Rousseau

He was an easy fit at the time. He has done OK, but I still think we have better players than our position suggests, so in that regard he's hardly been a success. However, for the long-term we need a complete overhaul, and I hope the Board get someone progressive to do it -- not the same old types. I get frustrated when people say it's too late to change. We may have missed an opportunity 2 years ago, but it's never too late to instigate a change in the way we do things. I hope we get a statement of intent from the Board when King gets the ok (?).

It's the 50% of turnover that really sticks in the throat. Set ticket prices at £1 -- They'd still get their money, but it'd be next to nothing.

What do the SPFL exactly say on the matter? Is it just that ST holders can't be let in for free? If so could we not just let them in for a quid? It'd cost us, but it could cost us anyway. It appears as though the board have budgeted free entry anyway. It's all about getting one over the SPFL.

I generally agree: If he has to play, put him up front.

A 5-3-3 looks like it would be tactically beneficial with that extra man!

Good news. Now for Dave...

It really doesn't matter which brand it is, we cannot command the amount we want. We just have to take what's on offer.

Sarcasm? Subjectivity? You're calling Conservative voters stupid? (This thread is going to have to be moved: it's turning into another political debate!) Edit: I actually feel the same about SNP voters, in the sense I hope Scots are wise enough to see through their rhetoric and propaganda. Who's right I wonder? Or are we both unduly subjective?

Any means of sticking two-fingers-up at the SPFL/SFA 'cabal' I am in favour of. Well done Rangers.

He is a goalscorer that can't score. His negatives/detractors and positives/advocates are irrelevant.

That's basically a GIRUY!

I think we all agree that he is not the finished article. I worry that after only 50+ games we are quite dogmatic in our condemnation. The lad has certain qualities, can we not use them? He's quick, so when we need a goal or some pace in the latter stages could he not play a role? Not all youngsters are going to be like Mcleod, but they all have certain qualities that we can use. Moreover, he is 20! His career has not even started, but we've deemed him not good enough? He can still be developed, and that's what I hope the youth coaches are able to do. I thought we all wanted our youth players to get a chance? A couple of seasons in 3rd and 2nd division games is not a real chance. Just because he has disappointed this season does not mean he is finished. We need to develop players properly; and use their strengths.

You've summed him up perfectly. He does require service; and the right type of service at that. His touch has always been poor, but his finishing has deteriorated; whether that is down to the type of service or age, I couldn't speculate. I'd keep him.

Agreed. I think the fans have to take some of the blame. We have not given players the time in the past. hopefully it's changing now though. Scotland in general is living in the past. What's the answer? Cathro? (Not him as such, but that type.)

It was a terrible documentary. No depth whatsoever. But what do you expect from channel 4!

He's found his level!

Ah McLeod...what could have been...

For me the worrying think is that these guys (McKay I'm think of; good touch, quick, technical, good interplay, but not too strong -- hopefully it'll come!) could be left out because they don't conform to the typical Scottish type of strong, tall and powerful. It's like Jack Harper at Real: he obviously has talent, but the Scottish coaches omitted him because he wasn't tall or strong enough. I think it's an out-of-date worldview. We need to move on. To do that we need a coach that is knowledgeable in this area, not another former Scottish-based player.

Let them in for a quid!

If the SFA are running scared of any person/institution over which they are supposed to govern then surely their position is untenable? It's a ridiculous position for a Football Association to be in. Only in Scotland. Nevertheless, the King decision is not easy, but I don't foresee any problems. The main issue was the tax avoidance, which has since been settled amicably.

It's not what he is earning, it's the fact he is earning whilst doing nothing.

That was intolerable. I suspect it may may be beaten if we get promotion!

It's the fact he is taking a wage that really frustrates me; the fact he was a failure as manager is neither here nor there. If he is a Rangers man, he wouldn't take a wage.

That's very true. He didn't actually buy most of the players I mentioned. I forgot about 3rd place. As I said: he's the same old type; doesn't excite me, in fact it frustrates me.

McLeish was OK. He didn't have much money, but the players were pretty good: DeBoer, Canigga, Arveladze (spelling?), Ricksen, Amoruso, Numan, Ferguson, McCann (Arteta?), etc. Not convinced he'd be any good with a reduced budget again. Anyway, he's the same type we've always gone for, what's it going to take for us to go down a different route? Doesn't excite me.