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.

Start with the basics. The model I've been banging on about isn't some fancy theory — it's about continuity. If you allow three or four quality signings a year to slot in and replace those who leave, the spine of the team stays intact. When recruitment goes wrong you don't get subtle tweaks, you get wholesale churn and the loss of any identity. It's obvious why people panic, but firing the manager is rarely the clean fix some imagine.

Look at the lack of creativity. This isn't a stat to invent, it's a feel on the pitch: there are positions that should be sources of invention and they're empty or filled with players who don't fit the role. That feeds through to results, to tempo and to how the team shapes up in transition. Good recruitment finds the profile and the character that suits the manager's way of play — that's the missing link more often than not.

Responsibility is shared. I used management examples to show it's not always the gaffer alone. Players have to step up. The worrying absence of real captains on the pitch is part of the problem. Leadership isn't a badge; it's presence, organisation and someone who drags the team through patches. Without that, younger signings don't get nurtured, standards slip and the cycle continues.

The practical side? Trim the squad. Aim for 22 senior players with four being genuine projects — youngsters who can be blooded and grown. Make that a condition in recruitment briefs for whoever gets the job. If the manager doesn't buy into a smaller, sharper squad and a clear profile for signings, then he's not the right fit for what the club needs.

So I'm saying no to knee-jerk managerial changes and no to endless reshuffles. Demand success, always. Expect standards, always. But do it with a plan: tighten recruitment, create leaders, and build a squad that actually hangs together.

SFA policy put clubs in a bind

There are reasons around crowd safety, policing and stadium capacity that officials will quote, but the blunt 20% figure ignores the matchday reality. When you force a small number of away fans into a huge stadium you change the dynamic, the atmosphere shifts, security plans become harder and tensions can rise. That is not an excuse for what happened, but it does explain how an already volatile situation became more combustible.

Green Brigade and the away support problem

The Green Brigades' posts and messages before kick-off suggested they saw an opportunity after being largely shut out for so long. To be frank, that shouldn't have come as a total surprise. Clubs and authorities should have been prepared for a flashpoint. My big question is this: how is it that a group who are banned from Celtic Park were sold tickets by Celtic for an away game at Ibrox? That needs answering. Ticketing and vetting procedures must be airtight and clubs should not be outsourcing responsibility. If supporters are going to act up when given that chance, the fault sits at multiple doors, with fan groups, clubs and the governing body all sharing blame.

Pundits need to face the new reality

Pundits and ex-players who hanker after the good old days need to wake up. Ultras culture has changed the landscape around away support; bigger, more organised groups look for moments and they can make things happen quickly. That doesn't excuse violence or disruption, but it does mean the old assumptions about away fans and what we'd simply tolerate no longer hold. We need honest conversations, not nostalgia, about how to protect genuine supporters, keep stadiums safe and prevent a minority from hijacking big occasions. The SFA should review the allocation rule and clubs must tighten ticketing and stewarding. Ultimately, accountability should sit with those who make the regulations, not just with clubs trying to follow them.

We can't unpick what happened overnight, but the starting point is clear: the SFA must be held to account and everyone involved must stop preferring nostalgia over safety.

Where it went wrong

To be fair, some of the summer signings showed up and looked a cut above what we’ve had recently, but that’s not the point. Chermiti was a non-factor in the areas that mattered, Moore struggled to impose himself, and Skov Olsen and Gassama were poor on the ball and off it. You can criticise selection or shape, but ultimately the players on the pitch have to do the business. When the frontline offers nothing and the midfield fails to control tempo, Danny has little else to change in the moment.

The bench and the nerves

Look at the bench, with Aasgaard and Miovski there, and the manager clearly doesn’t trust them to swing a big game. That’s a problem for recruitment and for confidence within the squad. It’s not just about geeing the boys up before kick-off; it’s about having players with the skill and nerve to step up. Only two lads looked like they could take a penalty and one missed. Penalties are a tiny part of a match but they reveal the mentality in the dressing room.

What needs to change

We’re not comparing to an all-conquering Celtic here; both sides can be poor on their day. The truth is we need more consistency, more players who can change games, and a spine to rely on when things get tight. Fans can moan at the manager, and sometimes that’s fair, but pointing the finger at him every week misses the bigger picture. Recruitment, coaching and player character all matter. Until those pieces improve, we’ll keep seeing nights like this.

As I’ve said on Rangers News Views, this is bigger than one team-talk. We need smarter recruitment that brings in players used to pressure, plus coaching that builds composure for dead-ball situations and penalties. The board have to back sensible signings who can change the course of a match, not just bodies. And players need to show the bottle, the courage to take responsibility when the stadium is tense. Until that culture changes, the manager will always pick up more heat than he deserves.

Where the tactics fell short

To be fair, it's easy to point fingers after a bad day, but some things were obvious. The shape lacked balance, the press wasn't coordinated and transitions were sluggish. Whoever was meant to be the trigger for forward moves disappeared at times. Little urgency on the ball meant opponents had time to set up and nullify us. You can argue about individual errors, but the overall plan needs to be clearer.

Players who showed something — and those who didn’t

The original poster kept a sensible short list: Djiga, Rommens, Fernandez, Sterling, Chukwuani, Moore and Naderi for effort. I agree that a handful deserve credit for trying, even when the collective display was poor. Equally, some names simply didn't do enough. Skov Olsen was singled out and, from what people saw, he failed to impact the game. If he's not giving the team what it needs, that's a problem.

Clear questions for DR and the board

We can't invent finances or transfer details, but the point about affordability is real — if we can't keep certain players, then recruitment has to be sharper. Selling players who don't fit is reasonable. More importantly, though, DR needs to give us a coherent pattern of play and a starting eleven that looks hungry from minute one. Fans wanted to see an opportunity taken, especially against an understrength Celtic side, and that chance was missed. It's a ugly day, but it's also a checklist: clarity in tactics, clearer roles for players, and more fight on the pitch.

To sum up, the performance was disappointing and raised big questions. We deserve better answers from the coaching team and a sharper response on the pitch.

Where we are with Danny

To be fair, managers have come and gone and each left a different mark. Some steadied the ship in Old Firm games, others brought European runs and cups. Danny's tactics have been questioned and you can see why fans are restless. But results are only part of it — gameplans need players who can execute them, and that's where the conversation often stalls.

The bigger problem — creativity and midfield

Look at the heart of the pitch. There's precious little invention. When people say "there's a player there" it rings hollow if that player isn't delivering in tight moments. Possession percentages and shape only take you so far. You still need midfielders who can create between the lines, unlock sides and feed the forwards. Right now we lack that consistent creative influence. That exposes tactical flaws and makes managerial ideas look worse than they might actually be.

Player model, recruitment and leadership

The idea of selling one big name and having a developer ready to step up makes sense on paper. The difficulty lies in recruitment: finding players suited to the league who want to be here, who buy into the style and who strengthen our leadership group. We keep players who don't fit, and let others linger when they should have moved on. Names have been mentioned around here — you know who I mean — and it feels like several decisions have been mishandled.

So what's the verdict? I'm not blindly backing Danny, but I'm also not convinced a managerial change alone fixes things. Fix recruitment, recruit creativity, and sort the captaincy and leadership in the dressing room. Do that and the manager has a much better chance of making things work.

What's wrong with the leadership?

From where I sit the leadership group seems to be Tav, Butland and Souttar. Each brings something different, but there are real question marks over whether any of them are driving the team on when it matters. Tav has been a stalwart and produced solid individual returns, yet you can argue we haven't seen the ruthless edge from him since that 'invincible' season. Butland can be brilliant, but he also has nights where he looks ordinary and, to be frank, sometimes like a man playing for himself. Souttar earned a new contract and, for reasons I don't pretend to know, hasn't hit the levels we hoped for since.

Why mentality matters

This club isn't built on nice intentions; it's built on attitude, bite and an expectation to win. Mentality shows in tight games, in how we close out leads, how we react to mistakes and how the players look after each other on the pitch. To be fair, tactics and fitness matter too, but without leaders who demand more the rest can drift.

What needs to change?

First, stop mistaking reputation for leadership. Having played well elsewhere or worn the shirt doesn't automatically make you the voice that lifts the team. Second, the manager and coaching staff need to identify who genuinely influences the lads and give them responsibility. Third, recruitment should favour players with proven hunger and resilience — men who won't switch off when a game gets ugly. That doesn't mean wholesale panic, but it does mean a proper assessment of the dressing room and, where necessary, a refresh of the leadership group.

Fans want pride and fight. We all know modern football isn't simple, but dragging standards up starts with people who refuse to accept excuses. If the club listens and acts, there's no reason this team can't recover its edge. If not, we'll keep having the same arguments after every poor night.

Midfield lacks creativity

Raskin has been off form for weeks and when the midfield contains too many defensive-minded players we lack a foothold in the game. Diomande's tendency to dive into tackles and be hooked at half-time has been costly at times; it's left us short in the engine room and asking questions about balance. Creativity isn't glamorous, it's essential — someone who can pick out a forward pass, run beyond the striker or arrive late into the box for goals.

It's not only the manager

Look, it's easy to point fingers at DR but the squad and the recruitment before him matter. Years of dodgy signings, overpaying for average players and constant managerial changes haven't helped. For stretches we've looked top class, but inconsistency comes from a patchwork midfield and a lack of leadership in key positions. You can't coach creativity out of thin air.

Set pieces and small margins

Small margins decide games. Set plays and penalties can swing results, so it's fair to ask whether practising spot-kicks sits under the set-piece remit or somewhere else. Coaching needs to cover the full spectrum: corners and free-kicks, yes, but also routines for penalties, composure and the mental side. Little details matter when points are tight.

What we need next season

So what's clear is that recruitment must target a genuine creative midfielder, a seasoned central-half who leads from the back, and a proper winger who can beat full-backs and put balls in dangerous areas. Those three additions would change our shape and give DR something to work with. And yes, there's a feeling about Olsen — if he's not fully committed then that becomes another headache to sort.

I don't want to be endlessly negative — there's talent in the squad and we've had good spells — but until we find someone to unlock defences and a leader to steady the midfield, games will be a grind. Simple signings, smarter recruitment and a clearer identity would make the difference.

Don't pin it all on Celtic

To be fair, Celtic's problems have opened the door. That's not the same as us walking through it. We haven't been consistent enough. You can see it in the way we look solid against lesser teams then drop points where it matters. The players are front and centre of this — talent alone isn't getting it done on the big days.

Danny's role and the players' shortcomings

Danny is supposed to be the man who gets this group over the line. Right now that responsibility sits heavy. It's not just about tactics on a Tuesday afternoon; it's motivation, game management, substitutions that change games and players who can be relied upon in tight moments. When those pieces don't click, the manager's questioned — and rightly so. We can accept that no coach is magical, but when the same issues keep popping up you have to ask whether the message's getting through.

Why fans are cautious

Loads of supporters have seen this film before. We've celebrated early and then been left gutted. Saying the league is over before it's mathematically done isn't optimism — it's a defence mechanism. If we lose, you can shrug and say you warned folk. It hurts less than hoping every week and watching it unravel again. That cynicism isn't nice, but it's understandable.

At the end of the day the blame isn't one person's to carry. The players, the coach, the club structure — everyone has a part. If we want to stop repeating the same mistakes, the squad must show more steel and the coaching team must find ways to stop the habit of underperforming when it matters most. Otherwise we'll be left asking the same questions next season.

Where it went wrong

The first question has to be policing. You'd expect a big derby to have a visible police presence at every key exit and around the pitch. If rival fans are allowed to flood down towards Broomloan without adequate containment it doesn't take much for things to kick off. Add in staff and players lingering on the pitch and you have a combustible mix.

Players, staff and celebrations

I get wanting to celebrate, and to be fair players and staff earn those moments. But in an Old Firm with tensions high the sensible move is to get the players off the turf and back into the dressing room before the crowd moves. Let the stewards and club organise a controlled lap or a managed walkout later. Having people milling about on the pitch when Glasgow's streets are full of opposing fans is asking for trouble. The point about the 'Tics RB' running towards Broomloan stands - moments like that inflame the situation, whether intended or not.

Who pays the price and what next?

Stewards can't be expected to stand in the front line, and they need better support. Police need to plan and be visible. Opposing clubs should also be accountable for their supporters' behaviour - damage and pitch invasions aren't something a club can shrug off. Then there's the ultras issue; if organised groups make segregation harder and bring a risk of violence, the authorities and clubs will have to rethink how many away supporters can safely attend. That will be a bitter pill for proper fans on both sides, but safety has to come first.

Practical steps: pre-match liaison between clubs, police and stewards; clear protocol that players return to the dressing room after full-time unless a managed lap is arranged; designated routes for away fans and controlled egress; better use of CCTV and quick reaction teams. Fans want to celebrate but not at the expense of safety or bringing the club under scrutiny.

This was avoidable. We should argue for firm procedures, sensible celebrations and clear responsibility across board, club and police. Rangers fans don't want the club under extra scrutiny - we want smart management so scenes like yesterday don't happen again.

Control without a killer instinct

To be fair, the team showed real tempo at times and the shape looked fine going forward. You could see why people thought we were on top. Problem is, being on top isn't enough if you don't have the edge in the box. We lack a genuine finisher and someone who drags the game by the scruff when it matters. Chances came and went. That hesitation in the final third cost us.

Defence, decisions and the penalties

Defensively there were worrying flashes. Souttar has become a genuine concern in recent displays; at his worst he makes even composed partners look uncertain. Djiga had his moments of comfort, but when the other side were as poor as they were, that tells you something. Araujo staying on felt a bit lucky from where I was watching, and that added to the frustration. Then the penalties — embarrassing to watch, and heartbreaking for the supporters who believed we'd done enough.

Does Rohl have what it takes?

I'm not sure Rohl is the man to steady this ship right now. He makes choices that confuse, substitutions that don't change the game, and that chips away at confidence. Maybe the squad can't be judged harshly on one game, but patterns matter. Leadership on the pitch matters too — when the skipper misses one and looks rattled, people notice. Questions need answering: do we need a clinical striker, clearer leadership, or a tweak in approach? Probably all three.

Truth is, this one stings. You walk away thinking we had it, yet somehow handed it back. It's not just a result — it's a reminder that squad and management issues remain to be fixed if we're serious about winning the big ones.

Where we are

To be blunt, mistakes were made. Executives and management didn’t get everything right, and that ripple effect matters on the pitch. Three dismissals within a short space is disruptive. Players’ confidence, dressing-room shape and continuity all take a hit when the managerial ladder keeps shifting. Fans are allowed to be frustrated — I certainly am — but panic chopping won’t suddenly correct years of missteps.

What needs to happen

Recovery is about building rather than papering over cracks. That means steady recruitment, clearer structures behind the scenes and giving a manager the remit to implement a style and a squad shape. We don’t need fairy-tale turns overnight; we need a plan that shows trajectory. Yes, the early mistakes are unacceptable, but the alternative is constant short-term fixes that never let a system bed in.

Danny’s moment

Danny will get tools and backing — that’s the honest view here — but tools are only useful if they’re used properly. Next season must be the real test. The jury can remain out for now; I’m willing to defend him against calls to throw him under the bus straight away. At the same time, expectations must be clear: we move on, we prepare, and we expect progress. Fans want results, yes, but we also want the club to stop repeating the same mistakes that left us scrambling in the first place.

In the end, patience is conditional. Support will be given, but delivery will be demanded. That’s fair. That’s Rangers.

Keeper and defence

Let’s start with Butland. He’s been a dead cert from the spot in recent times, but yesterday he didn’t have that same look of authority. Not poor by any means, just not the confident figure we saw last week. At the back, Djiga and Fernandez looked the most reliable pairing. You can see why you’d want them together — they’ve got pace and reading of the game. Souttar, when he came on, seemed nervous. That’s not a criticism of the player as much as an observation of the moment; coming on cold into a tight game can do that.

Midfield shape and tactical moves

Tactically we didn’t really change much. Subs felt like like-for-like swaps rather than genuine attempts to alter the shape or tempo. If the bench is meant to be the cherry on top, yesterday it was thin and a touch unimaginative. The midfield workrate looked okay at times, but we never quite controlled the game in the areas that matter.

Attack, bench and penalties

Up front I think Chukwuani offers more dynamism than Diomande right now. Naderi being used as Chermiti’s back-up runner feels wasteful — he’s the one making the smarter, sharper runs and should be getting the ball in those moments. Chermiti still doesn’t convince as a natural Rangers number nine, and expecting Moore to be a match-winner every week is unfair on an 18-year-old who’s still finding his feet. The bench lacked a genuine game-changer. Finally, the penalties exposed something more worrying: the team looked nervous. When it mattered most, we crumbled a bit. That mental edge needs fixing fast.

To be fair, there were positives to build on. But if we want consistency we need stronger tactical tweaks from the bench, smarter use of the forwards we trust, and a steadier head at crucial moments.

Calm heads, please

To be fair, criticism is part of being a fan. But there’s a difference between measured analysis and instant pile‑on. We’re far too quick to get on players’ backs and call for a manager’s head after a poor run. Bad spells happen in every season. What’s mad is how quickly people abandon nuance and start demanding dramatic action — as if that’s always the answer.

You can see why emotions run high. Football is tribal and passionate. But knee‑jerk reactions don’t build trophies. They build noise, and that noise too often drowns out the sensible voices who want steady heads and backing when it’s needed most.

We’ve been here before

Remember when people wrote the season off in October? Then the result against Hearts swung opinion the other way. Football is a rollercoaster. My childhood was the banter years; I never got to live through the 90s success properly, so I’m desperate for those big moments. That doesn’t mean I’ll chuck a strop because we’re not cruising at the summit. It means I’ll stick with the side through the bumps.

What we should do now

With everything still to play for the sensible thing is obvious: back the team, trust the process and criticise constructively. Supporters don’t help by creating a poisonous atmosphere where every mistake is seized upon and amplified. If you care as much as you say, stand up and be measured — not a doom‑merchant.

Truth is, this club has weathered worse. Let’s not be the ones who give up on our own lot whenever the road gets a bit bumpy. Keep the belief, cut the constant ridicule, and let’s see how the remaining games unfold.

Are results masking poor play?

We hear a lot about wins and points and that's fine, but football isn't just about getting over the line. If your build-up is stuttering, you can't play through teams or create real openings, that matters. Right now our progression into the final third looks too static. Too often opponents can sit in and invite us to knock it around on the edge of the box without causing panic.

What actually has improved?

To be fair, there are visible gains. We're neater without the ball, more compact, and Moore's shift centrally has given him more influence on the defensive side and made our shape clearer. Those things do help when you're defending leads or shutting games down. But tidy defending alone won't win the big fixtures if the attacking plan is thin.

Why JBA keeps getting the mention

When people point to JBA it's not just nostalgia — it's that they seem to have found a way to make the team flow, often with less money. Maybe he had to suffer a few failures to learn. Maybe Röhl will need the same growing pains. I'm open to that. I'm not demanding an immediate sacking, just asking for more evidence: clearer attacking ideas, better movement to create space, and a plan to actually break teams down rather than hope chances appear.

In short: I want to see the football improve, not just the scoreboard. If it clicks, great. For now, sceptical but hopeful.

What he brought back

To be fair, his work wasn’t only about trophies. It was about recognition, belief and being competitive on a bigger stage. We went from drifting domestically and scraping in Europe to turning up against decent sides and getting results that reminded everyone who we are. That league win — stopping Celtic’s run and doing it in convincing fashion — reset belief across the whole club.

Has that drifted since?

Yes, some of that momentum has faded. Gio kept much of the European confidence going, but lately we've not looked the same side that grew under Gerrard. This season in particular has felt like a step back in Europe and domestically. You don’t need a stats lecture to see the mood change; it’s about performances, shape and the tempo of games. That matters more than headlines.

Appointments are always a gamble

People ask whether bringing Gerrard back would have fixed everything. Nobody knows. Same goes for DM, the Motherwell boss, or Röhl. Every choice comes with risk. Fans naturally look for proven fixes, and Gerrard’s track record made him an attractive option. Ultimately the club has to pick who fits their plan and hope the move pays off.

So where does that leave us? Credit where it’s due — Gerrard rebuilt something important at Rangers and that can’t be taken away. But we also need measured judgement now. Röhl hasn’t had his chance yet. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt, see how pre-season shapes up, and judge the appointment on the pitch next season rather than on what might have been.

What happened where I was

There were maybe twenty or thirty that went on first, then returned to shout for more to follow. Apart from a token line, there was surprisingly little resistance. A few more police arrived once it had escalated, but they seemed pretty relaxed about stopping people getting onto the pitch. From my angle it looked like the stewards and the police weren’t set up to deal with that kind of thing quickly.

Who should be taking responsibility?

Stewards are there to keep the game safe for everyone, and the police are responsible for crowd safety and preventing illegal pitch entries. Neither did their job properly, in my view. That’s not excusing the people who ran on at all — they were daft and dangerous — but stewarding failures made a tense situation much worse. It should have been contained before it grew.

The aftermath and how it’s been handled

I fully condemn the scenes. Whoever ended up on the pitch was acting stupidly, and the club will rightly face questions. I’m worried we’ll take a heavy hit in punishment and, to be frank, don’t expect parity in how things are judged on both sides. Did you see O'Neil's press conference saying the fans just wanted to celebrate? If you ask me he should have been firmer — called it out as unacceptable and moved on.

Truth is, we need better stewarding at both ends and clearer messaging from managers and clubs when stuff like this happens. Fans want to celebrate, fine — but not by making the whole place look a mess and risking people’s safety.

Where I'm coming from

Look, I'm a believer in backing managers to a point. The point for me is results and progress. The problem is that, so far, Danny Rohl has not produced anything I'd call a clear success as manager. No trophies, and at times the form has been patchy. Two wins in seven matches is the kind of run that sparks debate in every dressing room and every stand.

Comparisons and context

You can compare managers all you like — people point to the Motherwell manager and say he's got silverware. Fine. I'm simply making the observation that Rohl hasn't got that. I also brought up Steven Gerrard only to remind people that time isn't an automatic cure; long leashes don't always work out the way supporters hope.

What I want to see

This isn't a sacked-or-stay plea. It's a demand for clarity. If we're keeping faith with Rohl into next season, show signs of building something now: better consistency, clearer structure on the pitch, fewer dropped points from positions of control. Fans can be patient, but patience isn't endless — it's conditional on visible improvement.

And just so there's no misunderstanding: I haven't called for Rohl to be sacked. I want answers and progress. If that comes, fair play. If it doesn't, then the conversation changes. Simple as that.

As many readers on Rangers News Views will recognise, this is where opinion and evidence meet — and right now I'm waiting to see more evidence.

Why I rate Danny Rohl

There’s a reason I and others pointed to Rohl as a decent appointment. He’s worked with top coaches, absorbed different ideas and showed he can manage a difficult situation. That kind of pedigree matters. It’s not glamour; it’s about getting the basics right — shape, organisation, and making the squad hard to beat when confidence is low. To be fair, he’s not immune to critique, but dismissing him outright misses the point of what he’s achieved so far.

But we must be fair on Askou

Jens Berthel Askou has had a mixed CV. There are things he’s done well this season, and of course he’s earned praise for that. Equally, his record elsewhere isn’t spotless — relegations in Denmark and a title in the Faroes tell a complicated story. I wasn’t sold on him before this year, and I still think there are legitimate questions to ask. Comparing managers can be useful, but it’s not always straightforward; John McGlynn and David Healy have their own cases as well, so lets not pretend it’s an open-and-shut debate.

Skov Olsen and the bigger integration problem

On Skov Olsen, I get why people are sceptical. He’s not the stereotypical lightning winger whose main job is to run past full-backs and flash into the box. Some fans won’t warm to that. Yet he’s shown more early signs than Cerny, Sima or Moore did in comparable windows — but form and confidence are missing. The real failing this season has been how poorly new signings have been brought in and integrated. That’s on managers and the coaching staff; poor timing, unclear roles and patchy confidence-management have hindered players settling in.

Truth is, you can back Rohl and still point out problems elsewhere. Supporting him isn’t the same as turning a blind eye. If we want progress, we’ve got to be honest about what’s gone wrong — and see where we can do better when bringing players through the door.

What the owners are likely to demand

Investors come with expectations. They want steadier form, clearer direction and evidence that money is being put to effective use. If the summer sees another sizeable outlay, the margin for patience shrinks. Owners tend to judge by immediate impact as much as long-term planning, especially when the price tag goes up. So the opening fixtures of the season become more than just early results — they’re a marker of intent.

Where that leaves Rohl

From what you’ve said, Rohl probably has about three to four months into the new campaign to show genuine improvement. That isn’t unusual these days, but it is tight. Supporters can shout and protest, write columns and make opinions heard, but ultimately the people writing the cheques decide when enough is enough. If the team continues to wobble — good one week, poor the next — that inconsistency will be the clearest argument for a change.

Why the Motherwell boss isn't an obvious fix

I get the instincts behind suggesting the Motherwell manager, but I’m not convinced he’s the right call for a club in our position. Different managers fit different clubs. Success at a smaller club doesn’t automatically translate to handling expectations at Ibrox, especially under new ownership eager for fast returns. If a change is made, the Americans will want someone who can tick boxes quickly: stability, a clear style and the ability to handle pressure — not just recent results on a smaller stage.

Truth is, fans will have their say, loud and proud. But this time around the final verdict looks set to come from upstairs. We can voice opinions, push for continuity or change, and hope the board listens. In the end the owners will judge by form and trajectory, and that’s the reality Rohl will be working under next season.

Possession without purpose

You can dominate midfield and still come away with nothing. Crosses and corners were poor. For all our time on the ball we failed to fashion clear openings. Chermiti and Nadera ran themselves into the ground but rarely looked like scoring, and I was left asking why we couldn't make the final pass or a properly weighted delivery into the box.

Decisions that hurt

The manager has shown inexperience at times and cost us here. Bringing Moore off when he still offered a bit of flair felt odd — he wasn't brilliant, but he gave something different. And if Miovski was fit and available, surely he was worth a look when Nadera was running out of steam? The only time they looked a threat was after Souttar came on. Little moments like that change games. Little things were missed.

Off-field chaos and poor stewarding

I didn't see all the nonsense at the death, but I did see opposition fans on the pitch and a small group goading the Gers section. What the police and stewards were doing is anybody's guess. They should have known there was a chance of pitch encroachment and been better prepared. If that hadn't happened none of the afters would have taken place, but we have our own troublemakers too who are more than ready to join in. It's embarrassing and it leaves a sour taste after an already frustrating game.

Bottom line: we couldn't break a poor side, tactical choices looked shaky, and control off the pitch was lacking. Plenty to fix before next season.

Goalkeeping and defensive doubts

Butland still pulls off big saves and he can be the difference in a game, but his distribution with the ball at his feet is a worry. You can’t build from the back if your keeper is a regular liability under pressure. Rohl felt cautious too, almost setting up the team to play for penalties rather than pushing play forward. At the back, some of the youngsters are trying — Djiga and Ferandeze had acceptable shifts — but Soutar struggles for awareness. There’s no excuse for missing what’s happening around you at professional level.

Midfield mix-ups and attitude concerns

Rommens and others are fine on the day but not consistently imposing themselves. Diomonde getting booked too easily is making life harder for the team. Raskin comes across as someone who perhaps overestimates himself; football is a team game and that has to show in his work-rate and positioning. Moore asking young players to perform miracles only exposes squad fragility — we can’t keep relying on one kid to bail us out.

Attack lacking bite and belief

Olsen’s been overrated in my view — we need runners, aggression and someone who gives defenders headaches. Chermiti will never be the main striker if he’s only flattering to deceive. Naderi works hard but I’m not convinced he’s the answer at our level. Gassama looks flashy but too often shows style over substance; heads-up play and decision-making are missing.

Truth is, there’s a mentality issue. Players look beaten before the final whistle sometimes. Yes, the opposition had several first-team men missing — the point is we still should be better. Fans storming the pitch was a poor look for everyone; celebrations are one thing, ruining the club’s reputation is another. Ibrox deserves better than excuses. We need honesty, clarity from the manager and a reset in attitude, fast.

Defence held, but substitutions mattered

The centre-backs looked solid for long spells and you could see the shape doing its job. Sterling offered real threat and movement, which we badly needed going forward. Then Souttar comes on and a couple of shaky moments nearly handed the game away. One bad touch, one misplaced pass — that’s all it takes at this level. You can’t ignore those lapses; they cost points.

Olsen and the missing cutting edge

Olsen was a major disappointment. If the club have invested as suggested, expectations should be higher. He didn’t influence play or cause the opposition defenders enough problems. Sterling shows you how to unsettle a back four — quick feet, direct runs, purposeful decision-making. Olsen offered none of that on the day, and the lack of a focal goal threat was obvious. No save from the keeper was truly tested.

Right wing, midfield and recruitment needs

Raskin isn’t convincing as the long-term option and Gassama’s inconsistencies are glaring. Twice he tried to make it personal against Maeda and lost the ball rather than taking the simple pass. That selfishness kills rhythm. On the right we lacked penetration, and centrally we needed someone who can shoot from the edge of the box — someone to punish a goalkeeper from distance. In short: a genuine goal-scoring striker, a proper right-winger and a midfielder with a shot would change this side immediately. Simple, but true.

We can still fix this without panicking. But the club need to be honest about where reinforcements are required. To be a title side you need bite on the right and goals up front — neither was present here.

Where we failed in the final third

Crossing and corners let us down — basic, but brutal. When you don't cause chaos in the box, chances dry up. Ibrox needs better service and more urgency from wide players. Too often the ball was safe and sideways, not probing. You could see it: teams defending in numbers and us recycling without the necessary tempo. That lack of real pressure invited the opposition to sit in.

Individual bits: Djiga, Olsen and Gassama

Rohl's call to bring Djiga in looked right to me — he added something solid and had a decent game. We needed that spark. Olsen is a worry though. He was signed to unsettle defenders but tonight he looked a pale shadow of the player who could bust a defence open a couple of seasons back. He won't take the defender on like he used to; everything felt too safe. In the second half he drifted into the middle when we had an obvious overload on the right, and I'm not sure if that was a tactic or a misread on the pitch.

Gassama also didn't offer enough. These are the players expected to create and they didn't deliver when we needed that little moment of inspiration.

Where we go from here

I'm not in the camp calling for the manager to go. We've seen improvement since he arrived, but it's clear there's still work to do. Realistically, the title feels out of reach now, which ramps up pressure to finish the season strongly and build momentum. We need better delivery from wide areas, sharper decision-making in the final third and a bit more willingness to take the game by the scruff when the chance presents itself.

Not a complete write-off, but tonight was a reminder of the gaps that remain. If we tidy those up, there's reason to be hopeful — but it needs addressing, and fast.

Players must take the initiative

You can see why supporters are scunnered. When a game's there for the taking you need men who will seize it — to show urgency, make the right decisions and take those chances. Decision making in the final third cost us tonight and in the last big spell. Poor choices, half-tackles, a lack of composure on set pieces or in transition. Those are on the players, not the boardroom.

Give Danny Rohl the summer to build

I won't pretend it's easy watching it unfold. Still, we shouldn't rush into a managerial sacking. Danny Rohl needs the summer window to shape the squad, to bring in his profiles and tweak what hasn't worked. The club should give him that chance — and I expect the board will do precisely that. We need stability as much as sharpness.

Focus on the run-in

For now, there's work to do in the remaining nine league games. We fight for every point, lick our wounds and be honest about where we're short. Fans should demand better from the players each week — more urgency, smarter choices and clinical finishing. The manager gets next season from me, but the players must answer now. We owe ourselves that much.

Truth is, I'm hurting like the rest of you. But knee-jerk reactions won't fix the problems. Support, patience and a good dose of accountability on the pitch is what will. We'll take stock at the end of the campaign and judge properly then.

On the football

To be fair, with so much riding on the outcome you can see why both teams were cautious. It turned into a scrappy, stop-start contest — little rhythm, very few sustained passages of positive play. Neither Rohl nor the players made any glaring tactical errors that stand out; equally, they never really got much right. It was one of those games where organisation beat imagination and set-pieces or spot-kicks decide things.

Off the pitch problems overshadowed everything

But the football is almost secondary to what happened around it. The fixture will be remembered for the chaos and the ugly behaviour as much as the result. Reports of opposing fans gaining entry without tickets, the offensive chanting that reached grotesque levels, the mocking of the 66 who died at Ibrox — these are not commentary on football, they’re stain on society. The pitch invasion at the end only capped off a night where the worst elements hijacked what should be a huge occasion.

What this means

There’s a real risk this drags allocations and atmosphere further away from what made the Old Firm a highlight of our calendar. Since 2012 there’s been a creep of bile and tribalism that now threatens to sink the fixture’s standing. It used to be a Crown Jewel; tonight felt like a cheap imitation. We’ve got nine league games left and the squad need focus, but the bigger question is how the authorities and clubs address the behaviour that keeps wrecking the matchday.

Truth is, we dust ourselves down and get on with it. Onwards and upwards — but let’s hope change comes off the pitch as well as on it.

Recruitment has to take some responsibility

Truth is our recruitment hasn’t hit the mark often enough. We keep bringing in names and hope they’ll click, but too many of the arrivals simply haven’t added the creative spark we desperately need. Players mentioned by supporters — Bajarami, Skov, Gassama, Antman, Miovski, Matondo — haven’t brought the game-changing moments. That’s not to single them out as failures; it’s to point out a pattern. We need players who influence games, especially in the final third.

The managerial question and the owners

Everyone’s asking the same thing: will the Americans stick it out if progress stalls? I can see why people worry. Projects need patience and a plan, but patience runs thin when results and identity aren’t obvious. As for Danny, supporters are split. Some say he should be given time; others argue we require a more experienced hand to steady the ship. Both positions are reasonable. The owners have to decide whether they back a project long-term or chase short-term fixes.

Identity, cohesion and what comes next

Are we losing our identity, or has it been diluted over time? It’s a fair question. On the park we’ve looked disjointed at times; off it, the constant reshaping of squads and loan deals doesn’t help clarity. Whatever happens in the summer, recruitment must be smarter and clearer about the type of players we want. We need creativity, cohesion and a sense that every signing fits a plan. Otherwise the cycle keeps repeating and supporters will keep asking the same hard questions.

It’s a worrying moment, but it’s also one where sensible decisions now can make a difference. Fingers crossed the people in charge see that.

The faltering process

Truth is, when a process keeps producing the same poor outcomes you have to look beyond individual managers. We sack or change the man in charge, and the story repeats — recruitment targets that don't fit, structures that don't align and a lack of coherence between what the board want and what the pitch needs. Supporters are asking sensible questions: who signs off on the long-term plan? Who vets the director of football and recruitment people? Those are the decisions that shape a club, not just the name on the dugout.

Recruitment, contracts and summer roulette

Every summer at Rangers feels huge. We constantly hear about value and targets, yet seasons start with wholesale change and the squad still looks unsettled. Fans point to players with lofty price tags and odd contract calls and wonder where the value is. It's not about naming names; it's about whether the recruitment model has clarity, consistent scouting and an appetite to buy smart rather than flashy. If that balance is missing, you get seasons of reassembly instead of progress.

What supporters feel and what we need

We're a massive club by support and history. But size on paper isn't the same as success on the pitch. People are tired of platitudes — they want transparency, accountability and a realistic plan that links the boardroom to the training ground. It's fair to criticise when the output doesn't match the ambition. That doesn't make you toxic, it makes you a fan who expects more.

So who is responsible? Ultimately the buck stops with those who set the strategy and back it up. If the strategy keeps failing, it's right to ask for answers — and for real change rather than recycled explanations. Feeling deflated is understandable, but demanding accountability is how clubs move forward.

Look, we’re not talking occasional exuberance. The sort of things people mention — scarves on goalposts, messing with corner flags, diving over advertising boards and storming the turf — that’s organised antagonism more than passion. You can’t pretend it’s the same as a bit of harmless chanting. When turnstiles are breached at the start and people end up on the grass at the final whistle, the risk to players, stewards and police skyrockets. Who wants that on their conscience?

There’s also the double standard that winds folk up. Remember when Hibs ran on the pitch years ago and it was written off as overexuberance? Fans felt that was treated differently to when supporters of the Old Firm do the same. Fair or not, perception matters. If Celtic supporters are allowed behaviour that tips into intimidation or endangers people, it makes sense to ask for stricter measures at away ends — smaller allocations, tighter stewarding, whatever keeps everyone safer.

It’s not about shutting supporters out for the sake of it. It’s about protecting the atmosphere we want at Ibrox and making sure home fans — and players — can enjoy a game without having to worry about pitch invasions or antagonism from a visiting section. To be fair, policing at different grounds does change how celebrations feel; you see the difference at Parkhead and Ibrox. That contrast tells you something.

Today should be the moment authorities and clubs think again. Minimum allocations for trouble-prone away support is a sensible, pragmatic answer. Keep it safe, keep it respectful, and let football be football without the risk of things boiling over.

Enough is enough

To be fair, I know being a supporter is about sticking with the club through thick and thin. But there is sticking with the team and then there is pouring your hard-earned cash into a machine that keeps failing to deliver. I'm not talking about one bad season. It's the feeling that nothing changes; same mistakes, same poor moments, season after season. That grates. It wears you away.

The damage off the pitch

What's equally upsetting is the damage done off the pitch. Seeing a section of our own act daft at big moments, with grown men behaving disgracefully, is soul-destroying. It's not just embarrassment for supporters, it's a real stain on the club's reputation. You can understand passion, but you can't excuse behaviour that hands our critics fuel. There were people right in front of the cameras who should know better.

Memories and what remains

I've enjoyed the company of fellow fans over the years, you've been great, and I won't pretend there haven't been bright moments. Saying goodbye is hard. At least we've had 55 to cling to, and that does mean something. But when the lows and the off-field scenes overshadow those memories, it becomes impossible to justify staying involved the same way.

I don't want to be the type of supporter who walks away lightly. But I'm not prepared to keep funding a club while feeling embarrassed every time the headlines roll around. Maybe I'll come back when things settle, maybe I won't. Right now I need my sanity and some pride.

Accountability seems thin. We deserve better from those who run the club and those who represent us on matchdays. I'm fed up with platitudes and promises that lead nowhere. Fans don't ask for miracles, just competence, pride and some basic standards. If the club wants my loyalty back it will have to earn it properly, with clear leadership, respect for supporters and a team that actually fights for us every week.

Until then I'm stepping back. It's not an easy decision, but sometimes distance is the only way to make your feelings heard. I hope the club listens and sorts things out, for the supporters and for the badge.

There's a long tail of names that aren't pulling their weight: Matondo, Bajrami, Aasgaard, Aarons, Djiga, Cornelius, Rice, Antman, Tav, Meghoma, Sterling (injuries?), Ecen, Diomande. Some of those are loans or stop-gaps, some might have been signed with hope they’d rediscover form, but truth is too many are barely making an impact. A few aren’t exactly dead wood — veterans or youngsters with potential — but too many are simply not contributing enough to justify their places.

The pragmatic thing in the summer is obvious: move on the players who aren’t part of the plan and reinvest. Even bringing in five or six useful signings would lift us. We don't need wholesale rebuilding, but we do need players who bring tempo, intelligent off-the-ball movement and consistency. If Miovski isn't going to feature, I’d add him to the list for consideration. And Naderi needs to start getting amongst the goals; we need end product from the wide players and the forwards.

Nobody's saying boardroom fireworks are required — just clarity. If Rohl is going to be given the job to build, he has to have a squad that actually helps his ideas on pressing and transition. The summer window should be about trimming bloated numbers, keeping the hungry and bringing in a handful of players who actually improve the XI. Do that and next season looks a lot more promising. Fail to do it and criticism will be entirely justified.

Why the concern is growing

It is not about personal attacks, it is about competence. The poster flags Rohl's naivety and lack of experience. You can see why that would grate when margins are tight and every decision is under a microscope. Fans want clarity, a plan that looks like it will get us over the line, and a manager who can steady the ship, especially in the run-in. Right now, some choices look hesitant rather than decisive.

How the Tims have changed the landscape

The claim here is that decisions across the city have helped keep us in it. If the Tims had stuck with O'Neil instead of bringing in Nancy, the poster says there would have been clearer daylight between the clubs. Whether you agree or not, the point stands that rivals' managerial moves affect the title race. It may even have given Rohl a false sense of security, thinking the path was easier than it turned out to be.

What needs to happen next

There is still time to turn this around. For starters, Rohl has to start getting results against the Tims, because the psychological edge of beating your main rival matters. More than that, he needs to show learning and adaptation, and to steady his decision making when the pressure increases. Fans want urgency but also a clear direction. If the manager can become calmer, smarter in match moments and show he has a grip on the squad, the anxiety will fade. If not, impatience will grow, and rightfully so.

To be fair, everyone deserves a chance to prove themselves, but chances are not infinite. The coming weeks will tell us whether Danny Rohl is the man to lead us through the final stretch or whether tougher decisions must be made.

Give Rohl time — but not a free pass

Rohl has arguably done the hardest thing: got a ragged season back into a proper fight. Whether you use Danny Rohl or just Rohl, the point stands. Turning players around, calming the camp, and dragging the team into contention aren’t minor feats. That doesn’t mean every decision should be above criticism, but context matters. He deserves credit for lifting standards and getting a tune out of a group we were all moaning about earlier in the campaign.

Context isn’t an excuse, it’s part of the picture

We can’t ignore how other factors have helped. Celtic dropping their standards has opened the door a bit, and rivals like Hearts being solid week in, week out makes the league unpredictable. None of that takes away from Rohl’s work, but it does mean the title fight looks different to what many expected back in August. When judging the manager, you have to consider the squad’s form, the improvement in performances, and the shifting landscape around us.

What we’ll expect from here

Truth is, most supporters will happily give him some leeway while the team is visibly improving. But patience has limits. If the squad don’t take the title fight to the wire — if we throw away chances or revert to sloppy performances — there’ll be understandable frustration. For now, though, I’m inclined to back Rohl. We’ve seen signs of life. Let’s see him push this on and make the most of the opportunities others have handed us.

The coast is real

Look at the moments people talk about — being comfortable 2-0 up at half-time against Celtic, or assuming a game is done when the opponent looks reduced. Those are the moments when application falls away. It's not always lack of ability or tactics. Sometimes players simply relax too early, convinced the job is finished. That complacency invites pressure back into the game and suddenly we are scrambling instead of controlling.

Where does it come from?

There are a few places to point a finger. Managers who don't convey the everyday need to win make a difference; preparation and urgency are contagious. Signings matter too. Players arriving from quieter environments might not be used to that constant edge. Add in squad rotation, confidence swings and the natural ebb and flow of a season, and you get lapses that look very much like a mentality problem.

What needs to change?

Truth is, this isn't solved by slogans. It's about habits. Training should mirror the intensity expected on matchday. Game management must be drilled — closing down, set-piece focus, the small details that keep teams honest. Managers and senior lads have to make it clear that a lead is never a licence to relax. We need bite at 1-0 as much as at 2-0. Fans notice it. If we demand the right standards week in, week out, players start to accept no other way.

We can argue tactics and signings until the cows come home, but the easiest, most painful truth is this: mentality shows in the basics. Until those basics become habit, we’ll keep dropping the odd daft point that leaves everyone asking the same question again.

How the landscape has changed

To be fair, the move wasn’t overnight. Post-Brexit rules and tighter budgets forced clubs to get clever. Foreign players now account for roughly 66% of minutes in the league this season — not surprising when clubs are scraping wider markets for affordable talent. Coaches and analysts build profiles, feed those into intelligence platforms, and out comes a shortlist. It’s efficient, but it isn’t infallible.

Platforms and what they actually do

Different clubs have different setups. Hearts partner with Jamestown Analytics, which uses predictive models to estimate how a player from an obscure league might perform in the Scottish game. St Mirren work with Driblab and rely on match simulations to visualise how a target might fit tactically with existing teammates. Those simulated scenarios can be useful — they give you a sense of spatial tendencies and can flag likely problems early.

Then you have clubs like Rangers using a suite of tools to cross-check targets. TransferLab provides a "shadow squad" view for potential replacements. Kitman Labs stitches together medical, performance and recruitment data so you can keep an eye on development and injury risk. Wyscout and StatsBomb supply the raw event data and video that feed the models. When it all clicks, you get smarter signings. When it doesn’t, you sign a spreadsheet player.

Why it helps — and where it fails

The upside is obvious. Data lets clubs spot undervalued players in markets others ignore. It strips away reputation bias and rewards consistency across many matches. You can simulate role fit, estimate physical suitability and plan succession for multiple positions. That’s gold if you’re running a buy-low, sell-high model.

But the truth? Numbers miss the human stuff. Mental resilience, leadership, the way a player handles a hostile Ibrox or a freezing night in Dingwall — you just can’t capture that fully in a dataset. And if a club lacks the interpretive skills, the dashboards lie to you. A neat spreadsheet and an appealing radar chart don’t guarantee real-world grit.

So what does this mean for Rangers?

We’re clearly invested in the tech stack, but technology is only as good as the people using it. The big step was unifying performance and recruitment data — now comes the hard part: turning charts into sensible decisions on the training ground and in the boardroom. Use the tools right and they sharpen recruitment. Rely on them blindly and you risk signing a player who looks great on paper and struggles when the whistle blows.

In short: data is a powerful weapon, but it’s not a silver bullet. Combine it with proper scouting, good coaching judgement and a feel for the Scottish game, and you’re in business.

Where the pressure actually shows

Pressure isn't just about the league table. It's about moments that force errors: late goals, hostile atmospheres, refereeing calls that get everyone tense. With nine games to go you begin to see who deals with those moments. We've all seen teams look tidy until the pressure builds and then crumble, and you can see why managers like McInnes favour a compact, defensive shape. It takes nerves and experience to break that down.

Fans make the difference

We talk about tactics and formations, but don't forget the crowd. That nervous energy at Ibrox that Kaiser mentions can lift players or make them fidget. The question is whether Hearts' support can keep the same belief when things get tight — when they're pegged back to 1-1, or when Celtic are suddenly breathing down their neck. That's the test of champions. To be fair, neither we nor Hearts have been in that exact position often in recent years, so it's not a simple read.

What next season looks like

Even if this season goes one way or another, I don't expect wholesale change next summer. We're building foundations for the future and that has to be the priority. If we pick up silverware along the way, brilliant. But Martin set us back a lot, not just in league position, but in squad mentality and summer experience. That takes time to fix. The hope is that the lessons from this run-in sharpen the squad and the manager gets the chance to add the right pieces without panicking.

So yes, keep watching. The real answers come when the pressure bites and we see who stands firm. That's when you find out what a team is really made of.

Players aren’t perfect, but neither are kneejerk takes

Players have good days and bad days. Form dips happen. Tactics don’t always click. Calling it a mental weakness ignores those realities. If the team genuinely had a collective belief problem they wouldn’t still be in contention this deep into the season. Saying "mentality" can feel like shorthand for "I don’t understand what went wrong," which isn’t very helpful.

Fan reaction matters more than people admit

We all know how quickly the atmosphere can change. I’ve been at games where the place is bouncing and then goes eerily flat after a goal. Players feed off that noise. A chorus of encouragement can lift a side; a stream of criticism can drain them. Tough love is fine, but constant moaning from the stands when we’re behind rarely sparks a comeback.

What to do instead of shouting "mentality"

Be specific. If you think our shape was wrong, say so. If the press lacked intensity or the tempo was off, point that out. Supporters are entitled to criticise, but grounded observations do more good than blanket accusations. Vote with your voice — encourage when it helps, and give measured criticism when it’s earned.

To be fair, there are moments where mentality could be discussed as part of a bigger picture. But as a default explanation it’s lazy. Let’s stop making it the go-to line and start having sharper, more useful debates about how the team plays and how we, the fans, can help when the chips are down.

Why sticking with Danny makes sense

We’re not talking blind loyalty. You can see why people want immediate silverware, but there’s something to be said for giving a manager time to bed in. When he took over from Russell Martin, the idea of being in this spot would have felt like a bonus. Stability buys you tactical familiarity, clearer recruitment and fewer false starts. Danny’s shown he’s willing to change shape and tweak systems mid-game. That adaptability matters — it’s the kind of trait you want when you’re plotting a title push over a full season.

Cup chance and the wider context

Tomorrow’s game is the obvious one on everyone’s mind. A run in the Scottish Cup would do a lot — lift the mood, take pressure off, and prove the squad can grind out big results. Outside of our own fortunes, the landscape helps. Celtic have a period of uncertainty looming with a managerial change and Hearts are having a rarer spell of form; history says it’s tough to sustain that kind of level two years running. That doesn’t hand us anything, but it opens a window. We should be ready to step through it.

What next — tweaks, not upheaval

Truth is, if we don’t nick the league this season I wouldn’t press the panic button. With a season of continuity, sensible upgrades in a couple of areas and sharper recruitment, Danny should be in a far stronger position. The aim is clear: keep building momentum, back the manager to learn from what’s gone well and fix what hasn’t. Fans want trophies, of course — but stability often delivers them. Let’s give the plan a proper run and see where it takes us.

Hearts and McInnes: grit, recruits and results

To be fair, you can see why folk tip their hats to McInnes right now. Hearts have come out looking organised, they've got a clear fighting mentality and they find ways to get results when it matters. People talk about signings being good value — whether that's down to recruitment or simply the manager's eye for what fits his team, it's worked for them so far. And when a side keeps chipping in with clean sheets and narrow wins, it looks impressive.

Where that leaves Röhl and us

We can't ignore our own problems. When the games need to be won we often lose tempo in the final third of matches. That's worrying. It's not always pretty but we have the pieces — yet when pressure mounts we sometimes fail to see games out. That pattern has cost us points at key moments and leaves us needing a long winning run to climb back into contention. Realistically, our current form doesn't scream 'comeback' just yet.

Summer choices: backing, objectives and red lines

So what's next? A lot will come down to the owners and what they're prepared to back in the transfer market. Will they stick with Röhl and give him the overhaul he might want, or decide a different route is needed? Whatever happens, expectations won't drop. Silverware will be demanded and the next transfer window will be viewed through that lens. If Röhl stays, he needs clear backing and a plan to improve our endurance and game management in those tight moments.

At the minute we've still got a chance at something this season and that's where all attention should be. Let's hope we grab it and give ourselves something to celebrate — because next season will not be a walk in the park for anyone at Ibrox.

Why the crowd feels decisive

You can see why supporters think the noise and size of a crowd matters. Big stadiums create pressure. Referees operate with split-second reaction times and rely on automatic, trained responses rather than lengthy conscious deliberation. That makes them vulnerable to perception, not plots.

Still, the idea that officials would bow to threats or intimidation doesn’t stack up. Anything like that would only make things worse and invite more trouble. In practice the crowd nudges things, it doesn’t write the script.

Both camps point fingers — what that suggests

Think about it: both Rangers and Celtic supporters regularly complain about the same officials. If one side were being favoured consistently, the other wouldn’t be shouting from the same page. That pattern points to random errors and shared frustration rather than coordinated cheating.

Clubs do write formal complaints to the SFA, as they should. Yet neither side tends to publish smoking-gun proof when they make a fuss. Often the loudest outcry follows a defeat and can act as a distraction from performances on the pitch or decisions higher up the club.

So what should supporters do?

Call out poor decisions by all means, but keep it measured. Accept that officials are human and mistakes will happen. If we want progress, focus on constructive pressure — clearer protocols, better VAR communication, consistent standards — rather than grand conspiracies.

Good-humoured debate is worth keeping. It’s how we sharpen opinion without descending into nonsense. Discuss the psychology, question the process, but don’t jump straight to corruption when a referee gets a call wrong.

Where it came from

Back then the message was blunt — referees in Scotland couldn’t be trusted with certain games. It was loud and public. That period calmed down but the attitude didn’t vanish. You only have to look at certain careers, like John Beaton’s, to see how polarising this territory became: a referee with obvious ties to Rangers who’s had to contend with criticism and suspicion. Whether intentional politics or tribal reflex, it stuck around.

Why it matters to the decisions

People imagine decisions are always conscious, balanced and dispassionate. They’re not. Our brains rely on shortcuts, biases and previous experience. Put an official in a cauldron of grievance and you change the context they operate in. That’s why I don’t shrug off the odd stat: I’ve seen one that said only 2 of 15 penalties for us were awarded by on-field refs, and another comparing VAR errors suggested a 19-goal swing between our club and Celtic over part of a season. Whether those numbers are perfect or not, they’re big enough to force you to ask questions.

So what do we do?

First, call it out without turning everything into a conspiracy. Second, understand the human side: referees can freeze, look away or defer because of context, not just cowardice. Third, keep the discussion factual and keep pushing for transparency where it helps. I started talking about this because those discrepancies aren’t academic — they affect results. If we care about fair competition, we should care about the environment that helps create it.

To be fair, it’s messy. But ignoring how tribal politics and bias interact with decision-making is lazy. That’s why I’m vocal.

Money spent, standards dropped

To be fair, spending isn’t a promise of success, but you’d expect progress. Instead it looks like money has been spent and we’ve still downgraded compared to the top sides. We can’t be content with a team that struggles to keep pace with Hearts, never mind Celtic.

Results that don’t add up

Draws against the likes of Livingston, St Mirren, Hibs, Motherwell, Dundee United and Falkirk add up. No one wins every game, of course, but that cluster of dropped points is the difference between competing and being stretched. When you’re aiming for a title, that record isn’t acceptable.

Errors up and down the pitch

There are defensive mistakes that look schoolboy — basic errors that cost points. Equally frustrating are the forwards who waste glorious chances. You don’t need me to tell you how costly that is; anyone who’s followed Rangers this season has seen it play out. That combination makes it hard to build momentum, and it saps confidence before the real pressure kicks in.

And then there’s the comparison with Celtic. They turned up with what looked like average centre backs the other week and still matched us over ninety minutes. Nygren has hit the ground running for them, scoring more than our centre forward so far, and for far less outlay. Even Maeda, who’s having a rough season, is level with most of our attackers apart from Tav — the one holdover from SG’s title team.

Truth is, supporters can smell when things aren’t right. It’s not just about individuals; it’s about the collective mentality, recruitment and basic consistency. We need upgrades in quality and character, and we need them quickly if this season is to mean anything.

Context matters

To be fair, you only get so far blaming the manager when the building blocks aren't his. Lots of those transfers simply weren't good enough to walk straight into the team, and that weakens your starting point. Look at examples like Gio, Clement or Beale — their strong early runs came from stepping into relatively healthier situations, not teams that were already struggling. You can see why comparisons are unfair.

Don't mistake fortune for progress

And another thing — just because the favourite trips up, it doesn't mean you suddenly have speed. Celtic's wobble doesn't magically elevate Rangers' quality. A rival's collapse might open an opportunity, but it doesn't change the underlying standard of the squad or the difficulty of the job. The manager is doing the best with what he's got. There will be mistakes; that's inevitable while trying to steady things mid-season.

Judge properly next season

Who knows if he'll end up like those who came before? I don't either. I'm sceptical we should expect silverware straight away, but I'm not arguing for perpetual patience either. The sensible approach is to judge him on a proper sample: a transfer window, the chance to shape the squad and a full season. If he can pull something off this season, great. If not, then next summer will be the time for a clearer verdict.

Truth is, fans want progress and quick results, but football isn't tidy. Give the man a fair crack and let's assess him on what he actually inherits and changes, not on what a stumble from another club might imply.

The short‑termism problem

To be fair, nobody likes a season without silverware. Supporters expect success and rightly so. But fans and boards demanding instant fixes create a churn that prevents real progress. We’ve all seen how quick changes reset any momentum a manager might be building. Change the man, change the players, reset the culture — rinse and repeat. You can see why people get frustrated. The truth is, since the financial crash in 2012 we’ve only picked up a handful of major trophies, and that pattern tells you something about the approach.

Why a bit of patience could help

What I’m arguing for isn’t some blind defence of poor results. It’s a shift in strategy. Give someone time to install a shape, a pressing system, and a squad that actually fits the style you want to play. The manager we’ve got steadied things after a dreadful start and got us back into contention in short order. That stability matters more than a knee‑jerk reaction after a couple of poor results.

Look to the summer, not the next headline

Imagine a proper summer window where the manager keeps the players he trusts, brings in the specific types he needs, and builds cohesion from pre‑season. That’s not a promise of trophies next year, but it is a realistic route to sustained success. Making a final judgment based only on how this particular season ends would be premature. Wouldn’t it be better to demand a long‑term plan rather than another short‑term patch?

So yes, hold the manager accountable — but give him the tools and a little time. If we keep swinging the axe every season, nothing will ever change.

Why this game matters

Put simply: the cup is the last clear route to silverware this season. Our league form has been too patchy, and with our rivals now ahead of us it makes Sunday feel bigger than a single match. You can argue whether a league point last weekend would have been worth a cup exit, but feelings matter. Fans want trophies, and when the league wobbles the cup becomes precious.

What’s at stake for DR

Lose on Sunday and the narrative hardens. The way you phrased it — League: failure after getting back into contention; League Cup: knocked out by our biggest rivals; Scottish Cup: another possible defeat to those same rivals; Europe: no positives — that’s a stark line-up of criticisms and the kind of season no Rangers fan accepts lightly. The pressure sits with DR. Supporters will demand answers and a reaction on the pitch, not more platitudes.

Keep it real, but be honest

We’ve spent words and money talking about ambition. We can only blame RM for so long, as you put it, but pointing fingers won’t win the match. What we need is a team that turns openings into chances, controls the tempo and shows grit when it matters. Simple, but true. People will get angry, and they should — expectations at this club are rightly high.

So yes, I’m worried. I’m nervous, too. But this is football: games are won and lost by decisions on the day. Over to you, DR — prove the doubters wrong and give the supporters something to cheer about. If that happens, everything else gets a bit easier to swallow.

Why people see a conspiracy

When you’re sat in a packed stadium and a tight call goes against your team, it feels personal. Fans amplify every mistake, and rival supporters do the same in reverse. You can understand why someone from another club would laugh at the idea that only one side gets decisions — they often feel aggrieved too. It becomes a tribal thing: everyone thinks the ref favours the other lot.

Referees are human, not robots

Refs try to be impartial, but they’re not immune to atmosphere. A big Ibrox or Celtic crowd creates pressure; it’s subconscious, and it can affect the split-second judgements officials make. That’s not an accusation of corruption — it’s simple psychology. It’s the same reason players lift their game in front of huge crowds. The presence of noise, momentum and emotion nudges decisions more often than anyone wants to admit.

Keep the debate honest

I enjoy the discussion and don’t think people need to apologise for feeling strongly. You can argue your point without claiming a conspiracy. Saying the crowd has influence isn’t the same as saying referees are biased on purpose. If we stick to that distinction, the chat stays useful rather than poisonous. Here on Rangers News Views there’s room for that kind of honest, sometimes heated, debate.

At the end of the day, supporters will always feel wronged by some calls. You can laugh about it with your mates, agree with the other side occasionally, and still be confident you’re right. That’s football — and why the arguments never go away.