buster.

Much ado about nothing. Was never happening......

Old school, today they'd be down quicker than you could say 'Broad Jump' and secure the info within about 4 minutes.

If offered, I'd sign for the 3 points without the commanding performance right now. But yes, a decent performance that is reflected by several goals and no injuries would be the perfect way to take advantage of last night.....Will be Wilson and Ball at the back if Kiernen is suspended.

We are now winning games in a way which suggests there will be further slip-ups along the way. Hibs also appear to be faltering a little. Suggests to me that the presuming of 3 points against anyone can't be done with the same level of confidence as earlier in the season for either team. I think the main dangers for us are further injuries to important players and not getting back to scoring goals more frequently. This is far from over and we desperately need to keep churning out the wins.

I think in the 3 years previous to Cooper signing (100,000), only Colin Stein re-joining had generated any real expectation prior to the Cooper arrival. I can't remember in which order they were signed but Gordon Smith (65,000) and Bobby Russell (200 sterling) joined Cooper and went on to help Rangers win the treble in their first season (77-78). As a child on a supporters bus going through to Glasgow from Edinburgh, it cost me a whopping 50p for the return trip !!

I remember coming home off my first and last school trip (5 days at Loch Tay) to the news that Cooper had signed. I was estatic and picked up my ball to go play and pretend I was Davie Cooper.

Christ,....... Davie Cooper would have been 60 today !! When you think about it, back in the day he was probably the nearest thing to Christ. Official site with some videos http://rangers.co.uk/news/rangers-tv/video-happy-birthday-davie-cooper/

There are obviously issues that are festering and the one comment I'd make is why were they not put out there and debated openly, prior to the recent election ?

Preparing and publicising an 'exit strategy' for himself is a curious way to start. Why bother standing in the first place. Given his half-hearted and grey message and how much he didn't achieve when 'speaking to the bad guys' maybe there are other candidates who would be better for the role.

The 'Big tax case delay'......seems to have been going on forever. 'My brain hurt like a warehouse it had no room to spare I had to cram so many things to store everything in there And all the fat-skinny people, and all the tall-short people And all the nobody people, and all the somebody people I never thought I'd need so many people. We've got five years, stuck on my eyes We've got five years, what a surprise We've got five years, my brain hurts a lot We've got five years, that's all we've got'

It's more that they don't want to encourage people, more especially groups of people to protest or register political opinion in a publicly visible way (if it can be prevented). Can't have groups of people starting to develop a sense of unity and thinking that it might be a good idea going forward. Better that you watch reality TV, take 'selfies' and shut-up.

Has he ever really gone away ?

I wonder if the 18 year old arrested was trying to keep, but move the banner away from advertising and the Police were just for taking it away, period ? Anyone know if the banner was returned after the game ?

The predictable wheels of the Scottish football media keep turning round the 'controversial angles' to stoke up the predictable verbal rammies. How many words to come on: - 'Dundee unhappy with Gers attempt to unsettle Stewart' - 'Stewart aims to put Rangers out but could be ruining his chance of European football next season' - 'Stewart says he has heard nothing and as far as he is concerned will be a Dundee player next season' - 'Stewart says he doesn't read the stories as he is only focused on his next game' etc.

#Spear&Jackson

Reality was that if relatively unknown candidates (however impressive their CV) thought they would get elected on a profile page and not a lot else then they were being extremely optimistic, you could even say naive. Had they wanted to win then they obviously had to make more of an effort at communicating X and Y. However many good candidates simply won't want to go near what they might perceive as a 'no mans land' of Rangers fans politics. We need whatever comes of any proposals to end up with something that enourages 'honest quality' to come forward and take the place of the 'politically toxic'.

Would it be too kind to call that a 'schoolboy error' ? ...

Fair comment IMO but it's the hidden and more Machiavellian agenda of others that is the real issue here................ some of whom who are developing a habit of controversially moving onto to new pastures when one group doesn't suit, not being timely and up-front about telling who they should about their new visions for what appears to be 'themselves'. The irony being one of them, Graham Campbell (seconded by Ronnie Johnston) standing on a 'consultation and transparency ticket' in the recent election. #Toxic

double post

Thanks for the reply BH ! The simple point I was trying to convey was that there is an ironic and perhaps interesting connection in what you posted last night and your prosposal in the RFB minutes that you had been talking about. Originally Posted by BrahimHemdani I get in bother for so many things that I don't remember them all though there's usually someone who will remind me. and the RFB minutes "Alan Harris proposed, “Elected representatives shall not write, send or post any comment on social media or internet forums or the like which a reasonable person would interpret as denigrating any other Elected Representative” After discussion the Motion was agreed subject to adding “ or the Club or supporters body” after the words ‘Elected Representatives. This would be incorporated into the Code of Conduct for RFB Members." Last night on Gersnet you said that you get "in bother for so many things" and when at an board meeting of the RFB you were actively proposing for a mechamism that could allow for a degree of censorship on those who sat on the board with you and had a 'front row' seat. There is a considerable time gap between the meeting and last night but it would also be accurate to say a lot of "bother" was caused prior to that first RFB board meeting. My point is that the censorship you were proposing was/is very unhealthy (blatant abuse could have been reported) and was hypocritical for someone who today champions transparency whilst seeming to somewhat flippantly, recognize past "bother"........and that it looks like that proposal was probably made in the interests of the proposer.

The minutes from the first meeting of the RFB contained the proposal below......which when you read between the lines makes perfect sense regards the interests of he who proposed it "Alan Harris proposed, “Elected representatives shall not write, send or post any comment on social media or internet forums or the like which a reasonable person would interpret as denigrating any other Elected Representative” After discussion the Motion was agreed subject to adding “ or the Club or supporters body” after the words ‘Elected Representatives. This would be incorporated into the Code of Conduct for RFB Members." http://rangers.co.uk/images/FansBoard/Minutes/RFB_Minutes_061014.pdf ps. doesn't mention who took them but they were obviously considered 'official'.

I would agree that that type of bare rhetoric doesn't really help matters regards uninformed ground level feelings. The quicker any process starts to inform members on details, the better.

I only speak very generally on little actual info. It was my understanding that the vast majority of both main groups voted for the further exploration of a merger. As for the mechanics and timetable, that is for the respective boards/members to decide upon. I don't have a scooby regards leaks or inner politics but I really do hope that between the various groups, something positive and workable emerges that focuses a little more on the common ground (being Rangers supporters) rather than division.

This discussion is becoming divisory from the outset. Why not study the proposals that the vast majority of members voted for their respective boards to do and take it from there ?.......There are obviously valid concerns and the boards will have to consider them and won't be able not to,..... given the scrutiny. We live in an era where Board Meetings get more attention than Match threads