England v Scotland

[Malcolm Malcolm]

1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said:

Eh?  In a thread that has descended in to utter shite this is the squirt of diarrhoea on the top.

You don't think the David Murray nine-in-a-row period is quite important to Rangers' identity? No? 

Or do you just want to talk about poo?

[Malcolm Malcolm]

10 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

You can't blame the currently shit Scotland team on them though. So rest easy on that count Rangers fans.

I partially do. They started it.

[The_Kincardine]

6 minutes ago, Malcolm Malcolm said:

You don't think the David Murray nine-in-a-row period is quite important to Rangers' identity? No? 

Or do you just want to talk about poo?

I see you've moved your stance from ' integral' to 'quite important'.  Good boy.  Lots of posters just dig their heels in and look foolish.

[Malcolm Malcolm]

Just now, The_Kincardine said:

I see you've moved your stance from ' integral' to 'quite important'.  Good boy.  Lots of posters just dig their heels in and look foolish.

It was a sarcastic understatement. Just about everyone I know who is a Rangers fan (I'm in my 30s) became a fan during and because of the trophy glut in that period. Glory hunters, you see.

I hope it's clear from previous posts that I'm willing to give credit in a debate when someone makes a strong opposing argument though. 54_and_counting has made some very solid points TBH.

[Monkey Tennis]

7 hours ago, Tartantony said:

Had to jump in here as this is another example of Rangers fans being blind to what Murray was up to from day 1.

Between 1988 and 1998, Rangers made a profit 3 times and accumulated losses in the region of £20m during that time. They had net current and deferred liabilities in the region of £40m around 1996. They were in big trouble and in 1997 Murray sold off some shares and raised capital of about £40m which only aided to mask the deep lying problems. After that it was back to business as usual until they went bust in 2012.

Murray never used a penny of his own money, Rangers did not make enough money from gate receipts and merchandise to cover the huge spending that was going on, they were given bank loans and massive overdrafts because the Banking industry had absolutely no care for liquidity risk. The minute the crash happened in 2007/08, there was no coming back for Rangers. 20 years of mis-management was never going to recover and when the ship had taken on too much water Murray abandoned it and let someone else take the flak.

How Rangers fans don't solely blame this guy is beyond me.

There was no blindness in the post you answered though.  It was to do with the original moves for Butcher, Woods etc being affordable.

You're talking about later purchases and nobody's arguing about those at all.

[The_Kincardine]

6 minutes ago, Malcolm Malcolm said:

It was a sarcastic understatement.

Well try and clarify.  Was 9IAR 'integral' or 'quite important'. 

[Officer Barbrady]

17 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Whoever said above that Rangers fans are utterly wedded to the idea of a rich man with a chequebook giving the manager a war-chest is bang on the money. That's what most of these fans experience of supporting their club is and they can't move past it. When Rangers went bust I thought, maybe something good could happen here, maybe they could build a future with fans involvement, maybe they could make a break from the past, maybe they could leave bigotry behind, use their big fan base to get involved, build a club from the ground up, develop young players, doe something positive. When David Moyes took over at Everton he said that they were the "People's Club" and Rangers could've built that. They might not have succeeded overtaking Celtic but they'd have a cob to be proud of in the long term.

But nope, they are worse in just about every count. Rather than build an inclusive ownership model, they rely on sugar daddies who, shock horror, turn out to be shysters. The atmosphere and bigotry is worse to be honest, the two games at Ibrox I've seen since 2012 have been poison, worse than before. And even on the pitch they've been shite.

The reason, of course, is that a large number of their fans don't care about their club, not the way that other fans do. They care about getting it up Celtic, about the shallow false community built from singing the party songs. That's why they can't try and build a sustainable club, they HAVE to play catch up, they HAVE to try and get big name signings because that's Rangers. But ultimately, it's all hollow. Chances are they'll never catch Celtic, barring a misstep from the Celtic board. More likely that they end up in financial trouble again. It's a missed opportunity but Rangers only have themselves to blame.

I had a post touching on this half-written, but wanted to avoid even more whataboutery and paranoia than already exists. So i binned it. 

 

Absolutely right. You can see it in their eyes, that they know they've been found out for what they are. Some were delighted at the liquidation, if it meant a clean slate; that's the sort of sub-human shite which attatches itself to the culture Rangers represent.

 

 

[Malcolm Malcolm]

8 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

There was no blindness in the post you answered though.  It was to do with the original moves for Butcher, Woods etc being affordable.

You're talking about later purchases and nobody's arguing about those at all.

It's very hard to get to the bottom of things where David Murray is concerned. I know a couple of older guys who have done business with him on behalf of major companies and that's the big issue with the guy. I'm honestly not sure what affordable means or has meant in the past in the context of Murray International.

Think about it this way. The England captain turns down Manchester United and moves to Scotland at the peak of his career. That's a bit odd, no?

[Malcolm Malcolm]

2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Well try and clarify.  Was 9IAR 'integral' or 'quite important'. 

It's absolutely integral to the club's identity – Rangers would be a different club without it.

[Monkey Tennis]

46 minutes ago, Officer Barbrady said:

The fault of the current state of affairs, lies entirely with the governing bodies' failure to ever address the clubs who were continually pissing money away in plain sight.

 

In the case of 1872-2012, they were definitely considered one of the two Golden geese. The reaction to their well known problems was farcical, let alone the fallout when the inevitable occurred. It's almost as if the powers-that-don't-be in the corridors were desperate to keep Kinning Park's seat warm for them, after failing to bully the clubs into wrong and hasty decisions (of which a lot of Rangers fans were glad for, incidentally) but the truth is the clubs have hung on to the coattails of the Cheeks for as long as the SFA have bent over backwards for them. 

 

Arseholes like Strachan and Boyd can go on all they like about Rangers not being in the top flight all they like, but that's only to appease the complete retards on Superscoreboard and the Record Hotline, nothing to do with how it has damaged the game to the point its at right now. 

 

And it's not Souness' fault either. The clubs got themselves in the mess, and then fucked up when they tried to branch out with SPL TV. Those bitching about the OF hegemony, were only to quick to pull the ladder up themselves. Marr, Yorkston, Boyle, Robinson, every one an arsehole. 

Spot on.

The creation of the SPL did more damage than Rangers' antics.  

[The_Kincardine]

6 minutes ago, Malcolm Malcolm said:

It's absolutely integral to the club's identity – Rangers would be a different club without it.

Right.  How does that work?  Especially for we who follow followed long before 9IAR?

[Malcolm Malcolm]

1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Spot on.

The creation of the SPL did more damage than Rangers' antics.  

Oh, don't even get me started on Roger Mitchell. Bear in mind my broader point – Mitchell and Souness have similar values, and both believe that the Old Firm should leave Scottish football and we should all accept that steep decline outside of that is inevitable. Therefore, I'm not willing to listen to Souness mouthing off about the national side.

[Malcolm Malcolm]

2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Right.  How does that work?  Especially for we who follow followed long before 9IAR?

For everyone who isn't pensionable the Murray years will be a huge chunk of their experience of Rangers. 

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute ago, Malcolm Malcolm said:

Oh, don't even get me started on Roger Mitchell. Bear in mind my broader point – Mitchell and Souness have similar values, and both believe that the Old Firm should leave Scottish football and we should all accept that steep decline outside of that is inevitable. Therefore, I'm not willing to listen to Souness mouthing off about the national side.

Absolutely.  

Both are vile blokes.  I just don't think that - although what Rangers did wasn't healthy - it had the direct bearing on our international demise that's being claimed.

[Officer Barbrady]

Much as it was an obvious, and unfortunately natural progression, it was the single worst thing to have ever happened in Scottish sport. This was done in an era when the FAPL was still within a reasonable distance of reality, let alone a pie in the sky attempt at a slice of the pie for Scottish clubs. 

 

Our Big Five were often at the front of queues to form any sort of league (Scottish/British Super League with Utd, Spurs, Everton Liverpool and Arsenal, European league, fucking Embryo League most likely too) long, long before the fallout with the SFL. Which, it has to be said......thrived without the hassle those greedy b*****ds created. 

[Malcolm Malcolm]

Just now, Monkey Tennis said:

Absolutely.  

Both are vile blokes.  I just don't think that - although what Rangers did wasn't healthy - it had the direct bearing on our international demise that's being claimed.

It was the first big indicator of a broader cultural shift away from what had been a quite healthy football environment. 

[Monkey Tennis]

15 minutes ago, Malcolm Malcolm said:

It's very hard to get to the bottom of things where David Murray is concerned. I know a couple of older guys who have done business with him on behalf of major companies and that's the big issue with the guy. I'm honestly not sure what affordable means or has meant in the past in the context of Murray International.

Think about it this way. The England captain turns down Manchester United and moves to Scotland at the peak of his career. That's a bit odd, no?

Murray wasn't part of it initially.

You won't find me defending that man on anything.  Of course, it was characterised by arrogance from the off, but it's also worth noting that it wasn't until a few years after 1986 that Rangers reached an unassailable position and by then the flimsy credit driven Murray behaviour was established.

Rangers did win the League in Souness' first season, but it was tight and they lost out the next year.  It also took until 1992 for them to win the Cup.  I suppose I'm trying to draw a clearer distinction between the pre Murray era and the Murray one itself.  

[Monkey Tennis]

8 minutes ago, Malcolm Malcolm said:

It was the first big indicator of a broader cultural shift away from what had been a quite healthy football environment. 

That's possibly fair, but it was only one of several, some of which were more significant.

[Malcolm Malcolm]

Just now, Monkey Tennis said:

Murray wasn't part of it initially.

You won't find me defending that man on anything.  Of course, it was characterised by arrogance from the off, but it's also worth noting that it wasn't until a few years after 1986 that Rangers reached an unassailable position and by then the flimsy credit driven Murray behaviour was established.

Rangers did win the League in Souness' first season, but it was tight and they lost out the next year.  It also took until 1992 for them to win the Cup.  I suppose I'm trying to draw a clearer distinction between the pre Murray era and the Murray one itself.  

True enough, actually. There was a two year gap and it had already kicked off. You're right about that.

However, you could make an argument that Murray's entire approach to business has been based on 'flimsy credit driven behaviour.' He's a bullshitter.

But ever since The Souness Revolution no club outside the Old Firm has won the league, to give an obvious statistical example. It changed things, and ultimately not for the better. 

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute ago, Malcolm Malcolm said:

True enough, actually. There was a two year gap and it had already kicked off. You're right about that.

However, you could make an argument that Murray's entire approach to business has been based on 'flimsy credit driven behaviour.' He's a bullshitter.

But ever since The Souness Revolution no club outside the Old Firm has won the league, to give an obvious statistical example. It changed things, and ultimately not for the better. 

Again I agree, but remember the thread we're on.

In terms of impact on the Scottish National team, it requires a leap to see Souness as vastly important.  He was possibly a blatant symbol of brash materialism, but if it hadn't been for him, I still think it's likely that the OF would have moved clear as consumer behaviour and marketing changed, as European money rocketed and as a mood to copy the greed of the English Premier League breakaway took hold.

Bigger factors than a posturing figurehead took our game in a bad direction.  Even those however, are relatively minor factors in why the Scotland team of today is so poor.