Stevie G quote doesn’t add up – but that’s ok

Stevie G quote doesn’t add up – but that’s ok
Mandatory Credit: Photo by Kirk O Rourke/Rangers FC/Shutterstock 11812626gl Rangers Manager Steven Gerrard chaste with sub Nathan Patterson during the Scottish Premiership match at Celtic Park, Glasgow. Celtic v Rangers, Scottish Premiership, Football, Celtic Park, Glasgow, Scotland, UK - 21 Mar 2021 Celtic v Rangers, Scottish Premiership, Football, Celtic Park, Glasgow, Scotland, UK - 21 Mar 2021 PUBLICATIONxINxGERxSUIxAUTXHUNxGRExMLTxCYPxROMxBULxUAExKSAxONLY Copyright: xKirkxO Rourke/RangersxFC/Shutterstockx 11812626gl

Stevie G can do no wrong these days. Sure, there’ll be the odd glitch, but nothing we can’t handle. But we must say we are intrigued by his comments on Nathan Patterson and the Covid ban.

Now, interestingly Gerrard hasn’t said anything about anyone else’s, just Patterson, and we’ll go into that in due course, but let’s look at the quote:

“It’s something we are still discussing at the moment. We are in talks with the SFA over a date. The reason for the appeal is the obvious reason. We think it’s harsh in terms of what went on on the night. I think everyone assumes because of what happened with Jordan Jones and George Edmundson that everything is the same, which isn’t the case. We think it’s a little bit out of sync in terms of what went on. We don’t think everything has been taken into consideration when you are talking about the boys in terms of age and how damaging it could be for them in their careers moving forward now. You are talking about one of the brightest prospects ever in terms of right back. This kid is going to go and play for Scotland and all of a sudden the SFA want to ban him for that long. I don’t see it. I don’t get it. But we’ll see what happens moving forward.”

Steven Gerrard, bluntly, is saying the reason Patterson shouldn’t be suffering the ban he has is due to the fact he’s a good player.

Now, we love Stevie, we absolutely worship the man, and he has brought us our Rangers back.

But that doesn’t mean we will never ever debate a single Rangers thing again during his time as our manager, and we have to question this quote.

The reason Patterson’s ban was harsh, just like the other four, is he broke Covid rules. Gerrard makes no mention of Mebude, or Bassey, or Kinnear, all of whom would hope to have promising careers ahead of their young selves – just Patterson.

Yes, the kid has talent, but unfortunately we have to slightly urge caution on his line of reasoning here.

The reality is the only reason Patterson is getting this defence, this level of the manager’s backing is because we lost James Tavernier.

He compares the Jones and Edmundson situations, where they allegedly went to a house party – it has never formally been revealed officially exactly what the Covid 5 did, only that the police were called – and Gerrard says the two situations aren’t the same.

He’s right – he needs Patterson and doesn’t need or want Jones or Edmundson.

We absolutely adore Stevie, but unfortunately his reasoning falls a bit flat here and slightly undermines the violation of Covid Patterson (and his peers) committed, on the grounds that he’s a good player.

We are very lucky that he’s been around following Tavernier’s injury, a privilege we’re potentially going to lose soon – and while a blind man can see the lad has a tonne of potential, well, pretty sure Stevie told us Ross McCrorie was going to be a Rangers captain and a Scotland player while in our shirt.

Stevie, rightly, says what he needs to say as our manager – he has our best interests at heart and those best interests include Patterson being available at RB while Tavernier isn’t.

Are we condemning him for this – no – it’s football business and his job is to put out our best players where possible.

It’s just this situation has forced him into some quotes which don’t quite hold up to scrutiny.

But he’s Steven Gerrard and he’s a God in Glasgow so frankly my dear we don’t really give a damn because he’s given us 55 reasons not to.

No posts to display


  1. The SFA stance on this is bewildering and inconsistent but only in the length of the ban. If it was 7 games for Jones and Edmundson then I expected at least the same for the other 5. Consequently I think a 4 game ban is a result. Remember how angry we all felt when this incident surfaced. Many, including myself, wanted them kicked out of the club.
    Incidentally I’m hearing stories of one young player (not first team) who is attending house parties almost weekly. Maybe that is where the club should be focussing their attention.

Comments are closed.