Rousseau

You got one thing right in all of that. He IS an imposter.

 

Amongst the things you got wrong are that we all loved him once. Nope. He has always been a terrible footballer. Bereft of any vision, he tackles poorly, his defending is abject, he has no pace, he can't win a header without fouling, he slows the game down to his pace, he has a lack of ball control and clearly cannot motivate his teammates.

 

In short, he is the worst Captain in our history, and yes, he is an imposter.

I can't -- and don't -- disagree with your listing of his flaws; they are many. But I disagree with the term "impostor" (or "imposter" - the dictionary has both!). The main criticism aimed at Rangers players this year has been a total lack of desire, energy etc, but I don't think that is something we can accuse Jig of. I have outlined a number of occasions where he has acted honorably; in short, like a Ranger should. He's become a scapegoat -- and although I agree with you regarding his many flaws -- the "impostor" accusation is unwarranted.

Are you saying we have always despised him? Even when he was one of the few that stuck by us during liquidation? He showed tremendous loyalty. He is by no means the worst captain, just like he is not the best player, but what he is , is a Ranger; he knows what it means to play for this club.

The use of the English language along with reasonable judgement is utterly disappointing.

Could you be more specific - I would like to know where i'm going wrong so I can rectify it.

I have completed a new article. Let me have it!

FIFE -- There was an air of optimism as the new regime took their rightful place in the stand at the game away to Cowdenbeath. We expected a lift from the team. But the team was flat and bereft of any spark or energy in the gusty conditions -- the 'keepers could hardly launch the ball past the half-way line before the wind enveloped it, pulling it down to the turf -- it was as if the wind was also sucking the life out of the players; a team completely devoid of ideas. As fans, we can excuse almost anything from our players, but a lack of desire or energy is unacceptable when those men pull on that blue jersey. Cowdenbeath had just been dismantled not one week prior by the future champions Hearts 10-0, but on this dull and blustery Saturday afternoon a rudderless Rangers side scrapped their way to a 0-0 draw.

It was the latest in a dismal run that had left fans apathetic and even bemused at these results. Of course a scapegoat was needed. Lee McCulloch -- or Jig, which is a somewhat appropriate nickname on account of his jovial personality -- has in many ways been poor all season. Jig was the obvious target. This was not a gut reaction to this one disappointing result, but it had been building for some time. Fast forward a month and Jig is again the recipient of criticism after being sent off before half-time during the feisty game with Hearts. A series of games where too many goals had been conceded have coincided with a series of abject performances from Jig, pushing fans into outright anger and disgust; "Impostor" was the cry. The performances were symptomatic of a wider team lethargy, but 'impostor' was the accusation, and 'impostor' was the charge. If it is so, it's an unforgivable fault, and he deserves all he gets; for we are honorable fans.

When Walter Smith took charge at Ibrox for his second spell he identified Jig as a target quite quickly, after working with him with the Scotland squad. Jig signaled his desire to sign, saying he "had hoped [to] get the move in January, but Wigan wouldn't budge". Rangers had their bid rejected despite Jig trying "to kick up as much of a fuss as possible because all [he] wanted to do was come here"; it would take another seven months for the move to be completed. He was delighted to sign, saying it was "undoubtedly one of the best days of my life." Of course, Jig knows what it means to play for the club being a boyhood fan, "My dad used to take me to Ibrox to watch the great standard of football and now I have the chance to play in front of the best fans in Europe, in my opinion." From a young age all he wanted was to play for Rangers. But we have judged him an impostor; And we are honorable fans.

Jig got his move to his boyhood club at the age of 29, and was most certainly at the end of his career. It had been a long one. After leaving Rangers boys he was spotted by Motherwell, and would go on to make his debut in 1996 at the age of 18. A string of impressive performances made many clubs take notice. Wigan Athletic paid what was for them a club-record £700,000 fee to take him down south. During his 6 years at Wigan he would play his part in taking them from the old Third Division to the Premier League. It is almost 20 years since his debut and he is still playing at the ripe old age of 36. In many ways he's still in peak condition despite the usual symptoms of age. No one can criticise his fitness. Omitting the injury-ravaged second season Jig has averaged 39 appearances per season for Rangers. Jig's longevity is remarkable in the modern game; at 36 he has played almost every game for Rangers this season. But we have judged him an impostor; And we are honorable fans.

In the dark days of administration and liquidation most our first-team -- those players that we had supported not days prior -- refused to have their contracts transferred to the new company as we were demoted to playing in the fourth tier of Scottish football. Sandy Jardine, who would continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with fans, said greed was the motivating factor. At the time he said: "There was an agreement reached over wage cuts and they got a great deal because they could leave for rock bottom prices and now they have seen an opportunity. [it's] greed." Pre-season began that summer with only three senior players: Lee Wallace, Kyle Hutton and Jig. Jig took a "massive pay cut to stay with the club he loves," and even took up boxing to keep in shape over the summer to prepare for the fight in the Third Division. Jig showed tremendous loyalty during those dark days: "Whether we're in the SPL, the Third Division or anywhere in between I will be with Rangers. Since I was a kid growing up [...] all I wanted to do was play for the club and there is no way I will walk away. It's the last thing I would do. Wearing the Rangers jersey is an important part of my life and I'd never forgive myself if I gave that up." But we have judged him an impostor; And we are honorable fans.

Jig has been instrumental in our rise through the leagues, playing anywhere and everywhere for the club he loves. He was signed as a midfielder, playing left-midfield in his first season and contributing a few goals, but known for his work-rate. Walter Smith utilised his organisational and leadership abilities by playing him in a defensive midfield role to great success in subsequent seasons. He was made captain because of his leadership ability. After demotion there was an absence of a recognised striker; Jig stepped up to play a starring role in our Third Division campaign, scoring 26 goals as we won the league. With the acquisition of two strikers in the summer -- Daly and Clark -- the following season saw Jig dropped back into central defense, where his aerial presence was used to great effect in defense but also from set-pieces scoring 18 goals. Jig has performed consistently anywhere he has been asked to play. But we have judged him an impostor; And we are honorable fans.

I don't seek to disprove those that criticise Jig, but I wanted to say what I know of the man. We all loved him once: what has happened to it? Emotion has overcome reason. We have become blinded by our anger at the performances and results that we can't see what some players like Jig have given. That's not the Rangers I know. Yes, he has lost his pace; yes, he has made more mistakes this season than at any other time; yes, he has captained one of the worst sides ever to pull on the Rangers jersey. But he has never shirked from that responsibility. The bad that players do over their career should never overshadow the good. And lets be honest, there have been very few bad and very many more good. Lets remember the good. Lets remember those screamers from 25 yards; lets remember that header against Lyon in the Champions League; lets remember the strong tackles that got a rousing cheer; lets remember the many times his goals have got us back into scrappy games over the last 2 years. When asked after the Hearts game if he wanted to remain at Rangers next year he responded emphatically: "Of course I want to stay here." All he wants to do is play for the club he loves.

Looks like he can pass a ball, which is something we need, but those long-balls would be ineffectual because our forwards don't make those runs. Looks quite composed.

I'm not sure a player from a lower-table Eredivisie team is quite what we should be aiming for, but I think he is the 'type' we should be aiming for: composed, passer, strong in the air, technical etc.; in short, Dutch!

To be fair, it is just good to see us linked with a player that is not some SPL reject.

Another thing I've noticed reading this thread: why are we simply looking to be better than Celtic? Shouldn't we be looking at ourselves; looking within ourselves to find a solution for the future? Being better than Celtic is not a great benchmark.

The club has been financially naive - I wouldn't say mismanaged as such - with the focus on spending money to build squads. Now that the money is not there it is apparent that we were completely dependent on that money. It was never a sustainable model. We have been very fortunate. It's time to re-focus on Youth development so there is a conveyor belt of players able to step into the team every year or so; money should only be spent to embellish the team with talent we can't produce ourselves.

This is relatively small punishment. Surely influence over two clubs that can come up against each other is infinitely worse than holding sway over two clubs that can't - at least not within the next few years, if ever?

Thanks for that!

You're right: he doesn't seem too enthusiastic about the idea. But, I think that is down to the fact he doesn't understand it - his point about there having to be one man in charge emphasises that. In practice it is one man who is in charge in terms of coaching the team etc, but there would also be a DoF that would oversee the long-term development of the club's playing development and football strategy.

I do hope he investigates further, rather than dismissing it altogether because he doesn't understand it.

I don't recall him mentioning a Football Director? I do remember King being quite clear on the need for a Head coach rather than a 'Manager'.

The appointment of a Head Coach is a step in the right direction I think. It's certainly a job McCall could do; he seems to be good at getting the players match-ready and he appears to be tactically aware. However, perhaps a Head Coach well-versed in the tactical and technical side of things, as well as being more accepting of this model would be more appropriate.

My article is longer than usual - so long that I can't post it! You'll need to read it on the main site. Let me know your thoughts.

Another thought: I'm not sure I want King bankrolling us. It would be a huge expenditure every 5-10 years. That's no way to run a club. We need a sustainable model based on Youth development. Why can't King or Murray take a wee trip to Ajax or Barcelona, see how they do it and implement it her. The whole Scottish football culture is out of date. It's about time we started to get with the times.

(I don't know where these rants are coming from?!)

Anya was born in Scotland but he was developed elsewhere - Spain! Rather than splashing out on players with money we are never going to have, I would prefer we looked at our own development process and how we could improve it to a Spanish level. Its unlikely that we could buy a player like Anya now but it is not impossible for us to produce our own. It requires investment in infrastructure and a long term vision. I'm not sure many - if any - in Scotland actually have that. We'd also need a Sporting Director to oversee it all.

(I think perhaps my vision has surpassed the scope of this thread!)

Absolutely. Like I said, I defended his right to post it.

I also defended his right to post the image.

You're correct, it should be "homosexual". But I was wrong on two counts because it was jar-jar binks(?) carrying out the act. In my defense, I couldn't find the tweet to check, so I had to write about what I could recall.

*involved in?

A little piece I did - thoughts greatly appreciated:

Freedom of Speech – In the past week there have been three episodes that have infuriated the Rangers support. Rightly or wrongly, many have called for some kind of retribution. But I have often found myself taking a step back from the furore. Do we have a just cause, or are we being swept up in the usual vitriol that flows back and forth? I would like to go through these episodes later, when a foundation on which to judge them has been built.

There are those that call for a response to any tweet or publication that causes harm to Rangers’ reputation. An incorrect newspaper article should rightly be challenged, but when it comes to Tweets, and social media in general, I have often been hesitant. There are hundreds of thousands of tweets every month. How could you possibly respond to all of them? I always thought there was something petty in the need to respond to everything. I have always been an advocate of the dignified silence. There is also a degree of hypocrisy in the demand for retribution because many would not give a second thought to a run-of-the-mill fan’s tweet, but would feel enraged and demand an apology when a newspaper editor tweeted something. In my view one cannot differentiate between the two: surely that impeaches on discrimination? I suppose there could be an argument that a public figure entails a level of responsibility. But I would like to leave that to one side.

Earlier I read a blog post (“When the wind blows cold”, by Immortal Rangers, or The Blue Blog) arguing for a response to these publications that made me think again. The premise of the argument was that the negative tweets directed at Rangers are analogous to homophobic tweets in terms of intent. Although I could never agree with that parallel, it did make me look again. The recipient of the disgusting homophobic abuse was Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives. The blog quoted a statement from Ms Davidson:

I find myself agreeing with this completely: we should challenge it. If we are so affected by it, if it does insult the reputation of our club, then we should be challenging it. This seems entirely fair.

However, we are all advocates of freedom of speech – It is a pillar of our democratic nation. How does challenging a tweet infringe upon freedom of speech? One should start with a definition. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), freedom of speech is defined as:

This is where I have a problem with challenging a tweet. Surely, everyone has a right to an opinion without censorship? I would suggest that most would agree with this. The recent Charlie Hebdo atrocity has reaffirmed our beliefs in this regard. But, of course there is a line. When does a tweet cross this line? When does a tweet cross the line into defamation? Again, one must look at a definition. The OED defines defamation as:

And its sister definition, Libel:

Of course, added to these definitions is that any defamatory statement would therefore need to be false. A statement that is correct is a statement of fact, or opinion, of which there is no issue.

Armed with these definitions, I looked once again at the episodes that so infuriated the Rangers support. The first was the publication of a number of articles bringing to our attention – or at least those not in the know, because most twitter users would have been aware – a tweet by newly appointed Non-executive Director Chris Graham. The tweet included an image of the prophet Mohamed carrying out a homophobic act. The press clearly inferred that the position of Graham was untenable. In my opinion the tweet itself is protected under freedom of speech. But that is not really the issue. What really infuriated the fans was the fact that this tweet was in the public domain for months prior to Graham’s appointment, without as much as a ripple from the press. It has since led to Graham’s resignation. This is quite clearly a biased campaign. Nevertheless, I do not have an issue with it. The press are biased. It is their opinion. There is no issue of veracity involved. Moreover, I don’t condemn Graham for tweeting the image because I respect his right to freedom of speech. I do, however, think the blame lies with Rangers for appointing such a man without first looking into his publications. And I do think that the prestige of such a position should preclude the publication of such tweets; I think Graham new that himself because he later locked his account. In this case I do not think there is any justification for the outcry.

Another journalist, Gerry McCulloch, was also roundly criticised for jumping on the bandwagon with regards to Graham’s downfall. But, it is an opinion which he is entitled to. Again, we may disagree with it, but there is nothing wrong with it.

The second episode was the publication of an article by Daily Record journalist Mark McGivern highlighting the appearance of a banned fan at Ibrox. This in itself would not be an issue, except for the fact that it is completely untrue. The journalist published an article that called into question the vetting procedure at Rangers. Like I have said, I do not have a problem with biased journalists, but I do have a problem with false claims. And this should be challenged by Rangers. At the very least it is a sad indictment of Daily Records process.

The final episode was a tweet by Kenny Farquharson. In this tweet he intimated that sectarian singing at a Dundee Utd match couldn’t possibly be Dundee Utd fans but must in fact be Rangers fans in disguise. This is an astonishing accusation of sectarianism, which we know is a heated subject. Every conceivable footballing body takes a strong position on sectarianism. Moreover, it has absolutely no basis in fact; in short it is libellous. In my opinion it should be challenged aggressively. It is an incendiary tweet that is directly accusing the Rangers support. I think Mr Farquharson new it himself, because a few hours later the tweet was removed. Is this tantamount to guilt? I think so.

We are in a weakened state and we are hurting. Our way of coping with this hurt is by acting out. We rail against anyone that appears to revel in our predicament. We take exception to any ‘campaign’ against our club. But I think we forget that not everyone shares the same beliefs as we do. It does not mean that they are automatically against us, or for us. It is simply a view. In the past we would always have had the last laugh to a degree because the team on the park would win. Now that we are not winning, we feel the need to fight back. I think it is natural. We must learn to recognise this.

We fans are not a paragon of virtue. We are all biased. I think we make a mistake in projecting that bias onto any statement that appears to slight our club, rather than judging it rationally. Everyone is biased. Every paper is biased. Our problem is in thinking that this is wrong. It should be encouraged. After all, freedom of expression is something we wish to encourage. If one doesn’t agree with the viewpoint of a particular newspaper, then one shouldn’t buy it, and vice versa. It is ok to disagree with someone’s viewpoint. It does not mean that there is a campaign against us.

I do, however, think we have a right to challenge those that are libellous. We should not sit idly by when false accusations damage the reputation of our club. As Ms Davidson said, we “…don’t have to just sit there and take it. [We] are allowed to challenge it,” but we should also be able to take a step back and look at any statements calmly, and rationally, and always judge them in isolation.