Hall of Fame

[compo 7,030]

No one should be admitted until ten years after they retired from playing.

[buster. 5,185]

10 hours ago, Bill said:

That makes good sense to me although I could be persuaded to make it ten per decade

Ten (a decade) was the number that I first thought of but I think one every season to be too much and would dilute the quality.

[weebluedevil 1,239]

Congratulations to all three. They gave their peak years to the club, a club they love, and for me they all gave us some memories we will never forget (2 European finals for Davo and 1 for Greegsy and Tav) as well as contributing to an unbeaten season to win 55 and stop our bitter rivals plans for 10*.   

[Bill 13,717]

I suppose it all depends on where we want the bar to be set. How special do we want a HoF to be?

 

I've no idea how they actually decide who's in the HoF. Is it reserved only for the best of the best or is it something awarded to everyone who made a decent contribution. Personally I'd prefer the former but since some are already there who wouldn't meet my criteria, the game's already a bogey as far as I'm concerned. 

[buster. 5,185]

7 hours ago, Bill said:

I suppose it all depends on where we want the bar to be set. How special do we want a HoF to be?

 

I've no idea how they actually decide who's in the HoF. Is it reserved only for the best of the best or is it something awarded to everyone who made a decent contribution. Personally I'd prefer the former but since some are already there who wouldn't meet my criteria, the game's already a bogey as far as I'm concerned. 

That is pretty much it,....the bumping of gums ain't changing it now.

[gaspard 562]

10 hours ago, Bill said:

I suppose it all depends on where we want the bar to be set. How special do we want a HoF to be?

 

I've no idea how they actually decide who's in the HoF. Is it reserved only for the best of the best or is it something awarded to everyone who made a decent contribution. Personally I'd prefer the former but since some are already there who wouldn't meet my criteria, the game's already a bogey as far as I'm concerned. 

Apparently these are the criteria 

 

1. Service to the club
2. Number of games
3. Honours won with Rangers
4. International caps won while at Rangers
5. Exceptional abilities

[JohnMc 2,750]

What I find interesting is two players, McGregor and Davis, are honoured despite both leaving the club when we went onto administration. Yet two international players who stayed, McCulloch and Wallace, are ignored. Now we can debate motivation, stage of career, earning potential and so on, but both could have played at a far higher level than the bottom divisions in Scotland at that time. 

As it happens I don't really blame Davis and McGregor, or any of the players who left. It's a short career, there was enormous uncertainty around the club, the new owner, Charles Green, even then didn't fill you with confidence. But, both Wallace and McCulloch made different choices and so provided experience and leadership at a time when we were looking like playing children in our first team. Whatever your views on their ability I find it surprising they've been overlooked when some of their contemporaries are being inducted.  

[gaspard 562]

A change I'd propose is to extend the HoF eligibility to non players. 

 

Wilton and Struth immediately spring to mind 

[Bill 13,717]

3 minutes ago, gaspard said:

Apparently these are the criteria 

 

1. Service to the club
2. Number of games
3. Honours won with Rangers
4. International caps won while at Rangers
5. Exceptional abilities

Thanks @gaspard. At least 2, 3 and 4 are measurable but 1 and 5 seem harder to quantify. 

 

On that basis, Sam English spent 2 years at the club, made only 72 appearances and won 2 trophies. Graeme Souness made 73 appearances and won one trophy. Ray Wilkins made 96 appearances over 2 years and won two trophies. I'm happy for everyone whose name appears on the HOF board but there should be meaningful criteria if it's to stand for anything.

 

It won't change anything but I'd suggest something along the lines of a minimum of 5 years with the club and 200 games. The number of trophies is significant but less important and "exceptional abilities" is a nonsense.

[Bill 13,717]

15 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

What I find interesting is two players, McGregor and Davis, are honoured despite both leaving the club when we went onto administration. Yet two international players who stayed, McCulloch and Wallace, are ignored. Now we can debate motivation, stage of career, earning potential and so on, but both could have played at a far higher level than the bottom divisions in Scotland at that time. 

As it happens I don't really blame Davis and McGregor, or any of the players who left. It's a short career, there was enormous uncertainty around the club, the new owner, Charles Green, even then didn't fill you with confidence. But, both Wallace and McCulloch made different choices and so provided experience and leadership at a time when we were looking like playing children in our first team. Whatever your views on their ability I find it surprising they've been overlooked when some of their contemporaries are being inducted.  

I've seen the omission of Wallace and McCulloch mentioned several times on Twitter in recent days. You'd think if "service to the club" is a selection criteria then they would have qualified and then some.