stewarty

A pointless cul-de-sac then. ?

Another question would be: why Deloitte? I've no issue with them and believe they will act professionally. But how were they appointed? Who else was considered? What criteria were used to select Deloitte ahead of others? Again, from a reputational risk perspective, surely they could envisage being drawn into a shit storm of negative attention if they agree to perform such a seemingly skewed investigation?

I can't see Deloitte doing anything other than carrying out a review that is within the parameters that were set. Reputationally, it just isn't worth the risk not to. So what were the parameters? Why has it been announced at the conclusion only? Who did they speak to? Why has it just been selective elements of the report given to some friendly media outlets (the usual suspects)? This is a further can of worms and further underlines why Doncaster and McLennan are at it.

Have they published the scope and findings? Did they speak to Rangers to assess the evidence they hold? If so, I'm assuming the report answers some of the questions i have. To begin with: Did they question Doncaster and other Board members why they were pressuring clubs to decide this when other options were available? Why was Lawwell involved when he;s not on the board?

Bloody hell that's dark for a Thursday morning.

Tough draw

Dietmar Hamann doing the draw. Surely will have instructions from his old mate Gerrard on who he wants

Goldson for me too. He led the defence very well and positionally the back 4 were excellent all night which stems from good communication, especially against such a fluent attacking team.

I read somewhere that the guys behind taking AJ v Ruiz 2 to Saudi Arabia were at ringside. I wouldn't rule that option out at this stage.

Someone posted on FF who is the centre of stories being broken today in the Times suggest that it is tonight that C4 will begin their "exposé"

Indeed. But even Provan would find it harder to dismiss if there was a walk off.

Would be interesting what would happen if Morelos, or any other player for that matter, walked off when subjected to such abuse.

Sorry I think we should scale back on the fish puns

I blocked him on Twitter years ago. I'd had enough of his carping.

Arfield - took his finish well and thought his off the ball work was very good.

Rangers doesn't exist in a vacuum. Other coaches and managers are constantly analysing our players and tactics, looking for weaknesses that can be exploited. There are flaws in every tactical system - its just whether you have good enough players to be able to mitigate them as well as adjust to what your opponent is doing.

Just what we need - more litigation!

I was saying to a colleague that we need to be giving more of the fringe players more regular minutes so that they are ready and able to effect change when they are called upon. A lot of the good work we do tends to stem from the way the team starts games. Tempo and pressing are the two things that signal our intent and get the crowd on site. Both of which have been lacking for large spells since the January break. Stewart has to be given starts IMO. Not just because he has a quality surname. I'm not under any illusions that he's some sort of panacea, but we can all see he adds something different. So for me the challenge is how Gerrard can adapt his preferred system to suit different situations.

Not sure about that team. Feels too narrow and would require the Stewart and Jones to work back more often which would negate their attacking threat.

I'd be happy with the XI, but I wonder if the pitch will see the manager be careful with one or two players, particularly Barisic if he's not quite right. I'd also be tempted to use Kamberi to give us a more physical option.

Just to go into the realms of pure speculation, it seems Souness has resigned as director and person with significant control of Vincent Gasnier Wine Consultant Ltd on 22nd January. He had been involved with the business for almost 16 years since its incorporation. We have no way of knowing whether he was purely an investor or whether he had any day-to-day involvement. But could he be freeing up his time for some other interest?

Arfield for me too.

Thinking some more on this, I think the danger with an appointment like Souness to the Board is that its used, like Walter was by Charles Greeen, as a smokescreen of respectability. However when I compare the Easdales to the Parks, its not an equivalent situation so I'm not overly concerned. Where I think Souness would come into his own would be in having a clear grounding in football and success, being able to influence and inform our footballing strategy and to be potential figurehead for the club, with gravitas, that would be something a professionally operated PR operation could use to good effect. A good boardroom brings together a range of skills and experiences. Someone like Souness would seem to add to what we have currently.

I would agree if we were appointing him 10-15 years ago. Yes he is strong willed and has a tendency towards pig-headedness, but having some sort of ambassadorial role or even a role on the Board in a non-executive capacity would be something I think he is more than capable of doing effectively. Its one thing berating footballers and pundits, but you just wouldn't be able to do that sitting at a boardroom table. Given his history with the club, how he is viewed by the support and his influence in the media, I would argue he is potentially ideally placed to take on such a role.

Agreed. I'm very much of the same view. I've been so sickened by the one-eyed approach to all things Rangers that we have had for so long that I can't even remember a time when I'd even think about tuning into Radio Scotland... a service that was a staple of my daily news digest and meant that I at least had some passing interest in the game generally. Sadly that has all but gone and I don't ever see that trend reversing.