Kenzie1

You are correct in that he is far from stupid. How can a so-called sports journalist who has never 'broken' a story; does not know the first thing about the off-side law (I know a lot of people don't, but he gets paid to understand such matters), and relies almost totally on contention to keep his name in the public domain, be stupid?

I think Wigan have drawn the short straw. :-))

True, but they have, by comparison, been building from within unlike Manure who, when the going gets tough, spend. Remember too that there is only one club who has gone through the entire footballing season in the EPL without losing a game. Clue? Ok then; Woolwich. They are also the only club in English football never to have been relegated.

I agree my friend. In the Premiership he can get all the glory he wants but he will never get the family atmosphere that all players who leave Rangers rave about. He will also miss the Rangers Vivisection Society - where we gather and tear the players to shreds. :-))))

But do they have the access to his resources. Resources moreover that he has built up over many years in front-line journalism?

You've noticed.:-))))

STV announced that the bids were for Davis. However; I bow to my friend's greater knowledge of thse matters and I apologise if I have erroneously misled anyone.

2 questions: Who would you drop to play him? Do you really think he would play for us?

By and large there is a lot to what you say but for me, McCoist has been given too much too soon; a-la John Greig. I don't think McCoist is the right man for this job which already appears to be too big for him. But having said that, I sincerely hope I'm wrong. He seems to have inherited Walter's habit of sticking with his "favourites" Edu and McCujlloch, neither of whom should in muy view, be allowed anywhere near Ibrox as they are simply not Rangers' class. Nor have they ever been. Broadfoot is another one who defies logic. Surely we have youngsters awaiting their chance who are better than those three I've mentioned. McCoist said recently that he would change the team to bring in "experienced" players - ie, the three just mentioned. What must the likes of McMillan think, having played the way he did against Motherwell, to find himself replaced by the "experienced" (but still useless) Broadfoot. I accept that in order to blood the younger players it may take time and may even cost us the title but, taking the long term view as per Sir Alex Ferguson, if they're good enough, play them. It's bound to pay dividends in the long term. We cannot afford to be so short sighted that we spend money on European/American imports who are no better than what is available to us here in Scotland. Tell me, where is the sense in that? I wonder just how "ruthless" Ally is. Will he dump the 'passengers' or will he continue to play them to the detriment of our genuinely talented youngsters in favour of "experienced" players. I've heard it said that Jelavic is a shadow of the player who finished last season. Is it any wonder when he sees what he has to play alongside? Silk purses and sows ears come to mind.

Many times I've wished he would get to France :-))

I agree and I think it would be a gamble we'd be foolish to take.

This worries me. If we're not careful, we might actualy get him.

Fingers crossed. If they offer anything over a fiver, bite their hand off. :-)))

I think that Edson Arantes do Nascimento Whittaker has a somewhat exaggerated opinion of his own worth to Rangers.

Thank you.

Whittaker would do well to remember that he enjoys his current profile mainly thanks to Rangers. I have no argument with anyone trying to better themselves but I do believe in loyalty. In my working life I have had opportunities to go elsewhere for more money but chose to remain where I was because (a) I loved my job and (b) I had a great employer who was loyal to me. I believe that loyalty is a two-way street. Kenny Miller left for more money but now wants back. (I realise the circumstances under which he left). Who's to say that Whittaker would not have a similar experience. I don't think Whittaker is anything special and I believe that the �£1m pa he has been (allegedly) offered is far to much for a player of mediocre ability. Especially one with a limited sense of loyalty.

I agree with you. Salmond et al, have been shocked by the reacion to their Bill (they no doubt thought that with their strength in numbers in Parliament they could do whatever they liked, unopposed). However; they cannot say they weren't warned. The dangers of this Bill - Human Rights not being the least of them - were well flagged up long before they tried to force it through Parliament. Of course it didn't help getting someone like Cunningham to be the public "face" of this piece of legislation. Everytime she appeared on TV to be interviewed she hummed and hawed her way through the interviews giving the impression that nothing had been thought through to a conclusion. Result: she made a complete arse of herself. Not difficult, I know. (As an aside, I note that McBride, after saying what a well-drafted Bill this was, is keeping his head well down - wonder why?) This Bill was, I think, doomed from the start as it originated simply because Salmond - a man for whom the bandwagon has not been built that he will not jump on - thought that his popularity would be enhanced by raising his profile with this stupid piece of legislation rather than be seen trying to do something positive about the real problems faced by so many in Scotland today. I mean, how ludicrous can it be that (ostensibly) you could spend more time in prison for singing tha National Anthem than for stabbing someone. Go on, tell me someone, when was the last time anyone received the maximum 5-year sentence for stabbing someone? But I'd bet a pound to a pinch of shit that the first person to have been arrested under this ridiculous legislation would have been made an example of - at least until it got to the Supreme Court, prior to being laughed out of court.

Fasct: Our politicians did intoduce legislaion designed solely to curb the basic human right of freedom of speech. They did so because Salmond leads a totalitarian government. There are no checks and balances due to the strength of numbers of the SNP in our parliament. But the MOPEs (Most Offended People Ever) will not go away. I think they will intensify their efforts because they can see that they are gaining ground. Or were. Fortunately there has been such a backlash from all shades of political/religious opinion that the likes of "Hoseanna" (I really do like that) Cunningham and by extension, her mentor, Salmond, were shocked at the unexpected reaction to this piece of idiocy. I doubt very much that we will ever see this Bill as presently constituted, ever again. In the words of Salmonds favourite "Anthem" they have been "sent homewards tae think again".

Leggo highlighted Michael Kelly's piece in yesterday's Scotsman in his piece today. Here is the piece in full: The proposed new legislation to control sectarian singing in Scottish football grounds is absurd, impractical and undemocratic. WHAT has caused the sudden change? Little more than a month ago, Alex Salmond was re-elected on the basis of his four-year record of sure-footed competence. A few weeks on he is blundering around, making enemies and antagonising people. First, he lauches gratuitous attacks on judges and lawyers. Now, he is ramming through the most sinister piece of legislation since the establishment of the devolved parliament. It's the majority, stupid. Constrained by its minority position the previous SNP administration did, in the main, nothing, and did it very well, gaining resounding support from the electorate for its thoughtful inaction. Unconstrained, with an overwhelming majority, the gloves have come off. Taking the post of Presiding Officer, securing the chairmanship of the most important committees, cutting short debate - all these actions eliminate checks and balances. This is the insolence of office. The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill is a bad bill which, in most democratic parliaments, would be subject to rigorous scrutiny and amendment to turn it into something workable. "Hoseanna" Cunningham, in her evidence to the justice committee, was forced by the logic of the bill to expose its absurdity. Out along with the Irish national anthem and Rule Britannia go songs from American musicals (You'll Never Walk Alone) and hits from the '90s (Just Can't Get Enough and Simply the Best) because any song adopted by the opposition could be seen to be provocative. Is it the words or the music that are offensive? Fans are nothing if not creative. Will they be allowed sing new words to old tunes to avoid arrest? Is the offering of a silent prayer before a penalty kick offensive? The bill is woolly and subjective. It does not, because it cannot, specify which songs or symbols are banned. So it has to rely on subjective assessment and the context in which these songs are sung or the symbols used. The courts will find most of this unenforceable. The bill refers to "behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive". What reasonable person would be provoked by an idiot standing beside his supporters' bus blessing himself? Who could be offended by the words "No Pope of Rome, no chapel to sadden my eye, No nuns and no priests, no rosary beads, Every day is the 12th of July". That's a hysterically funny parody, not an invitation to riot. But of course, the sectarian hooligans at whom the law is to be directed are not reasonable persons. They're irreligious idiots. So how can the courts apply this standard? Such is the SNP's control over the consciences and common sense of its new MSPs that this nonsense will sail through unless sufficient pressure is brought from outwith parliament to stop it.

I also note that there is a charge of serious assault pending against this player. I have heard though that this was a result of self defence and that the confrontation was not initiated by him. However; the rape charge hasn't gone away. I would think that buying this man would have a certain element of risk.

As I said earlier ans was consequently taken to task for; Bain was very generous to himself - allegedly, I do hate to say "I told you so". :-)))

Not for me. Got a bit to go to beat Mr Struth's record. Also, his european record of games for/against, left a lot to be desired - and yes, I do remember 2008. I also blame him for 1998.

"informed Airdrie's nominee for the Pulitzer, "you are banned from Ibrox"." I thought McNee was the only one that Souness banned from Ibrox?

Hugely embarrassing for the paper. But you have to ask, how on earth did such a story get past (a) the paper's solicitors and (b) the editor? Even the most cursory glance at this 'story' revealed it to be totally bereft of substance. As a piece of Kite Flying, it was quite good, as a piece of investigative journalism, it was appalling. Even the most simple glance revealed it to be of a standard of journalism that has (sadly) now become the Hallmark of this disgusting little rag. It is worth repeating that we do not seek favouritism - as others do - all we ask is a level playing field. It would appear that we may well be on the road to getting this. R.I.P Dignified silence. The King is dead. Long Live the King.

This man has raised over �£125k for Guide Dogs for the Blind undertaking tasks that many would shirk from due to the physical and mental demands such tasks place upon the individual. Scott and Travis are usually accompanied by many current and ex Rangers players as well as a fair few Royal Marines. Oh, and Gomacgers, too, of course. This award is long overdue. :-)))