buster.

Rodgers is getting a bit too regular with his publicly aired opinions on our business. He is more or less saying that Gerrard would be making a mistake to come to Rangers.

You can't begin to evaluate a transfer window that hasn't even opened but one thing that stands out is that average age of the players so far heavily linked is relatively high. A positive and important slant is that ability and level they have played is good, but so did Alves, Kranjcar and Barton. A 4 year deal for a 29 year old is unusual and it's probably one of the main reasons Arfield has decided to come up the road. I don't know much about him but just hope his body is in good shape and his 'hunger' is still there. McGregor's age isn't that much of an issue given he is a keeper. What we know is that he is of a very decent level and getting him on a Bosman is good business. McArthur would be a similar story to Arfield. Most of his career behind him, no resale value, age = higher risk of injury BUT importantly, a very good footballer. -------------- Bottomline, Arfield and McGregor are good additions but we need a balance with some younger players with their career in front of them, not to mention resale value to eventually help with revenue. I reckon it more realistic and feasible to try and build up to winning the league in 2019/20 than try and force something for next season that is heavy odds against and would drain funds.

Aberdeen win tonight means a draw will do us to prevent celtic winning the league on Sunday. Equally, you could say it means that a win would keep us in second place.

I think the only real question is if Morelos or Cummings starts. A well atuned Morelos is the obvious choice but I'm not sure he's currently at the races, so to speak. Alnwick Tavernier - Martin - McCrorie - John Holt - Dorrans Candeias - Windass - Murphy Morelos/Cumming

Prior to the game, the most predictable result of the season was apparently a draw.

If our football operation got up and running efficiently and effectively for a full year then maybe that would be the time to look for short-term revenue in the hope that it would produce more than any longer term consequences (ST discount for 5 year purchase).

I don't think the game was deliberately lost. For me, Hibs went out and won it, playing in such a way that exposed perhaps, a lack of urgency or degree of complacency. It was very similar to the Hearts 4-0 defeat in that respect. The order of the fixtures seemed to be a contrived fudge after whatever negotiations went on between various authorities. It didn't have the OF game first up but provided the best possibility for it to be delayed until the second round and the OF game.

On Sunday, it comes more down to how much the players want and believe than the vageries of formation set-up. The players won't be looking to Murty for motivation. It'll have to come from themselves and I reckon we'll start well but will get worn down and buckle at the back. I watched a good part of all the three domestic defeats of Celtic this season and in all three, when asked 'a difficult question', they seemed to simply not be properly at the races and nor did they at any point look like finding their mojo. However, last season in the Scottish Cup Final when Aberdeen asked the same questions, Celtic dug-in and clawed their way back and I think it was because they really wanted it badly, opposed to the three league defeats that saw a comparitive shrug of the shoulders. What I'm saying is that even if we get in their faces, I think they'll react in a more proactive way than in their previous league defeats and the reason being is the importance of the game to them and their support. For me, I primarily want to see real determination, effort and committment from our players and see where it takes us. Next season will hopefully bring reason for optimism.

The job desription is Manager/Head Coach, not miracle worker. Pena has retired from professional football but has managed to maintain the right to pick up a wage.

Perhaps................. www.fill4names/rumour&associated/colinNish/1888

I always thought Gersnet was like the village with relatively little traffic compared to the metropolis of FF and it's busy clutter,....but with so many things going-on, Gersnet is very busy. We have share offers, new players, fevered managerial speculation, statements galore and the small matter of an Old Firm match is shunted into the background.

I don't know is the accurate answer to that. However, my guess is that no-one is telling lies.

I think you must be looking for the 'Anderston Quay' thread At least that is where the DR/SM building used to be. As a young lad on the way to Ibrox, I'd see the DR/SM building from the supporters bus window. Believe it or not, I thought it a semi-interesting place given that at the time, I read so many 'exclusives' on Rangers that came from this building. Back to Clarke 'refusal' and apparent contradiction Nothing to see, perhaps there was a 3rd party approach and SC is playing a straight bat, perhaps there wasn't.

No need for the polarised angle, sounds much more like frustration.

Did it not mention a 3rd party approach ? If there was such an approach, then it was the sensible way to go, given circumstances. We don't need more in your face, public knockbacks. Given public utterings a few months ago, Clarke was unlikely to accept an offer from Rangers BUT the fact that he is such an obvious choice at this point in time, I would hope the question was asked, even if the indirect answer was negative.

Why should it be ? The shareholding percentage corresponds with what is wanted and the importance of this particular group (fans) is fundamental to the business going forward. If pursued vigourously, I see no alternative for the club but to provide a seat at the table.

That doesn't really make sense. With justification or not, football supporters do tend to get 'excited' by big or well known names. It's almost a perception of brand value. Gerrard isn't "a guy", he is Steven Gerrard. A little further down the line, excitement then morphs into something else, either positive or negative.

The crucial aspect to this prospective appointment is what backing he would receive, ie. bottomline, what kind of player would be recruited. If it were to be of a notably better quality than we currently have, then a degree of excitement (extra sales/coverage, etc) would follow, ie. new manager + better players = reasonable expectations for positive change. SG as the new manager alone would invite reasonable doubt, opposed to positive expectation.

The most constructive, complete and detailed communication I've seen come from Club1872 since it started. Signs that crucial issues, teething problems, etc. have been identified and are being addressed.

Interesting,...very different results !

Just had a quick glance at FF and there is a poll with a bigger sample size. Steven Gerrard for Rangers manager Yes........ 847 votes......66.7% No......... 422 votes......33.3%

If you actually read the poll questions, you'll see that..............'Undecided - it's exciting but also gives me the fear'............... has over 40%.

You wouldn't expect him to say he was leaving when sat on a lengthy contract. Nor has he said in tweet"I want to stay at Rangers". Maybe the club would like to get a fee for him and Wes would like a good part of his contract paid-up as part of the deal, maybe not.

I'd agree that I don't see Gerrard as a likely solution and that it's a bad situation if we can't attract better and more suitable candidates for the current challenge. I don't think the salaries you quote as realistic. If the appointment goes ahead, those questions will be asked and it will be interesting to hear the answers as well as all the other details.