craig

I can tell you I get better value for money from MyGers at 50 quid a year than I do from my 850 quid a month utility bill, lol

He's the one who has to work with them. Makes absolutely zero sense to me.

Exactly. Depends really on how you want it to run..... for me the Manager should be telling the Sporting Director (SD) what positions he believes need strengthened, the scouts then report feasible players back to SD, who reviews them, culls them and gives a shortlist to the manager. Not dissimilar to the interview process in a regular business

Respectfully disagree. What you contend assumes that a new manager coming in has a different philosophy. Different managers, with same philosophies, dont necessarily require wholesale personnel changes - McLeish was case in point. Either way, it seems like Willock fits the phiosophy as a Kent replacement. Whether the manager makes that decision or a Sporting Director is almost irrelevant - though I suspect that this was a Wilson scouting with input from Beale. I dont have an issue with a sporting director - but Wilson became very hit and miss. You also don't need a sporting director to ensure the philosophy remains - though admittedly it helps having one rather than relying on a Board who arent football experts.

All valid questions... but I would contend that we need to give them time given it is only just getting to completion. The estimated turnover is less a question to me than what is the expected profit - and I thought that it was expected to be about 1 mill a year, which isnt too bad in fairness as that should be an asset that lasts decades

Plans dont matter when hes offering me to be part of the team mate, you should know that ! He likes the playing style that Gerrard/Beale brought - one thing that I know he would bring would be higher expectation and higher expected standards - work rate and ethic. I can tell you that having seen a lot of his sessions over the years that the kids absolutely gravitate to him and his assistant - running the Academy is less sessions and more strategic - but in his words Mulholland just plays the political game. When he had the 15's and 16's they did quite well I believe

Thanks mate - makes sense in fairness as always seemed to me that the club have supported him - the lad must be super frustrated in fairness so can understand why hes lashing out a bit. Really hope he can get to the bottom of it, even if just for his long term health

Surely the best scout would be the manager... who has worked with the player already.... who knows how he wants his team to play... knows how the player plays.... and should have the best understanding of whether said player would fit ?

He also told me last night that he would "take it in a second". His two lads are both at Hibs, one of them was in at Celtic, they were looking at him... and Rangers didnt even look at him - ridiculous.

Only reason I have it... and I still can't get to any of those games 🤣

January ended in hope... a little

Was Ofoborh not released ? Or he was just moaning about his medical treatment ?

Not speaking about the pros or cons of Mygers.... but I just got an email about the 2023/24 MyGers - and we have 53,000 MyGers members - which is quite remarkable. EDIT : Prices have increased for adults from 40 quid to 50 quid, from 30 to 40 for 16-21 yr olds and 20 to 25 for under 16's

That would be the very one. He would get my vote in an instant.

The debates over Edmiston House pay testament to that statement. Some dont want it as it could have been spent on the squad... others, like me, believe that over time if that place turns profit then it is an additional revenue stream that actually allows us to buy players from EH profits.

No idea who you mean... but aye. Has been very vocal to me in the past that Mulholland is holding back the Academy. KT also has great respect from many of the Academy players - Leon King, for example, during xmas break from RFC, would come to KT sessions to stay in tune.

Oh, I would give him game time so he can either prove himself or not... but from everything I have seen in a Rangers shirt he isnt good enough. Playing for Schalke or playing for Cercle is almost irrelevant - different leagues, different styles. For example, Schalke werent great when he was with them, so many of their opponents attacked them - he doesnt get that with us - his greatest asset is his pace - and playing against a "park the bus" team every week won't suit him well - IMHO of course.... - so those teams are irrelevant. When you sign a player it is the person you are signing, not the appearances they have had elsewhere.... I am not asking for an immediate impact, not at all. But I watch his technique and his touch and I can categorically say (yes, I am biased but still....) that my 18 yr old son who is playing semi professionally, has a better first touch than Matondo. Absolutely zero doubt. That said, we NEED to give him a chance because if we dont, we wont get a fraction of what we spent on him back. I base my obersvations on Matondo on what I see, not that I need to see him have an immediate impact. There may very well be a footballer in there, but I havent seen it in his touch - admittedly we havent seen a whole lot of him. But if we are hoping to win the league next year then I would contend that the best that Matondo should be for us is as an impact sub. Besides, if Tom Lawrence is fit then he would be my choice to play the left side of the 3, unless Beale plans on playing him centrally. Lawrence is a much better footballer than Matondo.

Agreed - the one thing we can pretty much all agree on is that change was needed. The fact that Bennett has instigated this very early in his tenure is a good sign (of Bennett being in tune with what is needed) but only time will tell if the personnel choices were correct.

I voted yes, but was definitely conflicted. Their treatment of us has been abhorrent, and they are only, IMHO, looking to tick a box. However, if we as a fanbase, continue to just refuse them then we alienate ourselves and have absolutely NO voice. Better to have a voice and then make them look foolish (think Chris Graham when he decimated Spiers on national TV for telling lies about Rangers) than to have no voice at all and, worse, considered pariahs because we refused. Behind enemy lines it was for me - but not a particularly pleasing vote to have to take

Moonbeams kept bringing quality players in and "chased the European dream" so many of the fanbase saw him as some messiah..... but when that deck of cards eventually falls.... That said, Sky money had a part to play in it too, because prior to 1992 the playing field was more even and financially smaller nations COULD compete.... the balance of scales tipped dramatically away from equilibrium when Sky money came in. But Murray also was profligate and had horrendous financial management in not just Rangers but his other businesses too

I would have my source replace him... but I am biased

If ever you wanted to see a barrier to entry this is right here. 14 proposers is absolutely MENTAL

Its defacto a dictatorship of about 3 people.

Financially for C1872, absolutely. Hopefully they realise that it offers zero benefit financially to the club though.

That isnt why the organisation was set up though. It became a core of what they are, but it definitely wasnt why they were set up