Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Steven Gerrard

I would like to see Gerrard put into the Mangers section as I have just heard that he has be appointed Manager

Split the page ?

as per Celtic F.C. and History of Celtic F.C. Rangers F.C. article is too long Palx 10:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

World's Most Successful Club??

I removed the reference to Linfield's 200 trophies as they are not all 'first-class' trophies. The concept of 'fist-class' competition is clearer in cricket for example, but the list for Rangers does not include Glasgow Cups, competitions won during the War, pre-season and other unofficial competitions. Neil Leslie

Neil. You've qualified the type of trophies you're talking about here, but in the article there is no such qualification. In the article it states that "Rangers have won more trophies than any other club". That is just not true. They haven't won more trophies than any other club. What are "first-class trophies" anyway? It just seems to be something you've come up with to justify a false statement. Kind Regards. [LittleRocket]

I'm not going to bother reverting this -- I agree that the notion of first-class trophies is unclear in football (that's why it's in scare quotes) -- but if you count all and any trophy then RFC have a lot more than 107 (Competitions won during the War; Glasgow Cups; Reserve, U-21, etc; Tennants Sixes (:-); etc etc) If you go with the analogy with first class averages in cricket, this is used to include only 'proper' games -- excluding village green stuff, for example. In this sense 'first class' just means 'normal' (although it can be used to distinguish County and Test averages from just Test averages). I am not an expert on the status of all the NI competition, but I don't think that all the trophies listed on the Linfield site are at the same level: and remember the 107 figure for Rangers *only* counts 'proper' competitions. I'm sure that proper football historians have a proper notion of which competitions really count. For what it is worth you can get into a similar discussion when you compare club head to head records -- for example the first Old Firm match is not counted in the records as this was only a friendly. Neil Leslie 19:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted the page to show that Rangers have in fact won more trophies than anyone else. You don't need to say "domestic" as everyone is aware that clubs compete in domestic competitions -- you don't need to say that the trophies are shiny either, and for exactly the same reason. For what it is worth, although Rangers have won more league titles than anyone else they probably have not won them at the fastest rate -- Al-Ahly (Egypt), having won their league 30 times since 1948 (and the Egyptian Cup 33 times) probably hold that record. Penarol (Uruguay) have won 47 titles since 1900. Nacional (Uruguay) have won 40 titles, so between them they have won their league even more frequently than the Old Firm have won theirs. Benfica (Portugal) have won their league 31 times since 1935, and Ajax (Netherlands) have 'only' won the Dutch league 29 times. In order to calculate the rates correctly you would need to rule out years lost due to war and so on, and take account of continuity of leagues (while the old Scottish First Division and the SPL are cleary the same for these purposes, it is not clear that the pre-WW2 Dutch amateur league is the same are the Eredivisie). I can't be bothered doing this, but if you want to you can borrow my anorak. Neil Leslie

I'd like to take this "fact" to dispute. Rangers are the most successful club in the world, but only within the confines of their own domestic league - having won the Scottish premier league/division championship title more than any other club. They are not, by a long chalk, "the most successful team in the world" - as can be judged by the state of their finances, their meagre fan base and their low success rate in international competition. They have not won European club football's highest acolade, the European Cup/Champions League. I would like someone to refute this.

Rangers are the worlds most succesful club when measured by competitions won. Rangers have a large fan base, but neither fan base nor finances can be used to determing success, only success in competitions won. Rangers having won more trophies than any other team must therefore be more succesful than any other team.

Rangers are only the world's most successful club in terms of their domestic league title wins and only within the confines of their own league - not by any other measurement and not by their success in any other competitions. They have not won the Scottish Cup times more than any other club, and have never won Europe's major club prize, the european Cup. Success in global terms is measured against other clubs in the world based on performances within the club's own league, then against other clubs in competition where those clubs compete against each other. Are you seriously suggesting that Rangers are more successful on the world stage than, say Real Madrid, Liverpool or Manchester United?

surely the whole point in playing football is too win trophies, leagues etc, unfortunatly Rangers cannot choose what league they participate in and can only win what is available to them!therefore if Rangers have won more trophies than any other team regardless of the level of competition it still makes them the most successful club in the world. Finance cannot come into this argument as teams like Real Madrid are in monumental amounts of dept with Spanish banks, and are likely paying it back at a very slow rate if at all!

I would also like to add that this seems to be a topic that bothers the green side of glasgow a great deal, i think this is due to the fact that celtic no longer really have anything over Rangers in terms of European success. The only european honours that both rangers and celtic have both won no longer exist and living on past glories is extremely boring!! E.G 1966!!!

I suggest that this fact as presented is a play on words. it should be amended to something more accurate.PalX 11:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC) Introduction grammar amended to make the opening factual as opposed to POV.PalX 12:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

RS McColl ?

A long time ago an anon added "RS McColl" as a player. Is this true, or will Rangers soon be signing John Menzies and WH.Smith too? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:43, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It certainly is true. McColl actually started his 1st shop while still a player and was known as "Toffee Bob".

100 trophies

Rangers won their 100th major trophy in 2000, the first club in the world to reach that milestone. They were specially honoured by UEFA.

I added this, but I now can't find any external reference to what that honour might have been. I'm sure there was something. Anyone remember? Sjorford 14:50, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

They were given a trophy by UEFA.

Image Removal

I have just removed Image:Egil.JPG for the following reasons.

1. There is no caption. Who is it? (Ok I know after a bit of research that it's Egil Ostenstad)
2. He's wearing a bloody Blackburn Rovers shirt not a Rangers shirt.
3. There is no information about the source of this picture. The image appears to have been taken from Football-Rumours.com and copyright is claimed by that site. Mintguy (T) 11:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rangers players category

Hi

Do you think that it would be worth to make a Category:Rangers F.C. players to list all the players who are playing or have previosuly played for the team? Would another category 'Category:Rangers F.C.' be neeed to list miscellaneous topics and mangers as well? - Master Of Ninja 12:07, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page protected

This page has been protected against edits because of the hour-long incessant edit war which has just been conducted by large numbers of anonymous users here and on Celtic F.C.. The protection will be lifted when it is judged safe (presumably when all the little primary school kiddies have gone home). -- Arwel 17:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The original section which was added about sectarianism was by me. I am not a Celtic fan, but Rangers have a controversial relationship with Irish sectarians, and you will notice that in the original, outside references to reputable newspapers were included. If this is not included, you are excluding a very important facet of the club's culture.

I'm not excluding anything, I'm merely protecting Wikipedia's NPOV policy. 15+ vandalism edits to both this and the Celtic pages in an hour and a quarter was utterly unacceptable behaviour and guaranteed to draw Administrators' attention, hence the lock-down. I'm not able to positively identify your contribution, since you seem to be on a dynamic address -- please consider creating an account -- but if you're referring to the edits made on Thursday by 81.155.214.145, while at least they were civilly phrased as far as I can see they're certainly of debateable POV (Scottish, N. Irish & English flags non sectarian? Well, it depends on history and ones' POV doesn't it?). In any case, that's irrelevant,I have little interest in Scottish football but I will enforce Wikipedia's site policies, particularly NPOV, when required. -- Arwel 00:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You obviously have absolutely NO experience of this matter. Why would Scottish born and bred people fly English and NI flags at a Scottish league game? There's obvious reasons. Why would they should F the Pope, and sing "We are the Billy Boys"? I suggest you find out more about this, the involvement between sectarians and Rangers is a controversial one, and although not every Rangers fan is sectarian, many are. I linked to two (respectable) newspaper articles, which have been removed. Because of the obvious attacks on various people on this article, do you actually think it would be wise for me to edit it with a named account, and receive umpteen pieces of hatemail, for actually documenting some things which have actually happened and on a large scale?

<sigh>. You obviously have no experience of the word "sarcasm". I am very well aware of the history of sectarianism in Scottish football, thank you. However, if you are unwilling to identify which versions of this article you are referring to it becomes extremely difficult to hold a meaningful discussion since you are editing under a different IP address every time. I deduce – possibly incorrectly, I don't know – that you are referring to the section "Rangers and sectarianism" added by 212.23.24.94 on 7th February and removed by 81.155.214.145 on the 11th. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable addition to the article. Note that it was removed by another anonymous IP user, and then the article got caught up in the great edit war noted in yesterdays' Sunday Herald (I do have issues about being referred to indirectly in a newspaper as an anorak, but that's by-the-by!). The removal had nothing to do with administrative action, and there's no call to go around complaining that it's been excluded by an administrator's fiat. The lock-down was to stop the edit war, and your section was merely caught up as collateral damage. There's nothing to stop you putting that back into the article now as long as you don't fall foul of the Three Revert Rule in a 24-hour period. By the way, if you are not willing to use a named account (and it need not be your own name - people using their own name as I do are very much the minority here, and you don't need to enable receipt of emails and can always ignore comments on the user talk page), would you at least please timestamp your comments by ending with four tildes (~~~~)? Thanks. -- Arwel 14:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arwel, unlike you presumably I do not spend all my time on Wikipedia (but still more than is socially healthy), so do not know all the ins and outs of the thing. I am going to set up a user name, but in editing articles like this, I intend to remain anonymous, since I do not fancy death threats etc. I know of some extremist fans of the Old Firm who actually threaten Referees and even have their home addresses on file. Do I want that? No thanks. The dark side is partly illustrated by this editing war, but it goes far deeper. Deeper than the usual international football fan hooliganism in many cases. - ("RB")

You do realize it's much easier to find out your identity from your IP address than from your wikipedia username, right? Demiurge

Only when you use your home IP.

This page has fallen victim to vandalism by Celtic Suppoters, a complete section had crept in on Rangers and Roman Catholic players. This has been removed as it has nothing to do with Rangers

This dispute may raise some questions about what we mean by NPOV e.g. should we aim for NPOV on Holocaust Denial? It was common knowledge in the west of Scotland for many years that Rangers had a ban on Catholic players, I can quote you several sources e.g. Danny McGrain's autobiography. In case you are wondering, I am not a Catholic or a Celtic supporter. PatGallacher 02:13, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

How would you be able to know for sure that Rangers never signed any Roman Catholics? The only way you'd know is if you had saw all the ex-players' birth certificates. I mean, why do you care what religion they were? I don't think it' reasonable of you to come on here and say this only making reference to Rangers. Danny McGrain, who you mention, has also said that people working for Celtic during his time there didn't take to him because he was a protestant. Indeed, you might ask yourself why he was never given a coaching role at Celtic Park when he finished playing. Judging by what certain ex-Celtic players have said, Celtic mainly signed Roman Catholics excluding the period mainly where Stein was manager (and why was Stein never given a place on the Celtic board?). I think you're probably referring to the period 1960ish to 1989ish. At that time almost all players in both Rangers' and Celtic's team were Scottish. Throughout this period of time, roughly 85% of the Scottish population were protestant, with the remaining 15% being mostly Roman Catholic. Therefore, I'd imagine that most of Rangers' players then were protestant. Can the same thing be said of Celtic's? If the Celtic team were mainly Roman Catholic, wouldn't this indicate a sectarian employment policy?

Come off it! This is a bit like Holocaust denial. Actually, I don't think Scottish birth certificates state the child's religion. If you, or Rangers F.C., want to refute the allegation that Rangers had a ban on Catholic players from roughly World War I to the signing of Mo Johnson then you have one perfectly simple solution. Name one openly Roman Catholic player they played during that period! You can't, can you! Why did Rangers never sue the umpteen people who said they had a ban? Why, when in the 1970s it was floated that they might lift this ban, did some fans writing in the Sunday Post make comments about their "great tradition"? Why, when they did sign Mo Johnson, did some supporters burn their scarves and season tickets outside Ibrox? I am not claiming that Celtic's record has been squeaky-clean, merely that it is a matter of common knowldedge that they did not have a rigid ban on Protestant players, and that the most successful manager in their history, Jock Stein, was a Protestant. You cannot have it both ways, pointing to any problems McGrain and Stein may have experienced as evidence of Celtic's sectarianism, and the ignoring the much stronger evidence with Rangers. Although, thinking about it, Billy McNeill could have been badly treated by the Celtic board as well, even though he was a Catholic. He was the most successful captain in their history, during the Stein era when they won 9-in-a-row and the European cup, he became manager later on but did not last long. So maybe the Celtic board just had a bad record of treating former stars, regardless of their religion. PatGallacher 11:12, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

John Spencer, was Catholic and played for Rangers before Maurice Johnson..

I added this little bit (The club has traditionally been identified with the Protestant community of Glasgow) before the part about the rivalry with Celtic. Feel free to change it if you find it unsuitable. Funnyhat 07:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am open to persuasion how this issue is handled, but it's not reasonable not to mention it at all. It's not POV to say that this allegation was widely made, it's a matter of common knowledge in the west of Scotland. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of fans' websites. I'm not singling out Rangers, I have contributed on a wide range of issues, my contributions are a matter of public record, but like the Watergate investigators I don't like cover-ups. PatGallacher 17:47, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Vandalism of article

The anonymous person who removed the NPOV flag without addressing the issues has now been reported for vandalism. PatGallacher 16:31, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Rangers detractors

This page is frequently victim to vandalism, most notably by PatGallacher, who claims not to be a "Catholic or a Celtic fan", it does have to be asked what is your fascination with Rangers Pat? Why don't you go on a variety of English teams pages and catigate them for their fans behaviour in europe? Why not go on Celtic's page and be negative about them? Jimbo79 18:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PatGallacher or anone else has as much right to a 'fascination' with the subject of an article as any other user. As this is an encyclopedia and not a fans' site, the only questions about his edits should be whether they are accurate and from a Neutral Point Of View. Which other articles he chooses to edit or not edit have no bearing on the validity of his input into this article. Being a 'detractor' of a subject does not itself mean your comments are vandalism. Hippo43 13:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV removal

It was me who put the NPOV flag on this article, I have decided very cautiously to remove it. I remain convinced that Rangers did have a ban on Catholic players from roughly WW1 to the Souness era, it is beside the point whether Mo Johnson or John Spencer was the first Catholic signed by Souness. However I also recognise that there are many younger Rangers supporters for who this must seem like a historical issue, there are also many who did not burn their scarves when Souness signed Johnson. As a matter of concrete assessment, although I reserve my right to change my mind on this, given that this was about 20 years ago, I think it would be better not to deal with this in the main Rangers article, although it would be perfectly legitimate to deal with this in biographies of some individuals who played an important role in events of that time. PatGallacher 21:56, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Well I just put it back, you were right to have it there in the first place!

John Spencer was not signed by souness, he came through the youth set up. You obviously have a very twisted view, and know nothing about Rangers football club other than what you have read in Danny McGrain's book. Why don't you find out the facts and come back when you know what you are talking about

I think the Rangers scout who spotted John Spencer may not have been aware that he was a Catholic since he came from a mixed marriage, his father was a Protestant. But I could be confusing him with someone else. I will check my sources on these issues. PatGallacher 09:37, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

I am surprised at this Pat, surely if there was a sectarian signing policy at Rangers, they would have asked John Spencer what religion he was before they signed him, just to check. So if this question was not asked can we assume that religion was not an issue?

Spencer went to St Ninians High school, so it was no secret what religion he was.

Please don't bite the newbies. PatGallacher 11:41, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

---

Editing page while protected

How the hell did anonymous user 82.153.107.78 manage to edit this article while it was protected? I'm calling in the developers. -- Arwel 14:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe this page has to be protected. There are some sorry people out there who want to abuse this, I guess. My question: who decides when it is OK to edit?

Don Kichenbrand was a Catholic too and he played for Rangers in the 50s/60s.

Error

Vandalism etc aside, there is an error on the page currently. Most league goals: Ally McCoist, 54 goals. Considering he scored 355 in total and 100 ish in cups, this figure must be wrong !!

Yeah this figure is indeed incorrect. He scored 251 League goals, looks like it was confused with Most League Cup goals. Forbsey 02:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

When is this page going to be unprotected? Parts of it are growing increasingly out of date, particularly the squad list.--82.41.236.68 00:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

No idea. The Heart of Midlothian F.C. article is still protected also. Both are out of date. Forbsey 19:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I see it's over 3 weeks since this page was protected now. I think it's about time it was unprotected, if people can be ready to guard against vandalism. I have to say it's disappointing how the Rangers, Celtic and Old Firm articles act as vandal magnets - I've got dozens, if not hundreds (since I create stubs for all teams in the qualifying rounds of the Champions League and UEFA Cup) of football club articles on my watchlist, and these 3 are by orders of magnitude the worst vandalised articles - far worse than Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool, which are moderately vandalised. OK, I did do a revert just now on FK Partizan, but that's rare, and nobody seems to vandalise FC Kairat Almaty! I just wish these Old Firm vandals would bloody well grow up. If nobody objects, I'll unprotect this article tomorrow night. -- Arwel 22:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

np. I totally agree with you Arwel. The frequent Vandalism of the Celtic and Rangers articles, and to a lesser extent the Hibernian and Hearts articles, is shocking. It's a pity that we have such sad uneducated folk in our society. Hopefully this time the vandalism will be kept to a minimum. Forbsey 08:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Rangers DID sign Catholics prior to Mo Johnston!

Pre-Johnston Catholics include: Pat Lafferty, Archie Kyle, "Doc" Kivlichan (who, like Johnston, was an Ex-Celtic player), Joe Donnachie, Johnny Jackson, John Spencer, Hugh O’Neill, Laurie Blyth, Constantine McGhie, James Tutty, Colin Mainds, Tom Murray, Tom Dunbar, Don Kichenbrand.

Note that this is a short list. Also of note is that no Catholics were signed between 1920 and 1950, and between 1960 and Mo Johnston. It's bizarre that Rangers supporters continue in this game of denial. Rangers had a de facto 'No Catholics' signing policy for large parts of their history. It's a fact. Why deny it?

There may have been more Catholics that played for Rangers between WWI and the Souness era, however, disclosing your religious persuasion was never a prerequisite as a Rangers player. This surely dispells the myth that Rangers pursued a sectarian signing policy. Bazton#

The above statement is nonsense.

I would like to know more about Don Kitchenbrand. I believe he was South African and chose to conceal his religon. can anybody add to this ?PalX 12:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Can't help you on Kitchenbrand but this article about Hugh O'Neill who signed in 1976 is worth a look [1]. Benarty 17:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Rhyming Slang

The article said that the nickname is "Gers (rhyming slang for Teddy Bears)". This is the wrong way round! So I changed it! Camillus McElhinney 22:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverting versions

Was trying to work out how to revert the article but can't. Can someone reset it to the last one that GraemeL reset it to?

I added some stuff as a wind up to a few mates and now can't get it back =\

cheers - no harm intended (though one mate nearly choked on his coffee).

Cheers, A

I will take care of it. See WP:REVERT for instructions for the future. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

__NOEDITSECTION__

This tag is used on Wikipedia’s most vandalised page, George W. Bush, to deter vandals at the cost of making it more difficult for anyone else to edit. I put it here as an alternative to protection when there was an upsurge of edits that may have been related to the possible change of manager. Susvolans ⇔ 09:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sectarian violence

I updated the Sectarian violence page to include information about Scotland and the role the OF play in this. Would anyone object to a link from this page (and obviously one from Celtic's page too!)? Guinnog 12:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me, I can't see how we can have a comprehensive article on either club without mentioning sectarianism. I've added the article to my watchlist, if it gets liked from either of the Old Firm pages, it is more likely to be vandalised by one side or the other. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Done, on both the OF team pages. Guinnog 13:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Celtic F.C. for further information regarding the addition of material on sectarianism.--Nicholas 10:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the new section. It looks better there. Guinnog 15:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem with content of section on sectarianism, but I don't think it should be at the top of the page - the sectarian supporters of Rangers and Celtic are the minority, and it's dying out. I used to work in a college and I used to laugh when so often I'd see two rival supporters slagging each other to death, with the most disgusting sectarian language, and then see at the end of the day that they travelled together, and find out that they were actually great buddies - so many times I saw this. Putting the section at the top is not on, in my opinion. Camillus (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't at the top. For most people, sectarianism is the first thing they think of when Celtic or Rangers are mentioned. I don't agree that sectarianism is dying out, though I wish it was. Guinnog 16:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The new section deserves to be at the top, as is the case with the Celtic F.C. article, because sectarianism is a deadly serious issue which, sadly, is perpetuated by both sides of the Old Firm. Not only does sectarianism manifest itself in linguistic discrimination (i.e. supporters of the Old Firm calling each other stupid names), but it can also manifest itself in discrimination at work and in the community, petty violence on the streets, and (in extreme cases) brutal cases of gang violence and murder. As much as I wish that it'd go away, sectarianism is a very real scar on Scottish society and both sides of the Old Firm have a significant role to play here! --Nicholas 16:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, not at the top, but too near the top - before the history section. Sectarianism is most definitely dying out - when my dad came over from Ireland in the fifties the "No Irish" or "No Catholics need apply" signs where everywhere - Rangers now openly sign catholics, and most Rangers fans couldn't care less, as long as they're good players. A lot of the stuff between opposing fans is just letting off steam - I'm not denying that people continue to be murdered after games, but that's more a symptom of wider problems in society. Section needs to be moved. Camillus (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In a recent edit, user 80.169.159.130 stated that "Rangers Football Club is perhaps best known for its Sectarian signing policy, whereby for over a century the club did not knowingly sign Roman Catholic players" [2]; and see here on the Celtic talk page for associated edits [3]. Now, I'm not particularly happy with the terminology used here, but I do feel that user 80.169.159.130 has raised a significant (if sensitive) issue; which requires discussion. The following statement is true: "... for over a century [Rangers] did not knowingly sign Roman Catholic players". This information is obviously very controversial and likely to be vandalised regularly, nevertheless it should be documented in Wikipedia - which is a compendium of all knowledge. The question is: how best to tackle this topic? What do other editors feel?--Nicholas 21:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Why has the 'Old Firm & sectarianism' section been removed? There was a consensus that this section is necessary, see above.--Nicholas 19:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Article is too long!

Maybe we should shorten the article, as is done elsewhere on Wikipedia, by summarizing the existing material and creating new pages with internal links pointing to the longer articles. We could create pages such as History of Rangers F.C., Sectarianism and the Old Firm, Rangers F.C. Season 2005/2006, and so on. What do y'all think?--Nicholas 16:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking of the best way to do that since the Celtic article was split to History of Celtic F.C.. The best that I can come up with at the moment is to split off most of the history section, but leave the last two paragraphs about recent seasons here in the main article, then add a potted summary of the history back in. My main worry with doing so is that it may leave the main article rather text poor, which is the main reason I haven't gone ahead and done it. Suggestions welcome. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

yes . do it. Palx 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sean Connery is NOT a Rangers fan

Yes, according to www.imdb.com, Sean Connery has supported Celtic all his life, yet occassionally appears at a Rangers game or does a favour for David Murray, as the two are friends - hence he should be removed from the "celebrity Rangers fans" section and added to the Celtic one.

I think you are right. He hangs out with Dermot Desmond. Palx 22:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

From [4]

And Edinburgh-born Sir Sean also told the newspaper why he now goes to see Glasgow Rangers football team play instead of their Old Firm rivals Celtic, the team he had followed during the era of the late Parkhead manager Jock Stein in the 1960s. He explained: "I like good football. I was a very good friend of Jock Stein and Bob Kelly and went to Celtic. They are no longer around. I then met David Murray and I liked him and the things he is doing with Rangers, so I go there. There are now more Catholics there than at the other place.

You decide for yourself whether that makes (or made -- the quote is from 2001) him a Rangers supporter. Cheers

Neil Leslie 08:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

He likes football, and he says he "goes" there - that doesn't make him a Rangers supporter.

I've seen him state on TV that he supports Manchester United and they showed him cheering them on while watching a game on TV. He sounded like a twat too. --202.47.49.24 11:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's all to do with both Connery and Murray being Edinburgh men. GulDukat73 18:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hes not a Rangers fan,I too saw him on the TV making a prat of himself pretending to love Ryan Giggs and shouting for Manchester United-Apparently he nearly played for them

Club badge

Did the Rangers ever wear their real club badge on their shirt?

Willie Henderson

I added the fact that Willie Henderson was the last person to call Jimmy Johnstone on the night before he died, and was surprised to find that he was a "red-link", and that he's not mentioned on this page. He is of course in the Rangers Hall of Fame [5]. Perhaps someone better qualified than me could contribute to an article about Henderson? Camillus (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)