Darthter

Not saying anything with agents, but given the media attention, it would have been remiss if Milne hadn't called DM in to ask "what would you do if the asked???" It would also be strange if Aberdeen didnt start doing their own recruitment planning for a replacement.....

Do we REALLY believe that McInnes & Milne have not discussed the Rangers position prior to Tuesday???? They will have known their exact plans, should an official approach be made.

Heres a far out suggestion..... Maybe the board know more about what ACTUALLY went on than we do, and the statement is an accurate account of proceedings....

There is no "list of known candidates", that the public are aware of....only lists drawn up by bookies, media & pundits.

Therein lies the problem with large parts of the support....release a statement & get criticized, say nothing & get criticized - how can the board win??

I actually think its a good statement....blunt, but to the point. They wanted to speak to DM, but we're denied. Interest ended, move onto next person/people. The club obviously feel that DM did bottle it, and have effectively closed the book on him being appointed anytime in the foreseeable future.

I still say it would have been foolish of the board to only interview one candidate. I would have expected 2 or 3 to be taken to interview stage, and going by Kings words these would most likely be in a job. We are only hearing about DM coz that is all the Scottish Media have been focusing on.

All depends on who replied to the questions.....the process could be re-run & a completely different set of results obtained. One thing I would say is that the majority of those questioned have no interest in football, therefore why would they go out of their way to "punish" Rangers??? Part of the discussion here is that the victimisation of our club/players stems from the Govt, passing on their views down the chain & actively trying to work against the club.....but I've yet to see ANY evidence that supports that theory. I would say that there is plenty circumstantial evidence to suggest that influence & agendas are being pushed within the footballing bodies, but I don't believe it goes any further than that.

The best answer I can give is that out of the 50-add who replied, only one of them was a Gers fan. The survey tells us nothing else....

why is there considerably more Aberdeen fans than rangers (7x more Ceptic, 6x more Aberdeen).....maybe the polling company are in on the conspiracy and only got specific people to respond??

I don think that there is "something" wrong with the way we are viewed as a team.....but I don't believe it stems from religion or unionism. I do believe it stems from jealousy. I think in the case of the Refs, the situation is actually wider than just us, but we do appear to be on the end of some seriously gobsmacking decision - That needs to be investigated by the Refereeing authorities.

The majority of the MSPs asked, responded they didn't follow football. 7 followed Ceptic, 6 follow Aberdeen....that is out of 56 who responded. The reason, I believe, that they don't like us isn't down to Politics, Nationalism or religion....It's jealousy. They don't like us being successful. They don't like the fact that we were demoted to the bottom tier of Scottish Football & were as strong as ever. They didn't like that we worked back up the league, to finish 3rd on our return to the top division. They don't like the level of unwavering support that the club has. They are jealous.....

Panelbase, who conducted the poll are though

Another interesting article from the Daily record in 2014 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/old-firm-united-both-celtic-3598872

https://www.rangerscharity.org.uk/news/more-msp-backing-for-the-rangers-charity-foundation

With the likes of Tunnocks etc, its more to do with them ditching their proud Scottish imagery, which has served them VERY well over the years, in favour of a UK image in order to appease those down south. Do you not feel even the slightest big grieved when Scotch Whisky gets marketed as a British product???

Not skirting anything....I trust you have figures to back up the claim??? Were ALL MSPs asked their footballing preference??? You also haven't answered my point - The Tories (Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party, to give them their Sunday name), should share the same Unionist views with Rangers (as everyone seems to believe we are a Unionist club), yet despite having 31 Tory MSPs & very similar beliefs over the Union, there is still only 1 (known) Rangers fan. Which party does this Rangers supporting MSP represent??? There is another threat talking about Windass' stats which are saying he's been outstanding, yet people are adamant that he's been next to useless.....Stats are great, but without backup and context they can be made to represent any particular view point. When you say "The majority of MSPs support Ceptic", how many were asked??? You could ask 10 (out of 129) MSPs who they support, 3 could say Ceptic, the rest each say one other team....based on that research, do the majority support Ceptic??

I think "Murts" will be in the dugout again at the weekend as well. A new manager may be appointed before then, but he may be reluctant to lead the team given the short timescale. Keeping Murts there would make sense.

That you know of.....unless of course you have canvassed ALL MSP, from ALL parties. Going by some of the logic on here, all Tories & probably Labour (being Red Tories) should support Rangers, everyone else supports Ceptic. Yet according to the statement above, there is only ONE Rangers supporting MSP - I thought the Tories being Unionists would fit straight into the Rangers supporting mould???

A very valid point....this is a results business. Get the win 1st, then worry about how it is achieved.

A thought.... When a normal business is looking to appoint someone new, they would generally get CV's submitted, then whittle that down to a short list of between 2 & 4 candidates. They would then Interview ALL the candidates before either a 2nd round of interviews or appointing the chosen person. Would it make sense for Rangers to approach only one of their shortlist for an interview??? At present, Aberdeen is the only club we know that has been approached to speak to their manager (coz that's all the media are interested in), but could the board have put requests out to other clubs without the Scottish press being aware. They then interview those folk that they get permission for & make a decision from there. If that is the case, DM may still not be the "No.1 candidate", instead he could be 1 of 3 preferred candidates.

Most likely a case of never accept the 1st offer. Would be nice if we just said "ok..." and went & got someone else....

but....I would guess that a fairly high percentage of those singing those songs, have absolutely no idea of the meaning behind them.

so...as a paid up member of the SNP & ardent supporter of an Independent Scotland, am I not allowed to support Rangers??? What hard/factual evidence is there that the SNP (the group, not an individual) are actively trying to damage Rangers FC???

something else just occurred to me about the media talk over DM.... They talk about the fantastic job he's done at Aberdeen, putting together a great side on a shoe-string budget....then in the same breath, question whether Rangers will have the cash to allow DM to put together a decent team.