The Rangers Brand - what does it stand for?

[Gonzo79 15,293]

8 minutes ago, Scott7 said:

You can’t blame your centre forward for a defensive error.

We're Rangers supporters, we can blame whoever the Hell we like (usually one of our own, which sets us apart from that lot).  

[Bill 13,717]

3 hours ago, Scott7 said:

Ferguson was a really good centre forward when he played for Dunfermline. I saw him in a match against some team that a year or so later went on to win a trophy abroad somewhere. Ferguson terrorised their defence that day and I was elated when Rangers bought him for £60,000 but overall I was disappointed with him at Ibrox. Colin Stein on the other hand ……

The League Cup defeat wasn’t Ferguson’s fault. You can’t blame your centre forward for a defensive error.

 

I was referencing the 1969 Scottish Cup final, which was his last game. He wasn't even close to being the most blameworthy Rangers player on that dark day. I believe he WAS made a scapegoat for the loss and it had bugger all to do with the game itself, which was used as an excuse to indulge the sectarian views of certain directors at the time. Like Berwick in 1967 it was shameful episode in our history and flew in the face of what many believed were inherent Rangers values.

 

There's a reason so many are finding it difficult or impossible to describe the Rangers brand or even the club's primary attributes.

[Scott7 6,005]

1 minute ago, Bill said:

I was referencing the 1969 Scottish Cup final

It was indeed the SC final. Why did I suddenly called it a League Cup Final? Onset of senility at a disturbingly young age I fear.

[CammyF 8,093]

2 minutes ago, Bill said:

I was referencing the 1969 Scottish Cup final, which was his last game. He wasn't even close to being the most blameworthy Rangers player on that dark day. I believe he WAS made a scapegoat for the loss and it had bugger all to do with the game itself, which was used as an excuse to indulge the sectarian views of certain directors at the time. Like Berwick in 1967 it was shameful episode in our history and flew in the face of what many believed were inherent Rangers values 

 

There's a reason so many are finding it difficult or impossible to describe the Rangers brand or even the club's primary attributes.

So how would you describe the Rangers brand or clubs primary attributes (currently)? 

 

And what is the reason for so many finding it difficult to describe given you said in the opening post that it would be "subjective"?

[ranger_syntax 4,322]

8 hours ago, Sutton_blows_goats said:

I disagree, the manager does not wear tracksuits, the old managers office is used for signing contracts.

 

Not all of it will still be in place. Struth took over 100 years ago. Things change over time. 

 

If its all gone then we just sell up Ibrox and build a 70k stadium somewhere. Stadium expansion problem sorted.

Funny, I thought you would come back about the hard work bit.

[BlackSocksRedTops 3,752]

9 hours ago, JohnMc said:

Great question.

Separating the 'club' from the 'support' for a moment, although both are intrinsically linked in reality. Our claims to be the 'world's most successful club' might be factually accurate but don't really hold much value under serious scrutiny, I mean are we really claiming to be more successful than Real Madrid or Liverpool? I could check but I think Linfield have now won more domestic titles than Rangers and no one is claiming they are the world's most successful club. But domestic success is still clearly a part of our 'brand'. You ask any football supporter in Europe to name a Scottish football club and they'll know Rangers. When we reached the Europa League final last season the Chairman of Frankfurt welcomed our semi final victory by saying something like 'it's great the final is being contested by two traditional clubs'. This was partly a dig at RB Leipzig who are universally disliked in Germany, but also a nod to our history. There are not many organisations who reach 150 years old, we had a history with Frankfurt, having famously played them in the 1960s, and they knew this. Add this to Ibrox Stadium, again an organisation that has had the same home for over a century, and a home with a building as magnificent as our Main Stand, is impressive. So I'd venture that 'tradition' is part of our brand. We're not Man City, or PSG or Chelsea where everyone knows that success has been bought by oligarchs and sport-washing, and while success brings fame and adulation, none of those clubs have what we have now. So 'tradition' being a 'real' football club that exists purely for the love of the sport for me is key to the club's brand today. 

Now we're obviously not the only club who can claim that. but we should be careful about protecting it. 

 

Another term that's often used to describe Rangers is 'the quintessential British club'. I've never been entirely sure what that meant, as 'British' is such a difficult term to define. Undoubtedly a good percentage of our support embrace this, and while in recent times the club hasn't made any statements that were overtly political or about national identity, we do fly the Union flag and, famously, toast the monarch. So being 'British' however complicated that might be, is currently part of our brand. 

 

Is being 'Scottish' part of our brand? It was when I started following Rangers. As ridiculous as it might seem today the bulk of the Scotland support was made up of Rangers fans up. I went to every Scotland home match from the early 1980s to the early 90s. Something changed then. I don't know if it was the influx of English players under Souness, something that had never happened in Scotland before, or the start of the decline of the Scotland team as a force in international football, but something changed. I'd still watch the games but no longer attended, but I never missed a Rangers match. Gradually my interest has wained and I don't think I'm alone in that. I was barely aware we were even playing earlier this week. That's me, and I fully accept others will feel differently. But I don't think it's inaccurate to suggest a gulf lies between the Scotland side and many Rangers fans. Many of us don't feel an ownership of the national side, and we should, it's our side too. I lived in Belfast for a while and Linfield supporters see the Northern Ireland side as theirs, as do Glentoran and Crusader's fans, in a way that I don't think we do anymore. Indeed I'd say NI based Rangers supporters feel an ownership of their national side.

We can analyse the many cultural, footballing and political reasons for this and never solve it. But once you leave Scotland there is no doubt at all that the rest of the world see us as a Scottish side. Whatever our slightly complicated relationship might be, to a German or a Dutch football fan Rangers are Scottish, indeed often we're one of the few things they associate with Scotland. We're based in Scotland, most of our support is based in Scotland, we play in blue and have a lion rampant in our badge. So, Scotland is part of our brand.

 

Is Glasgow part of our brand, or even Govan? To an extent it is but it’s not something we make enough of I feel. But both are closely associated with us so it’s part of our brand.

 

Is Protestantism? It wasn't at the beginning, or indeed for the first 3 or so decades of our existence. But it would be mendacious to pretend it didn't become a defining tenet of who we are. But is it today? I'd venture that the club like to keep it at arm's length. That said we have a club chaplain from the Presbyterian tradition and whenever services are conducted around the Ibrox disaster for example they are normally officiated by the Church of Scotland. But today I don't think our club is any closer to reformed Christianity than say Hearts or Aberdeen are, both of who I suspect would also look to the main denomination for guidance when the need arose. 

In my opinion the support are a bit schizophrenic on this. While I'd say the majority of our support are at least culturally or traditionally 'Protestant, I suspect most don't darken the doors of their local Kirk very often. Religion plays a smaller and smaller part of most Scot's daily lives, I'd say most Rangers supporter's have no real religion if you pushed them on it. Yet, we're still seen by many people as being a 'Protestant' club, whatever that means. Clearly part of this is connected to our main rival's clear association with Catholicism. If they are one thing we must be the other. It's also true that some supporter's have an association with organisations like the Orange institutions and much of the trappings of that, such as songs, have become associated with Rangers too, and still are. Songs and chants with a strong Loyalist influence, largely from Ireland, are still popular with a large section of the support, as are some that can only be described as 'anti-Catholic'. 

 

For me I don't believe we're in really a 'Protestant' club anymore, but it would also be wrong to pretend others might disagree. It's part of our 'brand' in some shape or form. I worry being ‘anti-Catholic’ is also seen as part of our brand by some and I’ve personal experience of some who think we’re ‘anti-Irish’.

 

My biggest frustration is I don’t think we can genuinely associate any clear football related themes to our brand. We’re not Ajax for example and their association with producing their own players. We’re not Liverpool or Man Utd or Spurs where a particular type of attacking football is associated with them. If anything in modern times I think we’re seen as a club who buy success, who can outspend most of their rivals. We don’t have a reputation, at least in modern times, of producing our own players and our style of football changes with every new manager. I’d say that was different 100 or so years ago when we were the ‘speedy and light blues’ and viewed as one of the most attractive and progressive footballing sides of the time. I suppose in Scotland we’re still viewed as a side who ‘wins trophies’, even if it’s not so accurate in the last decade. But that’s a domestic brand and rather than an international one.

 

It’s a mixed bag. We could, and should, have some footballing themes to help define our brand. Certainly developing young players is something the board are actively pursuing but it takes a lot of successes and a while for that to become a reality.

 

As ever John, your post hits the nail directly on the head. Bravo sir.

[Sutton_blows_goats 5,335]

45 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

Funny, I thought you would come back about the hard work bit.

No comeback available for that

[Devil's advocaat 1,541]

51 minutes ago, BlackSocksRedTops said:

As ever John, your post hits the nail directly on the head. Bravo sir.

Agreed, perfectly put.

[Bill 13,717]

1 hour ago, CammyF said:

So how would you describe the Rangers brand or clubs primary attributes (currently)? 

I wouldn't. I didn't start this topic as a teaching exercise but to see what the views were of other members and perhaps learn something about an issue that's troubled me for some time.

 

 

1 hour ago, CammyF said:

And what is the reason for so many finding it difficult to describe given you said in the opening post that it would be "subjective"?

It's not for me to say why other people find this difficult. The topic is here for everyone to speak for themselves, which of course is what makes it subjective.

[CammyF 8,093]

5 minutes ago, Bill said:

I wouldn't. I didn't start this topic as a teaching exercise but to see what the views were of other members and perhaps learn something about an issue that's troubled me for some time.

 

 

It's not for me to say why other people find this difficult. The topic is here for everyone to speak for themselves, which of course is what makes it subjective.

I don't really understand your replies or your reluctance to answer the questions if I'm honest. Never mind, it is what it is.