Reformation Bear

If so then 20:20 hindsight from a Board is not what they are there to do. Anybody can look at history and say 'if only we'd know what was going to happen we'd have done something different'. Winning on the cheap is what they are about it seems to me. It's not just whether or not they can land Kent today either. They've allowed strikers to go but have not gone for a 3rd good quality striker. They must have some stellar confidence that Morelos and Defoe are going to stay fit enough, stay free from suspensions, and be on consistently good goal scoring form for the entire season in all competitions. One is a player who was a serial red-carder last season and is still proving he's sufficiently reformed and the other is 36 years old (albeit very fit). If the board think that combination is truly sufficient for a whole season then imo they are taking some super-optimistic pills.

Record ST sales last season. Even more ST sales this summer. Cash from the European run last season. Supposedly better commercial income being generated. Receipts obtained for players sold during the summer transfer window eg Candeias - and the salary saved that he was earning. Big wages presumably saved due to other players being released early eg Lafferty. One modestly big money signing in Helander …………….who cant yet get a regular game (not fit enough or not good enough now that Gerrard has seen him training?) So where has all the money gone? What has the Board done with it. Why has there not been a significantly better quality of players added during the summer transfer window? Allen and Gerrard spoke way back in May about this being a transfer window that added quality, not quantity. Do they know the difference because what we've had added is quantity and not enough quality. The question to be asked of Robertson, King and the Board...………….what have you done with all the money generated because there is nowhere near enough evidence of it being spent on players of a sufficiently good quality. Put differently, is their strategy to try to win trophies on the cheap and on the back of Gerrard's alchemist ability to coach player got on the cheap or free into league title winners? What have the done with the money? Has the board decided that hoarding cash and an improved balance sheet is vastly more important than getting the quality of player needed to win a league title? Seems that way to me right now.

Hopefully that is correct as far as UEFA and their competition is concerned. I don't think its finished in Scotland though. I can't see the Board contenting itself with a dual track approach of one set of behaviours / singing rules for European games and a looser set for domestic games. For a start the media and domestic football authorities will use it as leverage week in and week out as hypocritical. I think its possible the Board may itself look to get changed behaviours / singing applied in domestic games too. I may be very wrong on this and they may be happy to live with a dual behaviours approach between European and domestic games and live with the media and political charges of hypocracy but I don't think this Board has the stomach for that kind of extended wrangle. I think they are setting about dealing with this in the domestic game too in which case the wrangle would continue until there is a winner.

Wait until they get going with how they plan to obtain the same 'amended behaviours' for domestic games. What's going on now could just be for starters. Because one thing is for sure, if the Support let rip on Sunday and at future domestic games, the media and the Scottish football authorities are surely bound to be emboldened by the FARE/UEFA approach with punishments dished out and look to implement the same. Or...……..in my view likely by this Board...……...the Board takes similar pre-emptive action to the line taken with the first away leg game in Europe and starts to decline tickets for certain domestic away games and maybe even voluntarily closes bits of Ibrox until King etc see and hear a Support that has come to behavioural heel. I just can't see this Board having the balls to let a twin track approach happen of one behavioural line for European games and a looser leash for domestic games. They'll look to get the same behaviours for both and use the UEFA punishment route as the precedent to self-impose bans on for certain domestic games.

I don't think this is confined to Robertson though. The other Directors - and yes the Chairman - and those responsible for proper and effective governance at Rangers are all to blame imo. Wilful negligence is how it appears on the face of it...……...... unless they are conniving with UEFA (or sheltering behind UEFA) to use the sanctions as part of a battering ram to force lasting change no matter how unpopular their line is with parts of the Support. Why? Because the issue which has surfaced this season big time and which is biting hard, and may yet bite harder was - imo - entirely predictable. They knew about FARE. They knew what line FARE and UEFA were taking with clubs. They'd be aware of the precedents affecting other clubs. They know full well it is UEFA's tournament and UEFA's rules. But they were wilfully negligent in doing enough with the Support in general and with Supporter's groups before the European campaign started to make it clear beyond doubt the risks the Club would face if we ran foul of UEFA. All the protesting and so on - justifiable as much of it is - should really be directed at the Club directors and execs. They winged it hoping nothing serious would happen. Which would make it wilful negligence. Either that or its been a carefully constructed 'do very little to inform and prevent' approach to allow UEFA to front up as the culprits and use the UEFA sanctions as a battering ram to bring about wholesale 're-education' of the Support for domestic football too. All from a position where they are untouchable - cannot be removed from office - can do as much or as little as they please - with no effective mechanisms to hold them to proper account - and knowing that if they succeed they go down in history as the directors who changed the face of Rangers...….taking as long as they need to do so.

You'd like to think someone at Rangers will have checked that the banner meets whatever technical specification for minimum dimensions, size of letter, exact content of the message to be displayed and which logos must be displayed, along with any FARE / UEFA directions on precisely where it is to be situated in the stadium. But then again maybe not. Because Robertson, the Company Secretary and others in the Board are rank fucking awful at complying with legal things. And if there has been a failure to comply …...…….yet more flak from UEFA might beckon.

Aware beforehand? I doubt it. But....they should have done a lot more to anticipate how FARE and UEFA would react. A competent set of directors and execs would regularly consider the risks / issues / opportunities which are certain / probable / possible / likely / remote etc for the types of risk the club could face each season. They've known from past events and from current approach of FARE that the potential for a real problem was there. What did they do to anticipate it and what mitigations did they implement with the Support / Supporters Groups etc. Fuck all. They were caught with their pants down and their corporate cheeks are being spanked raw as a result. Only for the incompetents to pass the punishment - and all of the blame - on to the Support. Do they welcome it? Their public facing messaging will suggest they don't welcome it. But privately my suspicion is they do. Because external 3rd party leverage in the form of FARE and UEFA sanctions with the Support venting anger at FARE and UEFA gives them the opportunity to take the Support head on and force the issue to be comprehensively confronted. The options being put to the Support being comply or don't bother coming to Rangers games as your not wanted. Having got into that mode for the European competition the Board can then go much further and make it clear they will voluntarily apply the same sort of UEFA types of sanctions at domestic games ………. because they are not going to tolerate the risk of a twin track behaviour approach of squeaky clean for European ties and no holds barred for domestic games. They are turning what seems to me to have been a FARE / UEFA ambush they weren't expecting into an opportunity to deal with it not just in European games but in domestic games. And they calculate that if that means losing some supporters along the way then they bank on the large waiting list for STs as the means to replace them. It becomes a season of discontent as this plays out. Creating the very best opportunity for achieving football success this season then risks becoming a casualty in all of this if this drags on and on.

Whatever some (many even) in the Support might think King and his Board are in a position of absolute strength. Untouchable even. They can do as much or as little as it pleases them to do on any subject (provided its legal of course). Sure they hear critical voices, noisy protests, tempers flared and so on from around the Support. Cuts no real ice with them though. No need for them to take it too seriously. After all record number of STs are sold and there is apparently a very healthy waiting list for them. I'm not even sure they are all that bothered if we win any trophies this season. I don't detect any passion coming out of them on being successful. So there's a bit of turbulence with FARE and UEFA. And we lose some revenue by having to close some sections of the ground for a game. And maybe yet have to lose even more revenue if a ground closure penalty is applied. And some more if we are turfed out of the competition. They can probably put up the price of next seasons STs to help compensate and if some walk away then there is that healthy waiting list to replace them. No sweat for the Board although there would probably be some sweat if the same behaviours started to cause domestic football authorities to start to make noises about following UEFA's lead. Because they are untouchable I think they are now setting about taking on the Support and taking whatever action they can devise and deploy to bring the Support into complete obedience on the subjects which FARE and UEFA are taking action on. Except that I think King and his Board will then voluntarily extend the UEFA-type sanctions into domestic games until they have gotten enough of a compliance from the Support to be able to say they have created in the Support amended behaviours that are Persil-clean both in FARE/UEFA terms and in the eyes of the Scottish football authorities and politicians. Their position of untouchable power gives them a platform to take on those in the Support they feel they need to take on in order to get compliance. The notices from them this week are setting out their red lines and setting out the challenge to the Support. Will it be a short battle, or is there an extended campaign to be played out. If they really are intent on enforcing the same behaviours at domestic games with sanctions for failing to comply then this could take a while to play out. Doesn't make King and his Board any more untouchable though...…..they can take as long as they want.

Re the game tonight. Given the understandably very strong reactions throughout the Support I'd be surprised - very surprised - if throughout it all (pre match - during the match and post match) for however long their eyes are watching and their ears are listening that they don't find something said, done or sung to report on. The whole thing has become to explosive for the entire game to pass without a FARE reporting incident. We'll see later tonight Re the game on Sunday. The impression I get from the King / Board statements is they are not just aiming off at appeasing FARE and UEFA. I think they've decided to take there line right into domestic football games even though FARE are not there. I think they've now shat themselves empty and are shivering with fear that whatever FARE and UEFA can to, so can the SPFL and the political mob in Scotland. My point being they are faced with running a dual approach of heavy warnings and bits of Ibrox closed and no away tickets etc in European games but then seeing a backlash response from the Support in domestic games. I don't think the language they are using in their notices to the Support necessarily confines what they want to just European games. I think that after the game tonight there will be another dire warning message about the game on Sunday. A message which might indicate that they will be prepared to voluntarily apply some sort of self-punishment if the think Supporter behaviour deviates from what King and his Board see as acceptable. With the same sort of response of closing bits of the ground, halting the sale of away tickets for certain games, ground closure at Ibrox for certain games …..all until the Support demonstrates consistently at games that it has come to heel. I think they are gearing up to take on the Support and if means losing some / many the King / Board line will be that there are plenty of others waiting to get in who will comply. My present view is the Board has now picked its battleground with the Support and is set about forcing the issue to a conclusion this season because they are not willing to see this extended into being under constant attack from domestic football authorities and the media who will be emboldened by the UEFA stance. I don't believe King or his Board are up for taking them on so right now I'm convinced that some sort of self-regulated voluntary punishments / sanctions will be applied for domestic games that mirrors the UEFA sanctions. We'll see if King and his Board have a message they want us to absorb and comply with for the game on Sunday. And if they do, the extent to which the support at the game will compl with it.

Unless he somehow starts to show very soon why Gerrard and Allen went to the bother and expense of signing him then its bound to be classed as a poor signing with his future being more of a fairground barker than a top contributing football player at Rangers. Wonder how long he'll get before he gets the Grezda treatment.

If he remains fit....and dare I say it is still with the Club since I think some transfer windows are still open......I'd be surprised if Morelos did not start both games with Defoe replacing him as some point in each game. The very way Morelos plays, and now his reputation as a goal scorer, seems to me to create more of an opportunity to rattle opposing defences that the skillsets that Defoe has.

This is one of those 2+2 makes 3976 posts ie I'm maybe reading far too much into what's not said. If UEFA did not specify that BF1 was to close or that this wretched banner had to be displayed in the BF1 area ie it is the Club's decision to close that area then is the Chairman effectively taking the first steps in an eventual dismantling of UB being located in any specific part of Ibrox? Or worse taking the first steps in an ultimatum to UB of 'its King's way or stop coming to Rangers games'...………..which in a way is the essence of his message a few days ago? If its a Rangers choice to close BF1 then it amounts to a direct challenge. And having done it once the precedent is set to do it again. And maybe not confined to European games either. Is it, I wonder, really then King's opening salvo to bring the Support to heel or force those who won't accept the party line to get out. I'll put my wider conspiracy thoughts on this to one side now and see how all of this plays out at the game on Thursday......and then at the OF game......and then in the next European games if we qualify.

So the basic message is don't sing in a way that the Chairman of Rangers, the directors of Rangers, the execs of Rangers, the Manager of Rangers and now the voicepiece of SOS find offensive...... an offence is imported into their current way of thinking via UEFA. Or else. It'll be interesting to see how well this message is received and acted on by the Support at the game on Thursday...…...and at the OF game at the weekend...…...and at the next European games if we qualify...……..and at domestic games throughout the rest of the season. Its also worth noting that the author refers to hindsight (see extract from the statement in italics below - text in bold by me). Frankly the Chairman and his Board and his execs - or even Supporter groups - should not just be looking at things in hindsight and reacting as though they've just been ambushed by some unexpected event. IMO there is a fundamental failure by King and his Board to anticipate this sort of risk and grasp the seriousness of the matter far more thoroughly and proactively far earlier. I think they just hoped that things would just muddle along and hope nothing serious would happen. Then when it does the only approach they seem to be willing to take is to issue a statement and then shelter behind the skirts of this type of SOS statement in the hope that some attempted leverage by fans groups will somehow do the trick. So much for top quality pro-active leadership by the Chairman and his directors. Why do some serious work with the Support to reach a long term definitive resolution when you can get fan groups to do a bit of lapdog type barking and see if that does the trick. The Chairman and his directors appear to me right now to be prepared to go for a lucky throw of the dice and hoping that it lands double 6. Meaning that with the King statement and the manager's words and fan group words they hope a double six wins them no more trouble from UEFA and no more trouble from domestic football authorities. They are gambling when they should have been far more pro-active in leading before it came to this. Maybe its all too difficult for them and all they are left with is dishing out 'don't be naughty' notices and hoping that fans groups will somehow magically do the heavy lifting on this for them. We'll see if it has any effect and if they can make their pleas stick on Thursday …...and then again at the OF game......and then again at future European games if we qualify...….and then again at the rest of the domestic games for this season. "...............….Many fans suggested this would be the outcome as soon as we started qualifying for Europe again after a few barren seasons. With hindsight it was inevitable and no amount of blogs, posts or shouting in public will change where we are. So what should we do? There’s only two choices, we carry on regardless or we change. If we carry on regardless then we will see larger ground closures. It’s that simple."

It's entirely understandable why it was felt the statement had to be issued. The message from King was, imo, laced with blame with a board deliberately distancing itself from Supporters. Not just distancing themselves but actually saying (it seemed me) that they needn't bother coming back to Rangers games. There are a couple of things that are not clear to me either from the Club's Chairman and his board or from the UB statement. 1- so what happens next? Salvos have been exchanged but no decisive conclusion as yet. Support is digging in on a number of fronts with strong views flying about all over social media. Which leads to the 2nd point. Where is the strong effective leadership in Rangers that is prepared to grasp this and get the parties together and get some definitive clarity - one way or the other - on how this is to be resolved? Dialogue and accusation by notices and email are not likely to be the vehicles to use to broker a solution. On the one hand the strength of the King statement could understandably be interpreted that hanging UB out to dry as unwanted scapegoats really is what he means. If that is the name of the game coming out of the Board then its best if they muster whatever courage they have and call a meeting with ST supporters invited - and shareholders invited as they too have a stake in this. The purpose being to thrash it out until some sort of mutually agreed course of action is decided. Or if King is set on sole blame resting on UB if they don't conform to what he wants then best he says it direct on a face to face basis. Would he have that courage? I can't see him leading from the front like that. He'd send Robertson and the discredited company secretary to do his dirty work.

Very understandably there is a significant amount of anger and tension throughout the Support. Any reading of any forum topic on the subject of the UEFA punishment, and of King's message in response confirms this. It's probably not about to cool down and recede into the background anytime soon. A reminder of the Rangers / King message is extracted below at the foot of this post and in italics. The bits in bold are made by me. Some Supporters are being labelled as guilty; of resorting to unacceptable behaviour; of harming Rangers; and being told by the Chairman that Rangers is not the Club for them. These are very strong accusations coming from the Chairman and his Board. Resolving this is not going to be done by dishing out emails or notices or, as is the usual trick in the Ibrox boardroom, of hoping the whole thing will just fizzle out and life can go on as normal. Maybe as an urgent follow up to the messaging given by King, and to the email issued today which was the subject of the OP, the Club need to move beyond paper messaging from safe distances and convene some town hall types of meetings where King an his Board stand up and spell out in clear simple terms what they will accept from Supporters these days, and what they will not. With an unconstrained Q&A as part of it. They need to start leading far more effectively from the front on this and not just dishing out emails from the comfort of their Ibrox offices. Is it not time for some proper leadership so that - at the end of it all - there is unambiguous clarity on what they (the Chairman and Board) believe the Club is all about in this day and age, and of the ways of supporting they will accept and not accept from Supporters. Now some are going to say this is already sufficiently known. That's as may be the case. But it would be missing the point which is for matters as serious as this with the potential for far more serious sanctions then imo real leaders lead from the front in person and set out a credible way ahead that the majority can support, and those who cannot do so will at least have had the opportunity to put their view in person before they decide what their next step should be. "....................Unfortunately a significant number of supporters, innocent of any wrong doing, will be unable to attend next week’s match. This is deeply regrettable to all at the Club and we hope that the guilty parties, who attracted the attention of UEFA might reflect on the damage their unacceptable behaviour is causing Rangers and their fellow supporters. If any individual supporter is unable to behave in a civilised manner then please stay away from Ibrox and our Club. You are harming Rangers and that is something a genuine supporter would never wish to do. Rangers chairman Dave King stated: “Rangers is a club open to all and we will continue to convey this message at every opportunity through our Everyone Anyone initiative. “Rangers has players and supporters from many religions, cultures and backgrounds but we are one and the same when we gather to support our club. If any supporter cannot accept that then Rangers is not the club for them”."

I wish you and your wife very best wishes in what must be a very very difficult time. I hope you both find reserves of inner strength and the support of family and friends and healthcare professionals. Take care and best wishes.

Gerrard's said what he's said. He's sought to echo what King said. Other than repeating what they have said or finding different words to say the same thing there is nothing more Gerrard or King or any of the Directors or execs at Ibrox can do. The media will have yet more field days on this. Scottish clubs too. All words and opinions and more words - all critical in one way or another of the Support. None of alters the fact that the Support will say / sing / do whatever it decides to do as a collective support firstly at the StMirren game and then at the Legia game next week. Will it be largely silence as in no singing? Will it be taunts at the Board for their willingness to appease? Will it be singing whatever is normally sung and to fuck with the consequences? Who knows. It will be what it will be and there is fuck all a Rangers chairman or his board of directors or his senior execs or the manager can do about it. They are not in direct control of what happens. They can only plead and hope. That is the extent of their power for these games. Whether the Support collectively and as individual Supporters take heed and respond in the way that King and the Manager want is something we will only see the result of after each game. It will be interesting to see what posts are being generated next Friday and whether this punishment and its consequences are still the dominating subject for Rangers.

Whatever the atmosphere Gerrard has his job to do. He needs to pick a team and motivate it to win whether they are playing at a near full Ibrox 'rocking' as he puts it, or whether they are playing in front of a silent or even hostile crowd who are on the backs of the team if the game is not going well, as well as being on the backs of those sat in the Directors' box. Gerrard is not going to get away with ascribing any sort of blame on the lack of atmosphere for failing to win the tie. That, imo, simply will not do. Whether they are good enough to beat Legia with or without Ibrox rocking is another matter. It seems to me that this nonsense of sections of the stadium being closed and the resulting stirring up of Supporter unrest will feed through to the players. Whether it has a neutral effect, an adverse effect or a positive effect on each of them remains to be seen. But that is why a manager needs to have them all properly focussed and mentally ready to deal with whatever atmosphere happens on the night

Wonder what assessment the Board gives to the risk of a domino effect in closing BF1. For instance how close might they be to deciding it closes for all domestic games too. The point being that the Board uses this closure next week to force the issue (as the Board sees it) and to create a crisis mentality as a means of setting about finding a long term acceptable solution. A case of the Club looking to engage in war with UB …..and win it...and not the other way round. Has the season arrived where skirmishes become replaced by more militant words and actions from all parties. That's one route this could take it seems to me. Difficult times when the only major thing being talked about on Thursday evening was whether Gerrard could put out a side that wins against Legia next week.

The impression I have from those who speak for Rangers is that earning money via playing in Europe is the most important priority. Gerrard said as much in a recent interview when he said (paraphrasing) that at every Board meeting he had ever attended it had been made clear to him how important runs in European football are for Rangers. I don't think he was confining his comment to re-establishing European track record credentials: the impression I have is that it is primarily the money that runs in Europe generate. He's also made it clear on a number of occasions that Rangers is a selling club. All of the players have a price at which Rangers would let them move on to other Clubs. I suppose the same would be true if it applied to Gerrard himself. What is also telling, imo, is that Gerrard (nor any director or anyone senior at Ibrox ever states that winning the league title is the number one priority which overrides everything else. They just don't say that. What they are careful to say is that Rangers competes to win every trophy it plays for. Which is nowhere near the same as the emphasis they seem to put on the essential need to have good runs in Europe. Its a question of priorities and the top priority seems to be about earning money. If that, in substance, is a reasonable indicator of the priorities, then the result against Legia Warsaw next week assumes top priority (............….which is what Gerrard - and King if anybody could find him to ask him - would probably say anyway purely because it is the next game in a 'one game at a time' type of thinking which deflects away from the overall potential impact for a season). Win against Legia Warsaw and everyone is very happy. The manager, players and Support because its more great European nights ahead. The Board because its achieving their top priority which is to generate money. Lose and there could be a bit of decent sized problem looming. The squad size is super-healthy (bloated even) in terms of numbers - aside that is from not having enough quality strikers. But its not necessarily of sufficient quality overall in every position. It seems to have been sized with the intention of being strongly competitive for European and domestic competitions being fought in parallel. But it'd be a big wage bill, and a difficult job to keep all players happy and motivated if the season becomes one where there is no European football. If after that no domestic trophies are won this season then as the saying goes - there may be trouble ahead. Because carrying that size of first team squad with its associated wage bill and not winning anything and not having got through to the more financially beneficial group stages in Europe might be very hard to sustain financially. It's a very important game next week. One of the most important games in a very long time it seems to me.

Two teams that are good teams is the Manager's concluding assessment. Fair enough. Not getting the away goal means - as the Manager acknowledges - that the team is going to have to produce top quality defending next week. His assessment of the team not being brave enough in the final third during the 2nd half is also telling. The translation of the team into a team that consistently takes a far higher proportion of goal scoring chances created is still a work in progress. Whether they can remedy that next week against a team that does not give away many goals looks like being a tall order. All of the players selected for the game need to be on top form. Could be a very difficult game.

Well done Rangers. The only adverse comment I have is that Robertson should have been nowhere near this (see the article today on the Rangers website). IMO the man is not to be trusted and along with the discredited company secretary are not fit to be employed by Rangers. Their actions and words on other subjects dishonour the Club and harm its reputation. That Robertson seeks to improve his image by PR appearances and words in relation to the MOD award removes (for me anyway) a bit of gloss from the award. I speak as a fan, as a Rangers shareholder and having had a long career in the MOD.

Fair enough. It seems to me that finding a need to shunt 4 experienced players into the starting side is a strong enough indicator also that there are too many players at Rangers and some need to go. Whether they need some sort of shop window or match fitness process to help them depart (either permanently or on loan) seems to me to be questionable, and it deprived 4 other genuinely developing players the chance to have a game against Fleetwood. Its done now and maybe for future development games considerably more weight will be given by the coaches to selecting players whose first and primary need is for development and not for other wider reasons.

It's only a so-called 'Development Team' in title only. It's illusory to describe it as a development team when 4 out of the starting 11 are very experienced and already 'developed' players were in the staring line-up: Grezda. Dorrans, Dodoo and Murphy. The only things these 4 are developing are (a) some sort of match fitness; (b) transfer potential with their names on a teamsheet in case any other club might be interested in taking them; (c) a reminder that this is what the pathway of exit from Rangers looks like. Harsh? Very probably. But why else would they be playing in a game like this. The presence of so many obviously experienced players has denied other youngsters who really are developing the chance to test their skills.

What was said is on the record so the case is clear enough. For the compliance officer to be compliant in doing the job then at the very least interpretations of compliance should be seen to be consistently complied with and a decent sized fine awarded against c...……. , along with instructions to them from the SFA requiring them to ensure that the club and its employees (ambassadors even) comply in full with SFA rules. Now we all know that's not going to happen.