JohnMc

I'd love to see Hardie get a run of games with us. He can clearly score goals at SPFL level, whether our shirt proves too heavy for him we'll only know if he gets a chance. I'm pleased we've recalled him. The coaches will see him up close in the next couple of weeks. I'd start him against Cowdenbeath in the cup, giving Morelos an extended break. Lafferty seems to be struggling with something currently, what kind of ailment it is I'm not sure, but he's not right. Having Morelos, Defoe and Hardie in the squad for the second half of the season doesn't feel like overkill to me. We all know Morelos will be booked and probably sent off anytime he even looks the wrong way at someone, opposition players will make the most of any contact with him and no ref fancies death threats so Morelos won't get any 50/50 decisions going his way. We'll need all our strikers in the next few months.

Signing Davis and Defoe and recalling Docherty and Hardie from their loans would certainly enhance our striking options and our creativity from midfield with almost no outlay in transfer fees. We're fairly strong everywhere else, that's where we need options.

Socks Gaffer, socks, that's what you get for Christmas at my age, socks and heartburn. I'm disappointed, if not entirely surprised, that this level of in-depth, high quality, valuable analysis hasn't found an audience on here yet. I'm going to send it to Swiss Ramble on Twitter and see if we can become mates. For me I think it proves, as Livingston top the table, that crime clearly does pay. That's an important lesson for all of us particularly at this time of year.

I'm not an accountant, but I was mildly distracted this afternoon and decided to see what each point has cost each side this season. Currently Celtic are top of the league with 42 points, however with a wage bill of £59.3 million to date each point has cost them a staggering £1,411,905 each. We're second with 39 points. Our wage bill is £24.1 million, so every point has cost us £617,949 so far. That's a staggering difference and, I think, should be kept in mind when comparing us currently. That being said Aberdeen, on 36 points with a wage bill of £7.8 million, have a £ to points ratio of £216,667 Hibs, on 29 points, have a wage bill of £5.3 million, so are paying £182,759 per point, Hearts with a wage bill of £6 million are on 33 points, so £181,818 per point. Where it gets really eye-opening though is St Johnstone and Kilmarnock. I can't find published wage bill for St Johnstone so I'm going to assume it's the same as Kilmarnock's at £2.2 million. With 31 points they've 'paid' £70,968 per point and Kilmarnock, with 38 points, have paid £57,895 per point. I've not worked out the rest of the league because I can't find wage info for them, but I'm assuming St Mirren, Hamilton and Livingston are paying less than Kilmarnock and St Johnstone, while Dundee and Motherwell are probably paying around the same. That being the case if Livingston have a wage bill of £1.5 million and on 30 points they've paid around £50,000 per point. At the other end Dundee, on 10 points with a wage bill of say £2 million are paying £200,000 per point. Anyway, what does all this mean, well, frankly, absolutely nothing, other than perhaps highlighting that some managers are doing pretty well with the resources they have and some are doing poorly with what they have. I've yet to hear a word of criticism about Neil Lennon for example, yet St Johnstone, Killie, Livingston and even Hearts are out performing them this season, sort of. *Celtic and St Johnstone have played one match less.

I understand the sentiment of the thread, if not some of the comments. We don't currently have a title winning squad, and if we don't find some creativity in the transfer window, we won't win the league. But if we do, and we can keep Morelos fit (and playing for us), and someone else can contribute goals we'll still be in the hunt come March and April. We're not that far from having a good side. I disagree with those that say they can't see what the side is trying to do, for me it's pretty clear what we're trying to do, we're just not doing it very well. A midfield 3 of Coulibali, Jack and McCrorie isn't going to create many chances or contribute many goals. With Arfield, Kent, Grezda, Dorrans and Murphy unavailable we're struggling for creativity and goals from midfield. Currently everything gets shuffled wide to Candieas and Middleton and it's eventually crossed into the box. That's because we've no midfielders capable of putting their foot on the ball and picking a pass. We're also reliant on full backs overlapping, but with Barasic out we lose the left hand side. Flanagan and Halliday simply aren't left backs. You do wonder just how pissed off everyone must still be with Wallace that he can't get a start currently. In all honesty if we can get away with a draw on Saturday I'll be fairly content. Let's see what we look like at the end of January.

Much better than last week's. I've not actually listened to it yet, but I just know.

Levein has become a master at misdirection. His side are in terrible form and he should be coming under some pressure, but he keeps spinning the conversation in other directions. It's impressive in some ways.

Great idea, but don't put it outside Pacific Quay, put it outside Broadcasting House in London or Sport's HQ in Manchester.

See if you don't buy or read a newspaper, how do you know what the quality of writing is like? The 'big' papers, the London based broadsheets, a number of the international publications, still contain superb writers and a breadth of topics that can't be matched. The hyper local 'papers' contain news that simply can't be found anywhere else. The quality of writing around Scottish football is generally low and if that's all that interests someone then whether in print, or online, 'newspapers' will generally disappoint. But if you want to know about subjects beyond that then 'newspapers' are still the best source of information, opinion and depth of coverage, I my opinion of course.

I bought a newspaper yesterday (The Times), it's the first one I've read since I was on a long flight about a fortnight ago. It's actually fantastic. The 'magazine' alone has a fascinating article about triplets in America separated and put up for adoption, an interview with Lenny Kravitz daughter, a bodyguard, a woman who underwent pioneering stem cell treatment on her MS and an interview with Little Mix, that I'm hoping will make me look pretty smart to my 10 year old daughter. I'd recommend it to anyone, it's less than a couple of pounds too. I think we conflate a number of issues when we speak about the demise of newspapers. Firstly the problems with Johnston Group, the company who own the Scotsman, are unfortunately typical for a number of 'media groups'. I do genuinely think this is a bad thing, not so much for titles like The Scotsman or the Yorkshire Post, there are alternatives to them, but for the many, many smaller local titles like the Stornoway Gazette or the Southern Reporter in the Borders also owned by Johnston Group. There's not only still a desire for 'local' news but also need for it. Who will watch the councillors or the police or the land owners without them? Secondly the issues with Johnston Group, for me, are around ownership and expectation. The aforementioned Stornoway Gazette and Southern Reporter simply shouldn't be owned by hedge funds. They should be independently owned, ideally by person or people local to that area. A living can be made from a local 'paper', but it can't deliver the kind of profits demanded by stock market listed PLCs. The ownership model is wrong, not the concept itself. News in the press has been 'out-of-date' since the advent of the radio. Television has been a mainstay of our culture since the 60s, the press reporting yesterday's news has been the case for decades now. The internet has sped up the ability to follow breaking stories and general news, but newspapers were always much more than 'news'. Part of the problem for 'papers' is the change in advertising, which not only create income for papers but also drove sales. Jobs, cars, property, personal ads, local buy and sell, were reasons to buy papers. It's the loss of this that's been the main problem. Added to changing social habits such as fewer people using public transport and fewer people smoking so visiting a newsagent and buying tobacco, a packet of mints and the evening paper. Obviously us all carrying smart phones also takes away the need to buy a 'paper'. The great thing about newspapers for me is their coverage of other topics that I'd simply never read otherwise (Little Mix above for example). The internet in particular creates echo chambers, where too many people are drawn to people with the same views as them. I've basically left two other Rangers messageboards because anyone with a different view was simply shouted down. I watched the evisceration of Forlan's Sister and Gunslinger on a different messageboard with dismay. Their view went against the orthodoxy of the mods and loud voices there, yet even though it was clearly thought out and considered it was dismissed in an aggressive and intolerant way. The fact they were later proved correct is of little consolation. It is to the great credit of Frankie and the other admins on here that they both foster and encourage different views, but let's not pretend that's the norm for the internet. Newspapers have always had political bias. That's been part of their attraction for many readers. Some do occupy the middle ground and have columnists and articles from across the spectrum. Others very clearly nail their colours to a mast. That's fine too, no one makes you buy them. I guess the internet is the same, but on steroids. The coverage of Scottish football, for so long a mainstay of the Scottish press, draws criticism from many of us. But we should be careful about writing off the entire industry because of that. Does anyone think democracy is safer or better today than it was 10 or 20 years ago? Do you think people are better informed, more balanced and able to see different views? Or have we become more entrenched, more tribal, more hung up on identity than on rational experience? I know what I think. Someone needs to pay journalists to carry out the interviews, to follow the leads and to be able to compose prose that enlightens, or moves or angers us. If we lose that the only way is downwards in my opinion.

Okay, so what's the definitive 'top grounds' for Gersnetters? Ibrox excluded.

I'm with you on the death penalty Gaffer, but only for people who don't clean up after their dogs. As for your second point I know what you're saying, however, I don't entirely agree. As a teenager 'trouble' at football matches was something of a right of passage. I'm not advocating it as a lifestyle choice now, or excusing it then, but I knew quite a few 16 year olds who enjoyed a bit of agro on a Saturday afternoon, indeed it was all part of the football experience for them. Most of them grew out of it. They got jobs or married or the testosterone coursing through them found other outlets. Granted I'm going back to the 1980s, but I think people can make mistakes or misjudgements at that age and still mature into 'normal' adults. I often give thanks that social media didn't exist when I was a teenager, so all my many mistakes and misadventures are unrecorded and long forgotten, rather than being published for the world to see in perpetuity.

As an aside, how is a lifetime ban enforced? Seriously, how would all the turnstile operators know if someone was banned? Okay, maybe that person could be banned from buying a season ticket through name and address recognition, but there's no way they could be stopped from buying tickets on an adhoc basis. Many, many moons ago I'd a close friend who started running with some boys who made a habit of getting into bother at the football. He was lifted along with a few others at an away match and Rangers released a statement saying all involved would be banned. That ban was never enforced. How could it be, short of giving every ticket seller and turnstile operator a photo of him how could it be policed? My mate, thankfully, grew out of his teenage rage, and became a fairly normal member of society and a season ticket holder for many years. In the end if you do something stupid like that at a game you run a high risk of being arrested and charged. But fuelled by drink and caught up in the heat of the moment I'm not sure that's what's at the front of your mind at the time. I'm also not sure how easy it is to identify someone from CCTV. If the person sits in the same seat every week then it's easier, but at an away match or a big game where people might not be sitting in their usual seat it's nigh on impossible i'd have thought.

You're losing me Craig?

Well I don't know about the rest of you but I've attended literally hundreds of matches where coins were thrown at players or officials. It would be ridiculous to pretend it doesn't happen. It happens at lots of matches, not just matches involving Rangers or Neil Lennon. There is probably a correlation between the intensity of the match, controversial decisions and on-field behaviour and the quantity/regularity of things thrown from the crowd, but I doubt anyone has studied it fully. Some people in the crowd throw stuff. They shouldn't, they could really injure someone, not always the person they intended too either. But it's happened for decades and it's surprising to see people suddenly up in arms over it, did these people not attend matches before this season??

Resign from where? He's not employed by the BBC, or any other TV station, he's a freelance director and film maker. He's basically self-employed, this will have no bearing at all on his employment prospects, indeed it'll probably guarantee him commissions from Channel 4. He's a perfect example of the middle-class, politically engaged, professional Celtic fan, conflating apparently progressive issues with football and left of centre ideology. It's such pretentious bullshit. As the screengrabs show the lack of self awareness and simple hatred of 'others' confirm he's as intolerant and narrow minded as any other bigot you're likely to meet.

I think retired players tend to be more candid, the 'omerta' of the dressing room can be broken then, so they make for more interesting interviews. I was really surprised to hear Durrant say he didn't like Graham Roberts for example, it always looked like that side had no cliques. I guess every dressing room has cliques and groups that get on better, it's managing them that's the skill. As for Kenny Miller I find him fascinating. He's a hugely important player in Rangers modern history, one of a very select group to have been signed on 3 separate occasions, to have played under some of greatest managers and some of our worst, to have enjoyed great success and terrible failure and to have polarised our support like few others. It wouldn't surprise me if he makes it back to the marble staircase again some day. I can't wait for his book.

I'm going to go 'full luvvie' now. This Gerrard documentary is a serious piece of film-making, this isn't some 'Cameron Communications' in-house production type thing. The team behind it have literally won Oscars for their previous work. The film 'Senna' is fantastic, it won at Sundance, arguably the highest accolade an independent film can win. I believe this is going to be shown on Amazon, despite not being about Rangers I expect it'll be well worth seeking out. I think we forget sometimes just how big a star our manager is.

Moscow looks bleak! Who was Rangers number 9, is that Dallas? Only saw the last 35 mins or so but wasn't impressed by him. Like you say it felt like watching the 1st team.

I find it hard to believe there's not a costed, agreed three year plan. We're in the unusual business of signing employees on fixed length contracts so someone, somewhere, must have budgeted for them you'd hope. Our directors aren't idiots, a number of them are involved in successful businesses, as such they'll be used to working with projections and budgets. I suspect Mr Gerrard was given assurances around budgets for players when he signed, I suspect these budgets were for the next few years, not just until May. In many ways Rangers are in the enviable position of knowing exactly what they can expect to earn. TV deals, league position and cup position already have agreed amounts, so we already know what we'll earn based on finishing top of the league or bottom of the league, winning a cup or going out in the 1st round. We must also know what it costs to host a match at Ibrox and what our breakeven point is on attendance, so again a fair degree of accuracy can be used when projecting income from there. Sponsorships are also negotiated in advance, so we must know what's expected from that, I assume based on how we do in the league/cups. Lastly season tickets, an educated guess can easily be made on numbers from this source based on success on the park, or lack thereof. Only retail income and player sale income is unknown currently. I've been away a lot recently and missed the publishing of these figures. I'm a little surprised we're all as calm about them as we seem to be. They're not only awful but clearly they're unsustainable. While they can be explained in terms of the 'Pedro experiment' going wrong they should lead to some serious questions being asked of our directors. What would become of the club if, God forbid, something was to happen to King or one of the three Bear's health? Any business plan that requires Champion's League group stage involvement sounds like a foolhardy and ruinous one to me. I know we face issues around Ashley and the deals with him as well as the farcical TV revenue we receive, but that's the world we currently inhabit and we need to live accordingly. King is a gambler, I'm nervous of the odds he's playing.

That's an interesting photo. Read an interview with Vincent Kompany recently and he talked about something I'd not thought of before. He was being asked about heading and how to do it well and in his opinion the secret is 'owning the space' where the ball is going to land. Sounds simple, of course what he meant by that was making sure no other player can get in that space and meet the ball before you. So using your strength, timing your jump, blocking someone else, holding them off or simply out-muscling them. That photograph brought him to mind. Lewis Ferguson is 5'9" and under 12 stone, Goldson shouldn't be getting bested for a high ball from someone like that, foul or not.

I think we've got a leadership issue on the field. I don't feel Tav is the right player to be captain. I like him as a player however I've not sensed a 'win at all costs' mentality from him or see his as some sort of leader. He's certainly no Barry Ferguson far less a Davie Weir, Richard Gough or John Grieg. I appreciate that captaincy is about more than the 90 minutes on the park, but that's still a vital aspect of it. When things aren't going well I don't yet know who I look too for leadership or to lift that side. I wondered if Goldson might be that player and I think McGregor does offer some of that but his position doesn't lend itself to sorting out players on the park. Maybe Jack will become that person, but he's been so unlucky with injuries and suspensions I still don't know. Gerrard was the ultimate captain, providing inspiration through his play but also through his desire to never lose. You'd hope he could spot someone with similar potential. Maybe it came naturally to him and so he can't understand why everyone doesn't have it. Whatever it is we're missing it and have been for a few seasons now. Finding it would go some way to helping us win the big one-off games again.

Losing a match we should have won is always going to create a lot of anger. When that match is a cup semi against an average Aberdeen side it's even more galling. We dominated yet Aberdeen created the best two chances, that's the most damning thing. Our inability to carve out a proper clear cut chance has been shown before this season, if sides can defend in numbers against us we're largely incapable of breaking them down currently. That said, Morelos or Lafferty would have made a difference, a fit Barasic would have opened up the left flank, Flanagan simply doesn't offer an attacking threat. I also questioned the timing of the subs. It was clear to me 10 minutes into the 2nd half that we weren't going to break them down, something needed to change. No Rangers player ever made a front post run, our crossing was diabolical and there was a lack of speed throughout, although that was Aberdeen's tactics, stifling space and bogging us down. It could have been different, had Jack played in Candeias instead of shooting he'd have been in on goal with just the keeper to beat. Also, ironically, the bad injury their player took helped them. Candeias was skinning him every time they came together, but he was less effective against the sub they brought on. I don't think it's fair to single out Sadiq, he's barely played at all this season and, it seems, he's not at the standard required anyway. The goal we lost was poor, a simple cross into the box needs to be defended better than that. Our whole team played poorly, our tactics were wrong and our changes, when they finally came, were strange. This will sound primitive but I was surprised we didn't send Katic on for the last five plus injury time and play him up front, we were winning nothing in the air as it stood and something needed to change. It's a sore one, and not entirely unexpected either, we've struggled to create chances in recent matches. In the end Aberdeen played the match to a game plan that worked, we were culpable in letting them. Come January, we need a creative midfielder and another striker, without them we'll continue to stutter when it matters most.

Superb 26th, possibly your best yet.

I put a poppy on my coat on Wednesday. It's the first time I've worn a metal poppy, it's a commemorative one. I don't think I'd wear the Rangers one though, I'm not altogether comfortable with mixing football and poppies. Perhaps an exception can be made for Hearts.