The Rangers Standard - Lessons From History? Apparently Not...

[ian1964 10,596]

By Bill Murray .When I first heard that Rangers were in financial trouble I did not think much more of it, expecting some sort of exaggeration like the headlines back in 1994 claiming Celtic were â??eight minutes from bankruptcyâ? but were saved by the green knight charging in from the Bahamas to save them. Fergus McCann soon entered into the usual commercial relations with Rangers to form a New Firm ready to take up arms against the SFA and ensure the two big clubs kept to themselves most of the money to be made in Scottish football. The people at Paradise were no doubt in trouble then, but no bank was going to suffer the ignominy of putting them out of business. Todayâ??s Blue Knights had more to face than repaying the bank, unlike â??The Bunnetâ?, who did not receive the praise he deserved for putting his money into the club, at least from the more â??Celtic-mindedâ? who thought he was not deeply enough imbued with the clubâ??s Irish and other connections. Like Murray he was less interested in the ideological baggage than running a commercial enterprise.

 

On realizing that the problems at Ibrox were much more than the â??eight minutes to doomâ? headlines, I still thought it would all be worked out, as had been done in the past, with Celtic realizing that they would be the first victims of a Scottish football without their traditional rivals, and the rest of the Scottish clubs aware that they would suffer from being deprived of the financial flow over from the crowds and television money brought in by the two big clubs. In the days of the Flag Flutter in the 1950s, when Celtic threatened to withdraw from Scottish football if they were forced to take down the tricolour flying over Celtic Park, Rangers were the first club to come to their aid. So it was back in the early days when the two clubs realized that playing the sectarian card ensured the support of people who might not otherwise have come to watch football. For this they were christened, contemptuously, â??The Old Firmâ??, in a now famous cartoon in the Scottish Referee. The title did not in fact catch on until much later, but the â??business based on bigotryâ? was a reality as the two clubs put aside any ideological differences when it came to battles with the SFA or the Scottish League. The New Firm of McCann and Murray had a long history.

 

Scots have played a predominant role in the spread of football throughout the world and in Scotland itself set up records in crowd attendances, some of which still stand. Most of this has involved Celtic or Rangers. The extent to which crowds at Scottish football matches depended on Rangers and Celtic was nowhere more sadly emphasized than in the 1980s when Aberdeen and Dundee United were playing by far the best football in Scotland but could not attract crowds as large as those for a run of the mill Celtic or Rangers game.

 

For all such historical reasons it took me a long time to realize that Rangers, unlike the various banks calling out for government bail-outs, were in fact not â??too big to failâ?. Neither Celtic nor the other clubs have come to their aid, and indeed seem to have shown a hatred for the club that surprised even me. It is ironic that at a time when Rangers have done all they could to divest themselves of their sectarian past, they have found so little sympathy within the game. As Scotlandâ??s (and for a long time Britainâ??s) biggest club they would always attract the jealousy of the less powerful clubs, and their associations with the Union, the Freemasons and the Orange Order (only one of which seems to be taken seriously today) would not enamour them to those who did not share such allegiances - and not just those of a particular religious bent.

 

In my youth before being dragged off to Australia I was a Morton supporter from a Protestant background with no liking for either of the big two, but close enough to Ibrox to see the Iron Curtain â??Gers every now and then; Celtic were a club from the depths of the East End and the altogether darker side of Glasgow: my father, who as a policeman was on duty for some of the bottle parties of the late 1940s, would not let me go to Old Firm games. So it was that I did not see my first Old Firm game until 1979 when I embarked on my â??researchâ? on the historical roots of The Old Firm. At the many games I attended thereafter I always positioned myself between the two sets of supporters to pick up the exchange of vitriol between them. All of this was before the mid-1980s when Rangers were at a low ebb and Rangers fans loudly and proudly boasted: â??We are Rangers, Super Rangers/ No-one likes us, we donâ??t care/Hate the Celtic, ****** bastards â?¦. â?? I have to say that I always found the Celtic supporters less hostile, prepared to have a discussion with someone who was clearly not a Celtic supporter and indeed before my book came out I met very few Rangers people prepared to speak to me (This changed when the book came out). This was reflected at other levels: in correspondence with the two clubs Celtic always replied courteously, Rangers never replied at all (I was amused on the one occasion I met Cardinal Winning to hear that the club would not reply in writing to him either) - this was put down in some cases to the Masonic virtue of silence in face of criticism by the non-initiated, a misguided approach that left the field free to the clubâ??s critics. In the official and unofficial histories and fan magazines the Celtic versions were more honestly critical, their fanzines less offensively antagonistic.

 

All of this was before the signing of Mo Johnson and the slow but steady progress to a Rangers where the only sectarian charges against the club were historical. In the mid-1980s, no club benefited more than Celtic from Rangersâ?? â??no Catholics at Ibroxâ? policies, both morally and in terms of player selection. Over the next two decades the moral pendulum swung in the other direction as Celtic, a club that had never had a Protestant on its Board (Stein was a brief cover-up), but did play Protestants and had a sizable non-Catholic following, became increasingly obsessed among its â??Celtic-mindedâ? custodians with its Irish origins and the wickedness of those Scottish bigots who did not share their love for all things Irish.

 

I am lost to blogs and tweets and twitters and other electronic means of communication â?? although I was the first historian to take the fanzines seriously â?? but I have to say that The Rangers Standard has lived up to its name with constructive criticism of the club almost totally absent in the days before the Souness revolution (and some time thereafter). The more perplexing, then, that the club should be in such desperate straits at a time when it appeared to be escaping the burden of its past and showing the highest standards of intellectual engagement with friends and would-be enemies alike.

 

I am no financial or economic historian and so find it hard to follow the technicalities of the mess in which Rangers have been floundering: I would be the first to condemn tax dodgers where they are most usually found, among the filthy rich, and reading about the financial problems swilling around Manchester United and Real Madrid and other clubs I still have to wonder where Rangers went wrong. And remain astonished that they have found themselves so friendless in their time of most need.

 

In the past Celtic and Rangers made approaches to gain entry to the English Premier League, where they would easily have held their own, but there were no serious expectations that this would happen. Now there is talk of Celtic trying to gain entry by themselves, hence breaking with the more than a centuryâ??s old Old Firm. It will take Rangers at least three years to win their way back from the fourth tier of Scottish football in its present form, with only cup games to keep them in touch with the top clubs. All this without imported stars, or even young bloods devoted to the jersey but not prepared to wait three years in the virtual wilderness. We can learn a lot from history, but to use the old sporting cliché, this time we are entering on a whole new ball game.

 

Bill Murray is the author of numerous books on Scottish and world football. His publications include â??The Old Firmâ??, â??Bhoys, Bears and Bigotry: The Old Firm in the New Ageâ?? and â??The Worldâ??s Game: A History of Footballâ??.

[Juancornetto 1]

I like Bill Murray's stuff, he writes properly interesting articles. I can't help but feel The Rangers Standard is lost up it's own arse though...just my opinion.

[Frankie 8,297]

I like Bill Murray's stuff, he writes properly interesting articles. I can't help but feel The Rangers Standard is lost up it's own arse though...just my opinion.

 

What makes you think that mate?

 

Obviously we're trying to maintain a high quality leverl of debate but I don't think there's any arrogance about that whatsoever. We're just aiming for a different type of contributor than the norm - not to suggest superiority just to set aside us aside from the existing sites.

[Tannochsidebear 2,352]

I just dont get the point of that article at all, sorry.

 

What is it he is trying to say?

[calscot 0]

It's hard to enjoy an article from someone who clearly does not fully understand the concept of discrimination or the history of it in Scottish football.

 

Discrimination does not only manifest itself in "exclusion" - and he fails to acknowledge that Celtic were actually exclusively Catholic for sometime after they were founded. But to play 8 Catholics and 3 protestants from a country where the ratio is something like 18:80 for these religions is as obviously discriminatory as something 10 to 11:0 the other way around.

 

But if you're going to talk about a historical exclusion, just where in history do you draw the line where you just forget about it? Maybe 30 years is closer to the present than 100 years but why is that still reflected like a binary number of 1 and 0?

 

Without that understanding you are going to get the bias that permeates that piece dressed up as some kind of neutral view and then sugar coated with false sentiment for the present.

 

All this guy is doing is perpetuating the myth that sectarianism was one sided in the old firm but Rangers aren't so bad now.

[Juancornetto 1]

What makes you think that mate?

 

Obviously we're trying to maintain a high quality leverl of debate but I don't think there's any arrogance about that whatsoever. We're just aiming for a different type of contributor than the norm - not to suggest superiority just to set aside us aside from the existing sites.

 

From what I've seen so far most articles are super serious and seem as if they are written more to show off the writers (undoubted) talent than actually hammer home a message. Maybe I'm being too harsh...I'm not sure if my expectation of TRS differs from what the actual purpose of it is. It's a delicate balance to strike between style and substance so I have the utmost respect for you guys for putting the project together.

[amms 0]

I just dont get the point of that article at all, sorry.

 

What is it he is trying to say?

 

The point of the article is to inform and spark debate I imagine, that's the point of pretty much everything that's written anywhere. As this thread shows it seems to have worked. Whatever view held on Murray's work he's a recognised contributor on Scottish football and has written extensively on 'the Old Firm'.

 

What he's trying to say depends on your reading of it I suppose. For me I took from it that whenever Celtic have been in difficulties in the past Rangers have supported them, either through words, actions or indeed inactions. That it was accepted between the clubs that we've common interests and they are best served by supporting each other at boardroom level. Murray is expressing his surprise that they didn't 'help' us this time round. Indeed he's making the point that no one helped us and expressing surprise at this.

 

Whilst us fans might say 'well what did you expect, we knew that would happen' he's making the point that it is surprising in a historical context. His point about the increasing 'Irishness' of Celtic and its undoubted influence on this is well made. Rangers are more open and inclusive than at anytime in the last 100 years, yet Celtic seem to be going in the other direction. That a PLC operated company would knowingly make decisions that will fundamentally have an adverse effect on their 'business' is staggering when actually analysed. You could say that the 'Old Firm' no longer exists now.

 

I enjoyed the article, Murray has been quite critical of Rangers in the past, I thought his view, as a 'neutral' from afar was quite illuminating actually.

[der Berliner 3,466]

calscot

It's hard to enjoy an article from someone who clearly does not fully understand the concept of discrimination or the history of it in Scottish football.

 

Bill Murray is probably one of the most informed chaps on all things Old Firm and Scottish football and The Old Firm makes grim but very detailed and informative reading. Haven't got my hands on his follow up though.

 

Bhoys, Bears and Bigotry: Rangers, Celtic and the Old Firm in the New Age

[54andcounting 0]

My impression of the 'Old Firm' as I saw it was, 'we' used 'them' and 'they' depended on 'us'

 

I can remember the OF were drawn together many years ago in a cup semi, Hampden was under redevelopment so they had to toss a coin to decide where the game was to take place - Ibrox or the piggery, the story goes Joe Jordan then assistant to Brady called it right for the piggery, but Walter insisted the 'first' toss was for 'who gets the right to FIRST call? Jordan reluctantly agreed he had only won the right for first call, he 'lost' the second toss, the game went to Ibrox. Lol!!

[calscot 0]

calscot

 

 

Bill Murray is probably one of the most informed chaps on all things Old Firm and Scottish football and The Old Firm makes grim but very detailed and informative reading. Haven't got my hands on his follow up though.

 

Bhoys, Bears and Bigotry: Rangers, Celtic and the Old Firm in the New Age

 

He may be informed but then why is writing stuff in a way that I find to be misinformation?

 

It seems he's fallen for the two Timmy lies that persuades the neutral against Rangers in that:

 

a) We're sectarian and they are not as they were not exclusive

 

and

 

b) That they were never exclusive

 

If he's informed then why doesn't he get it? It's an incredibly pivotal point and not understanding it means that you can never see a neutral picture and I really get the impression from his piece that he is far from neutral.