What we were promised

On here a lot of ITK chatter has been about a change of model — recruitment that fits a club identity rather than the whim of whoever sits in the dugout. That idea appeals. Continuity of shape, fewer complete rebuilds, and a defined way we want to play sounds sensible. It gives young players a clearer path and should make successive managers' transitions smoother.

Why letting Rohl sign whoever he wants worries me

To be fair, a manager should have input on signings. You can see why giving Rohl licence makes sense in the short term. But if we are still buying in a manager-led vacuum, we risk the same merry-go-round. What if Rohl favours a profile that clashes with the club's stated identity? What if he signs players suited to his methods and he doesn't work out? We could be left with a squad that needs another jolt of change.

What should happen this summer

We need football operations aligned. A clear recruitment brief that sets the desired shape and attributes, plus a recruitment team that enforces that brief, is the priority. Managers should influence deals, yes, but within a club framework. That avoids repeating previous regimes' mistakes and gives any incoming coach a recognisable base to work from. If we get that right, giving Rohl sensible room to manoeuvre becomes less risky.

That's my two penn’orth. Curious to hear if others think handing full signings control to Rohl is the right move or a recipe for more upheaval.

What the critics are saying

Voices around the club have been blunt. Supporters like Stevie from 4lads have suggested that our defence performs better without Souttar in the mix, and pundits such as Joshua Barrie have gone as far as saying he’s often "at the scene of the crime." Those aren’t flattering words. Fans remember the mistakes — the ones that handed chances to the opposition — and naturally those moments stick in the memory more than tidy, steady displays.

Where the fault lines show

To be fair, it isn’t always as simple as blaming one man. Centre-back pairings need understanding, positional balance and trust. You can see how Djiga and Fernández, when paired, look comfortable with each other’s movements; bring a different personality into the partnership and the shape can change. Souttar has been at the club since the summer of 2022, so it’s also fair to ask why a player with that tenure isn’t cemented as a reliable presence if he’s supposed to be a leader at the back.

Where that leaves us

Truth is, supporters want clarity. Do we leave Souttar out and back the pairing that looks more settled? Do we manage minutes more carefully to reduce the risk of costly errors? Danny will have choices to make, and so will the coaching staff. Whatever the decision, it must be based on what gives Rangers the best chance of keeping clean sheets and winning tight games. For many fans the balance has tipped — Souttar’s not getting the benefit of the doubt he once might have. That’s a tough spot for any player, but one the club must address honestly rather than hope it sorts itself out.

The bottleneck is real

To be fair, it’s not unique to Rangers. Clubs up and down the country — and beyond — run into this. When your pathway doesn’t offer sustained, competitive minutes at the right age, players and their families look elsewhere. That “bottleneck” pushes some toward English academies where there’s an established U21/U23 structure, and that can break the link between a promising youngster and the club that developed them.

Why the Co-operation Model makes sense

We’ve seen a practical response: keep the player tied to the parent club’s coaching and standards, but get them out to men’s football where they won’t just be warming a bench. Loans, co-operation agreements and sensible step-down moves give players the experience to handle the physicality and pressure of the Premiership. It’s not glamorous, but it’s effective. You still have oversight, and the lad gets tested properly.

Which youngsters might benefit — and what it means

Names thrown about — Rice, McCallion, Glasgow, Mensing, Nsio and Calum Adamson — are the sort you’d expect to be considered for that route. Some will be ready for short-term loans, others might need a season in a tougher environment. The truth is each case needs handling individually: timing matters, the destination matters, and patience matters.

So what should we hope for? Clearer pathways and fewer awkward stopgaps. The Co-operation Model isn’t perfect, but right now it’s our best bet to turn academy promise into first-team regulars without losing the players to a system that offers more game time at that critical age. To the fans: keep an eye on where these lads are sent, not just that they were sent.

Who was responsible, and why does it matter?

There are a few clear things here. People entered the field when they shouldn't have. That is plain and sickening to watch. At the same time, if a group got tickets, brought a tifo and clearly had intent, questions have to be asked about how those tickets were issued and who was allowed in. Simple accountability matters — for the club, for stewards and for policing.

Blanket bans hurt the many for the sins of a few

We all know what punitive, wide‑ranging punishments do: they punish good people who just want to support the team. There are folk who save up, travel and create the atmosphere that makes Ibrox what it is. Blanking them with stadium bans or wiping out whole sections will only harm the matchday experience and the club’s relationship with genuine supporters.

Policing, fairness and getting this right

There are questions about policing and consistency — why can semis at Hampden be organised half‑and‑half but similar control seems harder at club level? We need proper communication between clubs and police, clearer ticketing processes, and targeted bans for those actually responsible. A joint statement from both clubs would have looked better and calmed things down.

Truth is, I’m gutted by what happened. I want the old noise and atmosphere back, but handled sensibly. Let the good people win here — deal with the guilty, don’t punish everyone, and fix the systems that allowed this to happen in the first place.

Where things started to drift

People will remember different turning points. For me, the shift away from that mutual respect became evident when a certain John Reid was their chairman. You can see why, in a heated environment, lines would blur. But once public criticism becomes commonplace, it sets a tone that filters down through everything: boardroom statements, press rows, players reading the headlines.

The danger of the blame game

Here’s the rub — if this ends up as a finger-pointing exercise, we all lose. It normalises throwing others under the bus and gives licence to the noisy, easily influenced few who’re only too ready to join in. Young fans, casual observers, even players who are sensitive to criticism pick up on that. Instead of accountability, you get scapegoats and a toxic atmosphere that lingers well past the final whistle.

So what now?

I don’t have a neat solution. Truth is, it needs leaders at every level to show restraint and admit mistakes where needed. This should’ve been a chance for calm heads to say "right, let’s sort this out privately" rather than play to the stands. It’s a bitter end to the campaign, especially after dr getting us back in the race with a fair bit of help from W. Nancy. To be fair, pride and position make that kind of humility hard. But if we want to protect the club’s culture, someone has to start it.

Not the most uplifting read, I know. Still, worth airing — because if we don’t call out the damage that public rows do, we’re just letting it become the new normal.

Why the Lampard story feels unlikely

First off, phone-ins and tabloid pieces are always keen to stir things up. Even if someone claimed to have "inside knowledge", that doesn’t make it so. Would a manager tied into an ambitious project at another club suddenly up sticks? Football’s a funny game, but opportunities don’t always translate into sensible moves. Fans will always dream of big names, yet the sensible view is to let the current manager get on with it unless the board decide otherwise.

Gerrard vs Lampard — does it matter?

I saw the piece in The Sun comparing Lampard to Gerrard. Comparisons like that are clickbait more than anything; both were top players in their day and both have had different managerial journeys. Supporters will pick favourites, and you can see why — they’re familiar names. But success in a playing career doesn't map neatly onto success in management. For me, those debates are interesting pub chat, not a reason to destabilise the club.

Let Danny Rohl build something real

What matters more than celebrity hires is stability and a clear plan. Danny Rohl should be allowed the time and backing to build his own squad and implement his ideas. That continuity is what wins consistency over a season, not headline-grabbing appointments. I’m not closed to any changes if they make sense, but right now I’d rather the club back Rohl and let him get on with it.

At the end of the day, fans will always speculate. It’s part of being a Rangers supporter. But when the noise starts to threaten a manager’s project, take a step back and ask whether the rumour helps the team on the pitch. For me, the answer is no — give Rohl the tools and time to do the job.

Don’t pretend only they have a problem

We’ve all seen footage and read the headlines. Ignoring that aspect in a public statement feels like a deliberate omission. For fans and clubs alike, an acknowledgement is the least you can expect. Calling out a rival’s toxic element doesn’t make you virtuous if you won’t admit there are issues in your own support. To be fair, we have tried to tackle our own problems and point them out when necessary. That honesty matters more than a defensive press release that only points fingers.

We’ve been there too — so don’t get precious

I’ve been at Parkhead and seen atmosphere turn dangerous. Watching rival fans run onto the pitch to confront a player sticks with you, but the difference I noticed was where people celebrated afterwards. We stayed in the stands where we belonged. You don’t get to act like a clown and then be surprised when others respond. There are plenty of idiots on every side who will take the bait. If you go out looking for trouble, don’t act shocked when trouble finds you.

What has to change

Clubs and supporters both carry responsibility. Supporters should be held to account for rowdy or dangerous conduct, and clubs should be transparent when elements of their support behave badly. That applies equally to us and to them. Players and staff aren’t exempt either — discipline and example come from the top down. Simple: behave yourself, and stop pretending you’re the injured party if your own crowd stirs things up.

We’re better than the headlines we sometimes generate. A bit of self-reflection would go a long way — from the terraces to the boardroom.

Signs were obvious

You could see it building from early on. People streaming in without tickets, flares in circulation, vandalism to toilets and seats, graffiti — all of that should ring alarm bells for stewards and police alike. When those kinds of indicators are present, the priority has to be to stop escalation, not wait and react when it becomes a mess.

Shared responsibility — but leadership matters

To be fair, organising a big game is complicated. The clubs, the SFA and the police all have roles to play. But that’s exactly why someone needs to take clear, decisive charge on the day. If contingency plans aren’t agreed and acted on, the default becomes chaos. You can argue no single trigger caused it; I’d say that’s precisely the problem — multiple small failures added up.

Why pre-emptive action counts

Good policing at big matches is often about presence and timing. Bringing forces to key points early, acting on bad intel and removing obvious risks before kick-off can calm a crowd. Watching what happened on Sunday, many of us who’ve been to Hampden before felt it could have been handled better. That feeling matters — supporters don’t cry wolf unless there’s something to it.

Look, we may not agree on every detail. But agreeing that safety should come first is easy. Whoever is responsible for planning needs to learn from this and make sure the next time warning signs aren’t met with indecision. If that means clearer protocols, better coordination or swifter intervention, then so be it. The alternative is repeating the same mistakes.

Who's responsible on matchday?

Clubs are paid to organise safe events. Stewards are trained to spot trouble, to defuse situations and, where possible, to keep things calm before they escalate. The police come in when those measures fail or when an actual crime or significant public order issue arises. From what has been said, police involvement only happened once fans left the stands and came onto the pitch — that tells you where the threshold for their actions was reached.

That does not let anyone off the hook. If stewards miss signs, if segregation or entry procedures aren't airtight, the club needs to answer for it. Supporters too must remember that we are part of the product on the night; our behaviour matters.

Don't hide behind 'they started it'

It's tempting in the aftermath to point fingers. Yes, there were triggers that prompted reactions, and yes, other fans are not blameless. Saying 'they started it' as a blanket defence just redirects guilt. Few things are simple — but shifting responsibility so we can feel absolved isn't helpful.

Some players and visiting supporters deserve scrutiny, no doubt. But that doesn't erase the need for a clear, public condemnation of disorder from Rangers fans and the club. We've seen the club do that. We should mean it, and act on it.

Role models and consequences

There was a report that one of those involved was a youth football coach who has since been dismissed. If true, it's especially grim — people who work with kids should set a better example. Whatever employment or legal consequences follow, the point remains: behaviour carries consequences, and positions of trust come with higher expectations.

To be fair, this isn't about piling on a particular group. It's about recognising where responsibilities lie, condemning unacceptable conduct and making sure matchdays are safe and respectable. As a Rangers fan I want us to call it out when we get it wrong and support the club when they try to put it right.

Whole stadium singing beats small pockets of noise

There’s nothing like the hairs-up feeling when the whole ground is singing together. You can see why people want that edge back. It doesn’t need to be a rearguard fight about policing every lyric. Change the songbook a little, encourage the terrace tunes that get everyone involved, and you’re doing more to create atmosphere than letting the same small group dominate with sectarian stuff.

Fireworks, masks and the wider crowd

Another issue is the hostility that comes with fireworks and face coverings. Those things put off families and casual fans. It’s not just about being offended; it’s about feeling unsafe or unwelcome. If people are staying away because they don’t want to stand in a place where pyros go off or folks hide their faces, that’s a real problem for the club, for matchday income and for the vibe in the ground.

Punish the guilty — but enforcement is hard

I get the argument about only punishing the guilty. Normally I’d agree. Trouble is, when people hide behind balaclavas and face coverings it becomes almost impossible to tell who’s who. You can’t distinguish between genuine regulars and the troublemakers if they’re all masked up. When fines keep landing from incidents in the same section, you start to wonder how many chances people have had. At some point the club and authorities have to be realistic about what enforcement can actually achieve.

Where we go from here

So what would I like to see? More positive stewardship of the songbook, clearer messaging about fireworks and coverings, and proper, visible action against those who bring trouble. The statement today doesn’t fill me with hope that will happen, but you can see the shape of the solution: encourage the whole stadium to sing, make the environment safe for families, and make it costly for those who persist with sectarian behaviour. Do that and the atmosphere comes back on its own.

Why the sideways game frustrates

There’s a pattern you see across leagues now. Coaches want control, possession and to pull opponents out of shape by circulating the ball. Trouble is, possession without penetration is rarely satisfying. When passes move across the pitch rather than through its heart, the defensive block stays intact. It feels slow. Chances are limited. And when fans pay to watch, they want to see intent.

When directness actually pays off

We’ve seen the upside. Moments when a winger or forward breaks the line and delivers a proper cross have resulted in goals — Chermiti’s runs from the touchline, Antman’s debut burst, ASO getting forward and combining. Those aren’t flukes. They’re examples of how carrying the ball and attacking space forces defenders into uncomfortable decisions. Crosses from advanced positions create chaos in the box. Simple as that.

Can we switch the approach without ripping up the playbook?

We’ve got a young group, so changing emphasis is possible. It doesn’t mean abandoning structure. It means asking for greater intent in certain areas of the pitch — quicker transitions, fewer sideways passes in midfield, encouraging wingers to hit the line and send the ball in. Coaches teach patterns, yes, and youth systems lean towards possession ideas. But managers can tweak instructions: press with tempo, play vertical passes where they’re there, and accept a few more risks if it brings more chances.

Truth is, the league rewards both control and moments of menace. I’d rather see us mix the two more often. To be fair, it’s not just about desire — it’s about encouraging players to express themselves on the flank and giving them licence when the moment’s right.

Rangers News Views readers will know it’s not black and white. But if we want more goals and less tedium, set the wingers free more often.

Balance punishment with atmosphere

Blanket bans feel clean and decisive, but they have side effects. You lose vocal support, you change the texture of a matchday, and as the contributor says, the same people often return under a different name. That’s not hypothetical — culture adapts around prohibition. So the idea of targeted sanctions, like halving numbers for away games or excluding certain groups from a couple of Old Firm fixtures, has a pragmatic logic. It sends a message without wrecking the whole stadium.

Education as part of the sanction

What stood out in the original post was the push for education: courses on bigotry, inclusion, history and even sessions with victim perspectives. It’s not a cure-all, and the writer admits it only works sometimes. Still, education paired with punishment recognises people can change, and it forces accountability beyond a few months out of the ground. Clubs, authorities and supporter groups can offer structured programmes rather than relying solely on police or lifetime bans.

Practical steps the club could take

In practice that means measured sanctions, mandatory education for repeat offenders, and careful monitoring. Use ticketing rules to limit numbers where needed. Make attendance at courses a condition of returning. And work with victims’ groups so the sessions have real impact. None of that guarantees success, but it’s better than sweeping everything under the carpet or removing the heart of the support.

To be fair, there’s no simple answer. But mixing discipline with rehabilitation feels like the more grown-up option — punish those who deserve it, but try to change the ones who might be made to see things differently. That keeps the atmosphere alive while showing the club has standards.

What the club made clear

To be fair, the statement lays out the obvious. The disorder on Sunday was unacceptable and the discovery of that graffiti was appalling. The club reminded supporters that stadium safety matters for everyone involved — fans, players and staff — and said the legacy of the Ibrox Disaster is deeply personal to this club.

That is straightforward. The memory of the 66 supporters who died in January 1971 deserves dignity. Anything that treats that memory as a joke or provocation is vile and should be condemned by the whole football community.

Why respect has to come first

We can argue about passion and rivalry all day, but this isn't part of that. There is a line between taking the mick and desecrating a tragedy. Calling it cowardly and shameful isn't over the top — it's simply calling out behaviour that has no place at Ibrox or any ground in Scotland.

At the same time, you can see why supporters are angry about blanket condemnation. Tens of thousands went to the match to back the team with pride. Most fans were there for the right reasons and deserve that recognised when headlines start to fly.

Where we go from here

Truth is, we need clarity and proportion. The people responsible for that graffiti must be identified and dealt with, and the club has every right to push for that. Equally, the wider fanbase shouldn't be tarred because of the actions of a few. Safety reviews, sensible stewarding and fair reporting are the practical steps that help move things on.

So condemn the act. Protect the memory of the 66. And give the ordinary supporters — who turned up to watch the match — a fair hearing while the investigations play out.

Club responsibility and the safety officer

The club signs up to run the event and must provide a safety officer to manage it. That person is responsible for crowd management and the overall safety plan. Stewards are deployed as the front line, trained to deal with common match incidents and to calm situations before they escalate. You can see why they reacted first on Saturday; they are paid to manage the crowd and keep ordinary problems from becoming major ones.

What the police actually do at matches

Police are very much a supporting act at most fixtures. Their role is to respond to criminality and serious disorder, and there is an event policing lead who will take command only if a major incident occurs. That means officers might hold back while stewards try to resolve things, then move in when a situation crosses into criminal behaviour or becomes dangerous. It isn’t about not caring, more about following the division of duties set out for safety.

So why did it look slow?

From the terrace it felt like a delay, and that frustration is fair. But when you know the setup you can see why it played out that way. Stewards tried to contain it, and police stepped up once it had escalated beyond what the club could manage. Still, that sequence raises questions about communication and presence. If stewards are front line, they need support and clarity about when police will intervene. Fans are right to ask for a smoother response next time.

Truth is, knowing the rules doesn't make being on the receiving end of a slow reaction any easier. But it does help explain why officers didn't immediately take charge on Saturday.

Who was to blame?

To be clear, the people who ran onto the pitch were wrong. They put players and staff at risk, they embarrassed the club and they gave opponents a headline the club didn't need. You can see why fans are angry about that. At the same time, asking who lit the fuse is not the same as making excuses. There is almost always a sequence of events that leads to a flare-up. Understanding that sequence is important if we want it to stop happening.

The policing question

If the police had done their job properly then some of the scenes we saw might never have happened. Crowd control, sensible positioning and timely intervention are basic expectations. When those measures aren't in place, small incidents can ripple out. I'm not saying police are solely to blame, but they are a part of the chain. Fans and officers both carry responsibility when things spiral.

Where do we go from here?

Truth is, both sides got it wrong in different ways. Supporters who invade the pitch deserve condemnation and sanctions. Authorities who fail to prevent an avoidable escalation deserve scrutiny. And as fans we should be honest with ourselves — the bravado of youth, the feeling of being untouchable, that will get folk into trouble. I won't pretend I wouldn't have been caught up in it at that age; plenty of us would. But recognising the problem is the first step to stopping it. If Rangers want better days we need better behaviour inside and better management of crowds outside.

Where did the old approach go?

To be fair, football has changed a lot — bigger crowds, different stewarding models and more will to self-police among fans. But you can’t ignore the optics when incidents are tolerated in certain places. I noticed there was no public condemnation when their right back jumped into the crowd at Kilmarnock and that seemed to remove a clear deterrent. When players or staff appear to encourage a spillover, it muddies the message for everyone.

Mixed messages from clubs and authorities

Truth is, inconsistency breeds contempt. If one side gets away with shepherding fans on to the pitch and there’s no meaningful censure from the league or club hierarchy, others will start to think it’s acceptable. That doesn’t excuse any part of our support who spill on to the turf, but it does explain why tensions escalate. Add in the rise of more extreme supporter groups on both sides and the fixture becomes a tinderbox rather than a celebration.

How to reduce the risk next time

Practical steps are obvious: firm, consistent policing at full-time, clear public condemnations when players or staff stoke the crowd, and sensible segregation choices for away allocations. If the 2,500 places allocated away are given to travelling supporters who aren’t attached to the ultras, the chance of trouble falls. Small measures can stop a bad situation from becoming a headline scandal.

At the end of the day I want the big nights back — safe, noisy and respectful. Nobody wants repeat scenes or the feeling that one set of fans can act with impunity. It’s up to clubs and the authorities to show they mean it, otherwise we’ll keep asking the same question after every derby.

Who was policing what?

People are rightly asking why policing and stewarding looked so poor on the day. If the claim is true that some supporters forced doors and spilled onto the pitch, it’s fair to demand answers about how that happened and why it wasn’t stopped sooner. We pay for crowd safety in different ways — the clubs, the authorities — so whatever the contractual arrangements, the priority has to be keeping people and the stadium safe.

Media framing and the victim card

It’s been galling to see reports that read as if Rangers are being painted as the instigators when plenty of fans felt the opposite. You can agree pitch invasions were wrong and still question why some outlets seemed quick to blame one side. Fans notice tone as much as facts. When one set of supporters are portrayed as victims while the other are repeatedly castigated, it looks like a one-sided narrative — and that fuels frustration.

What needs to happen next?

We need clear, transparent follow-up from the clubs and the authorities. Independent reviews, stewarding and policing scrutinised, and proper accountability where failures took place. Fans want safety and fairness, not theatre. If people trashed seats, advertising boards or gates, then those actions should be addressed. And if mistakes were made by those supposed to keep order, they should be owned up to.

Truth is, everyone loses when incidents like this spiral — supporters, clubs and the game’s reputation. Ask the questions, expect answers, and let the facts lead the headlines rather than whoever shouts loudest at the time.

Who would react like that?

To be fair, you'd hesitate to single out one set of supporters. Plenty of clubs and their fans would react badly if they felt invaded or provoked. You can imagine the scene, whether it's a local derby or a big tie: people in the stands getting wound up, others on the pitch feeling threatened, and the whole place taking a turn for the worse. Some crowds would try to police it themselves rather than let the authorities deal with it. That's the danger.

The point isn't to paint everyone with the same brush, it's to be honest about human nature. Fans identify with their ground. When strangers walk where supporters think only they should be, it becomes more than a nuisance — it feels like trespass.

Police and stewarding: where the buck stops

Truth is, the responsibility for safety lies with the authorities on the day. Stewards and police are paid to prevent dangerous situations, not just react when something has already gone wrong. If there are clear risks of pitch incursions, plans should be in place to stop them quickly and safely. That means better positioning, quicker interventions and sensible communication with both sets of fans.

We all expect the club to manage its crowd and the police to keep public order. When that doesn't happen the result is criminal behaviour and unnecessary risk. There's no glory in letting it play out and hoping for the best — it's proactivity that's needed.

What fans should do, and what we'd want to see

Fans have a part to play too. If people are on the pitch or heading there, supporters should avoid escalating things. Chanting and provocation don't help. Stewards should be supported to do their jobs, and home crowds should be reminded that safety comes before spectacle. Go to Europe and you see a different level of control for a reason — it's not about being heavy-handed, it's about keeping everyone safe.

At the end of the day Ibrox is our ground and emotions run high, but that doesn't give anyone licence to break the law. If we're honest about the risk, then the club, stewards and police must act to prevent criminal situations before they start.

Deterrent or overreach?

To be fair, it sounds obvious: if the penalty is heavier, plenty will think twice before doing something daft. I’ve said myself I’d have acted differently in my younger days if the consequences had been tougher. That’s personal experience talking. But the question is whether tougher sentences actually change behaviour long term, or simply push problems elsewhere. It’s a genuine debate and not one you can settle with slogans.

Is the El Salvador example relevant?

Some point to overseas examples — one poster here mentioned El Salvador becoming safer and tourism booming after a no-nonsense approach to crime. That’s their view and it explains why they back tougher measures. Whether you accept that comparison depends on how willing you are to trade civil liberties, how enforcement is handled, and whether underlying social problems are being tackled, not just punished.

Football ultras and the wider picture

Calling ultras a gang is blunt but it captures why people worry: when groups form with that mentality, it becomes less about supporting a team and more about territory and violence. Stadiums and matchdays are where the problem becomes visible, but it’s linked to society at large. So yes, harsher punishments might deter some, but so will better policing, clearer accountability, and efforts to stop the slide into group-think in the first place. You can’t rely on one policy alone.

At the end of the day, plenty of us want safer streets and cleaner matchdays. Tougher sentences feel like common sense to some — myself included on bad nights — but the solution needs balance. Deterrence, yes. But also prevention, education and firm, fair enforcement. That’s the only way to really make a difference.

Reaction matters as much as provocation

Here’s the truth: provocation and reaction are two sides of the same coin. If visiting fans pour onto the turf at the death of a match you are asking for trouble, especially in a fevered atmosphere. That does not excuse anyone. You can complain about supporters of the visiting club getting onto the pitch, and still accept that our end could and should have behaved better. I am not saying both are equally right, but you cannot ignore how our own reaction escalated matters.

It probably would have happened somewhere else

People make a fair point when they say this would have happened outside the ground if it had not been on TV. Trouble bubbles up in the pub, on the street, at the turnstiles. It is more visible when it is beamed across the nation, so it looks worse. That does not absolve anyone involved, but it does explain why incidents seem to repeat in different settings.

Clubs and the authorities need to stop hiding

What frustrates me most is the silence from the clubs. It looks pathetic when heavy responsibility is passed between supporters and police with no clear stance from those running the show. Police Scotland may be deflecting, and that is annoying, but saying they caused the incident is going too far. We can disagree on emphasis, but we should all want proper answers and steps to stop this happening again.

So yes, let us call out visiting fans when appropriate. But let us also hold our own to account. To my mind that is the only honest way forward. Agree to disagree? Fine. But let’s learn, not just point fingers.

Firm sanctions where deserved

If someone’s identifiable and has crossed clear lines, then bans are the right response. There’s no soft-pedalling for repeat offenders or serious incidents — some people should lose access to the club for life depending on what they’ve done. That’s about protecting the wider support and the matchday experience. At the same time, indiscriminate mass bans punish the innocent and breed resentment.

Education that actually means something

When people say "education", they’re not asking for a token afternoon workshop. I agree with that. The club ought to run a proper course — multiple sessions, with meaningful content about behaviour, the consequences of actions, and how supporters represent the badge. Make it club-led, not a tick-box exercise. A signed agreement after completion makes it clear: you know the rules, you accept them, and you’ll face punishment if you break the deal.

Practicalities for the UB area

For sitting in the UB area, insist on course attendance and a signed code of conduct as a condition of sale. Non-negotiable. It’s reasonable to expect higher standards in that section because of the proximity and profile. Will it be easy? No. Will it make the place safer and cleaner to be a fan? You can see why it might. Start somewhere. Enforce consistently. Educate properly. Then, when necessary, use bans — and do so decisively when individuals are clearly to blame.

The deterrent problem

To be fair, punishment should mean something. When someone gets a slap on the wrist for knife crime, violent offending or sexual offences, it doesn't sit right. Whether you're talking about street crime or football-related offences, people notice how the system deals with offenders. If freedom or only a short community sentence is the likeliest outcome, then the idea of punishment as a deterrent starts to unravel.

I'm not pretending to be an expert on sentencing law. What I can say from experience is that when the consequences feel minor, they don't put most people off. That feeling is compounded when there are stories about overcrowded prisons and courts struggling to process cases. It all feeds into a sense that the worst outcomes are reserved for a few, while most get off lightly.

Football offences get pulled into the same mess

People often assume football-related offences would be treated differently because of the public attention. Truth is, the same pressures apply. Clubs, players and supporters all suffer the reputational damage when incidents happen, yet the criminal side can feel toothless. You can see why fans are angry when someone damages the club, harms a rival or behaves disgracefully and the legal aftermath looks minimal.

That doesn't excuse vigilante behaviour or taking matters into your own hands. But it explains why there's frustration across the board — supporters want accountability, not the optics of accountability. And when the wider justice system appears limited by capacity, it bleeds into how these cases are handled.

So what would change things?

I'm not offering a full policy paper, just commonsense observations. More reliable capacity in the justice system would allow courts to impose sentences that actually reflect the offence. That would mean fewer token outcomes and a clearer message about consequences. It wouldn't fix everything overnight, but it would restore a bit of faith that crime has real costs.

Look, I know this sounds blunt. I've been in and out of prison all my life and I can tell you there's very little to stop some people from reoffending under the current setup. If we're serious about protecting communities and the game we love, we need both a justice system that can follow through and a society that offers routes away from offending. Otherwise it's just the same cycle repeating, and we all lose out.

It’s tribal more than religious now

Stevie’s point about social context rings true. For many, the chanting is less about faith and more about loyalty to a tribe. It’s a simple way to say “I’m one of you” and sometimes people don’t even think about the wider meaning. That doesn’t make it harmless, though. When songs keep pulling the club back into old divisions, it spoils the day for other fans who’ve come to watch a football match and not relive the past.

Silence hands control to the loud minority

When clubs, stewards or senior voices don’t tackle those moments, it comes across as acceptance. The quieter majority don’t want rows on a Saturday; they want a clean matchday. But silence from the top lets the loudest crowd think they own the place. That’s why consistent action matters more than one-off statements. If the club makes its stance clear and follows through, the message reaches everyone.

Why change is hard — and still necessary

I’ve sympathy with the club. Asking fans to abandon songs that tie into identity is a sensitive ask. Criticism can feel like an attack on family or history and that makes any intervention explosive. The truth is we need steady, sensible pressure rather than grand gestures. Keep calling it out, offer alternatives that celebrate the club, and keep the focus on the football. It won’t be solved overnight, but doing nothing isn’t an option either.

It’s a tricky, emotional debate. I don’t have all the answers, just the feeling that silence helps the problem. The club needs to be clearer and more consistent, because most of us just want to enjoy the game without being dragged back into old arguments.

Why this feels different

There’s a difference between atmosphere and chaos. Tifos, songs and banners are part of being a Rangers fan. But when faces are covered, pyros are used and people charge across the turf, you create danger for families and stewards. You also give opponents and authorities reasons to punish the club financially. To me, that contradicts everything being a supporter should be about.

Cost, risk and reputation

We talk about identity, pride and standing up for the badge. But who pays when things go wrong? Fines hurt the club and shift resources away from football and the fans. Worse is the safety issue — pyros and crowd disorder risk real injury. If ordinary supporters feel unsafe bringing kids along, something has gone very wrong. That’s not an exaggeration; it’s a simple reality.

What fans and the club should do

It’s time real fans made their voices heard. Ask the club for clearer action, insist on proper stewarding and demand that those who cross the line are banned from attending. Supporters’ groups have a role too — we can’t let a minority define the club. I’m not calling for hysteria, just a firm stance so families can come back without worry. If we care about Rangers, we should care about how the club is represented — and that means putting safety and common sense first.

To be clear: I’m not lecturing anyone who still goes. Plenty of people love the place, the atmosphere, the team. I loved it once. But when the mood regularly includes songs that cross the line into sectarian territory, you have to ask yourself what you’re comfortable being part of. For me, that meant stepping away. I’ll admit — and this is awkward to say — that when I did go I could often be swept up and sing along. That’s part of why I wouldn’t stand in judgment of those who keep going; we’re all products of where we grew up and who we hung about with.

Some will say you should simply call out the problem and stay to change it from within. Fair point. Others will say people are too sensitive these days, that some folk are "snowflakes." I get both sides. Truth is, shouting at strangers in a crowd rarely fixes deep social issues. Education and community work do. Until broader change happens in Scotland around sectarianism, addiction and the various forms of prejudice, those songs won’t just vanish overnight.

So what does a supporter do? For me it was simple: I chose not to be part of that environment. If the songs offend you and you’ve tried to change things, walking away is a valid choice. If you still go and try to tackle it in your own way, that’s valid too. The uncomfortable reality is that Scottish football culture has strands that need to be rooted out, and while clubs, authorities and fans can all play a role, real change takes time and proper social education. Until then, everyone has to make their own call about what they can accept on a matchday.

Not a perfect answer, and I don’t pretend it is. Just where I ended up — and why I’m not going back.

Who takes the blame?

Read the papers and the fan groups, and you’ll see the same argument repeated — it’s everyone else’s fault except the people who actually caused the trouble. I don’t buy that. If a group of supporters decides to act up then the blame starts there. That doesn’t let anyone else off the hook, but truth is you can’t have accountability without naming the guilty party.

Clubs and authorities must do more

Clubs, police and the matchday authorities all need to be asking the same question: what are we doing to stop this? Rangers have reported they banned 548 fans over a 7 year period. That’s a number the club has put out themselves, and it’s worth looking at. Is that enough given what we keep reading about? From where I’m standing it doesn’t feel like it.

Silence from either club after an ugly weekend looks bad. If neither side speaks up you create a vacuum, and in that vacuum rumours and resentment fill the space. Public condemnation matters. Sanctions matter more — bans, stadium exclusions, and meaningful co-operation with the authorities to keep repeat troublemakers away from matches.

What needs to change?

We need a proper, consistent approach. That means clear, public action from clubs when their supporters step out of line and proper policing plans that don’t just react but prevent. Fans want to see leadership — statements that aren’t PR, and measures that actually reduce repeat offences. Until that happens, none of us can honestly say the problem’s being dealt with.

I’m not calling for witch-hunts, but nor should we shrug. Accountability starts with naming the problem and backing it up with action. That’s the only way we move on and keep football the sport we all want it to be.

We controlled the game

There was genuine control on the ball and on the tempo. We got numbers into the wide areas and put crosses into dangerous zones. To watch it unfold, you could see the plan — get service into the box and punish teams from inside the penalty area. For long periods we did everything the manager asked of us. We also limited the opponent to very little, which makes the failure to score even more galling.

The finishing and the deliveries

Here is the rub. Players like Moore, Skov Olsen, Sterling and others frequently failed to deliver a decent ball at the right time. The runs into the box were often off or the timing poor. Even with that, we still produced big chances. Chermiti had two presentable efforts, Raskin had one well blocked off the line, and Fernandez saw a header denied by Djiga. Four clear openings, any one of which might have been the winner. Instead they were wasted.

Why it matters and what it means

Look, sitters have been a recurring issue all season. Missing clear chances against Celtic, Motherwell and Livingston has cost points. The truth is that tactical plans only get you so far if the final ball and the finish aren't there. We're not a team that can simply overwhelm opponents with endless high-quality chances; we create decent chances and rely on players to take them. When they don't, we pay the price.

So the argument isn't about the manager's system. It's about recruitment, confidence and basic technique in the final third. Fans are rightly frustrated, but the blame for that day sits with the players on the pitch more than with the person drawing the lines on the training ground.

On Rangers News Views we've been saying the same: organisation matters, but so does finishing. Get the basics right and that controlled performance turns into three points.

Team numbers tell a different story

Ignore the headline-grabbing claim and check the basic totals. The user provides the club breakdowns and they matter. Rangers are credited with 21 goals and 10 assists in 102 appearances. Celtic are on 22 goals and 10 assists in 125 appearances. Those team figures don’t show a gulf. They suggest parity, not a collapse in attacking output from our squad.

Who actually makes a difference?

There’s one obvious outlier and the OP mentions him: Nygren with 15 in 27. That kind of return clearly helps. But beyond that, the Celtic individuals listed — Maeda (28, 7 goals 5 assists), Tierney (26, 5 goals no assists), Yang (22, 4 and 1), Engels (24, 4 and 2), Hatate (25, 2 and 2) — aren’t massively ahead of our front players when you look at the wider picture. So you can’t simply point at five names and say they’re the reason we’ve slipped behind.

Points are dropped, not goals

The real issue seems to be the draws. We’ve turned a few winnable games into shared points. That’s not always down to a single striker missing chances; it can be about tempo, how we manage games late on, substitutions and a lack of cutting edge at decisive moments. To be fair, we all want more goals from the likes of the forwards, but blaming five players without looking at the draws and match situations is lazy analysis.

In short: yes, Nygren’s numbers matter. Beyond him, the team totals show we’re not dramatically behind in goals. If we want to close the gap we need to turn draws into wins, not just point fingers at a handful of forwards.

Where it went wrong

To be fair, there was a time when that sort of behaviour was called out and stopped. People who shouted HHWARTBBs were told to pipe down. Lately it’s crept back and been shrugged off as atmosphere. But atmosphere isn’t an excuse for something that makes the club look bad or puts fans at risk. You can get behind the team without repeating chants that lead to trouble.

The UB and the wider crowd

Yes, the UB have a big voice and a routine. But when that routine contains songs that many find offensive, and the wider crowd joins in — 7.5k singing on top of 40k in the ground, as some people have pointed out — it becomes a collective responsibility. If that’s accepted as ‘part of the match,’ where does it stop? I’d honestly prefer silence to listening to something that feels like a dirge and drags us into controversy.

What needs to change

Blaming one group alone misses the bigger picture. Yes, those involved on Sunday were culpable, but there were moments before the final incident where things could have been managed better. Stewards, club messaging and a clearer stance from the top all have a role. Fans who care about the badge should be honest — if something’s wrong, call it out. Don’t normalise chants that cause problems. Simple as that.

We support Rangers through thick and thin, but support shouldn’t be a shield for behaviour that harms the club. If we want the good atmosphere, keep it within the game and off the stuff that leads to scenes and headlines we’d rather not have.

Keeping it narrow by design

One sensible explanation is that Danny has opted for a 4-2-2-2 to keep the team compact. Narrowness helps against fast counters, it makes pressing more cohesive and it suits a group that are solid centrally. If your wide attackers can't reliably take people on, a narrow approach with two banks of four gives you control and limits exposure.

Full-backs as the width providers

That brings full-backs into focus. In a system without classic dribbling wingers, the onus shifts to the full-backs to supply width and crosses. Trouble is, we don't always pick the natural width provider at right-back — Tav has the instincts to get up and down, but people criticise his defensive work. It becomes a balancing act: do you sacrifice a bit at the back to stretch teams, or play a more cautious full-back and accept a narrower shape?

Picking the style to match personnel

To be fair, managers often play to the players available. If Meghome gave us genuine left-side width earlier, that felt useful; Rommens looks capable of doing similar work but might need time. Truth is, the style can be dictated by who’s on the pitch. You can talk about ideal systems until you’re blue in the face, but sometimes the practical choice is the one that least exposes weaknesses. That may explain why Danny has favoured the narrow 4-2-2-2 at times — it suits a certain squad profile.

It’s not a final answer, just thoughts from the terrace. I’d like to see a bit more variation when we lead — more intent to stretch and punish opponents rather than sitting back and hoping. That mindset shift would do us a power of good.

Goals are spread across the squad

Look, when goals come from different places you’re harder to plan against. Midfielders scoring, wide players chipping in, even defenders at set-pieces — it all helps. It means injuries to one or two players shouldn’t blow a season apart, assuming the squad is set up right and confidence is high.

Celtic’s injuries and why they don’t change our picture

Celtic losing Engels and McGregor is a blow to them — no argument there — but it’s not a reason for us to relax. Their problems don’t suddenly fix our tendency to turn promising positions into draws. You can sympathise with their situation and still be clear-eyed about our own shortcomings.

It’s a mentality thing, not just tactics

The frustrating part is this keeps happening. We get ahead, then seem to take our foot off the pedal. That’s not always a manager’s instruction; often it’s on the players. Are we cosy with narrow leads? Do we sit back instead of pressing to add that second or third goal? Those are mentality questions more than tactical ones — and they cost points. Draws add up, and while we might lose less often, too many stalemates leave us behind.

So yeah, I’d still like more creativity through midfield and a bit more cutting edge from the forwards. But don’t overlook the simple truth: if the team refuses to see games out with the right aggression, those extra goals we can get from different players won’t matter. Attitude wins games as much as ability — and that needs fixing first.

Root cause: a match that always carries risk

At the simplest level the root cause here is obvious — Rangers played Celtic. You can't cancel the fixture every time tensions run high. It's part of the game and it always will be. But that reality doesn't absolve anyone of the obligation to plan for predictable risks. If there have been repeat incidents, then the baseline risk is up and external controls should reflect that.

Behaviour, alcohol and bad actors

Most supporters are fine. They travel, sing, and watch the match. But add drink, sometimes drugs, and the odd person who wants trouble and the moral compass slips for a minority. That's the group that causes mayhem. They aren't interested in football; they're looking for an occasion. The job of stewards, police and clubs is to reduce the chances they can act — through sensible stewarding, segregation where necessary, targeted intelligence and firm sanctions when rules are broken.

Shared responsibility and practical steps

There has to be a shared effort. Fans must hold their own to account. Clubs should work with authorities to tighten predictable weak points. That might mean more visible controls around exits, clearer messaging beforehand, and actually using the power to ban or punish those who cross the line. To be fair, none of this is simple or cheap. But when the alternative is damaging scenes and reputational harm, doing nothing isn’t an option.

Truth is, blame can sit with supporters and still demand a practical response from everyone involved. Reduce the thug element where you can. That’s what we should be doing — and what the opposition should do too.

What I saw

From my spot in Copland Front I watched a group of UBs go onto the grass and shout at people to join them. They weren’t subtle. To be fair, you could see the intent was confrontation rather than a measured attempt to protect the pitch.

What my son saw

He was in Govan Rear and had a clearer line of sight as the general chaos developed. He told me that when supporters were spilling into the playing area some Celtic players and members of their management group appeared to be encouraging people, taking selfies and not trying to stop the surge. That’s what he reported, not an official account, just his view from the terraces.

Why it matters

Crucially my son added that the presence of those UBs put a lot of Tims off coming the full way onto the grass. From where he was sitting it looked like the prospect of getting into a hand to hand scrap in the middle of the pitch was a big deterrent. I still don’t approve of pitch invasions or the UBs’ methods. But if their actions ended up preventing thousands more people rushing onto the turf, that’s a messy outcome to ponder.

It’s an awkward truth. You can disagree with who walked out or how they behaved and still accept that, sometimes, ugly interventions have unintended benefits. As a Rangers fan I’d rather none of it happened. I can accept that my earlier mockery of the idea that UBs partly held the line was wrong.

We should be honest about the wider picture too. The club, officials, police and fans all share responsibility for allowing a scene like that to develop. Fans on our side shouldn’t be celebrated for roughing things up, nor should the other side be excused if their staff encouraged it. I’ll stick by the simple thing: we want the players and stewards kept safe, and fewer scenes like that in future.

So Paul86, consider this my mea culpa. I mocked the notion before I had the full picture. After listening to my lad I can see why you said what you did. Lessons learned, and let’s hope for cleaner days at Ibrox.

Chain of events matters

To be fair, football is driven by emotion. When a crowd is charged up and something sparks — an invasion, a bad call, whatever it is — it can rapidly escalate. The sequence matters more than a single moment. If one side breaches the boundary first, everything that follows gets seen through that lens. You can see why people feel the reaction was inevitable after being on the end of that sort of provocation.

Rivalry fuels the reaction

We all know the rivalry is bitter. I don't share that level of hatred, but plenty do, and when you mix that with a painful defeat and previous bad results the tinderbox is set. It's not an excuse for disorder, but it helps explain why some supporters reacted the way they did. You ask what outcome anyone would expect after that chain of events — honestly, given the history and atmosphere, a heated retaliation was sadly predictable.

Where responsibility sits

Responsibility isn't one-sided. Fans who invade the pitch are responsible for their actions, and we shouldn't gloss over that. At the same time, the argument that policing and initial provocations play a part is reasonable. Saying both things doesn't mean you're defending the worst behaviour; it means you're trying to look at how it started and how it spread.

Truth is, none of this makes the mess any better. Lessons need to be learned about stewarding big games, about crowd control and about cooling off moments before they turn nasty. Fingers point in every direction, and that's natural. But if we're honest, the sequence of events — who went onto the pitch first, how the stewards and police reacted, the intensity of the rivalry — all fed into what followed.

At the end of the day I don't condone violence or disorder. I do think context matters, and when you put the pieces together you can see why some people felt the reaction was coming, and why they reckon it would happen the same in reverse.

One-sided on the surface, nervy underneath

On the face of it, it felt like a completely one-sided tie. You’d heard fans saying it might be the first time Celtic didn’t register a shot on target across 120 minutes — that tells you something about the rhythm of the game. But credit where it’s due: Celtic’s defenders threw themselves in the way time and again. They made tackles and blocks that kept them in it.

Individuals who caught the eye

I was a Souttar fan, but honestly he looked like a bag of nerves when he came on. By contrast Djiga and Fernandez were composed, the kind of calm that steadies the back line. Diomande’s early booking was worrying; once he picked up that yellow you could see the manager had to be cautious, so it wasn’t a shock he was taken off at half-time.

Midfield and the blunt end

The real difference feels like it’s in midfield. They’ve got finishing from midfield players; ours can control and dominate passages but too often without an end product. That lack of goals from the middle makes life harder for the front line. Up front, it’s harsh but true — you wouldn’t drop a striker between that lot who could instantly become the kind of goalscorer the old guard used to be. We miss that clinical edge.

Hearts suddenly look like they’ve got a real shot at the title — perhaps the weakest of the big two squads in years. Still, I’m a hopeful supporter. Every week will bring its swings and roundabouts and I’ll be there thinking we can turn it round. Rant over.

Quick tactical note: possession and control are useful only if you have runners from midfield and a striker who can finish. Right now the balance is a touch skewed towards control without sufficient end product.

Double standards on show

Look, fans remember moments and labels. Jamie Walker getting a penalty and being burnt as a "cheat" is still talked about. The same sort of actions from other players somehow get framed as "gamesmanship". You can see why that rankles. People spot what they want to spot when it suits their narrative. To be fair, every club has examples to back their anger — and every fan will make the selective memory worse.

Sutton, bias and the habit of piling on

Chris Sutton has been singled out in that debate, and not without reason according to a lot of fans. Some feel he’s been vindictive towards Rangers players, quick to slap labels like "diver" or "temperamental" and slow to apply the same bar to others. Whether you agree or not, pundits shape the conversation. When someone shouts loudly enough and repeats the take, it seeps into supporter talk and then — unfairly — onto players.

Why simulation stays part of the game

Truth is, simulation isn’t new and it won’t go away overnight. Players will try to influence referees, especially in the box where margins matter. If a Rangers player sells a contact and it wins a decision, most supporters will say: good, grab it. It’s pragmatic. You can condemn the act while also recognising the reality — the referee’s decision is part of the contest.

No one likes constant diving. But the real problem is selective outrage and pundit-led narratives that get repeated until they feel like fact. If we want fairer debate, call out everyone equally — not just when it suits an angle.

Why patience matters

Football fans want instant fixes. Trouble is, real change takes time. Rohl is a young coach working on culture, recruitment and shaping a squad to his ideas. A few bad results don’t erase the bigger picture. The same supporters who were celebrating when we went 2-0 up at Ibrox recently now seem ready to turn. Consistency from the board matters too – if Andrew Cavanagh believes in Rohl, that continuity should be respected.

Mistakes are part of learning

We all know Rohl has made errors. Every coach does. The important thing is whether he learns and adapts. You can see where he’s trying to take the team: pressing shape, transitions, trying to impose a tempo. It won’t be perfect overnight. Fans can be harsh, but support during those growing pains can keep the atmosphere onside and give players and staff the breathing room to improve.

What the next few months should look like

Let’s be realistic. The summer window will be crucial. Recruitment will tell us a lot about the direction and how seriously the board back the project. Pre‑season will be when Rohl can bed in ideas properly. If we get smart signings and a clearer identity on the pitch, plenty of current doubts will fade. If not, then tougher questions should be asked – but not before he’s had a fair crack at it.

To be fair, backing a young manager doesn’t mean blind loyalty. It means measured judgement and giving the job a chance to breathe. I like Rohl as our head coach, I rate his potential, and I’d rather we give the rebuild a proper run than keep chopping and changing. In Rohl we trust.

People point to appearances and goal returns as the measure — you see talk of 30-plus games and nine goals being waved around like it’s acceptable. That’s not a deep tactical point, it’s a simple expectation: a Rangers striker should score regularly. Three bright games and a couple of flashes isn’t the same as steady returns over a season. Fans want a bit more certainty. We don’t need miracles, just someone who will trouble defences week in, week out.

The transfer maths and the chatter around fees get on everyone’s nerves. Some reckon the player will one day be worth big money; others think it’s FIFA fantasy. I get the banter about "Dembele dollars" and the absurd valuations you see on video games. Trouble is, the club can’t live on future potential alone. You want recruitment that makes sense now and shows a clear pathway to goals. If that means being honest about where we are and what we need, say it. Don’t dress wishful buys as long-term coups and expect patience forever.

There’s also the off-field noise. Some fans are furious about allocation rows, fines and the whole SFA angle — wondering if governing bodies will pick up bills when stadiums get damaged after big away followings, or if the club just gets left to hang. Those are legitimate frustrations, but they don’t solve the striker question. They do, however, add to the feeling that things aren’t being handled cleanly on multiple fronts.

So yes, I’ll keep whining. We all will from time to time. It’s part of being a supporter. But the simple ask remains: bring in, or back, a goalscorer who delivers regularly. Stop hiding behind potential and social media hype. Rangers deserve clarity and the kind of forward who scores the goals that win titles and quieten the noise.

Defence first made sense

To be fair, Angus's point about prioritising the defence rang true. There was a period where getting the basics right at the back was the sensible job to do. We scraped results and, as odd as it sounds, that solidity gave the side something to build on. You could see the structure, the organisation and the clearer shape when we needed to stand firm. That foundation bought Rohl the right to try and change the outlook, to ask the players to press higher and take more risks further up the pitch.

More on the front foot, more problems at the back

Now the team are a lot more on the front foot and that has moments which are genuinely pleasing. The first half of the first OF game and the Hearts game felt like we were in control. Even the Livi match produced plenty of chances, as fans have noticed. But the flip side is obvious — when you push up you leave gaps. We look vulnerable at times, and those moments have cost us. At the weekend we dominated large spells but only really threatened late on. It shows the hard balance between control and cutting edge, between keeping a clean sheet and taking the initiative.

Can momentum and pragmatism be married?

We are Jekyll and Hyde at the moment. That inconsistency makes the last nine games look daunting. An incredible run would be needed, and yes, eight wins and a draw might do it, but that feels a big ask from where we stand. Had we nicked that OF league game earlier, maybe the momentum would have pushed us on. Still, it isn't beyond belief. The task now is pragmatic — nail down a baseline defensive plan that lets the attacking ideas breathe, rotate to keep energy high, and keep belief alive among the supporters. I know I sound hopeful, but that's what being a fan is. Keep believing, but demand the balance.

Give him time, but not forever

We all said it when he arrived — it would take a couple of windows to see the idea properly take hold. Well, he's only had one real chance to mould things and you can see the beginnings of his hand. Transfers take time to bed in. Players need to understand roles, the manager needs a core he trusts, and the whole thing must click. That doesn't excuse poor results, but it explains why we shouldn't burn the man at the stake after a single campaign.

Expectations will tighten next season

Come next season, once the squad is closer to what Rohl wants, the margin for error shrinks. We'll be expecting to be at or near the top early on; September or October is a fair checkpoint. If we're nowhere close by then, pressure will rightly build. That's the nature of this club — patience wears thin fast when results don't follow. You can see why supporters get frustrated; we've been brought up on success and anything short feels bitter.

Don't forget the context

If that poor spell under Nancy hadn't happened, mood around Ibrox might be very different. A rough patch colours everything and makes fans strangely unforgiving. Still, there's a lot to like in what Rohl has started. It's a work in progress, no question, but one with promise. The coming window and the first few months of next season will tell us whether this was a steady rebuild or the start of something better. For now, judge him on his own signings and the shape he's creating. That's the only fair call.

Context matters — history, expectation and the younger fan

Look, our history is a messy mix of glory and drought. Up until 2011 we had long-serving managers and an awful lot of silverware. Those facts sit in the background of everything. Since then it’s been stop-start — nine full-time managers and only three trophies in 14 seasons, as you’d pointed out. That breeds impatience, especially among fans who’ve never known long runs of success.

Older supporters remember different eras. Angus and others who’ve seen the highs can afford a longer view. Most of the rest? They’ve been starved of sustained winning and they aren’t shy about showing it when the team slips.

So what has Rohl actually done and where has he fallen short?

Credit where it’s due: he galvanised a squad many had written off. That’s not nothing. The problem is the drop-off once we were back in the hunt — missed chances, the Cup exit and a poor European run. Those are the things that stick in fans’ throats. You can’t separate league form from beastly nights on the continental stage or getting dumped from domestic Cups by your rivals; they compound each other.

Asking whether he belongs alongside the likes of Martin, Beale, Pedro or Warburton, or whether he should be afforded time like Gerrard, isn’t a neat, obvious call. It’s subjective. Some will point to progress and squad buy-in. Others will cite the momentum we threw away.

Choices for the club and the board

If the owners back him through another window, that tells you the club wants continuity. If they don’t, the search will start again — and we all know how disruptive that becomes. Either way, there are broader questions about recruitment, structure and whether we learn from the false dawns since 2012.

We’re used to being impatient these days. That reality is part of the problem. Fans want answers now. Managers generally need time. The balancing act is brutal — and until results swing back in our favour, the knives will stay sharp.

At the very least, Rohl has shown he can rally a group. Whether that’s enough to buy the patience needed to rebuild properly is the real question. And if not him, where do we look next? Either route will require clarity from the board and a plan that convinces supporters they’re heading somewhere better, not just spinning their wheels.

All the little edges were ours

When you add up the marginal gains — home support, familiarity, crowd pressure on spot-kicks — you expect the bounce to go our way. Fans are used to swings in football, but this felt different. It wasn’t a one-off bad day; it was a missed opportunity in front of the people who matter most. The noise at Ibrox wasn’t enough to carry us over what should have been a test we passed.

Why this feels more damaging

A league defeat hurts, sure. But this felt like handing them momentum. With the run-in stretching ahead, confidence is currency. We’ve given our neighbours a glimmer when they needed to be worrying about morale. That’s what I mean by more damaging — not the result alone, but the timing and the psychological swing. You can forgive the odd mistake; you can’t forgive missing the sorts of chances a heavy home crowd helps create.

Where does that leave DR and the squad?

I voted for DR to stay, and I’m still willing to back him — but backing needs to come with results. We have nine games left. That’s not a huge sample, but it’s enough to show intent. The manager must tighten things up, get players to show more steel, and turn this group into the kind of side that takes care of business when everything’s stacked in our favour. And as for the captain saying "we will learn from this" — fair enough, but words only carry so far. The next few weeks need to be about action, not platitudes.

To be fair, I still believe in the squad. But this one will leave a bitter taste unless it sparks a proper response.

The fee and the risk

To be fair, we all liked the idea of bringing him in when we were first linked three or four years ago. That feeling is understandable. But feelings don’t pay the bills. A big outlay changes the calculus. If the player simply isn’t producing, that money becomes a weight rather than an investment. Fans worry because £9m is not a gesture; it’s a statement about expectations.

Not doing the simple things

Form isn’t just about one goal or two. It is about consistently beating men, creating chances, taking shots, making the team tick. Honest as I am, I’ve yet to see him beat a man regularly. He has scored one goal, and I don’t recall many attempts on goal either. Even some of the so-called contributions feel flattered by circumstance. You mention the cross that Chermiti finished; moments like that can make numbers look better than they are. Most of the time those crosses don’t end up as goals.

What the club should be weighing up

There is always room for patience. Maybe training, coaching and the right system can coax a player back to form. But the club must weigh that against opportunity cost. Whether it was down to Rangers or Cerny himself, we didn’t pay the 6 or 7 million for a guy who got us almost 20 goals and around 10 assists. Why would we then spend £9m on a player who hasn’t done anything yet? That’s the question supporters are asking.

Ultimately this isn’t about having a pop at a lad. It’s about sensible decision making. Big fees need big returns, and at the moment the returns simply aren’t visible. You can see why fans are sceptical.

Experience isn’t just a CV line

To be fair, some managers arrived with a lot more seasoning than others. Names like Walter, who learned under McLean, stood out because of years spent in different roles before stepping up. Others have come with varying lengths of experience — Gio, Murty, Gerrard, Caixinha, Warburton, McCoist — and that inconsistency shows. Experience matters for handling the day-to-day headaches, the media, transfer windows and the dressing-room politics. You can see why a manager fresh to a certain level struggles when the pressure ramps up.

Expectations, timelines and squad realities

Truth is, supporters and boards often want instant fixes. That mismatch between expectation and reality puts managers on a tightrope. If you’re asked to rebuild while also winning, and without the time or the transfers to do it properly, problems mount quickly. Recruitment is rarely simple, and when the squad isn’t right for a manager’s ideas you either change the ideas or change players — and neither happens overnight.

Backing, patience and a coherent plan

Too many managers have been shuffled through without a clear long-term plan. Stability helps a manager implement a style, coach the youngsters and steady the club. When that’s missing — when boards, expectations and media pressure clash — the job becomes a lottery. That’s not to absolve managers of responsibility, but context matters. Give someone time, structure and sensible targets, and you stand a much better chance of success.

As for Rohl, I’ve said before I’d have preferred a more experienced appointment at the outset. Still, I’ve also argued he deserved the chance to take us into next season. The big hope is the club learns the same lesson: back the man properly, set realistic goals and let continuity do its work.

When messaging matters more than tactics

You only have to look at the idea of prioritising one fixture over another to see how dangerous it is. If the manager signals publicly that Hearts is the priority and Motherwell is less important, that can become a licence to drop points. Fans read that as a lack of focus; players might too. In a league where you must treat every game as the final, anything that dilutes that immediate focus is a problem.

Selection and rotation — we’ve seen the warning signs

The Porto game feels like a turning point in this run. Playing the same strong XI for too long and then expecting instant momentum in the domestic slog isn’t always realistic. Dropped points at Hibs and Motherwell weren’t isolated blips — they were warning signs. We’ve had a mixed run since then: wins, draws and that cup exit on penalties. The record itself doesn’t scream panic, but the pattern of selection and the players not stepping up does.

Front men, positions and the mentality problem

There’s fair criticism of Rohl here. He works hard and looks the part at times, but the basic return against top Scottish sides hasn’t come. Skov was a big gamble from Germany and hasn’t justified that investment yet either. And playing Gassama on the wrong side repeatedly looks like sloppy thinking — it invites comparisons with other managers’ persistent errors. The truth is, when you constantly remind the squad they are in a title fight, you either galvanise them or you expose their fragility. Right now, too many of our players seem to fold under that reminder.

None of this is a call to sack anyone. It’s a plea for clarity, sharper game-by-game focus and smarter use of personnel. If Danny wants to steady things he needs to get us back to one game at a time, sort out the striking roles and stop sending mixed messages. Fans can critique without wanting a seismic change — we just want the club to get the basics right.

Skov and the right wing question

I watched Skov in Denmark and early in Belgium and thought he had the profile to fix our right flank. To be fair, I wanted him to be the answer. But what I’m seeing at Ibrox looks different to the player I remembered. He hasn’t shown himself in the big moments for us, and to be honest he didn’t always deliver under pressure for Denmark either. That does make you wonder if he’s the kind of player who can cope with the weight of playing for Rangers.

Loans, contracts and a looming hole in the squad

Look at the list: Meghoma, Djiga, Cornielious, Aarons, Skov, Moore — all loans winding down. Add Tav and Matondo out of contract and you’re talking about losing eight players straight away. That’s a chunk of the roster and it isn’t just depth gone; it’s structure, rhythm and options that need replacing.

Who should realistically be moved on — and why Danny deserves time

Then there are the others people name who probably should leave: Diomande, Raskin, Aasgaard, Bajrami, Antman, Sterling, Gassama, Miovski, plus the out-of-contract Bailey Rice and potential interest around Fernandez. Some are not delivering, some are too injury-prone, others simply don’t fit the shape. That’s easily another ten players who could be moved on.

So yes, the scale is big. Eighteen is probably optimistic but it shows the job in front of us. Given that, I’d give Danny a chance to rebuild properly rather than sacking and starting again. He needs backing in the window to replace bodies and bring players who suit the club, and he should be judged on that summer work rather than a short-term wobble.

The shape and the intent

To be fair, the formation matters. A settled 4-4-2 gives structure that was missing at times earlier in the season. You can see roles more clearly now — who stays central, who gets width, and when to press the opponent. It's not perfect yet; there are moments when the connections between the lines go missing, and we still lack a bit of quality in key areas. But the basic idea is visible, and that counts for something.

Subs, squad depth and match-day decisions

I'll be honest, his substitutions have been poor on occasion. In the most recent match the only substitute who looked like an upgrade was Chucky, and that tells you something about the bench and the options available. You can criticise the timing or choice, but you also have to factor in the players at his disposal. If the bench is not brimming with quality, changes might not lift the team. Recruitment and a stronger squad would help, but that takes time and sensible planning.

Why patience matters

We have a habit of sacking managers before they properly see who fits and who does not. By the time a manager works through the squad and identifies the players who can thrive here, he's often out the door. That stop-start approach has cost us stability. The last time we allowed a manager to bed in properly was the last time we won the league, and I don't think that was a coincidence. There has been progress since Rohl arrived, and I honestly think he should be given the chance to carry that on into next season. The new owners seem less likely to react at the slightest stumble, which is exactly what we need — time, patience and a clear plan.

Call me optimistic, but I want consistency. Let the manager work through the squad and see what he can build.

Why the subs weren’t outrageous

Looking at the changes, I don’t think they were crazy. Diomande had been booked and looked off the pace, so taking him off made sense. Chukwuani came on and did a job; he injected a bit of movement when we needed it. Rommens and Sterling were clearly spent — sometimes you’ve got to accept legs are gone and switch them before they become a liability.

Who else could have gone on?

There weren’t many obvious alternatives. You mention Aasgaard and Miovski not used — and I get the frustration — but you can also see why the manager stuck with what felt safest in the moment. Moore carrying an injury explains his absence from the late push, and I’m with you in assuming Djiga picked something up, because otherwise it’s hard to justify some of the choices. Tav and Gassama as a gee-up? Maybe for spirit, but it’s doubtful either would have transformed a game that lacked tempo and rhythm.

Small positives, bigger worries

Bajrami did alright and had our only shot on target, which is telling. Tav delivered the only decent corner we produced all game, so set-piece quality was sparse. Truth is, the squad feels thin in places and options from the bench haven’t always offered the required spark. I’m not calling for heads to roll — just pointing out that on nights like this we need better impact from substitutes and a bit more invention in the final third.

In short: sensible subs given the state of play, a few players did their jobs, but the overall performance left plenty to be desired. We need better solutions off the bench and a sharper tempo when the game is flat.

Not the stewards or the SFA

We can moan at the authorities until the cows come home, but they do not decide to invade pitchside or push through fencing. When fans spill out of stands and celebrations turn messy, responsibility has to be taken where it belongs.

Away allocations and closed stands

The idea of removing away allocations or closing sections where problems happen feels extreme, but I understand the anger. If restricting numbers or changing access points stops repeat scenes, many decent supporters would back that. We must balance punishment with fairness.

Not about the team, it’s about us

Yes, I know the team have not been at their best. But getting stick from mates is about the fans, not the players. I feel embarrassed when fellow supporters make us look like clowns. That shame is worse than any losing run.

What decent fans should demand

We should be loud about sanctions that actually work. Not blanket bans just for the sake of it, but targeted measures, sensible segregations, quicker intervention when groups become volatile, clearer steward communication and firm ejections rather than a slow escalation. The SFA and clubs need to see supporter opinion too; proper consultation will stop kneejerk reactions and keep honest fans on side.

It’s a bigger cultural fix. We need to call out daft behaviour inside our own ranks, not excuse it because they were celebrating. Education, clearer messaging from clubs and supporter groups, and visible consequences will change the tone. Otherwise every game risks the same headlines and the same shame.

We need proper stewarding and sensible policing, sure, but the cultural bit is on us. Decent fans want a safe, proud Ibrox and away end. If that means hard choices to stop the small number wrecking it, then let's back the measures and move on.

We all love the club and want to see the atmosphere right. If a small number are willing to wreck that for cheap notoriety then the rest of us must push back. I'll happily back sensible measures even if they're unpopular with the dafter element. Let's sort it and get back to shouting about the football, not our own disgrace.

Hold on to the youngsters and the ones growing into it. You can see why fans get impatient, but the two names people keep throwing around deserve time. Raskin’s coming into himself with confidence and fit for our tempo. Chermiti’s pace and presence give us a different dimension; that’s invaluable in this league. Selling now feels like short-term thinking — you lose the on-field boost and probably don’t get full value anyway.

Trim the dead wood, yes — but don’t delude yourself about cash in the bank. Bajrami’s posturing after a game was cringe and he hasn’t shown the fight some expected since arriving. If he’s not delivering, move him on. Gassama hasn’t convinced either. Diomande looks like someone who can improve with coaching and minutes, though. There are a number of fringe players we should assess properly and offload where sensible, but don’t expect a windfall from most of them.

On Olsen and transfers: I get the argument that a deal could be costly. If you think we’d save about £8m by walking away, that’s a reasonable fan take. I’d be wary of overpaying for any single recruit when we can develop assets already in the building. And on a lighter note, I’d happily pay more for my season ticket if it meant getting Moore permanently — that kind of decision can be worth the extra coin if it steadies the side.

Truth is, we need balance. Keep the players who improve us now and can earn more later. Cut the ones who don’t fit. Be ruthless where necessary, but don’t sell the future for quick cash.