Rangers The Complete Record

The place to recommend books to other Forum users. Or even to warn off.
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 5:07 pm

Post by Lisbon67 » Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:03 pm

Is it in the Fiction department?

Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 5:05 pm

Post by Gersman » Wed Dec 14, 2005 7:10 pm

You'd be better off looking at your own club before slagging anyone else. Dermot Desmond's not prepared to put a penny into the club but he's happy to shell out thousands a week to a millionaire thug.
Fifty one and counting

Posts: 1366
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 7:50 pm
Location: Musselburgh

Post by Sat31March1928 » Sun Jan 15, 2006 6:59 am

Good statistical book. However the commentary in the book is through 'very blue tinted glasses'. There is a certain Stalinesque revisionism in some reports.

Describing the 'Andy Davis' penalty of last season.

"It was an opinion not shared by those closest to the incident.... After the game they were unamious it had been a stonewall penalty, not even a debatable decision.

Those in the main stand in line with the incident ...

...... even Hearts fans admitted privatley they agreed with the decision"
Jackson; James; Jackson; James; Jackson

Site Admin
Posts: 7665
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm

Post by Scottish » Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:03 am

Those blue-tinted glasses were worse than I expected. OK, a club history is never going to be neutral but this goes way over the top. It seems to me that every time they lose a game it's down to wrong decisions, biased referees or injury and sometimes all three.

But worse than that is the general tone with the introduction the worst.

"Rangers are a football club and an organisation who are at the very heart of the Scottish establishment, their place in the very culture of the nation being as distinctive as that of the Church of Scotland, the Scottish legal system and the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrew's; their position in society emerging from the historic process that embraced the Masonic Order and the end of the Stuart dynasty of kings all the way back, if you please to the Reformation."

There we are then. Not just a football club but the end process of four and a half centuries of Scottish history and religion that places them at the top of the heap. The sad part is that at one time that might even have been true. However Scottish society in the 21st century - even the 'establishment' is much more diverse. And what is the modern Scottish establishment? I'd venture that say, the EIS, carries more weight in today's Scotland than the R&A or the Masons.

And talking about OF bigotry "But Rangers intellectuals (and Celtic intellectuals for that matter) rationalise the condition by claiming that without it, Rangers v Celtic would be no more than a football match, it would lose its unique flavour and be as bland as, in their view, Hearts v Hibs."

Beautiful, eh? Apart from the possible oxymoron of OF intellectuals, there's the problem in all it's glory. The assertion that it needs bigotry to make the OF game rise above the level of a mere football match. That's not enough for them. I'll leave it to Edinburgh fans to say whether or not their rivalry is 'bland' but the Ayrshire derby certainly isn't. Nor from what I've seen are those in Liverpool, Manchester, Rome or Milan The extract above actually proclaims the inherent sadness of the OF fan - the inability to enjoy local rivalry for its own sake. In fact, an inability to even perceive of a rivalry based on football and geography as being worth the candle. The added element of religious bigotry is seen as essential. It's an admission that without it the OF would relinquish their status as big clubs.

Mo Johnston was a player who "had made his religion public more than once." Shock, horror! Yet of Marvin Andrews, a man who makes his religion public on an almost daily basis, not a mention. My conclusion is that it wasn't making his religion public that's the issue here, rather the religious denomination itself

Graeme Souness is castigated for being "not truly aware of the depths of passion involved" in this issue. It might be more true to suggest that Souness was all too aware of it hence the signing of Johnston as a man capable of dealing with the pressure of the situation.

The authors say that Souness failed because he was bucking the establishment and "the Scottish establishment is blue."

He certainly failed to change the attitudes of the fans but even the Rangers Chairman is forced to attack the 'FTP brigade' these days and after over a century a player's religion is no longer an issue when signing for Rangers. IMHO these are things Souness should be applauded for not sneered at. Oh, and there's that 1920s Sunday Post view of the 'establishment' again.

Oddly enough close to the end of the introduction the tone alters from Rangers the unconquerable and inevitable masters of Scottish football and society in general to an image of a club founded by four students using jumpers for goalposts. It claims the transformation from that to the Rangers of today is "a story surely unparalleled in the history of sport."

As that great observer of society Jim Royle might remark "Unparalleled, my arse." Show me a multi-million football club today and with one or two exceptions I'll show you a club founded by enthusiastic teenagers kicking a ball around. Exactly the same as Rangers.

All in all a thoroughly distasteful tome. The stats are excellent, no doubt. But for a shorter but less biased history of Rangers though with fewer statistical details I'd recommend Stephen Halliday's book in the 'Essential History' series published by WH Smith in 2002.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests