Thinker

There's a lack of information regarding the takeover which makes it impossible for anyone to categorically say that you're wrong, but there are far simpler, much more plausible explanations. Really, there's no point in speculating until we get some more facts (assuming we ever do).

Evidence is pretty important when talking about facts/opinions and which are which.

Or at the very least, something that wasn't bad for Rangers.

Is is possible that this is an attempt by Green to start a bidding war? As I understand it, the sale can't take place until the end of the lock-in period, and there must be a few parties who would be anxious to prevent this sale. Could he be hoping to prompt a better offer?

Why would I forget his media blunders? They're a pretty major problem. When it comes to making statments on behalf of the club, he's the loosest of canons. And I'd rather the accusations regarding his past dealings with Whyte could be easily dismissed and proven to be untrue. It's easy to blame a vindictive media for this, but CG did his best to keep these out of sight - he's responsible for a good part of the murkiness surrounding the whole affair. Call me naive but IMO the CEO of Rangers ought to be squeaky clean.

I don't think keeping the status quo necessarily equates to stability. You could argue long and hard about CG's merits, but I don't think anyone would say he was really a stabiizing influence on the club. In fact, he constantly made waves and caused controversy.

The resetting of points could have created meaningless games, but having pointless games postponed until after the split!!? That's fecking insanity! How anyone could ever have backed that is beyond me.

The point isn't whether or not anyone should be offended. I don't think we even need to understand the cause of the offensiveness of the word. Those on the receiving end don't like it; it's no skin off my nose not to say it. Like I said, the spokesman for our club should understand how PR works these days. If he doesn't, that doesn't necessarily make him a bad person, it just makes him a bad spokesman.

Well, I know what you're saying here, but the reality of it isn't so logical - In fact, Spurs fans attempted to diffuse the anti-Semitism directed at their club by adopting the nickname yid army, but they've been criticised by more than a few people for perpetuating the use of the word (probably because most of the supporters chanting it aren't actually Jewish). You can cause offense even though you aren't deliberately trying to offend. I guess the offence caused to most Asians by the term "Paki", is the context it's usually used in. Despite the roots of the word being fairly innocuous, I know well enough not to use it because it's generally regarded to be offensive. I'd expect the spokesman for an international organisation to understand that too.

Is it really fair to call it a bandwagon? Green's been on shocking form recently, people are simply reacting to that.

It is all about context - we all know you can say things amongst mates that you shouldn't say when you're the CEO of a company - even when the point you're (clumsily) trying to make is exactly that. He shouldn't be touching that subject with a barge pole. Yes, it's all vaguely hypocritical, but CG ought to know that everything he says is going to be analysed. I'm happy enough with a good part of what he's achieved, but if you're the spokesman for an organisation, and a talking point in the media you have to think twice about what you say. Sometimes it seems he doesn't even think once.

Good news. The bigger, the better as far as screens go. My eye-sight's atrocious and I can never tell what's happening at the far end of the park - so I spend a lot of time looking at the tellies.

Ideally that would be the way we go. But... the league will be under pressure from TV companies to provide 4 "Old Firm" (I've grown to hate that term) matches a year - obviously Scottish football will get more money off them if we provide matches with better viewing figures. I know it seems like a step backwards, but I believe the best solution (of a bad lot) is to follow the Swiss and Austrian model. That's the top two tiers, each of 10, with the cash spread more evenly over them. If relegation didn't mean a massive drop in income, teams wouldn't fear it and wouldn't resort to negative tactics to avoid it. You could have 2 relegation spots plus maybe even a play-off spot - meaning less meaningless mid-table matches. In fact, all that really needs to be done to shore up the current league set-up is for the SPL to spread some of its prize money across Div 1.

I don't think St Mirren were acting out of self interest. The concerns they raised should worry pretty much every club, not just St Mirren. When Gardiner says there needs to be compromise is he talking about a compromise with stupidity? In order to get some sensible improvements implemented do we have to accept some idiotic ones too, because they've been presented as a package?

Any chance we could get Chris to be spokesperson for the club instead of Green?

If it wasn't a balls-up it would have to go down as the worst plan to rip people off ever.

Logically speaking, now would be the appropriate time to start discussing changes to come into play for the 2014/15 season - with a vote happening this summer. That's what a competent organization would be doing.

This is actually a good thing. We're all familiar with the facts as recognised by the footballing authorities. The only possible outcome is that ASA will conclude Rangers are indeed the most successful club in the country. So we get it in black and white from another independent source. OG for Timmy.

Putting a new model for the distribution of money in place for next season ISN'T dependent on changing the league structure. I don't think many people would object to certain aspects of the plan being rushed through, providing the promotion and relegation spots don't get changed mid-season.

Not a failure, but not impressive in any way. An overall D- for Super's report card. Must improve next year.

I told myself I was never going to support Scotland again - but when it comes down to it I find myself wanting them to win. Can't fight the habit of a lifetime. The Tartan Army remain a bunch of fannies in my opinion though. Always hated them.

There's a bit of a leap there between the original statement and the "in other words" interpretation. Fans (especially Rangers fans) are demanding. Sometimes fans are impatient. Importantly (for me anyway) Green has admitted that the product is bad and therefore needs to be improved. Say what you want about Green but he definitely doesn't think fans' opinions don't matter. If anything, he's too keen to be a crowd-pleaser - hence the repeated "moonbeams" criticisms.

The club needs all our support to rebuild the way we want it to be, so for that reason, it's far better to attend and make your feelings known than to withhold your money. As sad as it would be to hear the crowd booing Ally, it would be a damn sight sadder to see Ibrox half-empty.

He wound the "grass your mates" thing back in too - Self-policing to stop us getting a Euro ban is how he phrased it this time, which I don't think anyone could reasonably argue with. On the whole GA's right - there was nothing new in what he said, but I guess he's got to keep repeating his messages (mainly: "we were cleared of cheating", "Scottish football is dying on its arse", and "we'd love to play in England") so that as many people as possible start discussing them.

Well, Hearts may still have a say in that the way their finances are going.