Reformation Bear

A world-respected football person who is Manager of a Club whose name and football success is known throughout the football world. He has earned the right to air his opinions on the state of the game and for those opinions to be respected and given serious consideration. He is trying to be helpful. But this is the narrow minded football wilderness of Scotland. He is a voice of sense in a football wilderness. Heard, views dismissed and quickly forgotten. His views may carry a lot more weight if Rangers actually manage to win the league title one of these seasons. If we don't under Gerrard's charge then his words about Scottish football will simply become a distant muse from a world-respected football person while the wilderbheasts of Scottish football continue to ply their shit-trade in front even emptier stands.

I agree. The article is gross as a supposed satirical effort. So gross as to be devoid of any reasonable interpretation of satire and more akin to someone trying to shovel as much anti-Rangers propaganda shit out as they can under the label of supposedly being satirical journalism. A state of satori-like enlightenment should help to sweep away these sorts of anti-Rangers articles. That should happen when we achieve 55 league titles sometime very soon, at which point his pathetic attempt at satire will look even more irrelevant.

Co-incidence I suppose that his form takes a noticeable uptick the closer it got to the end of the season and the end of his loan spell where the need to sort out future wage packet starts to come a bit more important perhaps. Also when the pressure was gone of having to play well to stay in proper contention for the league. It's up to Gerrard of course to manage the player next season in such a way that the very recent form is maintained or improved. We'll see how that turns out.

Maybe this is one of those circumstances where a trade-off of ambitions might happen. The player seemingly doesn't want any more loan deals and wants a permanent move somewhere. But if he gets that even that does not necessarily mean he'd get more first team football in a better quality club in better quality games than he does at Rangers. He's already got contractual security until (2022 is it?) with Liverpool so its not as if he's absolutely got to find another club this summer so he can pay his bills going forward. He's getting games at Rangers. Learning as well as excelling as his player of the year nominations demonstrate. Chances are that under Gerrard and an improving Rangers team he himself will improve as a player...….and improve his future transfer value. Staying - even on loan for another season - is not really a bad option for the player or for Liverpool unless waiting in the wings unknown to us is the attraction of playing for a bigger club and for more money with Liverpool cashing in on its asset. Chances are he is not affordable for Rangers to buy from Liverpool. But they may be open to a further loan extension if they don't have any better options open for the player to consider. So.……...unless there is a far better deal for the player about to unfold at another club or back at Liverpool itself (the latter seems unlikely to me) maybe another loan spell at Rangers is the compromise that suits everybody. Either that or Liverpool generously agree a lowish transfer fee and player reverts to Liverpool for a nominal fee at the end of his Rangers contract or Liverpool get a sell-on fee when Rangers sell him on. Point being we get the benefit of the player but not all (or maybe even much) of the future transfer value benefit. An extended loan would be simpler and benefit everybody and may prove to be better value than somehow trying to find enough money to buy him. Presumably the DoF is working on devising and putting suitable deal options that works for everyone.

They are never going to award this to Morelos. Not with is disciplinary record. It'd be absurd in the minds of those who dish out these awards to have a player of the year with so many red cards and games missed through suspension. It'd be seen as downright absurd by the media so it won't happen. As for Kent, they are never going to give player of the year to an on-loan player playing for Rangers. Won't happen. Their names are only added to the list as a oblique recognition that they could not simply be ignored. Its a false award process with a faked attempt at being serious.

I see from the Rangers website that Mark Allen is quoted as saying: "“We are committed to improving the strength of our squad and this is part of that process. There will be some departures and we hope for a few arrivals which will add greater quality.” If Hastie is seen as improving the strength of the squad then I don't see that. Who is he likely to replace that would register him as being an improvement? If Hastie is seen by Allen and Gerrard as improving on the existing quality then it seems to me to be a bit of a stretch of interpretation. Not just a marking time replacement for whoever leaves but actually improving? The player is untried and untested over a whole SPFL league season. The signing is more about placing a bet on future potential, not placing a more certain bet on a tried and tested Rangers-ready player who is demonstrably an improvement to the quality of the squad. But there we go. Clearly Gerrard and Allen see something in him (and in Jones) that convince them that these players will provide something of the added edge and contribute measurably to delivering the added consistency that is needed for title and cup wins. I hope that what they see is translated into the sorts of performances Rangers needs. We'll see next season whether their judgement in signing Hastie (and Jones) bears silverware fruit. I also hope further signings are made over the transfer period of players who are demonstrably of far better quality and experience than those departing and of those remaining.......real Rangers-ready players who really should be able to make silverware winning difference.

Nope. There's just a little bit of the optimist in me (not a usual thing!) that sometimes, just sometimes, a once in a generation sporting upset happens. I have in mind the cricket test match series England vs Australia game at Headingley in 1981 where England were written off as having no chance...….but came through to win. Realistically that won't happen in football terms for us this season......but until arithmetic makes it impossible there is a sliver of hope.

I know. But football is a funny old game as someone once said. I'm sure McInnes will not want his side to see the league title won by C.... on Aberdeen's home turf so maybe see a bit more effort from Aberdeen to beat C...… If that sort of pressure could be applied to C.... , and assuming we beat Hibs, then the OF game becomes a bit more spicy. Win that and well ........who knows.

Maybe the sheep will lay a glove on them next week and beat them.

Katic has shown / is showing he is adapting well enough to Scottish football in a Rangers shirt. Its a pity Barisic has not been able to demonstrate something similar.

Sounds to me like Gerrard has had enough and pointed them towards the exit door. Maybe a case of find yourselves another club or its kicking your heels on the very edges of Rangers training sessions with little chance of first team football for the rest of your contract, or farmed out to some unknown team in some remote football backwater even less prominent than Scottish football as Halliday experienced (albeit under a different manager). By going public it will presumably damage the potential transfer value but if they are effectively written off in Gerrard's assessment as players then the drop in transfer value potential is an inevitable consequence anyway as they'd not be getting much first team action unless there was some sort of remarkable improvement in whatever failings Gerrard is seeing in them. By going public it also sets out a bit of a marker for potential new recruits as he will be able to point out to these players that having ability and reputation count for fuck all if you do not have the right will-to-win every game mentality. It'll be clearer to them that they put in the right sort of shift hungry to win each game for the whole game and that's the deal. The pair of them are effectively put up for transfer it seems to me and the Club has already moved on. All that remains is for the exit out of the door.

Below text in italics is extracted from the Rangers report of SG's press conference earlier today (bits in bold by me): Gerrard is clearly still in a critical mood about the bounce game. He must surely know that eventually the names of those who were the biggest contributors to the embarrassment will be leaked (or accusations simply invented as the case might yet be). To be shown up by 'babies' as Gerrard puts it is quite a put down and the players affected will presumably be well aware of the Manager's views. The episode leaves the door wide open for conclusions to be reached that some players will have signalled their complete inability or unwillingness to respond to the managerial helm - this after nearly a full season with Gerrard as manager. That alone would be telling. Thing is though, is their embarrassment something each of them can recover from and put right in the eyes of the manager or they effectively gone but its just that the reality of going through the exit door has yet to take place. He continued: “Certain individuals’ performance, effort, commitment and desire was embarrassing for this football club. “A few within that did quite well. The idea of the game was for many reasons – for fitness as we use these bounce games to top people up with game-time and minutes – and there was also the fact we wanted to give Graham Dorrans some time and a good test for his knee coming back from injury. “Also, we wanted to test some young players in and around our first-team players, so for us, it was a very important game. We wanted to get a lot out of it, but unfortunately, we got very little out of the first half and it wasn’t until we introduced four babies really who are 17 or 18 where there was a massive improvement and a massive gulf in desire, commitment and effort and just wanting to play football."

He says he probably learnt more about the players in that 90mins than he has in the whole season. I don't think he confines that to just the development players either. Then we go from embarrassment in the first half to fantastic in the 2nd half. That's all a bit cryptic from Gerrard in the short video clip. It might have been more useful to have had a fuller interview / video clip provided somewhere. One which explained what he and the coaching staff learned from one game that they'd not learned in the entire season so far. Whatever it was must have been pretty profound for the manager to admit that the game had provided such a landmark learning experience for him. To swing from embarrassment in one half to fantastic in the second half would, it seems to me, tend to indicate that some or many of those who started the game did not take it anywhere near seriously enough and nowhere near as seriously as the manager himself seemed to take it. If, after nearly a full season under Gerrard, enough of the starting players have simply not absorbed enough of what Gerrard wants to see in a Rangers side even when its a bounce game then surely they have marked their own exit cards, or if not exit then dropped right out of serious contention for first team duties until the lesson is shown to have been learned. If the first half was an embarrassment then at the very least it marks some or all of those who started the game as being nowhere near professional enough. If that's the case then they should be asking themselves if they really should be plying their professional football trade at Rangers. PS - well done to those who came on in the 2nd half and put the effort in to turn it into a fantastic (Gerrard's word) 2nd half performance.

As I recall it there was a thread quite recently where it was reported he offered critical views at an event at Ibrox. If it was true and if so whether that's a form of toys out of pram episode is a matter of opinion. Other than his own opinion of his ability and value to Rangers the only opinions that really count as far as the player is concerned are those of Gerrard and Allen. Making his point in public is one thing but did he make his point privately first to Gerrard / Allen and in the same tone? If not then there is a case to argue that its akin to toys out of pram and an incident which I doubt Gerrard or Allen would be too pleased about. Whether part of the reason he gets the amount of game time he gets is down to some sort of attitude thing is something only the player and Gerrard / Allen will know. But I doubt if a player doing that is likely to be a positive influence for Gerrard. As Gerrard said after the Hearts game he does not pick players based on reputation (in relation to the upcoming choice of restoring Morelos or sticking with Defoe as first choice striker). I doubt if McCrorie would fare any better if he has been staking his claim too publicly. If Gerrard thought the player was that good and so vital to Rangers building a consistent run of winning games he'd be in the starting line up pretty much every week. Gerrard clearly thinks he's not at that level ……….yet.

Could be that Morelos does not get automatically restored to the starting line up after his suspension. Seems Gerrard is quoted as saying ……."There's a player playing with high confidence, creating chances and scoring goals,"...……..."There's a challenge there now. That's the way Rangers should be, we should have options - especially this area."...…….."I don't pick on reputation and name," Gerrard said. If the plan is to let him move on in the summer transfer window if a suitable bid comes in then its maybe only now a bit of a cameo 'farewell to the fans' role in the last home game. As Gerrard says, he's now got a proper challenge going for the striker role. Pity that could not have happened back in January but that was not to be.

It'd need to be the Scottish football equivalent of the once in a generation sporting upset of cricket's England vs Australia - Headingley 1981. Nobody expected England to win back then but they did.

Seems to me Gerrard feels compelled to make adaptations to the way the team is set up and plays for games when he doesn't have the option of selecting Morelos. Whether that is better or not is harder to say imo. We've certainly been very reliant on goals from Morelos, maybe even over-reliant. And when Morelos is removed from the pitch - which has happened a lot - or when he's not eligible because of suspension (again a lot) the team until very recently does not seem to have been able to adapt well to not having Morelos. But surely Morelos will be gone in Summer and if that's the case then its down to what selection choices Gerrard will have for strikers for next season. Clearly - unless something happens to change things - Defoe will be there. Not so sure about Lafferty though. Maybe one or two of the development team strikers might be brought into the first team squad and then its down to what other (affordable) striker Gerrard and Allen can tempt to join Defoe at Ibrox for next season. The debate about the team being better with or without Morelos might have only 4 more games to go to run to a conclusion.

He's worked to get himself fitter (match fitness) and sharper and a bit more tuned in again to what's needed when playing for Rangers. Let's see how he does in the last 4 games which should be decent challenges. Still suspect Gerrard will want to keep him at Ibrox for next season - if he can be afforded that is.

You are of course entitled to your opinion and for that opinion to have a degree of respect. Although I'm sure you are aware there are probably plenty of Bears may disagree with it though. What I think we can all agree on though is on the hope that at some future season the Club will see league title honours again and some cup wins.

Noted. I don't think there' there's anything more to say about this that will profit anyone here on this forum or elsewhere for that matter.

They'd gotten pretty used to seeing a successful side that's for sure, having seen enough seasons in their lifetime of near empty Ibrox so the thought of returning to those days was there too. The latter part of the Murray era then the dumping down to Div 3 was hard for them to take, plus losing out on shares they held and on the debenture investment. At ages when the dark days looked like taking a very long time to recover from - that's still the case - they just stopped going and the first thing they did was stop buying STs. I visit some from time to time. They still have their proud pictures framed on the wall - photos of themselves with Souness and others, proud memories of great days. But the damage back then in their minds was done, made more acute by being dumped down to Div 3 - something none of them agreed with. Bear in mind also the whole story of what happened from a Rangers point of view has never really come out. All the facts are known by Rangers, all the notes of meetings and so on but never a full Rangers account of what happened. It'd be easy enough to criticise them, or to somehow paint them as being lesser Bears these days because they gave up their STs and only go to occasional games. They way I look at it nowadays is its great the Club has been able to attract the volume of ST holders it does even without winning any major trophy since 2010/11 so those who gave up their STs and who gave up following home (and in some cases away) every week make their choice, which is fair enough in the circumstances as they saw it and still see it.

Depends on what is meant by 'many'. I know around a dozen older Bears who have not renewed STs since then and only gone to the occasional home game. Supporters who'd held ST's for many decades. In speaking to them from time to time they've not changed their opinion. They still follow, but nowhere near as keenly in terms of going to matches.

So a Croatian international player isn't good enough for Scottish football? Staggering. Could say the same for Grezda. Is the message here that they are good enough footballers - good enough to play at full international level - and in one case for Croatia for fucks sake, but that somehow something in their game just does not work for Scottish football at Rangers? If that's the case it says more about Scottish football - and Rangers inability to pick players that have a very strong probability of adapting to Scottish football - than it does about the players themselves. With one exception. The exception being that the players themselves just do not like playing or living in Scotland and if that's the case then no matter how capable they are as players at international level their heart would not be in it and they'd not be giving their all at club level. Is that the case with these 2 players? If they go then it almost doesn't matter which so-called marquee or even squad players are brought in - even if they are all experienced internationals - immediately they start in the eyes of many with the assumption that they won't be able to hack it at Rangers or in Scotland. That seems to be the way it is in Scotland.

No surprise there. It's probably time he left football management behind and enjoyed retirement with the odd bit of football punditry to help pay for his annual holidays. As for who succeeds him - I don't care. They've distanced themselves so far from Rangers that I don't readily see any meaningful contribution Rangers would make to a Scottish international team. Sure there is representation at lower age levels...…….just to keep us linked in a loose and not too meaningful way to Scottish international football. But as for meaningful influence at senior team level - no chance in my view. The SFA preside over institutional failure at all levels of Scottish football. Its the way they are and there is zero prospect imo of any turnround. In any other industry accountable to shareholders that sort of institutionalised failing would see their chiefs and execs hounded out. If Scotland they sit fat, dumb, well paid and beyond accountability.

I'm flying a kite here. If one the one hand: its the case that when we go to Rugby Park there is a near or actual certainty that we take up all of the tickets allocated to us; but when Kilmarnock come to Ibrox its nowhere near the case that they take their full allocation ........then require them to pay up front for the full allocation for each Ibrox game with payment in full by a set deadline date and failure to pay in full on time meaning they forfeit all of their allocation......which we then sell to Rangers support and fill the stadium ourselves. Either way Rangers gets full revenue for Ibrox games whether or not Kilmarnock take their full allocation. And if Kilmarnock retaliate in kind its no big deal for the Club to pay up front as it knows it will sell the full allocation to the Rangers Support - so not a financial risk. There are probably rules that prevent this but it might be a way of hitting clubs in the pocket if they are going to get into this denial of normal full allocation of tickets game.