Bill

The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter one iota what Murty's failings might be. What matters is the ability and willingness of the board to acquire anyone who's better than Murty.

Bah humbug ☹️

Let’s be honest about thus. You have little idea what the father did or didn’t do and your attempt to divert this discussion away from Carragher is exactly the apologist nonsense you deny. ?

Amazed to see the apologists lining up to excuse Carragher. Actually I’m not.

But of fun, no?

While a vibrant atmosphere is good, I measure success by trophies not singing. Y’know, what happens on the field of play.

Chances are we’ll just end up as a stepping stone for some other part-finished manager ... or another self-promoting dud like Caixinha. We all know what we need but if we can’t get it there has to be more than endless frustration. If Murty is lacking something then the club has to help him get it and we have to offer our faith and encouragement - it might just achieve miracles ?

We sure do spend a lot of time yearning for what probably isn’t available to us. We got Souness, we got Advocaat and we got Le Guen. The first was in an entirely different era. The second needed absurd money and lasted five minutes. The third was a disaster and didn’t last five seconds. No one else had significant managerial profile before they became our manager and, given our finances and the league we play in, there’s almost no chance of acquiring a high-calibre, proven manager again. So before dismissing Murty it might be wiser to think of the manager he has yet to become and fret less over the unobtainable.

What horrendous stuff was that? I'd love to know his/her name.

Home form is dreadful. Has to change

Very wise

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make any noise? I've seen enough over the years of inferences of activity between club and fans' orgs, very little of which had any substance. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing openly ... no one has to blab about the outcome if that's too sensitive, but at least we would know to expect one.

Rescue mission for our friends in Dundee?

That's easy, because they haven't announced it. Unless of course Club1872 now only operates on its own account behind closed doors. You can't claim to represent fans and not inform them what you're doing to represent them. Unless you're Vladimir Putin.

I'm not sure I understand why policing 1500 fans (or whatever it is), in the same isolated seating area as fans of every other club, would cost more than policing 7000 fans in the Broomloan? If match day safety arrangements work for the same number of Hibs & Aberdeen fans, why would it be an insurmountable problem for Celtic?

Not for the first time, the directors and senior management at Rangers are letting the fans down badly by failure to even comment publicly on this episode. When will they stop taking us for granted. This is when I wish we had a supporters' organisation worth the name. But we don't. Can someone explain to me why fans should invest in share ownership if those wielding that ownership cannot themselves take the initiative when issues like this arise?

Pleased for him and I hope he continues to play his football at Rangers. He clearly divides the support but I've seen the support divided for 50 years so why would we expect Josh Windass to change things.

Yet we have no shortage of Gersnet members telling us that politics has nothing to do with football. Of course that denial in itself is almost always political. Rangers has never been identifiable as a Tory club but that’s probably the only party not rushing to stick the knife in our backs.

That would be the police leaving Rangers no alternative than to deny any allocation at all. Which would be the first favour we’ve ever received from Police Scotland

Congratulations to Declan John.

Every political party or movement creates a "profile" of beliefs, standards, language and other identifiers that serve to both define and control how it communicates internally and externally. The SNP took this to an extreme a few years ago when they issued a dictat forbidding any member to publicly disagree with Party policy. Many parties are so focussed on their mantras and so afraid of deviation that the dogma starts to dictate policy, instead of the other way round, and all sorts of contradictions start to appear. We see the left marching to protest white discrimination against blacks in Africa but never discrimination against (for example) whites in South Africa or Asians in Uganda, or even black on black atrocities such as Rwanda. Clearly, racism or discrimination (as such) can't be the real issue and other unspoken (unspeakable?) drivers have to be in play. The levels of hypocrisy can be quite perverse and overwhelming. In the context of this topic, the SNP is a treasure trove of dichotomy and contradiction. We see from this thread alone that people who support a club with a long Unionist tradition are perfectly happy to also argue fervently in favour of a political party dedicated to breaking that Union. To carry the burden of this contradiction, many try to build a wall between the two issues, as if contrived compartmentalisation is somehow an acceptable substitute for honest principle and consistency. This fragmentation of issues into ever more eclectic positions is seldom helpful and often just reflects a poor grasp on anything ... hence the current obsession with the importance of "feelings" rather than facts. Those leading the SNP may well be anti-Rangers on a personal level but I believe they are also anti-Rangers on a party political basis. It's absolutely no secret the SNP has long courted votes of the Irish community in Scotland, a community that clearly identifies with certain institutions such as the Catholic Church and Celtic FC. This is undeniable. With the collapse of Labour in Scotland, I would say the SNP has been spectacularly successful in this regard and is now, in fact as well as aspiration, one of the core institutions of the Irish community. And hats off to the SNP in terms of identifying, pursuing and delivering a political strategy that brought them to power despite a threadbare economic or social agenda. Is the SNP anti-Rangers? I believe it is but more in terms of political strategy and convenience than deeply entrenched bigotry. At least that's how it started off. The bigotry certainly exists for a number of prominent nationalists, including MSPs and MPs, but I believe it is the convenient political position that has attracted, encouraged and made a platform for the public utterances we find so despicable. It is the engagement between nationalism and the Irish community, bolstered by that community's long socialist profile, that has also served to discourage politicians of all parties from declaring any support for our own club, associated as it is with Unionism. The big problem for the SNP is the tail is now wagging the dog and a transference of influence has taken place that is encouraging the older, more tribal bigotries to ferment and grow within clearly anti-British (anti-Rangers) parts of Scottish society. This is particularly evident across the broad swathe of Scottish media. The SNP is both a driver and a focus for anti-Rangers sentiment. Whether it is still in control of the demons it set loose is another question altogether and it may well pay a heavy price for a few years of political advantage, much of which it has squandered dreadfully.

In one move - everything that’s wrong with Scottish football

That’s exactly why the SNP can never be in the same bracket as other political parties for Rangers fans. Any Rangers fan defending the SNP’s aggression towards Rangers is less of a Rangers fan because of it. They can squeal all they want but there’s no other interpretation possible.

Here it goes again. A bit boring but when you've so little of substance to offer ...

Are you really saying VB are “right wing racist bigots”? I’m sure they’d love to hear you make that accusation in person.