UCF2008

Don't get me wrong mate, I want to win it too. All I'm saying is that it could make a difference as to whether we sign a player or not. The other week there the Brazilian lad Moritz was sent packing because he refused to play in a bounce game. Despite us obviously not wanting to take a punt on a player without seeing him in action first we're not taking advantage of the opportuinty to take a look at any of these players in a proper competitive setting. We've only got 10 days left and we desperately need some attacking mid options. If it was me I'd give the Argentinian kid a shot. Apparently even the French kid we signed today hasn't made the squad. We're still waiting on international clearance. Didn't think that would stop us playing them as trialists but if it does then that kind of makes my point moot as we don't have any Scottish trialists atm.

The trouble is that there's never a good time to experiment at Rangers. The Ramsdens Cup is the least important competition we're involved in this season. We're short on time for bringing players in. What's the harm in sticking one or two of them on the bench?

Personally I'd like to see one or two of our trialists in the squad for this one. It's all fine and well organising bounce games, but if the players we're looking at are up for it I'd at least consider giving a couple of them a place on the bench to see how they fare in a competitive fixture.

My initial reaction would be to vote no, but it depends what sort if restructuring they were proposing. If it would be for the benefit of all Scottish football and not just the SPL, it would be as bad as what they've done to us to (possibly worse) to vote against it. Wait and see, I guess.

We may or may not have been getting additional coverage in the 3rd world, but Europe, the US and Far East have been hearing about Rangers a lot more than usual. It's certainly been mostly negative press from our point of view, but I would imagine the sectarian issue coverage in recent years has been more damaging to our image on a global scale. What I think we're capable of compared to what we actually do achieve in terms of sponsorship and brand interest is down to our owners.

Why? We've been the talk of world football for the past six months and weren't the exactly smallest of brands in the first place. I'm not saying we could get a deal to rival Liverpool's. I'm just pointing out that some lesser known brands will pay a premium to make their mark.

I don't mind if he changes it or not as long as he does what's best for the club. I'd even suffer us getting landed with a kit like Liverpool's if it brought in a fraction of the money they got on that deal.

Apart from looking like they've just been attacked with a can of spray paint, I'm sure all the kids love 'em.

Those two are OK. I'd assume the Nike designers supply of LSD had run out when he did those.

I'd assume your referring to Black and McCulloch. Funny how both had a good few pops at goal.

Cheers :cheers:

The thing is, Green seems like a bit of an idiot, but he isn't.

Papering over the cracks? Cracks in what? We're having to rebuild from scratch here. If you don't like the way we go about winning games like this, get used to it. Games against the type of opposition you mention are generally going to be few and far between for some time and I'm sure we're more than capable of rising to the occassion.

Argentinian kid looks promising

For them maybe

Just think about all the schools and hospitals their stealing from

Preston might have seen it all but didn't win every domestic trophy as they never managed to win the League Cup or Charity Shield. Unless I'm mistaken Wolves have won them all though.

All the way.

Agreed. I think a lot of fans are underestimating the task at hand. It's all fine and well to talk about how easily we should stroll through the divisions. Afterall if the likes of Gretna, Livi and Ross County can do it. Only problem is that we are Rangers and face a completely different mindset in our opposition because of that. Yes, we should win most of our games and in some of them we'll tear our rivals to shreds. We will win the leagues quite comfortably, but the journey won't necessarily be plain sailing no matter who the manager is.

I don't put all of the blame on Craig Whyte either. He was by no means the innocent party but all investigations will likely conclude with him as the patsy because there was a much bigger conspiracy at play ...Please don't laugh ...it's not funny.

I couldn't really care less one way or the other what happens to him and his business. My point is that he didn't actively try to destroy the club. Others did.

Money talks and he owed them a shitload. Still does.

Believe it or not, that's what happened. It may have taken a little longer and I think there was a lot more scheming and thieving involved than you seem to, but at the end of the day it was Whyte who pushed us over the edge with his cohorts orchestrating our downfall. I also don't think David Murray had any option but to sell. That was all Lloyds doing. Yes, his business dealings gave Lloyds that power over both him and the club, but he had no choice in the sale. SDM's ego regarding Lloyds continuing hold over him might not allow him to admit that to this day, but that doesn't make it any less the truth.

Seriously though, do you honestly think that they were just clearing up David Murray's mess?

Fair enough mate. Personally I think Murray does have a lot to answer for. He was reckless with the clubs finances on a couple of occassions and some of his dealings with the clubs assets are questionable to say the least. He had a lot of time to make mistakes and like I said before he did make his fair share. However, to suggest that Lloyds, Muir and Whyte only did the dirty work makes me wonder which one are you?