The response to our Jermain Defoe piece was… colourful. As fans will be aware, the former England star was not at St Mirren Stadium yesterday, and instead was on punditry duty with Sky Sports for both West Ham Spurs, then Man Utd Liverpool.

When we became aware of this we were extremely confused – we had a must-win match on the Sunday afternoon, so why was one of our key staff away focused on another job?

We did check the climate online to see how other fans felt about his absence, and the initial response was frankly outrage, that they were infuriated a key Rangers staff member was not in our dugout for such a vital match.

We then delivered our content on it, suggesting confusion on our part as to why he was there.

We didn’t condemn the man, at no point in the article did we slate him for what he’d done, we simply couldn’t understand why he had.

The response was frankly more confusing than this: fans, in droves, now flocked in to defend Defoe, implying strongly that his interests were in fact important than the club’s, and that at the most ‘condemning’, they saw nothing wrong with it.

And that’s absolutely fine – there’s views supporting and criticising his choice.

But that so many fans chose to defend him rather than promoting the club’s own interests was very telling, and we know absolutely 100% if Rangers hadn’t won that match the outcry about his absence would have been deafening.

There were some who were extremely unhappy with his absence, but they were definitely outnumbered.

Us? We were simply surprised he chose to go south rather than be in the dugout. His choice, and Rangers endorsed it. It is maybe a bit disappointing a pundit job in England was more important to him than this critical match, but no one died and we did win so it’s not the end of the world.

It’s just that anger from so many fans over an article which was really pretty neutral which makes us wonder what the priorities of some supporters are at times.

Had it been Morelos, the outrage would have been deafening further…