Reformation Bear

Brilliant videos. Many thanks for doing them. They are appreciated by many Bears

Barisic. IMO he is good enough to adapt more fully and effectively to the game in Scotland and to the responsibility of playing for Rangers. Besides which he is an international player for a top internationals side and has earned that through his playing credentials. Something which neither Flanagan or Halliday could remotely aspire to achieve. Whether Gerrard believes he is adapting and progressing quickly enough is a different matter altogether. If Gerrard has marked his cards as being closer to the Grezda outcome than to the Katic outcome then there may be no way back for the player. He'd be stuck in a squad but not getting many games and for an international player with hopes of progressing his international career he'd then become dissatisfied to the point of needing to get out. To an extent its also up to Gerrard - does he think he can get the player to improve or has he in effect given up on him. Maybe a journo who is brave (or stupid) enough could ask Gerrard for his current views on Barisic and why he is not playing.

The treatment of Kent so far at Liverpool is not exactly a great example for young aspiring players at big clubs. He's being marginalised by his club and left to wonder if there is any football to be played other than reserve stuff until his contract expires or until Liverpool relent and a mutually suitable transfer is arranged. All this for a player who performed so well for Rangers last season. Seems like its counted for nothing which is hardly likely to do his confidence any good. Some may say that's just football life at a top club. It'd be a harsh bottom line though. The player proved himself more than capable of delivering the goods in big games at Rangers. It would be a real lost opportunity if a way could not be found for the player to return to Rangers. Can a deal not be structured where a lot less of the asking price is paid up front with the balance in later stages (would that be so unaffordable for Rangers)? Or a loan with first right to buy at the end of the season for a predetermined price so that if the player excels and becomes even more of a vital player for Rangers then there is a season for Rangers to assemble the cash to buy outright? I guess all sorts of variations on deals have been worked up and discussed with Liverpool. It does seem a bit strange though that nothing creative is acceptable to the parties and at this rate of lack of progress the player may find that all his good work and effort for last season counted for zero value either at Liverpool or really at Rangers either if they have not bust a gut to try to get him back.

Loan deal confirmed:

I agree. I'd prefer it if we had a 3rd good quality goal scoring striker to compete with Morelos and Defoe. As for the others who might be called on to supplement these two Stewart isn't a striker and Rudden is untried at this level so having to rely on him if / when Morelos and / or Defoe pick up injuries or suspensions or dips in goal scoring form does not seem to me to be a wise move. The other alternative would be bringing someone in from the development squad which would be quite an ask if that person was to be relied on to produce even remotely close to the type of first team game and form that Morelos and Defoe offer. I would not look at having 3 good quality goal scoring experienced strikers as being an issue. Surely at a club of Rangers stature and with the games to be played and 3 domestic trophies to not just compete for but expect to win, plus the hope of an extended run in Europe, 3 experienced strikers is a necessity. Maybe as Gerrard noted today a suitable bargain deal might happen before the transfer window closes.

Good point. Maybe they will get round to issuing a Club Statement and maybe even a press statement. After all the BBC as a dominant media provider has every opportunity to put its views out on radio and television as often as it wants and on an unchecked basis so they will most probably respond to the Club 1872 note except they will aim it at Rangers itself and not Club 1872.

At the very least the Club could have put out a much earlier statement along the lines of the following (so that we know that action is being taken and to expect an update): we note and disagree with the premature remarks from a Kilmarnock director which seek to apportion blame on Rangers before facts are established; we note with continued anger and deep concern the continued anti-Rangers reporting by the BBC who are also minded to comment in public before facts are established; We take the health and safety of all supporters at games involving Rangers very seriously. Anything which causes safety issues is a matter which Rangers will investigate fully and will seek immediate and effective remedies.; An enquiry is being held at which Rangers will present the facts and present our views of the incdent. That enquiry is being hosted by East Ayrshire Council's legal services department. We will report the outcome as soon as it is available.

I suspect Rangers will be waiting for a very long time for an apology from the BBC people mentioned in the OP. More likely they will use the response to twist it to suit their own biased agenda. There is nowhere near the amount of humility in the BBC people to offer an unreserved apology, nor from their BBC paymasters. It will be interesting to see if Kilmarnock endorse the response or whether they will try to put a different interpretive spin on it. One thing the response does not touch on is whether the incident should be investigated by the HSE and whether Kilmarnock were in breach of any legal obligations in relation to safety of fans. For example, the extent to which it was this caused by wilful or otherwise negligence by Kilmarnock. The ticketing failure; the resultant circumstances which caused fans to be 'pushed and squeezed' (is that intended to be politically correct speak for 'crushed'?); and the absence of 'a recognisable plan' to deal with the failure bearing in mind there seems to have been an incident at their recent European match, might all point to consideration being given as to whether Kilmarnock had failed to comply with HSE laws. The other thing not really covered in detail in the response is what steps Rangers will require Kilmarnock to take to remedy the problems and what information Rangers will require from Kilmarnock about arrangements (including details safety plans and resources) to be applied for future games. Or are we to assume that just because a response has been issued then that somehow puts things right for future games. No doubt Club 1872 will be on the case and providing an update on safety matters for Kilmarnock away games now that its clear Kilmarnock fell well short of their duty of care to away supporters and their willingness to blame before establishing facts.

So sorry to hear about the sad news. My condolences to you and your family.

Looks like we're to be given a dose of Barker for this season and beyond when it was a repeat dose of Kent that everyone wanted (Gerrard included). It wouldn't necessarily be Barker's fault as it depends on how much Gerrard is prepared to play him and how well Barker himself performs when he's given the chances to play but if this season turns out to be yet another season without any trophies then it seems to me to be very possible a lot of Supporters may well look back at this signing as being the point at which the Board watered down its ambition to win trophies ie failing to find the means to sign a player in Kent who we know can be a very effective player for Rangers and betting instead on a 'maybe' player. The difference between knowing that someone can cut it for Rangers in this league in games that really matter (ie Kent) and someone who is untried and unknown in delivering the sort of quality needed at Rangers to win games. It seems for now that when it came to finding the means to back the ambition to win the league title / cups the Board decided it would not find the money and chose instead an attempt to get there on the cheap. We'll see how this signing (and lack of signing Kent) pans out over the course of the season but right now I don't think we have anywhere near as good a player in Barker as we would have had in Kent.

Seems to me there is a bit of hard edged steel to Gerrard in this no-nonsense interview. I reckon the players selected for the game will be in no doubt whatsoever about the job they are their to do and the commitment they will need to give to get the job done. I hope the side he selects gives their very best for him and for the Support. Should be a good game.

What would or could a strong, powerful, tradition-defending, fighting for earned respect Rangers Board do in the controversial football circumstances the Club has found itself experiencing in recent years and now even this early in the season? What does the current Board do? Appease. The only issues and fights the current Board seem to have any appetite for are legal fights. Which they keep on losing. Losing spectacularly. They're good at losing legal fights and good at appeasing the other clubs in Scottish football and appeasing the football authorities. Its the only way of working they seem to know. Appeasement disguised as a form of dignified silence or restrained comment. Even when words are spoken they tend to be ineffective and in some cases (eg company secretary recently) untruthful. But they are all-powerful; untouchable and cannot be held to any sort of proper and meaningful account for their actions (and inactions). They are masters of all they survey at Rangers. There for as long as they want to be there. Shareholders cannot shift them any more and the Support in general would not be able to influence them. A strong, powerful, tradition-defending, fighting for earned respect Rangers Board. Many may say 'yes they are'. And many may say 'no they are not'. But blah, blah, blah - they don't need to care or listen: they have the power and the privilege and are untouchable. Absolute and untouchable power is the cosy position they have constructed for themselves.

Very probably.

If we don't care about the other media etc stuff why take the first 6 mins to discuss it before getting round to actually talking about football? Going forward perhaps more consumption of own advice and medicine and concentrate on the football and relegate the other stuff to footnotes at the end.

The Club has forgiven. The Club has forgotten. The past is past and that is that. Consigned to the deep recesses of the memories of those who are stewards of the Club with the key thrown away and never to be recalled. Never to be cast up again. The here and now and the way ahead seems to be the Club will do business with any club and every club in Scotland. A tacit acceptance that past events are of no current or future relevance to those who run the Club. That, it seems to me, is the indicator of things from this loan move. A loan move where a young player will do very well indeed to come out of it having advanced his game and still keen on football in Scotland and at Rangers. He is bound to come in for attention from certain quarters of the the Hibs so-called 'support'. Whether the Hibs management is up to providing the right sort of opportunities to encourage his game and at the same time provide the support a loan player in this circumstance would most likely need is - for me anyway - a very big question. The best I can say is I hope he does as well as is humanly possible in this loan move. I hope the Rangers coaching staff, the DoF and the execs at Rangers know what they are doing and have fully and properly assessed the pros and cons of this move.

He's the deputy Captain too (according to Gerrard in the post match interview)

I agree. He could simply settle for a line along the lines of 'if there's something to report on Morelos then I'll report it …. next question'. But he's chosen to get into a 'Morelos needs to speak' line which just amplifies the situation and creates a golden opportunity for the media to follow it up at every interview. In a way maybe its the strategy he's agreed with the DoF to try to force the issue along with Morelos (and his agent) ie get off the fence, clear the air and say whether you want to stay or to go. Or designed to act as a bit of an excuse line if a late bid does arrive and is 'a crazy bid' that cannot be turned down and Morelos goes leaving no time to get anywhere near a comparable replacement.........……….so that if the season does not go as well as hoped during this pre-season period because Morelos went then Gerrard and King can pull out the 'if only he'd stayed' and 'it wasn't our fault' lines to explain things to the Support. King and the Club would have the Morelos dosh in the bank but might not have any trophies at the end of the season. Or just personal frustration that a player he thinks can be a very big contributor to the outcomes Rangers achieve this season is smiling around the training ground and so on but allowing persistent transfer speculation noises to be generated by the media and not doing enough to help Gerrard and the Club (and the Support) by coming clean and saying 'I'm staying or I'm going' so that the speculation can be ended and everyone concentrates more on winning football games. Whatever Gerrard's thinking is on this it is curious and the questions are not going to go away until the transfer window closes, or until Morelos departs, or until Morelos speaks.

its maybe a bit of a sharp descent from the statements Gerrard made on 24 July about needing to put right the wrongs (when he was comparing the tie this season to the disastrous tie when Pedro was manager). Putting right the wrong under a description of the game being no better than a grind and a game where he'll not even watch the game back seems to me to be clearing a 'putting right the wrongs' hurdle by the thinnest of margins and only really in the sense that Rangers make it to the next round. He looked tense and to my mind he came over as someone very far from pleased with the way his team played tonight and very far from satisfied with a disrespectful opposition (heating left on in dressing room and committing fouls all over the park etc). A grind right enough. Here's hoping for a winning start to the league at the weekend because surely it could not be another grind-like performance again.

I don't think it would be the best course of action for Rangers if the attempt is made to have a trophy winning season (preferably a league title winning season) with just 2 main proven strikers (Morelos and Defoe). One is prone to being sent off a lot and has still to prove that he's a reformed and reliable character (point being he is a risk as far as keeping 11 players on the pitch). The other is 36 years old and will turn 37 during the course of this season. I don't think it would feasible for Defoe to put in a goal scoring (game winning) shift game after game even it its coming on as a sub for an entire season. Both may pick up suspensions or injuries or both, or have a dip in form. In which case who are the quality replacement strikers? Stewart? I don't think so. Whether or not Morelos goes at least one more striker of reasonably proven quality is needed. Failure to sign one would, imo, materially weaken the ability to win any sort of trophy this season. If Morelos goes then there is no doubt a replacement of reasonably comparable quality would be needed immediately. And accompanied by at least one more quality striker. A near worst case scenario would be if - despite Gerrard's attempts to condition clubs to the contrary - a big enough bid arrives for Morelos at the virtual tail end of the transfer window leaving Rangers with not enough time (and maybe not enough money) to go get a suitable replacement. In which case the bulk of the goal scoring burden falls on a 37 year old plus Stewart plus whoever is promoted from the reserves or a 'make do' signing who is nowhere near the quality of Morelos. If that's what we ended up going into the season with then the pre-season optimism bubble could be very vulnerable to being burst.

That's interesting. Wonder what caused a revision in thinking and decision to part company with Dallas. And whether an emerging need for cash to pay a certain big contract default bill becomes a influential factor in current sales of players. If the club is indeed selling its hottest prospect then one wonders why.

Outclassed everywhere across the pitch. No-one in a Rangers jersey was anywhere near good enough to compete in that game. Everyone on the coaching staff need to take a good look again at what they are trying to achieve by putting out a side so badly matched against a very much stronger Manchester side. Anyone on the coaching staff who seriously thinks that was a good enough representation of Rangers as a football side where the gulf in class was painfully obvious needs to have a rethink about just how useful that sort of game is.

…..and yet Robertson and Blair are still in jobs at Rangers.

Is there an element of no smoke without fire on this ie not in relation to replica tops but in relation to Rangers legal right to use the Hummel-provided strips for this season? The reason I ask stems straight from the first part of para 88 of the court judgement (extracted below in italics). Part of this includes the injunction which SDIR seeks (and which, as I understand it the judge has decided to grant to them. 88. SDIR now seeks an order for damages to be assessed, an order for declaratory relief, and an injunction in the following terms: “... UPON SDIR agreeing that, for the 2019/2020 season, the Rangers FC teams may wear any Official Rangers Kit (as that term is defined in the Agreement between Rangers and SDIR dated 21 June 2017) that had been approved by Rangers prior to 17 April 2019 On the face of it Rangers FC teams may wear any Official Rangers Kit but is only permitted to do so if it meets the definition of Official Rangers Kit as set out in the Rangers and SDIR contract of 21 June 2017, and where that kit was approved by Rangers before 17 April 2019. Some points that might be worth considering here are: (I) what is the definition of Official Rangers Kit in the Rangers / SDI contract of 21 June 17; (2) where does that definition apply in the operative terms of that contract - the point being does the definition and its application in relevant operative clauses and any other relevant related definitions also somehow confer approval rights on SDIR or require some sort of prior SDIR assent before Rangers can lawfully use the Hummel strips?; and (3) that contract is still valid and legally binding on Rangers as far as I can discern from the recent judgment. That being the case Rangers must still comply with the terms of that contract or risk facing further breaches of contract and resulting claims for damages from SDIR. The very simple point is - does that contract with SDIR give any approval rights to SDIR? Its a straightforward yes or no I think. If its 'no' then there should be no bar on Rangers using the Hummel strip this season. If its a 'yes' then the question would be has Rangers complied in full with the contract it has with SDIR and complied in full with the recent judgment? If somehow there is a 'maybe' or a 'not sure' then the text about SDIR demanding approval rights may yet be a case of no smoke without fire. The supposed substance of the story ie the text about Rangers barred from playing in new home strip will either go away as the OP suggests and never raise its head again from SDIR, or it will surface as a court point if SDIR believe they hold some sort of approval or assent right as per the contract, or have other contractual rights about the strip that Rangers has not complied with. If its the first the whole thing goes away very quickly. If its the second then given SDIR's form in dealings with Rangers they would be likely to pursue a legal remedy in which case we'll hear more of this. Just because the DR may have been discouraged from printing any story about this does not automatically mean that SDIR may not have an issue. It all depends what the contract says (because its still legally binding on Rangers) and the extent to which Rangers is complying with it and with the court judgment.

Maybe there is a question to be put to Gerrard and Allen about whether they really have delivered enough on their promise made at the end of the season about bringing in quality players. Marquee was the term I believe they used. This transfer window was not supposed to be about quantity of signings but about improving quality. Even if its believed to be the case that the additions (balanced with the leavers) results in an overall improvement in quality an open question would be whether the improvement has gone far enough. I don't think so at present. All that ST money from bigger than ever ST sales. Has enough been spent on adding the sort of quality players that would be likely to make the difference between being also rans in the league again and in actually winning a cup trophy and not shuffling out dismally through the knock-out phases? Maybe more of the quality marquee additions are still to come. And then again maybe not and the cash is just kept for another day and to help improve the appearance of the balance sheet (or for contract default payouts to SD and maybe yet Elite). At some point journos may get round to asking Gerrard whether his transfer budget and transfer plans have had to be trimmed because money is going to be diverted to pay out on Rangers defaulting on its contracts.

SG …..“We have got an advantage at the moment, but we wanted a bigger advantage. There is still work to do next week and I’ll pick a strong team to go and get that job done for us.” I'll take that to be less than deeply coded language for 'I'm fucking well not pleased with that. We should have scored more goals and we got out of away gaol jail thanks yet again to McGregor. The team tonight did not get the job done even though that's what they were picked to do and I'll need to pick a better team next week or we're out'. If P gets an early goal next week then there could still be a real risk this tie could be lost. Gerrard in the bushes arguing with Supporters is not where he will want to be. The side he picks needs to be far more clinical in taking goal scoring chances and with a no-nonsense, no risks defence. He's in charge of a side that failed to get enough of the job done last night to put the next leg into 'formality' territory. His players let him down and maybe he let them down with leaving subs until late in the game leaving them little time to make a more telling impact.