Gaffer

I thought we looked comfortable again today. A really decent performance considering not much to play for. What was McGregor thinking? That was so stupid an unnecessary. Idiot. Good three points though.

You're right Scott, but somehow I think she will not have to wriggle too much to escape punishment. I hope I'm wrong.

From our perspective this should have been a simpler transfer window. We don't need the volume of players, but rather a few quality additions. The 'problem' we have is that for the first time we have 6 or 7 players that will be wanted by other clubs. When you read the various reports linking our current players with moves away you realise it hasn't happened for years. There's no doubt we are on our way back and Mark Allen (alongside with the rest of the football management team) is doing a great job in making sure we are investing our transfer funds, albeit limited, wisely.

Why has this Rangers bashing started to become more popular? We've had McCoist, Ferguson, Boyd, McCall, Dodds, and plenty of other ex-Rangers step in to cause our club harm? Is it necessary to be anti-Rangers to be quoted these days? And even if it is, why are so many ex-Gers so quick to put the boot in? Why don't they politely decline a comment if they have nothing good to say? Some like McCall and Dodds are nobodies anyway, but how disappointing it is to see people like McCoist and Ferguson speak of our club the way they do. When we win 55 and the invites are going out for the biggest party ever, our club icons should all be invited, however guys like these should be blacklisted. They can sit outside with their BBC and daily rag chums. Our club had a code of conduct at one stage, and ensured we maintained a level of class and dignity that was unrivalled. What has happened to that? Of course we all know that Ferguson and Boyd were classless morons while they were at the club (in contrast with their playing abilities) so maybe they shouldn't be a surprise, but others just shock me. I often wonder what John Greig thinks when he looks at people like Barry Ferguson. Both were very successful Rangers. Both were captains. That, sadly, is where the similarities end. Its also strange that some of our foreign icons like Albertz, Laudrup, Lovenkrands, Novo and Negri remain loyal while the homegrown ones don't appear to have the same respect for a club that gave them so much. Any ideas why some of our more recent crop of ex-players seek to do us damage? Whatever the reason, it's sad.

I think you're right that there are plenty of players in competition for that place, but if he's made of the right stuff, that'll be the making of him. If he can't break through in the face of that competition, he's not good enough for us. If he can, he'll benefit from that experience for the rest of his career. I like a lot of his qualities and really want to see him do well for us and himself.

We can agree that there are SNP politicians who are guilty of malicious actions against our club. But can we also agree that there are Labour, Tory, Green and other politicians who are guilty of malicious actions against us in other ways, and ways that perhaps some people (like me) feel are more important than the football club we support? There are too many people on here with their own political agendas and only want to point the finger at one party. That's what spoils the debate on here, and it obscures the real problem which @JohnMc has tried to raise. My main problem with this thread however is the suggestion that people should put the interests of the club above all else in their lives, and therefore not vote for politicians who would do Rangers harm, no matter what damage the alternatives will do to their families, friends, jobs, and colleagues. For most people on this forum, Rangers is important but nowhere near the most important consideration when voting. I think ALL political parties are hypocrites and biased on a range of much more important issues, and in my opinion you are all guilty of hypocrisy for pointing the finger at our supporters who would choose to vote in a different way to you. I am now going to bow out of this. I love reading/posting about Rangers and only came on this thread because it annoys me when the hypocrisy is targeted at our own fans. To me, that's just not acceptable. But as anyone on here knows, I can't stand the current crop of politicians and would certainly never vote for any party at the moment. I thought that made me suitable to take a neutral role in this, but clearly not. I'm heading off to the other threads to talk about the Rangers.

Another great read! These guys, along with others on this forum and elsewhere mean we no longer have any reliance on the BBC or daily rags. The quality of insight puts them all to shame. Nice one. Keep em coming!

If Killie need to beat us to knock the sheep into fourth place, and we don't have anything to play for, I'd give our under 16s a full 90 minutes against them. It'd be good experience for our youngsters, with that added benefit of seeing McInnes' face of fury again!

I understand what you're saying here, but anti-independence is a single issue that will be important to some people and not to others. I look around all politically parties and they each stand for something that I find distasteful to say the least. No one can claim to own the moral high ground when the parties you vote for are advocating action that negatively affects other people. You can name any party at the moment and I'll give you examples of things that I find extremely damaging to our society. Let's see who then sits back and who does something about it. The FACT is that there isn't single party I'm aware of that can inhabit the moral high ground so many people on here, including you, then have to decide to either not vote (as is my decision), or vote for the least worst option. For SNP voters on here, I'd certainly expect them to be aware of the attitude that some of its members have towards the club. However, who am I (or who are you) to decide if that consideration is more important than other issues they may hold dear? For Labour voters, I'd expect them to consider the fact that Corbyn is regarded as having sympathies towards certain terrorist groups and is actively trying to disregard the BrExit democratic process, but again if they decide to vote in that direction they will have weighed up the options and on balance decided that it's the least worst option. The same applies to all other parties I can think of, and please don't get me started on the Greens. I bet that almost all SNP voters on here will be frustrated, annoyed, or even furious at the treatment of our club by members of the party they vote for. I certainly haven't seen anyone defend what they've done, but maybe I've missed that. This is our football team's forum so understandably people like you and me will point out the corruption and bias towards our team, and there are certainly plenty of examples coming from various SNP politicians. If it was a political discussion forum there isn't a single person on here who could defend their party against the bias and corruption in other more (in my opinion) important issues. Thankfully Rangers attracts supporters from all backgrounds and that's a strength we have. Just as @Billhas the right to make the interests of our club his most important consideration when voting, others have the right to make other issues (i.e. Non football related) their most important. I cannot understand why anyone would have a problem in respecting that. This thread is now brilliantly demonstrating the point I was trying to make earlier. By us fighting internally we are losing focus on who the real enemy is. The Biased Bhouys Corporation and certain political figures (most notably within GCC at the moment) are where our attention should be, and not on trying to condemn our own fans.

As far as I am aware, I am the only one who has said he is. My motives are quite clear. The enemy is NOT our own fans. The enemy is these politicians (of all parties) who would do us harm, but not just on a football perspective. I'm questioning the motives of those who only want to point at the hypocrisy and corruption of one party when they are all to be scrutinised. If you had read any of my previous messages about politicians you'd know exactly what I think, and you'd equally be left in no doubt that I do not support any political party. The point is that who we support, and our politics do not have to be intertwined. What makes you guys the decision makers on who can be a Rangers supporter and who can't? That's what I find very sinister.

I appreciate you don't spend much time on here @D'Artagnan, which is why you'll no doubt have missed every opportunity I've taken to criticise (and take personal action) against those politicians.

It's a tough one for Gerrard. I think Morelos is likely to be sold in the summer so will we be likely to get a decent sum for him if they think he's been demoted to the subs bench? I'd expect that his transfer is already (or has already) being agreed so I doubt that the remaining games will have an effect. Based on that assumption, I'd give him a few minutes at the end of my games, but ALL players need to know there's a standard expected from being a Ranger and that there's a consequence if you don't meet that standard. In the longer term, that understanding of discipline is critically important.

Isn't it strange how we see things so differently. I don't think anyone could argue against the fact that Middleton has a better scoring record, but in my own limited group of friends and family (and those that sit around me at games), it's clear that Kent is the favourite. I just wish we could combine the two because then we have a top player. The problem for me with Middleton is that he's just too easy for seasoned pros to mark out of the game. He's too predictable. Kent on the other hand has that quality which enables him to glide past players. His problem is then doing something useful with it. Both are good players obviously, but I would personally want to do everything we could to keep Kent because Middleton has a long way to go before he can be as effective. Maybe Kent is doing us a favour by not scoring goals until he signs permanently. If Kent had 10-12 goals we'd have no way of affording him. Let's hope we buy him and then develop the decision making side of his game. In my opinion he'd then go from a 5m player to 20m. That's a good investment.

But it's compatible to be a Rangers supporter and support other parties who have links with terrorists, or parties who support illegal wars, or parties who ignore the people after democratic events???? For most people, their views on certain issues are more important than the team they support. I'd vote for any party that I felt would be better for me, my family, friends, and country. If they're good for my team too, it would be a bonus. Yes, I can't stand certain politicians' attitudes towards the club we support, but what I dislike even more is attempts to divide our support by suggesting nonsense like this. You've made your opinions known before, so let me make mine again ..... YOU do more damage to our support than these politicians do. Thankfully, the majority of our support (and vast majority) are smart enough to know that the team you support and the issues important to their own families and friends can be managed completely independently of one another. Rangers is very important to me but by no means even close to what's most important. I'm sure others feel the same way. I just wish there was someone I could vote for. I doubt that'll happen any time soon.

I could cry when I read this. He's at Watford afterall!!! However the reason I could cry is because you're right. We can't compete with the money they can offer. He's quite similar in style to Morelos (without the high risk) and I think he'd be a standout player up here. We just have to hope that for some players the prospect of trophies and legendary status (when we get 55) is more appealing than the money.

We were on the ascendency at the start of the game, but that caused our midfield to keep,pushing further up the pitch. We've now lost our shape and there's a gaping hole between our midfield and defence. Celtic just keep collecting the ball (mainly from some very poor passes) and playing it into this space. It's too easy, but having said that the game is pretty even and we shouldn't be two goals down. There are more goals to come in this game, but we really do the next one or it's over.

@26th of foot puts himself through the torture of watching/listening to that nonsense so we don't have to. I really appreciate those who take the time to watch and then record the level of bias against our club, but at what point do we just stop? Given all the available and reliable online materials relating to our club, why put yourself through the suffering? I appreciate some of us pay our licence fee and deserve better, but the BBC does offer a program like Line of Duty so I don't get too upset about the value I receive. ? Our own little localised cancerous and insular sub division (BBC Scotland) is an irrelevance to me and that feeling is shared with thousands of others these days. The current crop of youngsters don't recognise the BBC as being of any significance and it'll die off fairly soon. The younger generation will have no need for it and it'll become a key political topic soon. Then it'll require alternative funding, and it'll subsequently die off thankfully.

I haven't read anything that suggests anyone is excusing detractors of the club. Anything I've read here seems to be straight forward and rational opinions. I can completely understand how this can be interpreted in a few different ways, but for me its sinister. I agree with @Bluedell that if this was meant to be funny, it would have been written with a different style and inference. If the sequence shown is correct and she did send that McAveety post immediately after the OO post, it's attempting to associate these things and they shouldn't. That was irresponsible but demonstrates an obvious mindset and association she has. Maybe she's just stupid or doesn't have an ounce of fun/funny in her body. Either way this is worrying for me.

In terms of the reference to Walter Smith, I enjoyed those years a lot, especially because we had two of the best players ever to wear the jersey, but let's be honest the football was dire. I was obviously delighted that we got to the UEFA cup final, but again there was nothing to be proud of other than the results (which were astonishing). McInnes has never demonstrated that he is capable of bringing any style of football to us. Even those games when Aberdeen are playing second division teams they can't produce anything any of us would want to watch on a regular basis. To the OP, there is no doubt whatsoever that this was a bullet dodged, but I agree with @JohnMc that he would be good for Scotland. In the majority of those games his team will be up against superior opposition and there's no doubt he is tactically very good at setting his teams up to limit damage. Furthermore, it means from a selfish point of view that he can deploy these tactics in games I'm unlikely to watch.

This is yet another example of some SNP politicians demonstrating bias, and if this isn't tackled properly by the party then I'd have to agree that there is an agenda against one side of the city. As you know, I've claimed (based on available evidence) up to now that the SNP as a party is apathetic towards football allegiances in general, never mind Rangers specifically, but this is definitely sinister to mention Rangers here. I don't know if this is a real briefing or a fake, but if this is real and it isn't rebuked by senior leaders quickly, then there is a seriously concerning agenda. For me, I don't care about the OO, but I do care about a focus being on one particular type of march (which should be legal like any other celebration or demonstration), and in particular trying to imply that going to a Rangers match as a guest is somehow something to be ashamed of. This demonstrates a troubled mind set. Oh dear!!!! But one thing I agree with Susan Aitken on I say that we should get this out there. This needs to be exposed as widely as possible to test the SNP leadership. They have an opportunity to fix this if they choose to.

You fell for that one Craig. He's kidding of course!

I think that's just a harsh (albeit unfair) reality. I found myself in a similar position recently when the BBC protest was advertised. I would have also taken part in that but due to the threat of some people misbehaving and therefore having that association, I couldn't participate. I don't have a view on the OO, but any organisation will be affected by those associated with it. Such organisations either have to try to mitigate the reputational damage, or accept it.

I agree Frankie, it was a great segment in the podcast and I loved it. However, quote of the podcast for me was "Losing out on McInnes has gone from embarrassment for the board, to the best bullet dodge since the Matrix" ???

We can all be thankful that we dodged that bullet. Can you imagine we had him instead of Gerrard? He is the epitome of anti-football and that has no place at our club. We are playing some amazing football at the moment and it's such a pleasure to watch.

I thought it was an absolute stroll. We could have played for a month and Aberdeen wouldn't have scored today. The team is looking so comfortable at the moment and Defoe is pure class. Funnily enough he wasn't at his best (probably still suffering a bit from his injury), but I love him playing that lone striker role.