Rousseau

It was only clear from the replay that there was no contact. At full speed it looked a certainty. Diving and 'drawing the foul' are ubiquitous in the modern game, for good or bad. However, what on earth is Mertasacker playing at? Lunging into a last-ditch tackle when he's the last man, when he has no chance of getting the ball? Would it not have been better to lose a goal but retain 11 men? Mertasacker is at fault. I always agreed with Gary Neville's analysis of these situations: don't dive in, because the player is going to go down; stay on your feet.

Although I'm fairly disappointed to miss out on Toumani Diagouraga -- especially after finally being able to spell his name! -- but I'm quite pleased that we haven't gone over our valuation. Brentford's asking price was several 100k's over our bid was it not? Leeds have certainly over-paid, and for a player that will have no resale value. I don't want us to start paying over-the-odds on players. There are many players at this level that we can approach that match our valuation. We do not have the money to throw about, so it makes sense to get value for money. Whether these guys are good enough for the Premiership or not is a different question. Ultimately, we'll not know until they are tested. We can make an educated guess, based on the fact that the English Championship/League One is presumably of a higher standard than all but one of our Premiership sides. I still believe that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. While we may be assembling a team of players that on the surface may not be of the same standard -- and certainly not the same 'value' -- as those acquired by Celtic, it doesn't necessarily mean that we won't be able to challenge them. Moreover, just because a player is playing at a certain level, doesn't mean he is of that level. We look to be acquiring players with a certain ability or skill-set to contribute to our philosophy, while also possessing potential to improve. Bournemouth and Brentford etc. have done very well at acquiring players from lower leagues, and utilising their skill-sets to improve their teams as a whole.

Can't comment on the veracity of the source (that O'Halloran has agreed personal terms), but I do believe that personal terms can be agreed before a fee agreement between clubs. Arsenal did it with Sanchez, and Man Utd with Pedro (before that deal collapsed). Most recently, Pato has agreed personal terms with Chelsea, despite no agreement of fee between clubs.

Could he not be another Holt? Not wanted because he doesn't fit, but could perhaps fit our philosophy?

You're absolutely right. I am guilty of defining the guys in question as 'journalists', when in fact they're more like columnists; exactly the thing I was trying to argue (D'uh!). 'Journalists' should "be able to write something without having to twist the truth to some nefarious agenda", but I just don't think that's what these guys are. Of course, a definition is not the real problem, which I think you've hit upon: that it's not just some bias, but a "Goebbels style propaganda using lies, fallacy, exaggeration and systematic omission to attempt convince the reader of a completely false representation of the truth". It is 'yellow' journalism, exacerbated by the internet. If internet users are 'savvy' enough to recognise click bate, then why are we bothering about it? Shouldn't we just ignore it for the tripe it is, and let it destroy itself?

I wonder if bears would take him back? I would say he fits the philosophy, but he's shown no loyalty and might be getting shafted by a side bottom of the premiership (that's not necessarily a bad thing as he maybe doesn't fit Mixu's style).

I disagree with banning journalists. The moment we -- or anyone -- starts banning the press, it is a very slippery slope. I firmly believe in the freedom of the press. However, as the prejudice in this guy's coverage is clear, I don't see why we can't just fight back in the same way. Pull him up on it. Rangers should release statements detailing where he is wrong and why/where they believe he is distorting the truth. I'm not sure how effective it would be, but surely it is better than banning the press.

I have always questioned the label 'journalist' when it comes to our own press (sport). What these guys produce just doesn't align with my conception of Journalism. It seems to me they are merely commentators, writing their regular opinion piece that just happens to contain a item of news: in short, they're columnists. For what it's worth, every reporter (in the broadest sense of the word) is biased; no matter how objective one tries to be, prejudice will rear it's head. I think our problem is that we obviously don't agree with their anti-Rangers perspective, inevitably so. I don't think hiring/encouraging a pro-Rangers reporter will overcome the deficiencies of the anti-Rangers cabal -- despite us probably agreeing with it/them. It's still the same medium. It's hardly necessary to provide a pro-Rangers feed, for there is already a Rangers twitter feed. Moreover, other game reporters -- in terms of reporting incident by incident: "Zelalem scores a 25-yard free-kick" etc. -- are hardly biased one way of the other: it's basic reporting of a game incident. It's when they start 'judging' on the off-field problems that their bias becomes hard to stomach. I think what we need is a better standard of writer. We need to demand journalists that'll state, as eloquently and as objectively as possible, what happened. Leave the opinion-pieces to the columnists. That is what they are there for, to provide their opinion. If you don't agree with it, don't read it. Cricket writers are a better breed, I think, simply because they don't descend into opinion; they merely report what happened in a supremely eloquent manner. 'Journalist' seems to be a catch-all term. There needs to be greater demarcation between roles: columnists shouldn't be the only 'reporter'. (Good read BTW. I got a mention!)

"What squad number will Michael O'Halloran have?" What a question. Quality investigative journalism in action...

A pan-European league would be very exciting, but how would European qualification work? Would the CL and EL just do without some of the 'biggest' teams? And would clubs be happy to forget about Europe?

To be honest, I didn't think Law too bad last year, relatively speaking. The stats confirm he contributed a disproportionate amount. However, the overall standard was poor, so in absolute terms he's not at the level we ultimately need. I still think he can still contribute this year and next -- hopefully more of a squad player next year though!

A quick goal-per-game calculation has McCoist on 0.6, Forrest on 0.7, therefore Forrest's record is better. But, surely longevity must count? I couldn't possibly comment on 'quality' of striker as I missed both (or the majority of McCoist's). Interestingly, Boyd comes out at 0.7 also (if the 2nd stint is excluded)... Just saying.

I would've preferred Falkirk to win, as they're more likely to drop points IMO. But, a draw is not bad. A nice wee 5-point cushion. We need to build on it now.

He showed flashes of brilliance, but they were all too rare unfortunately. He's a decent prospect, and I suspect he may do quite well for an English side; perhaps Championship level or lower. Of course, it doesn't help when players are not given protection against the hatchet-men in this country -- and it certainly doesn't help when the media are egging them on! As we all know, Warburton likes a lean squad, so with Forrester coming in -- and perhaps O'Halloran? -- he doesn't even make the bench. No point in him sticking around really; not good for his career. I wish him all the best.

No worries. I wasn't clear. OK, well I'd hope to see us get a European spot, or at least give it a very good go. I'd be delighted with 3rd.

Sorry, I did mean 2 goals and 9 assists; which means he's contributed 11 goals. That's a good return IMO. He'd be a good addition. However, I do agree we need a natural 'goal-scorer'. I would certainly hope to be competing with Hearts etc., but they've had a year to get used to the league, so I don't see why we'd be a shoe-in to out-perform them; likewise Aberdeen. Like I said, I would like to compete with them, but I'm not 'expecting' to finish above them. Top 4/5 would still get European football, would it not?

Can anyone provide a link to Rangers financial accounts pre-2012? I was interested in comparing.

I think O'Halloran is exactly the type we need. Yes, he's not a goal-scorer, but his running is impressive and his versatility is excellent. Waghorn was never a goal-scorer, but has 25 goals this year already. O'Halloran has contributed 11 goals and assists in 19 games this season; a good return. I do hope we are not expecting a 2nd place finish next year. Yes, our budget is higher than most, but that's not indicative of ability, and it certainly doesn't guarantee success. It's also disrespectful to Hearts and Aberdeen. I would hope to be challenging these teams, but would settle for a top 3/4/5 tbh. I'm a little disappointed at the way we are writing off players without having seen them play; or seen them for 1 game in the case of Forrester and Diagouraga. Give them time. They obviously have certain qualities that'll fit with our philosophy, and while it doesn't guarantee they'll be a success, it does guarantee they have something to contribute. Again, give them time, and trust in the Manager. Warburton's record -- with Brentford -- would suggest he knows what he's doing. What a fickle bunch we are.

Generally I agree, but there's no reason why we shouldn't be scooping up young Scottish prospects. There have been a few in the recent past, where we've done very well: Naismith, Whittaker, Thompson, Boyd etc.; and we've missed out on Gould and Robertson etc. Soutar is such a prospect IMO.

Yes, I think so. Wouldn't it be nice to get one over them (and Dundee Utd)? Perhaps unrealistic, but here's hoping! He's the one player I'd take from your list, given the chance.

I'd take Soutar -- Ball-playing centre-back, only 19 and a good prospect.

This whole process was mismanaged, and to be fair, embarrassing; with too many presumptions. However, there's nothing sinister there -- RF genuinely want to help -- but just messed up on this occasion. They'll learn from this, and hopefully implement a better process next time. Transparency is a tricky issue. In principle one would want all members to know what's going on, and for an organisation to be honest and up-front. But, one doesn't want every Tom, Dick and Harry knowing all the in's and out's. It can lead to the unveiling of every little problem/issue and damage confidence, while giving ammunition to enemies, but can also be the means to correcting these problems. It's a fine line, made even more difficult in a modern, social media society.

Hotly anticipated! "[it] was an under-19 tournament which featured some of Europe’s best clubs - and Celtic." Magic. It's the little things. Good read. Not enough!

Absolutely, Halliday is naturally an offensive player -- a winger at former clubs, I believe? -- so we're are asking a lot. He has done an admirable job. I don't think we necessarily need to play a back-three, just utilise a counter-press (winning the ball back as quickly as possible) and/or, as you say, acquire a natural holding midfielder. Ha! It appears we will have to agree to disagree. I agree about Millers control and conversion-rate, but I still maintain his movement and overall contribution is decent. Like I said above, a better striker would be preferable in my opinion, but until then he does a job. Although, I would like to see Hardie get a run of games.

Enticing draw. Not a so-called 'big team', but a decent test to judge our progress.