Follow Follow Rangers. Season 2024/25

[WeWereThePeople]

[Monkey Tennis]

4 minutes ago, WeWereThePeople said:

Again?

 Gosh, that's quite an admission of defeat.

Twice now, you've been invited to explain how the wider game benefits from a title race.  Twice now, you have utterly failed to provide any evidence in support of the claim at all.

It's probably best if you once more slither away.

[thepundit]

1 hour ago, BawWatchin said:

Perhaps you can explain how the two horse race has benefited the other clubs in Scottish Football in the past? Can't say this one horse race has really had any impact on the overall quality of the game. It was pish before and it's equally as pish now.

Putting aside the fact you're being whooshed by a 'Rangers fan', didn't the TV companies renegotiate the deal when Rangers were in the 2nd Division in 2012? I'm sure the chairmen at the likes of St Mirren and Well even said so at the time.

I'm not saying the duopoly at the top of the league (shout out to MT) brings in the money but both Rangers and Celtic at least being in the same league makes a difference to the finances of all Premiership clubs. 

[Monkey Tennis]

27 minutes ago, thepundit said:

Putting aside the fact you're being whooshed by a 'Rangers fan', didn't the TV companies renegotiate the deal when Rangers were in the 2nd Division in 2012? I'm sure the chairmen at the likes of St Mirren and Well even said so at the time.

I'm not saying the duopoly at the top of the league (shout out to MT) brings in the money but both Rangers and Celtic at least being in the same league makes a difference to the finances of all Premiership clubs. 

A slightly more reasonable take.  

What the breaking of the duopoly actually achieved was that the top flight and the other  national divisions again moved back under the same banner.  That had a lot to do with bringing in money to screen Rangers games.  What became clear was that being able to show both Rangers and Celtic playing matches, mattered to a TV deal; but being able to show actual OF fixtures mattered less than up  to then thought.  

Another  benefit of the duopoly being broken, was that the prize money became less unfairly distributed at the top of the game.  We also saw a relaxation of previously punitive stadium criteria for the top flight.  Clubs in lower divisions also benefited from the Rangers pound, although this is somewhat offset by the fact that chances of league success were temporarily diminished.

We could also throw in of course that many clubs benefited in terms of Cup success by having only one very much stronger club in the way, rather than two.  Indeed, the period of Rangers' exile saw an unprecedented sharing of the Cups with three separate clubs winning their first ever.

I think you'll agree that it's much easier to construct a case for how the wider game benefited from the breaking of the duopoly; than our friend has found it to build one around how we can possibly benefit from having it re-established.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Monkey Tennis

[Ken Fitlike]

Putting aside the fact you're being whooshed by a 'Rangers fan', didn't the TV companies renegotiate the deal when Rangers were in the 2nd Division in 2012? I'm sure the chairmen at the likes of St Mirren and Well even said so at the time.
I'm not saying the duopoly at the top of the league (shout out to MT) brings in the money but both Rangers and Celtic at least being in the same league makes a difference to the finances of all Premiership clubs. 

I hope the current version of 'Rangers' stay solvent in order for this financial TV benefit to continue.

[thepundit]

5 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

A slightly more reasonable take.  

What the breaking of the duopoly actually achieved was that the top flight and the other  national divisions again moved back under the same banner.  That had a lot to do with bringing in money to screen Rangers games.  What became clear was that being able to show both Rangers and Celtic playing matches, mattered to a TV deal; but being able to show actual OF fixtures mattered less than up  to then thought.  

Another  benefit of the duopoly being broken, was that the prize money became less unfairly distributed at the top of the game.  We also saw a relaxation of previously punitive stadium criteria for the top flight.  Clubs in lower divisions also benefited from the Rangers pound, although this is somewhat offset by the fact that chances of league success were temporarily diminished.

We could also throw in of course that many clubs benefited in terms of Cup success by having only one very much stronger club in the way, rather than two.  Indeed, the period of Rangers' exile saw an unprecedented sharing of the Cups with three separate clubs winning their first ever.

I think you'll agree that it's much easier to construct a case for how the wider game benefited from the breaking of the duopoly; than our friend has found it to build one around how we can possibly benefit from having it re-established.

Those clubs who won cups have created a false narrative. The fact that no other club has even come close to winning the league would back that up.

The duopoly may have been broken but all that was left was a monopoly.

 

5 hours ago, Ken Fitlike said:

5 hours ago, thepundit said:

Putting aside the fact you're being whooshed by a 'Rangers fan', didn't the TV companies renegotiate the deal when Rangers were in the 2nd Division in 2012? I'm sure the chairmen at the likes of St Mirren and Well even said so at the time.
I'm not saying the duopoly at the top of the league (shout out to MT) brings in the money but both Rangers and Celtic at least being in the same league makes a difference to the finances of all Premiership clubs. 

I hope the current version of 'Rangers' stay solvent in order for this financial TV benefit to continue.

I don't think it'll matter that much to the Dons but I agree with you.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, thepundit said:

Those clubs who won cups have created a false narrative. The fact that no other club has even come close to winning the league would back that up.

The duopoly may have been broken but all that was left was a monopoly.

What's false about it?

The entire point is that the duopoly might as well be a monopoly because the two clubs have historically acted in concert and are far more similar than followers of either tend to recognise.  

As it is, better challenges were put in during Rangers' exile than anyone mustered during their first year 'back', the first in a long while that saw all the trophies head to Glasgow.

It is genuinely healthier for our game to have one massive club than two.  It would be yet healthier to have none.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Monkey Tennis

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Having Rangers out of the loop for a while was clearly a good thing for Scottish Football

It allowed Celtic to rack up more titles so it was good for them

It allowed Motherwell to be in the Champions League draw so it was good for them

It delivered cash windfalls to the treasurers of part time clubs across the lower divisions so that’s a good thing

It made Hearts 2014/15 championship win more entertaining which was good for us

It kept Hibs down for an extra year which is good for everybody

The SPFL should consider improving Scottish football by consigning Celtic to the wilderness for a few years

It’s their turn after all

Maybe let them have a shot at getting 10 in a row first

[The Equalizer]

On ‎3‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 05:12, WeWereThePeople said:

Ok, I'll humour you.

A duopoly by it's very definition is better than a monopoly. It shares the wealth at the top of the tree. The effect of this is trickle down economics, as I previously mentioned. A real life example would be teams challenging each other buying players from smaller teams, e.g, Docherty from Hamilton, and the boy the the unwashed bought from Dundee recently. This helps balance the books of diddy teams. Hamilton or Dundee may then buy one of your diddy players for say 100k. This helps balance your books. You then pay say 20k for a diddy player from a lower league team. This helps balance their books.

This all stems from money created and shared at the top of tree. With a monopoly, which is where we were heading before Murty stopped the rot, there would be quite different results. The top team would grow so rich that they could afford to shop in better markets, England for example. This already happened to an extent, but has been slowed somewhat by Rangers return.

If you want to make a case for income being shared more equitably between Scottish teams, then I would fully support that, but it's not really how  the free market works. Football is a product, and like any product, it thrives with healthy competition, in theory to the benefit of everyone. If you're hoping for some utopian model, then you'll have  a very long wait. The competition model is far from perfect, but it's the best system humans have so far devised.

In summary, title races are good for everyone, even diddies.  Taking away financial issues, we all want to see good sport, and title races provide this, even for neutrals. You all claim to hate the 'old firm' but you'll all be tuning in, even if just to have a moan about the singing.

Can we now get back to keeping the thread on topic, which is Rangers playing fantastic football and storming their way to a possible 55 record titles.

Celtic have made their money from consistently qualifying for Europe's top competition. Rangers have had no impact, for better or worse, on Celtics finances since they returned to the top tier.

 

Even if Rangers win the league for the next 3 years in a row but fail to qualify for the Champions league, we won't have closed the financial gap. You are talking pish.

[Monkey Tennis]

27 minutes ago, The Equalizer said:

Celtic have made their money from consistently qualifying for Europe's top competition. Rangers have had no impact, for better or worse, on Celtics finances since they returned to the top tier.

 

Even if Rangers win the league for the next 3 years in a row but fail to qualify for the Champions league, we won't have closed the financial gap. You are talking pish.

All correct.

The reality is that during the 'monopoly' spell, Celtic entered a period of decline of their own.  Their gates suffered, they kept losing cup ties, they failed to make the CL group stages and were largely unconvincing in their ultimately successful league campaigns.  They were sinking back towards the pack.

The 'return' of Rangers however, prompted Celtic to get their act together, employ a decent manager and create much more of a one horse race last season, than there had been in the previous five.  They also won both cups.  More significantly, they also started pocketing CL fortunes.  This season obviously looks a bit different leaguewise and I'd expect Celtic to spend a lot this summer in an attempt to re-assert their dominance.

What the existence of the duopoly does is instigate an arms race that casts the others further adrift.   Once more, anyone concerned with the welfare of our game, should bemoan any signs that the conditions prevalent for the first decade of this century, might be returning.  

Edited March 4, 2018 by Monkey Tennis

[The Equalizer]

29 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

All correct.

The reality is that during the 'monopoly' spell, Celtic entered a period of decline of their own.  Their gates suffered, they kept losing cup ties, they failed to make the CL group stages and were largely unconvincing in their ultimately successful league campaigns.  They were sinking back towards the pack.

The 'return' of Rangers however, prompted Celtic to get their act together, employ a decent manager and create much more of a one horse race last season, than there had been in the previous five.  They also won both cups.  More significantly, they also started pocketing CL fortunes.  This season obviously looks a bit different leaguewise and I'd expect Celtic to spend a lot this summer in an attempt to re-assert their dominance.

What the existence of the duopoly does is instigate an arms race that casts the others further adrift.   Once more, anyone concerned with the welfare of our game, should bemoan any signs that the conditions prevalent for the first decade of this century, might be returning.  

I'm highly encouraged by the league table as it stands. I don't expect us to beat Celtic in the remaining games but the fact is it's not inconceivable that we could win it this year. That's more than I could have hoped for at the start of the season. I fear you are correct though, Celtic didn't really stand on our throat when we were down and out but the reality is they can afford to let us get close and then push away considerably any time they like.

As far as the original argument goes, I believe there is something in between the two stances, maybe it's romanticism on my part but look at Leicester. Remember Burley at Hearts before Vlad went off the reservation? What would Utd look like if they still had Gauld, GMS, Armstrong and the like? It wouldn't take a miracle to break the trend.

All it takes is a good manager who is not scared to lose heavily in pursuit of the big victories, who believes in  his team and the way they play, a bit of luck in the transfer market coupled with  a core group of players who kick on at the right time and a  Chairman with a pair of balls big enough to stave off the inevitable January bids if it looks like his team could actually do something. Speaking as a Rangers fan I'd be delighted for the game if someone outwith the Old Firm won the league (provided it wasn't Aberdeen).

[The_Kincardine]

Good post-match interview from Murty - reflecting on today's game and looking forward to our next.  Looks like he was frustrated, too.

 

[dafcburty]

For anyone interested, I recently conducted an interview with Fraser Aird for the Official DAFC Match-Day Programme. The article looks back at Fraser's career, which includes his beginning with Rangers and growing up at Ibrox. He also speaks briefly about his spells in the MLS with Vancouver Whitecaps, his switch to Falkirk; selecting Canada at international level and then scoring versus Scotland while Aird also reflects on his time at the Pars so far and his hopes for the future. 

The article can be found, here:

https://jordanburtfootball.com/2018/03/04/it-was-an-unbelievable-night-is-a-moment-i-will-never-forget-for-the-rest-of-my-life-fraser-aird/

[The_Kincardine]

7 hours ago, dafcburty said:

For anyone interested, I recently conducted an interview with Fraser Aird for the Official DAFC Match-Day Programme. The article looks back at Fraser's career, which includes his beginning with Rangers and growing up at Ibrox. He also speaks briefly about his spells in the MLS with Vancouver Whitecaps, his switch to Falkirk; selecting Canada at international level and then scoring versus Scotland while Aird also reflects on his time at the Pars so far and his hopes for the future. 

The article can be found, here:

https://jordanburtfootball.com/2018/03/04/it-was-an-unbelievable-night-is-a-moment-i-will-never-forget-for-the-rest-of-my-life-fraser-aird/

Really good piece, buddy, and thanks for posting it.

I was at Ibrox (no, I was) when we beat Motherwell 2-0 in the LC and young Aird ran the show.  A very mature performance from him.  I'm not sure if it was bad management or the morass we found ourselves in but he never kicked on from there.  I still think he was one that got away.

How's he doing with your mob?

[dafcburty]

7 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

Really good piece, buddy, and thanks for posting it.

I was at Ibrox (no, I was) when we beat Motherwell 2-0 in the LC and young Aird ran the show.  A very mature performance from him.  I'm not sure if it was bad management or the morass we found ourselves in but he never kicked on from there.  I still think he was one that got away.

How's he doing with your mob?

Firstly, I completely agree with what you are saying; Aird looked like a player who had a lot of talent and potential when he broke through at Rangers.  When yous were in League One alongside Dunfermline he was a player who always made an impression for me and I was surprised he fell out of favour under Warburton. 

You don't get capped for Canada 8 times unless you have something about you IMO. Especially not at as young an age as Fraser was and is. I don't know if it is because he can play in various positions and he didn't progress and develop as much as he had envisaged due to being utilised in a couple of positions while at Ibrox or if he in the end was simply just not good enough and he has lost his way a little bit. 

What I will say though is that he had a reasonably successful time in the MLS with Vancouver but failed to make the grade at Falkirk. 

He then moved to the Pars in the summer and I was happy to see him sign on. He played a couple of days later away to Livingston on the opening day of the league season and was hooked after 30-35 minutes. He started the game poorly and failed to win over the fans straight away with that performance. Since then, he's been in and out of the team, albeit mainly out. He's been on the bench the majority of the season but very rarely comes on; when he does get a chance though, I feel he does alright. 

When Joe Cardle got injured around 6 weeks into the season and was riled out for two months, Aird looked as though he'd get his break. He started on the left vs Livi at EEP and scored a screamer - cutting inside and curling the ball past Neil Alexander into the top former. He then played a couple more tomes before getting dropped again. 

In our last match, away to Queen of the South, he was left out of the 18-man squad completely and wasn't injured, ill or suspended. 

For whatever reason, at Falkirk and now with Dunfermline, he's failing to make an impression. He seems to show flashes of quality but seems too inconsistent to really hold his own in the Championship right now. Is it confidence? After speaking to him, I'd say no: he seemed to have plenty self-belief. Is it frustration? Possibly. IMO, Aird would be expecting to play most weeks at this level for clubs like Falkirk and Dunfermline. If he isn't playing well or isn't being given a fair opportunity, he may have become so disillusioned that he is either trying too hard or he is showing a poor attitude and isn't willing to fight for his place. 

A couple of weeks ago, he was in the Dunfermline Press stating he felt he deretved his chance and he wasn't being given it....some saw this as a positive, as who would be happy with a player sitting on the bench or in the stands picking up a wage every week? But, some saw it as a negative as they viewed it as Aird having a dig at the manager. Personally, I think Fraser has done enough to be given more opportunities and there's a chance he is annoyed with his current squad status - and understandably so, you can argue. I also think that something else must be going on as why else would he suddenly drop out of the match-day squad altogether for no reason. 

He signed a 1-year deal with the option of another but I can't see him sticking around in Fife past May unless something dramatically changes soon. It is a shame as I feel he is a player who can forge a good career for himself but for whatever reason, he's lost his way in Scotland. A move back to the MLS for example may be the ideal route for Aird to kick-start his career again. He just needs someone to believe in him. I think if he was with yous right now, he'd be at the top of his game as Murty would have him in the right frame of mind: for Fraser's sake, I hope he comes back fighting and helps Dunfermline end the season well as that may just be able to reignite his appetite and get back to top-form. 

Edited March 7, 2018 by dafcburty

[ilostmyself]

Firstly, I completely agree with what you are saying; Aird looked like a player who had a lot of talent and potential when he broke through at Rangers.  When yous were in League One alongside Dunfermline he was a player who always made an impression for me and I was surprised he fell out of favour under Warburton. 

You don't get capped for Canada 8 times unless you have something about you IMO. Especially not at as young an age as Fraser was and is. I don't know if it is because he can play in various positions and he didn't progress and develop as much as he had envisaged due to being utilised in a couple of positions while at Ibrox or if he in the end was simply just not good enough and he has lost his way a little bit. 

What I will say though is that he had a reasonably successful time in the MLS with Vancouver but failed to make the grade at Falkirk. 

He then moved to the Pars in the summer and I was happy to see him sign on. He played a couple of days later away to Livingston on the opening day of the league season and was hooked after 30-35 minutes. He started the game poorly and failed to win over the fans straight away with that performance. Since then, he's been in and out of the team, albeit mainly out. He's been on the bench the majority of the season but very rarely comes on; when he does get a chance though, I feel he does alright. 

When Joe Cardle got injured around 6 weeks into the season and was riled out for two months, Aird looked as though he'd get his break. He started on the left vs Livi at EEP and scored a screamer - cutting inside and curling the ball past Neil Alexander into the top former. He then played a couple more tomes before getting dropped again. 

In our last match, away to Queen of the South, he was left out of the 18-man squad completely and wasn't injured, ill or suspended. 

For whatever reason, at Falkirk and now with Dunfermline, he's failing to make an impression. He seems to show flashes of quality but seems too inconsistent to really hold his own in the Championship right now. Is it confidence? After speaking to him, I'd say no: he seemed to have plenty self-belief. Is it frustration? Possibly. IMO, Aird would be expecting to play most weeks at this level for clubs like Falkirk and Dunfermline. If he isn't playing well or isn't being given a fair opportunity, he may have become so disillusioned that he is either trying too hard or he is showing a poor attitude and isn't willing to fight for his place. 

A couple of weeks ago, he was in the Dunfermline Press stating he felt he deretved his chance and he wasn't being given it....some saw this as a positive, as who would be happy with a player sitting on the bench or in the stands picking up a wage every week? But, some saw it as a negative as they viewed it as Aird having a dig at the manager. Personally, I think Fraser has done enough to be given more opportunities and there's a chance he is annoyed with his current squad status - and understandably so, you can argue. I also think that something else must be going on as why else would he suddenly drop out of the match-day squad altogether for no reason. 

He signed a 1-year deal with the option of another but I can't see him sticking around in Fife past May unless something dramatically changes soon. It is a shame as I feel he is a player who can forge a good career for himself but for whatever reason, he's lost his way in Scotland. A move back to the MLS for example may be the ideal route for Aird to kick-start his career again. He just needs someone to believe in him. I think if he was with yous right now, he'd be at the top of his game as Murty would have him in the right frame of mind: for Fraser's sake, I hope he comes back fighting and helps Dunfermline end the season well as that may just be able to reignite his appetite and get back to top-form. 

 

Decent assessment of Airds career so far. When we signed him last year I thought he'd be excellent for us but ultimately he was non existent for large portions of games and didn't seem willing or able to track back or even beat a man.

I wonder if he may have had it too easy coming through at Rangers when they were pumping teams in the lower leagues and he hasn't developed as much as he could have against better opposition. I imagine he'll get another full time contract somewhere based on his reputation but his performances in the Championship for both of our clubs don't really merit it. Maybe a move out of Scotland as you say might do him good.

 

[bennett]

No, it's not from Philip or John james. It's from the express

 

SIR David Murray is considering a shock move to invest in Rangers again.

The former chairman stepped down and sold his Ibrox shareholding for £1 to Craig Whyte in 2011. But it’s understood Murray is weighing up a move to buy back into the club.

He could buy out existing shareholders or try to muscle in on the upcoming share issue – if the current board give him the go-ahead. Rangers are set to announce a share issue but it is unlikely to be a public flotation.

The move was passed at the club’s last AGM, but shares would only be offered to existing shareholders and preferred purchasers. Current chairman Dave King may be reluctant to allow Murray to buy into the club again.

The pair had an uneasy relationship when King lost millions when he initially invested under Murray first time around. It could all come down to the level of investment Murray would be prepared to offer.

[Florentine_Pogen]

No, it's not from Philip or John james. It's from the express

Fuxake Vicky, McGobbldeegook and even yon JJ mentalist have more kudos than that Tory comic.
Get a feckin’ grip, man..............????

[C4mmy31]

Do these Jurno's lie in bed at night dreaming up shite or whit? I'm sure he'll be welcomed back with open arms [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]....

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/928693/EXCLUSIVE-Rangers-Sir-David-Murray-Scottish-Premiership/amp?__twitter_impression=true

 

 

[Monkey Tennis]

5 hours ago, C4mmy31 said:

Do these Jurno's lie in bed at night dreaming up shite or whit? I'm sure he'll be welcomed back with open arms ....

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/928693/EXCLUSIVE-Rangers-Sir-David-Murray-Scottish-Premiership/amp?__twitter_impression=true

 

 

I honestly believe that a significant constituency would welcome him back.  If he was talking of ploughing in money, that constituency would be overwhelming.

Remember that King wasn't just welcomed back, but was hailed as a messiah.  Wildly discredited figures like Johnson and that potless Murray have been back too.  Walter Smith, he who in the words of Tom English, arrived at a funeral with a defibrillator after liquidation, became a puppet chairman and many subsequently wanted him as manager.  The much hated Naismith was also courted.

Welcoming back Murray would also help with sustaining the myth that what befell Rangers was an external Act of God in Whyte.

This story might well be absolute bollocks of course.  But don't underestimate the capacity of Rangers fans to duck any notion of principle, if it's perceived as being of advantage.