. I have no faith in two if those organisations and some doubts on the third. Read the Hillsborough Report, the Leppings Lane was 'safe' as long as it was properly policed, it wasn't. You don't have to look far at Ibrox to see the consequences of what can happen when football supporters are at best taken for granted and at worst viewed as no better than cattle. I've heard the arguments, I know it works in Germany, but we're not living in Germany.

The BBC hold the rights to show Scottish football highlights on terrestrial TV. There is an agreement that other terrestrial broadcasters can use limited or newsworthy footage for minimum cost for news broadcasts only. It maybe that STV simply don't have footage of the goals. That of course doesn't explain why the BBC would choose to show the 'goal', they might claim context but I think we all know their sympathies lie with Lennon in this incident. To be fair to the Record the photo of Lennon doing the 'get it up you' gesture is pretty big, I've not seen the Sun, but you can hardly accuse the Record of hiding the image.

I'm confused by this, what's the issue here? Our press conferences are filmed and broadcast online, is that right? In the past we've had the image of the manager/player/whoever is 'giving' the conference on the screen while some disembodied voice from behind asks a question. So now, instead, we get to see the person asking the question, so what's the problem here? Seriously, is this about not wanting their image to be broadcast? Do they believe there's something sinister behind this and it's done to out them off asking 'difficult' questions? I'd have thought a fair number of supporters would welcome difficult questions being asked. Anyone able to throw some light on the issue?

Just me that feels Lennon didn't actually do anything 'wrong' then? The 'get it up you' arm gesture could be construed as an issue and as has been mentioned Halliday was sent off for an identical gesture and I remember watching David Healy being sent off for doing the same thing when playing for Northern Ireland once. He should probably get some sort of punishment from the SPFL for it, but, if I'm honest, I don't think Halliday should have been sent off for it and I don't think Lennon should get into bother for it. As for the cupping of his ears gesture, c'mon, are we really going to take offence at that? 50,000 of us call him for everything, we should be able to take a bit back. A football match is not a place for shrinking violets or the easily offended. I've said and done things at matches I look back on later with embarrassment, but you get caught up in it all, some slack needs given both ways I think. Lennon makes some strange choices and I think most of us, if we'd experienced assaults and what have you, would be a bit more cautious and circumspect in our future behaviour, he clearly feels differently. But this feels petty to me. The best response to Lennon is to beat his teams every time we play them, he can cup his ears all he likes then.

I decided a few weeks ago I wasn't going to criticise Caixinha anymore, I'd made my views clear enough after Progres and I'd let results either vindicate him or whatever. I'll say this though, Hibs played in Lennon's image. They got under our skin, they antagonised our players and our crowd, we stopped concentrating on the match and started concentrating on him. They put us out of our stride, we lost our discipline and more importantly our game plan. They goaded us and we reacted. Lennon used to do that exact same thing as a player, very effectively. We were fluid and in control at the start but Hibs had started to adapt and counter-act us before the sending off. They then made the extra man count and we weren't able to adapt to the change in the game. A couple of people have said that player-for-player we were better, maybe, but as a team Hibs were, they showed more 'savvy' and more nous than us. They knew exactly when to mix it up, when to get physical and when to play football. I also thought they played as a team, they had a togetherness and a plan they executed well. The ref had a huge bearing on the match, sending off Jack and not one of theirs was a decision only he can explain. Whether Jack was verbally aggressive too, or the ref was simply incompetent we can only speculate at. However, we had every right to feel aggrieved at the sending off, it should have galvanised our team, we should have worked even harder, but it didn't, it hurt us and we didn't recover. I've seen better Rangers sides than this one lose to Hibs before. Hibs are in good form and playing well and circumstances, luck even, was in their favour yesterday. But I've seen Rangers sides find a determination and a will-to-win-against-the-odds when reduced to ten men before that we didn't have yesterday. It might be a cliche but in football playing ten men is often harder. It wasn't yesterday. I think a Walter Smith Rangers team wouldn't have lost yesterday when down to ten men. It might be it takes a bit longer than a few weeks to build true team spirit and to understand how Scottish football really works for some of our players. The sooner they get up to speed the better though.

Oh that's good, that's very good! I mean that's got to be the next article we publish, I'd be happy to contribute some time to it if anyone wants. I wonder how Jim Spence manages his freelance work, or Cosgrove for that matter.

Bloody hell, 'Ross' Jack, I'm showing my age, thanks for picking up on that. Likewise Cardoso, that wasn't age, just ignorance, again thanks. As for Hibs style I've got to be honest and say their style of football has impressed me. I watched them lose to Aberdeen in the cup late last season and thought they played well, with the ball on the deck and some nice football particularly when attacking and again at the weekend over Thistle. I think tomorrow will be a real test for us, if we come through it will tell us something about the team PC is building. I'm a lot more confident about the outcome than I was a fortnight ago too.

Yeah, I know, we've not even finished discussing the last match yet, however the next one is less than 48 hours away... Rangers v Hibs – The Practice Of Cryptozoology In ‘Raptor’ his excellent book on the UK’s birds of prey, James Macdonald Lockhart describes his attempts to see a Honey Buzzard in the wild as cryptozoology. He knows it exists, others have seen it, yet it remains elusive to him. He spends days in the Forest Of Dean, rising early, using hides and spending hours in what he believes are the perfect positions to observe this magnificent, if elusive, animal. Yet it remains tantalisingly out of reach. His frustration and disappointment are clear, he wants proof this bird exists in Britain and to see, and enjoy, its drama and beauty for himself. He’s willing to invest significant time and effort into this too. Cryptozoology is, in essence, about studying and finding things that just might not be there. There are cryptozoologists among the Rangers support just now. They believe a fluid, strong Rangers side, a side capable of putting in a sustained challenge for the title, tactically astute, hard to beat, determined and skilful, defensively strong, with guile and quality and goals throughout the team exists. They have faith. This faith is largely built around a belief in Pedro Caixhina. The charismatic, multi-lingual, Portuguese, retains the goodwill and trust of a large percentage of our support, despite some evidence he might not be what we hoped he was. Yet, there have been glimpses of promise, evidence discovered, catalogued and observed closely. Our opening weekend’s win over Motherwell was as pleasing as it was unexpected for some of us. In spells we looked very good. As yet though we don’t know just how good a side Motherwell are this season, perhaps everyone will collect full points at Fir Park, perhaps it’ll be a fortress. At the end though I was left with the feeling that, whether through luck or design, this was a match we’d have dropped points in last season. A comprehensive demolishing of Dunfermline at Ibrox followed this. A 6-0 victory over any side can’t be ignored and having spent time in the Championship we know first hand how well organised and difficult to breakdown clubs there can be. Not only did we win but our forwards suddenly burst into life too, the previously uninspiring Morelos found his form and Miller continued to defy old father time. However, this is a Dunfermline side that beat Hearts in the cup, yet only drew with newly promoted Livingston in the league. They’ve cut budgets this season, getting rid of their development side and losing their two best players to Championship rivals. It’s also worth remembering that we hammered both Peterhead and Queen of the South this time last season at home too and we all know how that worked out. So, have we finally seen conclusive evidence of a Rangers team we all hope exists? For me, this Saturday, will be the first real litmus test. Hibernian visit filled with confidence and no shortage of ability. Fresh from their own demolishing of a lower league side in the cup and a good opening day win at home to Thistle, Hibs are still riding high on the momentum of last season’s promotion. Managed by our old foe Neil Lennon, this is a Hibs side that’s easy on the eye, can attack at speed and has goals throughout the team. They might have lost the talismanic Jason Cummings in the summer but Lennon has strengthened his side with some astute recruitment. The talented Simon Murray from Dundee Utd, the under-rated Swanson from St Johnstone, experience in Anthony ‘not a fan of Elvis’ Stokes and the mercurial Stephen Whittaker and, somewhat surprisingly, Vykintas Slivka a midfielder from Juventus. These bolster an already decent squad with the much-lauded John McGinn still their most potent creative force. They’ll arrive in Govan believing they can win, I expect they’ll look to hit Rangers on the break, keeping it tight at the back and counter-attacking at speed, playing for set-pieces and trying to frustrate Rangers. They’ll be backed by a good sized and noisy travelling support too. It’s a rare Saturday afternoon kick off which should enhance the atmosphere even more. Rangers might be without captain Lee Wallace who was a late call off against Dunfermline. A section of the Hibs’ support have a problem with Wallace, apparently taking exception to being assaulted isn’t the done thing in Leith, hopefully Wallace will be fit to help inflict more discomfort on them. If he’s not I expect Hodson will fill the left back berth. Apart from that the defence should pick itself. Alves and Cardoso in the middle with Tavernier on the right. In front of them I expect Ryan Jack to return to the side despite Rossiter’s good performance against the Pars. Dorrans along side him with the ever improving Windass on the left and Candieas on right. It’s upfront the manager has a decision to make. Herrera has started the season as the first choice centre forward however at times he’s looked a bit isolated and ineffective. I feel you can see the player in there and his movement and touch has created space for others, however goals have been missing from his game. Morelos, who I thought looked very poor when he came on against Motherwell, had a great game in midweek, scoring two, working hard and being involved in everything. As a striker no more can be asked and he can rightly expect to start the next match. One of them will partner Kenny Miller, but I’m not sure which one, Caixhina has a big decision to make. With Foderingham returning in goals suddenly this Rangers side is taking on a familiar look, you can see its spine, there is a balance and certainty to it that’s been missing until very recently. Are we starting to see the real thing, or is it simply a case of looking too hard for what we want to believe is there? Like our visitors this Saturday it was a man from Edinburgh, Ivan Sanderson, who coined the phrase Cryptozoology to describe the hunt for the rumoured, the unexplained and the paranormal. Often derided and dismissed as fantasy Cryptozoologists retain, above all other things, belief. Football fans can easily relate to this. We cling to the flimsiest of evidence, we spend hours analysing, dissecting and discussing it, convincing ourselves, and other like-minded people, as to its worth. This Saturday we’ll discover if this is a real Rangers side, or simply another false sighting of a myth we all hoped was genuine. A bad result will undo very quickly the goodwill Pedro has rebuilt over the last 3 weeks, a good result will confirm sceptics like me should have had more faith, the proof was there, we just didn’t know how to find it.

Jeez, time for the next preview and the last game has just finished. I should have Saturday's preview ready early evening, got some of it done at lunchtime. Do I post here or directly into the forum?

Yeah, I think I preferred the one with the aliens. Life ain't like the movies in my experience. You'd have been kicked to death at my secondary school if you'd come out as gay, so if it helps move kids on from that very low base I guess it can't hurt.

It was pre-season and it was done to get fitness and strength up, same as every club does. Wallace knew the players thought the sand dunes were harder, in fact he told them they were, but in actual fact running up sand-dunes makes you no fitter than running up the stairs of the terraces as many clubs did or today using a stairmaster or similar running machine. It was all in the head, the players believed they were fitter than they'd ever been, they believed they'd be fitter than the opposition were. That gave them a psychological advantage that Rangers needed. Celtic were dominating, Rangers had been second best for years despite having one of our best ever sides, and Wallace knew the side needed something to make them believe they could better Celtic over a season. Gullane helped him do that. Wallace is often depicted as a fearsome warrior, terrifying players, shouting and balling. Some of that is true but it's only a part of the picture. He was an astute tactician and understood the mental side of the game very clearly. You didn't best Jock Stein by being a Neanderthal and that's often how some people like to depict the ex-miner and jungle soldier. One of the best people on Wallace is Gary Linekar, he speaks glowingly about him and particularly about his ability to make his players mentally stronger and give everything for the team. There's a reason why there are so many photographs of 'murder hill', because Wallace wanted the players, the media, the supporters and those at other clubs to think Rangers were the fittest team in the league. It worked. He did exactly the same thing at Leicester when he went there.

Great photos, thanks for posting. We've had this discussion before (or was it somewhere else?) but you know the whole purpose of Murder Hill was psychological? You didn't actually get any fitter running up and down sand dunes you just thought you did. It was a piece of managerial genius by Wallace, who was a far more nuanced and intelligent manager than he's given credit for or often portrayed.

C'mon BD, nobody 'paid' for the biscuits, they were looted from a country on the other side of the world 100 years ago, as you know fine well...

Eh, I'm not sure what that film is trying to say, it's way too intellectual for me. But the next time an attractive blue alien gives me a glowing ball I'll relax knowing it simply contains a Lynx. Or something. Did I watch the same film you did?

Yes Gaffer, you having to listen to people swearing at the football is exactly the same as institutional discrimination against the LGBT community, good comparison. I don't decide what is acceptable and what isn't for anyone but myself, but if you can find an example of it then let me know. You know Gaffer I'm doing my best to keep playing the ball not the man here but you make it difficult. Why don't you put me on your ignore list, it must be getting very fucking tedious for everyone else. Oops.

It's a fair statement from Dunfermline. Is it not the case that Dunfermline themselves contacted the SFA to report issues with the running of Dunfermline prior to the current owners taking over, is that not the complaint that's being investigated? Then some Celtic fan has got wind of it and put 2 and 2 together got giraffe. You get the feeling that the rest of Scottish football is starting to weary of them.

What have I twisted? I'm trying to keep the 'debate' on topic, it's not me who introduced the Spanish problem or any of the other tangents. I tried to answer every point you raised. How do you get through 90 minutes at Ibrox with that aversion to swearing you apparently have, how does that work for you? Sometimes swearing is required, it adds emphasis and conveys feeling, in that context I felt it helped convey my feelings towards the opening line of your previous post. I apologised at the time.

That's two posts in a row you've introduced the word 'superior' FS, no one I've read has even hinted they feel superior to anyone else. Again with the strawmen. The thread was about a poster applauding the club's signing up to the Equality Charter and Bluedell's equally valid response that he didn't think it was an issue. For me some of the posts on this thread demonstrated it clearly is an issue and, in my opinion, there's a lot of education still required when it comes to LGBT issues. If the club can help with that then great. That's not about feeling in anyway superior to anyone else, that's not about denying someone a view, it's not about 'PC gone mad' or not knowing what the correct term is to call someone from Catalonia or whether the club has done enough to assist fans with disabilities. It's not an either or scenario. The club have done a good thing, in my opinion, you might feel it isn't a good thing, you might feel it is, I can't tell.

Well I'm struggling to know what you think, other than everyone is free to think what they want, hence my question. I've already said I think the 'age' excuse is a poor one. I don't have any problem with someone holding a contrary view, but they should be able to back it up when challenged on it. See my reply to Pete in post 104.

I accept that, I was trying to explain, rightly or wrongly, why I thought Anchorman reacted as he did.

The society you live in decides Gaffer, this isn't a hard concept to grasp, and it's already decided on this matter. And I didn't suggest anything of the fucking kind (sorry for offending you there). If you can't understand why describing someone who is gay as "not a normal human" is more offensive than calling someone from Barcelona 'Spanish' then I can't help you. Yes, I've friends who work in the health service and they've spoken about the language used to describe various groups in society. It's most certainly not a term that is universally described as offensive though, but it's being dropped from official usage. It's nothing like as loaded a term as 'homo' is. Language is fluid, and none more so than English, the meaning of words changes, sometimes over relatively short periods of time, That comes as no surprise. Society decided Gaffer, the politicians we elect, the media we consume, the law-makers we entrust, that's who. No one decided you can't use the word 'elderly'. It's a collective noun and very, very different from describing a gay man as a 'homo' Gaffer, you can surely see that. Are you really unaware of the barbaric acts that the LGBT community suffered in the recent past? Of the active discrimination they suffered, open hatred based on nothing but ignorance and fear? You simply can't compare that to being over 65, from Bilbao or even being a Rangers supporter.

Yeah, I did, fair enough. But we're agreed that discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation is a bad thing, right? And the use of words and terms that are derogatory and offensive to them should be discouraged too, yeah? The rest is a strawman. See I'm cool with people having different views from me, I'm not backwards in expressing my disagreement with some views, as you might have noticed, so I've no problem with other people doing the same. Indeed I quite enjoy it sometimes. It was Anchorman who left the site, not me. I don't think he should have, it was an over-reaction in my opinion, but I can see why Pete's position on here as a 'mod' gave his words more authority and so carried more offence. Pete's explained and apologised, for me that's enough.

I could see how a Basque or a Catalan might not be happy at being described as Spanish, or a Portuguese even, but what others from the Iberian Peninsula feel this way? It's a poor comparison anyway, as is the 'elderly' one. Being Spanish, or old, wasn't illegal in Scotland until 1980. As far as I know no one was ever forcibly admitted to hospital and treated as being mentally ill for being over 65 or from Valencia. I've read the thread again and I can't see where anyone told Pete, or anyone else, they weren't "allowed" certain opinions. Indeed, we're currently 8 pages into this thread which suggests this is actually being discussed and debated. I don't speak for Anchorman, he was clearly angry at Pete's post and let him know that. He didn't ask him to be banned though. The fact Pete's a 'mod' and comes across as a pretty decent bloke certainly made his post all the more surprising to me. Pete apologised to Anchorman and further explained his choice of words. I don't think he should be banned for it and I believe him when he says he didn't realise the word was offensive. As for how you 'keep up to speed' with social norms I find myself wondering how anyone is able not to keep up to speed with this. I mean open a paper, watch the news, go online, read a book, have a wide circle of friends, it's not hard. Discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation is illegal in this country Gaffer, if Pete, or anyone else, called their co-worker a 'homo' they'd almost certainly face a reprimand. You might not like that, you might think that's an infringement of your free speech, but currently the law, and pretty much every political party in the UK except the DUP and UKIP, doesn't agree.