bmck

It's fine to explore tangents, I think. I don't think it's massively unrelated. While it's an ad hom to dismiss what someone says because of who they are, any smart person looks at the platform from which someone speaks as well as what they say. In this case, though, I think VB come off rather well given the content of what was said.

Simply wonderful article. Outstandingly written and perfect in content. One good thing on a terrible day.

The big issue with Muir is that we're never told anything about the guy. That's not his fault. You have to fill in so many blanks with Rangers all the time becaue we're either protecting Murray's reputation, or the club's reputation from the press etc etc. Entire disharmony between fans and board just means that almost everything we do is cloak and dagger.

I think this but less venemously. Miller never cared about Rangers even tokenly, and while I'll miss his contribution, I don't think I'll miss him. Cheers for the goals and cheerio.

Yup, I think Walter Smith has an amazing nack of getting the absolute most, defensively, out of players. You tend to think with the right coaching he could be a Hutton-esque type left back. I also think one of the reasons we seem to criticise a lot of players for poor decision making is that we have bad movement. With good movement the decision makes itself a lot of the time. While some of our players do have bad decision making, obviously, I don't think it's helped by the way we play. As our movement off the ball increases so does our decision making, and I don't think it's a co-incidence.

I wouldn't in other circumstances but would if I was a millionaire and it was Rangers. Nonetheless, I've never said that KM's not acting rationally or in the interests of his family or that these aren't good motivators of decision, just that I don't share his interests and am not going to share in his motives. KM's played well for us, so it's better for me if he values playing for Rangers more than making extra money. He's seeing things in terms of his interests and I'm seeing things in terms of mine. I one hundred percent have put other values above supporting the club. It's more than a bit hypocritical from that (ie: KM's and your) perspective, but we're all hypocritical all the time, depending on how we choose to look at things. It's not hypocritical, from my own perspective, if I would turn down a few extra million, when already a comfortable millionaire, to continue to play for Rangers. Hypocricy depends on how you've already decided to frame the question. The point, or at least my point, is whether we should be trying to see this from KM's perspective or our (my) own. It would be better for us if he stayed, therefore he should stay. You've talked about being objective, but no doubt Mrs Dell has chastised you for moping about after an important loss, saying "It's only a game of football" which is about objective as it gets. That players of KM's standard should be honoured to play for Rangers and jump at the chance I just take as basic, and whille I'm hardly going to hold it against him (you'd have to hold a grudge against everyone who left) this is the best way to look at it. It's better to demand more, and only get it sometimes, than to demand less, and get it all the time. We're just concerned differently, then. Which is obviously fine - we all naturally see things from our own perspective. You are fully entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it is

I was responding to pete's comment that if someone offered you more money you'd go without stopping to think about it. I was saying this isn't necessarily so, and that other factors can come into account. I'm not sure you would know, since you've never made an attempt to engage it constructively. Still, I'm just showing the point through exaggerated example that the prospect of more money doesn't necessarily trump all other values. It makes my point perfectly well. Because I'm a Rangers supporter. If you're already a millionaire, yes. His family are fine. From my own perspective, playing for Rangers is worth more than an extra few million. Feel free not to agree. That's fine. ETA: Now that he's gone it's irrelevant, and we can thank for his contribution and wish him well despite his insanity in wanting to leave.

From a fan's perspective. Yup, just like we should be expecting win the league every year and get to the latter stages of Europe and attract all the biggest names. It's a fans job to expect the best, although you can disagree over what the best is. My opinion on what's best for Rangers needn't be the same as the people running Rangers. Mate, it's other people's jobs to be objective - reporters (heh!), historians, people making the decisions based on money. I would say it's a fan's job to expect more than is objectively possible otherwise you'll end up saying "Aye, well, we're bound to get beat today, no point being down about it, it's statistically likely that we're going to lose some games and that really, objectively, rangers are just one club like any other, and, actually, when, you think about it, is there any objective bassis for even liking rangers more than anyone else and in the end this is all just atoms bouncing about and has no objective meaning at all". I think it's funny when people say we all have to be objective they mean objective to precisely the degree they are, and their subjective opinion is. In this case, thinking 'objectively' has only got us to agreeing with Kenny Miller, but we could easily take it further and say that it doesn't matter what KM does because it's just people kicking a bit of leather around a park. In truth, is not increased objectivity that lets us view things from Kenny Miller's perspective, it's just the belief that money's more important than Rangers masking itself as objectivity. It may be, in a lot of areas, in our own lives, and rightly so, but that doesn't mean shouldn't expect differently just as the ordinary part of being fan, even if it is hypocritical. Yes we are. We just have less money. Agreed. Yet you're willing to stand here in judgement of what my values are. Saying it's bad not to try to see something from someone else's perspective (unless it's mine). My straightforward belief is that it's an honour to play for Rangers, and even if neither the players nor the club think this is the case, then that's upto them. It's not like I'm going to hate KM, I just think he looks at things the wrong way. He's not making the effort to look at things from my point of view (else he would have signed), so why should I make the effort to look at it from his? It's not pontificating (unlike your "I don't think that we should stand here and judge" which was judging me ), it's just being a Rangers supporter. It doesn't matter if we would do it if we were in his position, because we're not. We can only look at things from our own position. It's not that I'm even saying it's bad to pursue good money over a club, if KM was in the same situation down south I'd have sympathy for him. It's just I'm a Rangers supporter, so while he's here a different set of criteria apply. While he's playing for the greatest club in the history of the world he should really be willing to let his family starve to pull on that jersey, it's just such an honour. Obviously now that he's commited his act of insanity and moved on we should just wish him well.

Davis out on the right? Controversial.

I thought Wylde looked really good like. Like a pre-injury Stephen Smith. How is he doing these days?

I'm ignoring all this for the moment, because it's to fall into the trap I want to avoid. My job, as a fan, isn't to worry about whether Kenny Miller has good reasons for leaving. It's about the good of Rangers. The extent to which Kenny Miller isn't making his decisions on the same basis as I would (ie: the good of Rangers), is the extent to which as a Rangers fan I can't extend sympathy. If you made the same argument for why Joe Ninety should move from any random club to any other random club, then fair enough, I'll judge it by those criteria. At the end of the day, you can either see this situation with a view to Rangers' best interests or Kenny Miller's. You might be able to understand it from his perspective - just like you can understand why the students protests and not actually agree with it as a policeman - but you don't need to swap your perspective as a fan for his. Because I'm a Rangers fan, and Rangers are better than Bursaspor. Because I'm not-not a Rangers fan. In as much they think Bursaspor are better than Rangers. Crazy Turks. There's always reality as it suits someone. I appreciate you're trying be objective, but your objectivity suits Kenny Miller better than it suits Rangers. “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ” “But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.” My basic point is that there's either Kenny Miller's opinion on the right thing to do, and there's my opinion on the right thing for Kenny Miller to do. From my perspective, as a Rangers fan, it's insane to turn down a decent offer to play for Rangers. The question is, who's view is to be master - mines or Kenny's? Just because you can see something from someone else's point of view doesn't mean that has to be your point view, or even that you need to think they have a good point of view. I can understand a Celtic fan's point of view on the singing of Hello Hello, but I have no sympathy for it. I can understand KM's decision to leave, but I have no sympathy for it. He's either acting in Rangers best interests, or he doesn't exist, surely. The same can go for Murray, obviously. It's not to say The Board are right ahead of Miller, just that as a Rangers fan it just doesn't matter what Miller wants, or his family wants, or whether it's sunny over there - I'm not sure why this seems strange to say. The Scottish league is better because it has Rangers in it. If I were a generic football fan I may think they were about even, but as a Rangers fan I think it would be better to play in Scotland for Rangers than England for Man U. No. Yes. Yes. Because Rangers are better than Bursaspor.

Pedant. 'A' sad reality most of the time, then, from my perspective.

That's just too simplistic a view. I could've doubled my wages on several occasions, but my employers were good to me in a difficult period so I haven't. Now I want to leave for another reason and they've went infinitely out their way to support me, despite it being at a considerable cost to them. I'd say I'm not unusual. If your work show loyalty to you, you show loyalty to them. Even if you would accept the job, you wouldn't be out the door before they could say goodbye unless they were bad to you. In reality, there's more to life than money, employers do show loyalty, as do employees, though not always, and any offer of double money you weigh up against other more important things - like your values. You could double your money right now by being a coke dealer, but you wouldn't do that. Playing for Rangers for a bit less money is better than playing for Bursaspor. Anyone who chooses anything else is mental for having warped values and deserves no sympathy.

It seems to be the most bizarre bit about our policy. By any other club's standard 'bleeding' is a measure of success and how they fund their other signings. We seem to let most of our young players go relatively cheaply, Hutton aside. If Wilson were playing for that French side renowned for producing players he'd have been a ten million signing or something.

I agree with that, but I also think W. Smith's old and cynical and probably realistic enough to know that the youngsters wouldn't be spared if included in a position to be filled, if we still lost the game and they played poorly. We rarely have comfortable leads these days. But I suppose, if they're good enough, they'll play their part. He must know which ones have a future. They should be getting glimpses at that stage, but shouldn't be expecting a regular slot till 20 odd. Especially at a big club. But I agree no experience at 23 does seem bizarre. Difficult to get striking experience as a youngster at Rangers, but for him still to be here with no-one like me who just watches first team games having an idea of how good he is because he's never played seems odd. I can only imagine we don't have many good young strikers and he's the most capable in the event that our main strikers and our backup strikers and any of our midfielders who could play up front are out injured. Which sounds improbable, but could happen this season.

Who would accept playing youngsters if it meant giving up the league? I used to think I would, in the hope that in a few seasons you'd have a team who knew each other and had developed with each other. In reality though, losing the league means you end up going further back. I think young players are like apprentices - they can occasionally, in moments of brilliance, outshine the people above them - but they can't do it consistently. Most people are better at their job at 30 than they are at 20 because they have more experience and know what it takes. The ideal time to play 3 or even 4 youngsters in a team was back when we had money and had really quality to support them. Just now we have one or two quality players and really good professionals. I'm not sure it's enough to support a team of youngsters. When their head goes down it can stay down and they need to get used to winning as it's as easy to get used to that as it is losing. It'd be a big risk. I'd prefer it if we had some systematic way of introducing them - like Smith identified the ones he thinks will make it and made sure they got games in cups, and X minutes every X games, regardless of the position we were in in the game so they got a sense of responsibility but in managable doses.

I'm not really sure how to respond as you've not said what you don't understand or "Are you saying this?" or anything. But anyway, I don't think we should be making any effort to see it from Kenny Miller's point of view. The only person doing that should be Kenny Miller. We should be demanding they love the jersey, even though we know in our hearts most won't. That's my point. If you start just accepting journey men money grabbing footballer's perspective on playing for Rangers as conventional wisdom, it's a bad road. I think the day we start thinking players of Kenny Miller's quality should be anything but honoured to play for Rangers is quite bad, even when we know in the modern world it's the sad reality most of the time. I dunno what's difficult to get in the idea that we should have sympathy for KM's motives when they align with the good of Rangers and he is interested in the good of Rangers, and none when they don't.

There is no 'the' reality, though. There's always reality as it suits someone. While that may be their reality, it's not mine or any Rangers fan's. Shouldn't we be judging as Rangers fans? Shouldn't we expect, just as par for the course that when somone gets offered a wage that isn't derisory they should sign it? And when I say expect, I don't mean that we think that it's likely to happen, just that it ought to happen. To look at it from their perspective as someone who doesn't support the club etc is just to swap the interest of someone most interested in money for someone most interested in Rangers - that is a footballer's for a Rangers fan's. It seems nuts to me. If you said 'Kenny Miller will, because he's most interested in money, leave decent money at Rangers and go where the most money is' then I couldn't disagree, but it seems you're saying 'Kenny Miller should leave decent money at Rangers to pursue more elsewhere' and I just can't understand that sentiment from anyone other than Kenny Miller or someone who doesn't support Rangers. You only need to take it to more extreme versions to test it - if Brian Laudrup left us to goto Celtic for an extra ten grand a week we should all just think 'Aye, fair enough, he has to think about his family'. There's a world of difference between what you expect will happen, as a rational human being, and what you expect should happen, as a Rangers supporter. Once the Rangers fans just accept that it's all just about money, and look at it completely from the player's point of view, there'll be no benchmark of what's expected when you play for Rangers and all the standards, that are hardly ever but are sometimes in special and worthwhile ways met, will mean nothing. There'll be no way to distinguish between genuine servants of the club who met its highest ideals and rich journeymen money obssessed players because we'll already have aligned our standards with latter's. In a nutshell, from Kenny Miller's perspective people who only want Good Money instead of Ridiculously Good Money to play for Rangers are idiots or naive. I'm not going to align myself with that perspective.

Agree with Zaps. Lafferty's classless, but treating him as classless won't help as he's going to be here for a bit.

I fail to see why you or anyone other than kenny miller should try to see it from anything but the club's point of view or a fan's point view though. His family already has a good future unless he's spendrift. Not that his family should matter to us. Why any of that would even cross the mind of anyone is utterly beyond me. I'm not interested in how well he can justifying leaving - he either stays and bangs in the goals or goes and become irrelevant. His motives, whether they're good or not, is just a non issue for me. I just don't know why anyone would want to put themselves in kenny miller's shoes other than in the sense that it would be an opportunity to play for rangers. eta: The only reason I'm going on about this is because I find myself saying all this to my mum the other day, and I thought "What the fecking feck am I justifying kenny miller's decision making to my maw for?" This is just a merry dance of spin to avoid us either disliking him or into criticising the club for not keeping him.

I must admit I have absolutely no sympathy for Miller or all of this he-has-to-think-about-his-family-its-his-last-big-contract nonsense. Why in the world should I look at it from his perspective? He's a millionaire who plays for the best club in the world (from my perhaps biased perspective). If he moves that's his perogative, but he'll get no sympathy from me. I wanted him to stay because he's played well for us. I don't want him to stay so much that I have to start trying to see the world from his perspective. Sign a contract or feck off, who gives a flying fegguck about his young kids or his last contract or all that nonsense. He's got plenty of money, and if he doesn't it's because he's bought a load of crap. Who cares about his perspective. Sorry for the rant, no-one here's really said that, but it seems to be everywhere in the media. Grrr etc.

Or the law of the internet forum: for every over-reaction there is an equal an opposite over-reaction.

top quality journalism.

if we had king carlos and boogie we could play without a keeper.

mate just enjoy the tune i think.