buster.

If that was to be the case then we couldn't reasonably presume he would take it and therefore have kept eggs in one basket. Especially after what happened with McInnes/Sunderland.

........

The pressure that switches to Graeme Murty now, is immense and signs have been that when things go wrong (and I'd bet sooner rather than later), he's not up to it. We go to Easter Road next week and you can't help but think of Kenny McDowall. The board have said Murty until at least the end of the year......but they had better be looking for the next man with some urgency.

Maybe you have some kind of traslation service that isn't working well and that is why your reply doesn't make any sense in relation to the post you quote. Let me translate......I'm putting forward a reason why I think the McInnes decision is nothing to do with 'a lack of bottle'.

Very much so and the longer it continues in the present way, the more a finite source of money will be wasted, getting no-where.

The context of that line was a question of 'bottle' that others were talking about. The main thrust of the post was.......... If it was simply a lack of bottle, then there would be other decent managers out there with bottle, who will jump at the chance of taking the job. If there aren't and I don't see any on the immediate horizon, then it suggests something other than 'bottle'.

Agree with the general point you put forward. Since April 2016, the board seems to have been dysfunctional and in charge of a developing omnishambles. Approaching the AGM, I thought that they had a chance to turn it around and showed some positive signs, but this managerial 'process' confirms it's still all over the place.

Maybe you should apply to join as an intern under the wing of Mr.Traynor.

There is bravery and then there is stupidity. If it was simply a lack of bottle, then there would be other decent managers out there with bottle, who will jump at the chance of taking the job. If there aren't and I don't see any on the immediate horizon, then it suggests something other than 'bottle'.

Unless we suddenly change habits..........It's all set-up for a couple of poor results, sudden switch in attitude wrt G.Murty (again), a clearly unhappy GM, general anger towards board who have said GM is in post until the end of the year (at least). Where would they go ? - Scramble around for short-term buffer - Go straight to those who may previously have been talked about in slelection process and look to get somebody in - Keep with Murty and prey for a turnaround

I'd agree but it's worse than 1983 because unlike the early 80's, celtic (the club as a whole) are in the strongest shape I've ever known them to be in. Literally a polar opposite to where we are. There seems to be a belief amongst some that there is a 'silver bullet' for this problem. If you try to jump the gap in a oner, you'll fall into the abyss. You need to first build a solid foundation. It's not only a new manager that has to deal with unrealistic expectation, it's the board as well. We can't pretend everything will be all right 'tomorrow' because it will only lead to further pain.

I don't think that what would generally be considered as decent candidates, want the job. I think that the circumstances currently around the job (especially expectation levels relative to resources) mean that it's increasingly viewed as a poisoned chalice. ------------- Theresa May (Murty).. /.. Tory party (Rangers).. /.. Brexit.. (current financial gap to celtic)... Decent candidates "not at the moment, thanks" Leaves the likes of Boris 'clown' Johnson with hope

Word by word exclusive S.Robertson: Mainstream and social media are full on criticising the club after DM declared he'd remain at the sheep, what will we do ? DK: Get a statement drafted, quickly ------ SR: Is that you Jim? I take it you've heard,..we need a..... J.Traynor: ...I know, I know...you are lucky I've only tanned half of this 12 year old Macallans, I'm on it. 45 minutes later SR: How's it coming along Jim ? JT: It's done, I've just this minute sent it out to all the usual sources. SR: Aw, good,......... I think ---- 3 minutes later After reading the statement, SR opens a bottle himself . Laugh or cry ?

From the outside, it would appear as if the board haven't got on top of the issues that caused the last 18 months of developing omnishambles. For me, they appeared to be admitting to 'institutional failure' when AJ gave a press briefing and hopefully looking to turn a corner with a developing football operation (eg. scouting), a new Director of Comms & Marketing to be appointed and a new first team manager. I didn't have a problem with the time taken to get McInnes, (given we actually got a net benefit in terms of the 2nd place).... had he been appointed this week. However, what the Rangers statement does, is show up the flaws in their management and present pundits with a Xmas hamper worth of material that enables them to criticise and poke further fun at the club. The other thing it does is show potential managers and their agents a very negative vision of how potential employers react against a perceived 'slight' or setback, ie. attempt to throw X under a bus. ----------------- Given circumstances and especially levels of expectation that heavily outweigh resources, it was extremely difficult to attract a proven and decent manager. It now becomes more difficult and if we lose a game or two, we might have to take whoever Santa throws down the chimney.

We are a couple of bad results away from an ugly situation (think McDowall)

It's a Traynor like statement. Long-winded, with holes, complete with sarcsastic dig.

All over the place ! It's more reacting to events without due thought. Should have slept on it and said something that made sense and sqaured with what had previously been said.

We ain't getting no 'big' rabbit and Murty isn't the man longterm.

If that was to be the case, then the boards handling of this is incomprehensible. Docherty has been with McInnnes as No.2 for his entire 10 years in management. Did they expect him to say he was ok with not bringing TD ?.........not going to happen. Did they expect McInnes to perform as good or better without his No.2 ?

That is something that you have made up and seem to want to cling onto. #ComfortBlanket

For a number of reasons, we aren't currently an attractive proposition to decent managers in a job. I thought that realistically, McInnes was pretty much as good as we could get within apparent criteria being set.

The board better be looking out the flak jackets for if we were to lose to Ross County.

Doesn't bode well for us that McInnes prefers to stay somewhere that he has already reached his glass ceiling and after four years, seemed the perfect time to move on. I reckon he'll go backwards to 3rd, maybe even 4th and have a support who won't have much patience for him.

Is there a prepared contingency basket to move the eggs to ? ... Process should have that slightly shorter, short-list on top of the table. Same type of appointment would see uninspiring names left that the support wouldn't be keen on, eg. Tommy Wright. DK has already said the board hadn't fancied those currently out of contract, eg. Eck. A real blow to the board. One thing they shouldn't do is make a knee jerk appt. on the back of this.

The type of player that you tend to miss if unavailable.