Reflections on a Scottish Cup Quarter-final

It's famously been 80 years since Albion Rovers last reached a Scottish Cup quarter-final. Standing between them on this occasion was the might of Rangers, a club that (in its former guise, at least) has done rather better in the intervening eight decades.

Of course, few among the Albion Rovers faithful were expecting a win but we were hoping that the team would give a better account of itself than it did in the 4-0 reversal earlier in the season in the League Cup. Rovers-Rangers games are something like buses - you wait ages for them and then two come along in quick succession.

The Rovers team warms up

I arrived at Ibrox early, to soak in something of the "atmosphere" - which only served to remind me why I support Albion Rovers (and Morton, my "second" team). Everywhere were expressions of the supposed joys of sectarianism, and that supporting Rangers has something to do with a gross misunderstanding of the complexities of Northern Irish politics. The Rangers fans came with their banners proclaiming their (to me, rather confused) identity, while the Albion Rovers contingent were obviously simply out to enjoy themselves.

Ah, the joys of sectarianism!

It is not only the misplaced identity with sectarianism that I struggle with, the the near tangible sense of entitlement that many Rangers fans still seem to have. Sitting just feet away from Rangers supporters, it was difficult to avoid hearing some of the asides aimed at us an our "wee team". Yes, a team that - until the end of last season - was playing in a higher division than they were. Some Rangers fans were already dismissing the opposition and talking about where they would want to be sitting at the final. Still, these are supporters and at least one of them appears only to buy a ticket to have an opportunity to goad the visiting fans - not once during the entire 90 minutes did he once look at the game...but surely those running club are now free from such arrogance? They will have a bit more insight into their current circumstances, yes?

Erm, no. In his programme notes captain Lee McCulloch reflected on the embarrassment of drawing with Stenhousemuir, while also making a comparision of sorts with Albion Rovers: "it is 80 years since Rovers reached the last eight...but it's going on five years now since we last won the Cup and for Rangers that is too long." OK. So, "wee" clubs like ours can wait almost a century for a semi-final and that's fine, but Rangers, well, they're such a special club that it's completely wrong that their supposed divine right to win everything has evaporated. Not much humility in that statement from the Rangers captain, but enough of an arrogant sense of self-entitlement to make every Rovers fan reading those words to hope our team can bring him down a peg or two.

The teams line up. 

But that's enough of Rangers. Let's talk about the game.

Rovers kicked off and within two minutes almost took the lead when Liam Cusack's well-hit shot flew wide of the Rangers goal. Rangers, not taking this warning very seriously, threw a great deal forward looking for the opening goal. By some miracle, and some incredibly astute and solid defending, Rangers don't score. And then, on 13 minutes, another miracle happens: Rovers string a few League Two passes together and win a corner. From the resulting corner, Lee McCulloch (yes, him) connects with the cross - commiting the schoolboy error of attempting a pass across the face of a crowded goal - and Ciaran Donnelly connects to give us the lead.

Our first quarter-final in 80 years? Let's have a party!

This takes everyone by surprise, including the Rovers fans. We all forgot where we were and started singing. Not accustomed to loud renditions of non-sectarian songs, a few of the Rangers fans tried to tell some of our more vocal supporters that they didn't appreciate visiting support making quite so much noise. Not that we cared.

Rangers obviously expected that all they had to do was keep possession and wait for us to meekly capitulate. This is the only way that I can satisfactorily explain their unadventurous tactics of aiming predictable crosses at static forwards, and resorting to pot shots from outside the box. On the rare occasions that they did work openings, the finishing was profligate to say the least. It was as if Peter van Vossen and Erik Bo Anderson were making comebacks.

The Rovers defence stood firm, making a string of heroic tackles and interventions. Our keeper, Neil Parry, was in good form and looked to increase in confidence as the match wore on. At half-time, with the score at 1-0 and Rangers' lack of imagination clear for all to see, Rovers fans started to believe it could be our day.

The scoreboard tells the story. As do the emptying stands.

And it deserved to be. But for a controversial incident on 78 minutes both teams would have got what they deserved: Rangers, elimination from the competition (they did, however, get the fully merited treatment from their own fans) and for Rovers a semi-final place (although the chairman will be happy with the financial rewards of a replay). Unfortunately, a hopeful hoof upfield was chased by the hugely unimpressive Bilel Mohsni who appeared to either collide with the goalkeeper or handle the ball on its way into the net. For a few seconds, no-one was quite sure what was happening. And then, without consulting his assistant, the referee walked off towards the centre circle.

I've watched the replays several times. My reaction at the time was that the referee had made an enormous mistake. On reviewing the evidence, I don't see how the referee can have allowed it to stand - at least not without consulting the better-placed man on the line. It's questionable whether Mohsni made much contact at all, but if he did it's with his arm. And if that isn't a foul on the keeper, then nothing is. I suppose it isn't for nothing that Scottish referees were sponsored by Specsavers.

Rangers didn't endear themselves to us with their unsportsmanlike conduct. When Parry put the ball out of play for a player to receive treatment, we didn't expect for Rangers not only to refuse to return the ball but launch an attack. And when Chris Dallas went down injured, the pitiful attempts from some Rangers fans to suggest he was timewasting when he'd just been forced out of the biggest game of his career were a bit much.

Throughout the match, Rangers fans made their feelings known. They were less than impressed, as well they might be. It might have been sporting if some of them applauded the Rovers' players efforts at the final whistle, but by that point many had already left and were now on twitter and facebook, talking about meltdown and crisis because a "joke team" had out-thought, if not out-played, them. Fortunately the Rovers fans, still in party mood, stayed behind and applauded their team.

It was a historic occasion. Personally, after already beating Motherwell and Stenhousemuir in the previous rounds I'd have preferred anyone other than Rangers away in the quarter-finals simply because I have little truck for what Rangers represent on a commercial and cultural level. Dumbarton at home would have been perfect! However, I am proud to have seen my team in the quarter-finals of a Scottish Cup - something that many Rovers supporters have never experienced - and to have been just 12 minutes away from an improbable semi-final place was incredible.

It's the final whistle and Albion Rovers have won - 1-1!
(You get the point.)

Seeing Ally McCoist on TV defending the referee's decision just underlines what a great day it was for us.

We now have a replay at home (wherever that will be - almost definitely not Cliftonhill) and we'll have to do it all again. We know Rangers are beatable.

Thanks should go to the stewards who were fantastic toward the visiting support, and to Rovers themselves for the tremendous way they attempted to ensure that every Rovers fan, even exiled supporters, had the opportunity to be at such a historic game. Jeers, however, to the TV crew who, having the Scottish Cup in their possession allowed Rangers fans the opportunity to have their pictures taken with it, without thinking that some Rovers' fans might like the same opportunity.

The best thing about this quarter-final was not simply that we got something of a result. It was that, at the end of it, it was not just about Rangers. We were not simply a team that had got that far only to capitulate to a supposedly "big" club for the dubious privilege of being labeled "plucky" by the Daily Record. The team, the club and our fans did themselves, Coatbridge and Scottish football proud. Well done, everyone!

It’s a been a great season for Morton

It may not seem like it for many Morton supporters who have just seen the team lose 1-0 at home to Dunfermline. But it has been quite an amazing season and one that every Morton fan should be proud of.

OK, it isn’t quite all over yet but it’s looking almost certain that the Ton will finish in second place, and therefore not achieve the promotion to the Premier League that for so long this season seemed a distinct possibility.

It’s been 25 years since Morton were last relegated from the top flight and it’s been a long – and sometimes very painful struggle – to get back.  It didn’t quite happen this time around, but it’s the nearest we’ve come in all that time and, if we can keep the team together, we should have a great chance next time.

It’s easy to point to some key games we played poorly in, such as the defeats to Dumbarton and Hamilton, or the recent visit to Firhill.  All in all, it’s been a cracking season though and to finish second to a team playing as well as the current Partick Thistle team – having pushed them hard – is an achievement in itself. Sure, in the final analysis we failed to secure promotion but, at the beginning of the season, did anyone genuinely think we would?

Not me. I just wanted an improvement on last season – and I think it’s safe to say we achieved that!

The way we’ve played this season has been good for the club, the fans, the Scottish Football League and the town.  It’s been terrific to see people in Greenock getting excited about the team again, even if not enough turn up to Cappielow. The team has given people in Greenock the chance to feel good about the place again, and that’s priceless.

My better half is not a Morton fan, in fact she quite likes Partick Thistle which makes life interesting. I think though is fair to say that anyone – even the “the only good thing to come out of Greenock is a Paisley bus” kind of St Mirren fan – must admit there’s something very special about this Morton team.  Allan Moore deserves real credit for what he’s done so far.

The best thing is that the club is still a work in progress, at all levels. It’s come a long way from the dark days of the early 2000s under Hugh Scott.  Chairman Douglas Rae has brought not only some much needed stability in the last decade but has overseen Morton rise from the pits of Hell itself (well, the Third Division, which is the same thing) to second in the First Division –and of course has contributed to the vastly improved financial position.  On the playing front, season 2012-13 showed what Morton are capable of – I think we can be optimistic that there is much more to come.

So, while the last week has been a disappointing one for the Ton, it’s been far from a season of failure.  It’s been our best season for over a decade– arguably even better than 1995-6 when Morton (including Finnish ace Marko Rajamaki) missed out on promotion by goal difference to Dundee United.  We should be proud of that, and look forward optimistically.

What might be useful is, with talk of league reconstruction in the air, is for the powers that be to reconsider the ridiculous set-up than allows only for one team to be promoted to the SPL. It was a flawed measure in almost every respect, and if the top tier of Scottish league football is genuinely to be a meritocracy then the very least that should be done is introduce play-offs, as is the case for promotion/relegation from the other divisions.

After a season like this, I’d say that both Thistle and Morton deserve promotion. But I’m bound to say that being a Morton fan. There is of course a better case for introducing a second promotion spot – to make end of season games more meaningful for players and spectators alike.

I should add that I used to live in Panmure Street behind Thistle's ground and went to quite a few games. (Well, I've always had a sense of humour.) If Morton were going to lose out to anyone, I'd rather it be Thistle than anyone else.

And so, congratulations to Thistle – I hope you do well next season in the SPL and I look forward to hostilities being renewed in 2014-15, when of course Renfrewshire derbies (but not Old Firm clashes) will hopefully again feature in the SPL! In the meantime, Morton fans should reflect with sober judgement on this season and look positively towards a brighter future.

Rangers in SFL3 - right decision, wrong process

As we now know, so long as the decision of the Scottish Football League is respected, Rangers FC in their new guise will participate in the Scottish Football League Division 3 next season.  They will be playing their local derbies against Queen's Park - something that hasn't happened since 1948 - and will make away trips to such exotic locations as Annan's Galabank and Montrose's Links Park.  More bizarrely, they will be playing in a lower tier of the league than my own Albion Rovers who I have followed though the thin and thin since 1994, and my "adopted" team of Greenock Morton.

I believe that the right decision has been made, but probably not for the reasons many think.  What I have been far from in agreement with is the way this situation has been handled and the way in which this decision has been arrived at.  For example, I cannot see how punishing a club and its fans for the actions of its owners (with secondary effects on the club's many creditors) is in any way responsible - and certainly not the remit of a football league of which Rangers FC was not a member at the times of its alleged offences.  I also resent the way in which the debate has focused on how the SFL will decide Rangers future: it isn't the responsibility of the league to make such a decision, but to invite a new club to join the league following a newly created vacancy.

It is probably helpful if I make it very clear I am not a Rangers supporter.  I dislike a great deal about what the Old Firm represents, not least the sectarian associations which still refuse to die.  I feel that the way in which Rangers and Celtic have dominated Scottish football to a ridiculous degree has not been to the benefit of the game in general.  The sense of entitlement and commercial arrogance of the Old Firm clubs have hardly tempted me to think too positively about them.  Then again, for someone who spends their Saturdays at Cliftonhill or Cappielow, that's not a surprising thing to say.

What might be more surprising is that, in spite of the fact that I dislike Rangers, I'm not one of these fans of other clubs who has been clamouring for the harshest punishment possible.  I don't like to see any club going to the wall, whether it's Clydebank, Airdrie, Gretna or Rangers.  These clubs have or had histories, supporters and links with their communities.  True, I feel that the situation surrounding Rangers is a huge wake-up call for the Scottish game and it would have been both immoral and setting a dangerous precedent to offer a newco Rangers a place in the SPL - but nonetheless the club's ceasing to exist wouldn't have been a cause to celebrate.  And it would have demonstrated how easily any club could find it's future threatened as long as people such as Craig Whyte are allowed to forget their business sense the moment they find themselves in a club boardroom.

What I have found more than mildly irritating is that, during the protracted debate that has followed Rangers' being deducted points a few months ago, it became obvious that as far as the football authorities (and some clubs) are concerned, Rangers were perceived as too big to fail.  This itself speaks volumes about the ailing state of Scottish football and the need for revisiting how the game is governed.  No club should be "too big", especially not one that had dominated to the detriment of others who now (in the case of Stenhousemuir at least) seem to have become content to accept the skewed arrangements and feed on the scraps which fell from the rich man's table.  When vested interests are cited as a means of parting from precedent, it speaks of an unhealthy dependency and underlines the inescapable reality that Scottish football is far from a meritocracy.

Of course, there are serious issues of justice to be settled.  That, for me, is now a matter outwith the football authorities' responsibilities, especially as Craig Whyte's takeover is currently subject to a criminal investigation.  I hope that Whyte and the other discredited individuals who brought the club to its knees are, at the very least, prevented from going anywhere near a football club again in their lives.

And then there are the SFA and the SPL, who appeared to be making the rules up as they went along to accommodate Rangers.  I can only guess at their motivations, but it appears that the existing structures they are so keen to maintain require a strong Rangers at the centre.  What is certain is that the interventions of Neil Doncaster and others only confused the matter and lent themselves to the common perception that there was no-one actually in control.

There has been a great deal written about the internal politics of Scottish football, and I have no wish to add to it.  What I want to say, however, is this: the Scottish football authorities simply had to follow precedent and apply it equally to all member clubs.

It was entirely up to the SPL members to decide on whether or not a newco Rangers should be allowed into its ranks.  I personally feel the final decision was the right one. After that decision was made, the SPL's responsibility was to identify an alternative club to take Rangers' place (something which, amazingly, didn't seem to feature in their thinking) - not to influence the decisions of other footballing bodies the new club might wish to approach.

As for the SFL, why the lengthy debate and the discussions about Rangers' recent history?  Why was its focus solely on the future of the Rangers newco?  It's not as if this is a new situation - what normally happens when a vacancy appears (this time created by a member club moving into the SPL) is that indications of interest are invited from non-league clubs.  So why, on this occasion, was Rangers the only club under consideration?

Let's take the case of Airdrie.  The old club found themselves in a similar predicament to Rangers and dissolved at the end of the 2001-2 season.  A newco was formed, with the name of the proposed new club Airdrie United.  The SFL were understandably concerned at the prospect of setting a precedent by which heavily indebted clubs could reform and reapply for their own place in the league and instead decided to admit Gretna.  Airdrie United, however, bought out struggling Clydebank and with it a place in the second division.  The vital point, however, is that the newco had to apply for its place in the SFL and that its application was rejected in favour of another.

When Gretna were relegated from the SPL in 2008, the club was liquidated and accepted into the SFL (on the premise that a new buyer would be found) - but only into the Third Division.  Unfortunately for Gretna, being relegated to the bottom tier put off prospective buyers and sponsors and they resigned from the league.  The SFL chose to replace them with Annan Athletic from a shortlist including Edinburgh City, Spartans and Cove Rangers.

A similar process occurred in 1994, when Caledonian Thistle and Ross County were elected into the league.  Why then, given this apparently tried and tested method of admitting new members, did the SFL not follow its own procedures in this case?  Why was there both internal discussion and public debate about which league a newco Rangers should be admitted to?  Why were the likes of Alloa Athletic's board compelled to take on board the views of their own fans in their decision making process when historical precedent should have instead done all the talking?

As far as the SFL was concerned, a vacancy had arisen.  One high profile new club had expressed an interest.  What should have happened is that applications should have been invited and each of them been taken on their respective merits.  Admittedly the process is fundamentally flawed in key respects but, until the governance of the game is reformed, it's the only one we have and should be followed for the sake of consistency and fairness.  On this occasion the SFL chose against following their own procedures and instead spent inordinate amounts of time debating which division Rangers should start out their new existence.  This would surely not have happened if the club in question had been St Mirren, Dunfermline or Inverness Caley Thistle.

What is now likely is a stand-off between the SFL and the SPL, whose attempted interference to influence the outcome of the SFL vote was heavily resented and whose plans for an SPL2 are now in serious jeopardy. The SPL has apparently threatened not to invite either Dundee or Dunfermline to take Rangers' former place in protest at the outcome and thereby may prevent the newco Rangers being admitted into the SFL. How this internal strife will help Scottish football, I can't imagine. What is actually now needed, as Alloa Athletic director Ewen Cameron told The Sun, is "a unified league of 42 clubs". The game also needs an urgent and overdue injection of integrity.  The resignations of Neil Doncaster and Stuart Regan would well be a positive start in that respect, but are about as likely as a Morton victory in the Scottish Cup final.

I can't see the likes of Edinburgh City, Cove Rangers or any other potential applicants for the vacant SFL place able to offer what the newco Rangers clearly do.   In that respect, the outcome is the right one - while the process, the nature of Scottish football's politics and what passes for leadership within the game leave a great deal to be desired.

I hope the SFL's decision is respected and look forward to the Glasgow derby, in which I will naturally be cheering on the Spiders.  The main thing is that a newco Rangers have been allowed to survive and move forward.  It not only Rangers that I hope will emerge stronger from this, but Scottish football more generally.  Admittedly in the short-term there will be economic effects that will be keenly felt, but in the longer-term there lies an opportunity to rebuild the game, its governance and its structures - and to make sure that the financial well-being of member clubs is not inextricably connected to the continued success of two giants.

Bluebirds go red

I was dismayed to read the news last week that Welsh football team Cardiff City are to dispense with 104 years of tradition of playing in their distinctive blue shirts and instead sport red for the coming season.

Not only are the traditional colours consigned to history, so is the club's iconic Bluebirds badge - and, naturally, along with it the club nickname - exchanged for a dragon.  All this is part of a rebranding exercise by the club's Malaysian sponsors who believe that the changes will bring commercial and marketing benefits to the club from the Far East.

Some people might think I'm a football purist.  Actually, I know they do.  But I'm also a realist and a pragmatist.  And I recognise that there has to be a practical approach where global markets are concerned; while for people like me football is often about local identity, there can be no escaping that it is now a worldwide business with international marketing potential.

Cardiff City Football Club has tied itself to a significant package of investment from the Malaysians.  That is not to be sniffed at, and it sounds like this investment could propel the club forward and see them emulate near neighbours Swansea to emerge as a Premiership force.  Promises include increased transfer budget, a new training ground and expansion to the existing stadium.  It's little wonder that Cardiff City fans want these people involved with their club.  It's also understandable that many of them don't want to exchange the club's traditions and identity for these glistening pieces of silver.

On one level, it isn't too unusual in the modern game.  Let's take a look at another Cardiff club, playing in the League of Wales.  Inter Cardiff became Inter Cable Tel to appease their sponsors.  Other Welsh clubs have followed suit: Llansantffraid FC became Total Network Solutions (now the New Saints), Connah's Quay Nomads became Gap Connah's Quay.  English and Scottish league clubs have avoided such overt identification with sponsors but that isn't true of their stadia, with many sponsors now receiving naming rights and producing such wonderfully named grounds as the Shyberry Excelsior and KitKat Crescent.  In some cases, stadium names change so quickly I pity tomorrow's football historians. At least Cardiff City aren't compromising their entire identity by renaming themselves or their stadium.

I have seen the comments of many football supporters on twitter, who believe this is a disgraceful example of the power of sports capitalism.  In part, I agree.  I watch Albion Rovers and Greenock Morton and I wouldn't want some millionaire sponsor investing in either of these clubs on the condition that he can treat it as a personal plaything.  Say someone bought Rangers and insisted that a part of any deal would be to wear green shirts - what would the response be?  Cardiff City fans are equally proud of their club history and traditions and feel the same connection with the past as supporters of Rangers or any other club.

There are too many such people running our football clubs.  Their interest is commercial, not in either the clubs or the communities in which they are based.  That is not always a negative thing.  But I wouldn't want my club's identity to be sold to the highest bidder.  Football clubs are in some respects not like other businesses: fans are important stakeholders in their clubs and deserve to be consulted on such drastic changes.  If I was a Cardiff City fan I'd also ask some questions about the detail of the club's finances and would like to see come considered analysis as to the projected benefits of the marketing plan (especially with some fans boycotting the new home shirt).  I've seen many "investors" promise clubs so much (think Spencer Trethewy at Aldershot, George Reynolds at Darlington, John Craig at York City, Terry Brown at Chester and even Hugh Scott at Morton) and be unable to deliver anything but the club's destruction in the long-term.  We don't yet know what will happen to Rangers - another product of people forgetting their business sense once they get into club boardrooms.  I wouldn't simply take these people at face value.

Cardiff fans have their history.  That will not be taken away from them.  Whether or not it was a wise move to rebrand the club and change the colours and badge, I don't know.  What I am most concerned about is the sponsors'/owners' apparent lack of interest in the views of supporters and the town.  That doesn't inspire confidence that the supporters interests are of much importance to those running the club.  Whatever might be said about this decision, certainly the club could do with a more effective PR department.