Gaffer

Although we appreciate they're not as strong as other teams we will face, it's quite hard not to get carried away when you see that quality of football. It's so direct. It's going to take a lot out of the players (on both sides) so it'll be interesting to see if we can sustain that level of movement and energy in the second half. Few teams will live with us if we play like this though.

Those are the only words he needs to know for now, in fact he could do our next press conference.

Someone on this forum proposed that any retraction should be placed on the same page with same size of font as the original statement. That was a great idea I thought. However, even then it will not prevent the obsessed ones believing what they want to.

You are asking me how do I get though 90 minutes at Ibrox with all that swearing? I don't like it but I have little option but to tolerate it, just as many of the minorities we've discussed on here have to put up with language they find distasteful. However, once again you're showing yourself to be someone who believes you can decide what is acceptable and what isn't. Equally, you found it appropriate to express yourself using language which was applied purely and simply to offend me. Pretending it was used for any other purpose is just nonsense. Apologising afterwards makes it ok does it? If you thought that, just delete it before you send it. The hypocrisy you're exhibiting is astounding. You're throwing stones from a very large glass house.

What a ridiculous response, in my opinion. You're trying to twist arguments and construct something there, and to make matters worse, you deliberately try to offend me. Why? Was there any need for that? I was asking some questions, and looking for a debate, but you've managed to kill it for me. That's the difference .... others were using terms by accident. You do it deliberately, and yet you're taking the moral high ground?!?

You're suggesting that it's ok to be offensive towards a section of society that hasn't been considered to have broken the law in the past? I don't understand that. I fail to understand the difference between one type of offensive word and another. As I asked, who decides? As for keeping up to speed, did you know from your social interactions and friends that elderly was offensive? I didn't. There are some terms and discriminations that receive a great deal of press coverage, and others that don't, and that was my point. It seems that it's those that get the attention that also receive the greatest level of condemnation when used. And for the record, I would never ever choose to read a newspaper or watch the news. You're correct of course that there are laws against many types of discrimination, and I agree with that. And contrary to your assertion, I don't believe that any right (such as free speech) should be used without a sense of responsibility when executing that right. What I have a problem with is people who take it upon themselves to decide what is an offensive word and what isn't. Furthermore, there are those people that take it upon themselves to decide the level of condemnation that the said word is deserving of. I'm in a minority (I believe) which finds the use of many swear words offensive. I also take offence to being openly called a 'hun'. Who decided that it's ok to call me that, but I'm not allowed to call someone elderly? This is a Rangers forum and I'm sure there are many on here that encounter such offence and discrimination on a daily basis. Why are we not afforded the same protection?

That's fair. Celtic should be encouraged to distance themselves from this, because I noticed in the laws of the SPFL, it is against the rules to criticise another members in a manner that brings the game into disrepute. Looks like we just need to enforce the laws that exist for this type of thing.

I don't agree there. This deserves absolutely no recognition at all. Let's not help to make a story out of it, but that's exactly what certain hacks will want to happen.

The rest of Scottish football may drown in its own poison, and there's only so much we can do to help prevent that. I agree that this all just damages football in this country, but can you imagine how sweet 55 will be? I've been lucky enough to see us win plenty of trophies, but nothing will compare to the feeling of rising to the top once again.

I've been disappointed to read some of this thread. It appears to me that there are some opinions that are just not "allowed" any more. It also appears that certain people (like Pete) are being chastised for using an abbreviated term when no harm was intended. Rather than trying to have a sensible discussion (as we try to do about football matters), this descended into some people trying to educate others about what's acceptable and what's not. I'm all for ensuring that abuse and offence (no matter what form it takes) is reduced, if not eliminated, but does that mean that these things cannot be discussed and debated? I personally found Anchorman's response to Pete as being offensive, because for me that foul language is unacceptable and abusive. Why is that tolerated more than other forms of 'abuse'? And as much as I disagreed with Pete's assertion as to the 'normality' of homosexuality, who am I to tell him what is correct? I have a different opinion to him, but that's all it is - opinion. Isn't it? Who are any of us to tell someone else? It seems that some language against others is acceptable on these and other forums and yet other subjects are completely taboo. Why? That's a genuine question, because I don't know the answer. My kids are now telling me that the term 'elderly' is now regarded as offensive. Apparently, they've been advised not to use the term mental (even when joking with friends) as it may offend people with psychological illnesses. Furthermore, Spanish is no longer accepted because it offends those from particular regions. This is ok for my kids because they can be 'taught' all of this at school, but where do others keep up to date with this? Or as JohnMc says, "up to speed" with what's acceptable? Again, this is a serious question. I have called my parents elderly, and I know I probably upset some of my neighbours in Spain by referring to them as Spaniards. I'd like to educate myself before I cause widespread offence. Had Pete or anyone else used these other offensive words, would there have been the same outrage? I'm not convinced. Who gets to decide which offensive words or opinions are worthy of an all out attack and condemnation, and which ones are acceptable as long as you didn't realise? Anyone?

We need that commentator at Ibrox. I love the way they celebrate and announce the goooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaals.

Was the young black kid from Tynecastle playing today? I think they just signed him in the summer.

I expect us to: - exhibit a style of football we can identify with on a weekly basis. The tactics might be slightly different and the formations, etc, but essentially I expect us to have a style that's ours. - place second in the league. - beat the lower half of the league in most, if not all, games we play them. - show that we've closed the gap on Celtic when we play them. - unite as a support behind everyone at the club. - put the DR out of business. - acquire at least 10 apologies from the BBC Scotland team over the course of the season. - sell at least two of our players for big money next season due to a storming performance in the league. - grow our shareholding in the club via Club 1872. - Put the DR out of business (did I mention this one already?) - Improve the quality of the catering, because some of those pies are just awful, and the soft drinks are just so watered down too. - give the younger players a chance in games, especially when we are 3-0 up at half time. I think that's going to constitute a successful season for me. Not much to ask for really!?!

He wasn't alone though. I could name 4 others that can't wait to have a go at Pedro, and I'm not talking about the ones that come on here with sensible and understandable concerns (most of which I think we all share). I'm hoping everyone wants him to be a success though, but something tells me that some really want him to fail. They'll show themselves again soon, because inevitably we will have some poor games.

That's the problem with the justice system. People like that can never be rehabilitated so why not just put them down, and I'm not too bothered about it being done humanely, just quickly.

Im looking forward to seeing Cardoso this season. I don't know if Alves' guidance and positioning is making him look better than he is, but if he keeps playing the way he is, we unfortunately won't hold onto him for long. I can't believe he's so young and still has his best years ahead of him. Still early days, but for me he's the most likely big money transfer target we will have to deal with. I'd much rather though have players that other teams want, than not. Already he must be someone that many of the richer teams are watching. What do others think?

Really solid performance today. There was a period of about 20 mins in the first half where we looked untouchable. If we can make that level of performance more sustainable, we will have a good season. Alves is strolling through these games. Jack is looking like he could be the best signing we've made, and Candeias is a real steal at £1m, if that's really what we paid for him. However, the most pleasing thing from today is that we look solid defensively again. It's been nerve racking watching us over the past year, especially when defending corners, free kicks or counter attacks. I hope I haven't jinxed this, but I don't bite my nails the same these days. You can see what he's doing with the system, and it's obvious the players are reacting to those 'moments' in the game that PC often refers to. That's going to help when playing against opponents who attack, but we will have to see how well we can break down teams who defend the way Progres did, and how the majority of SPL teams will set up against us. Exploiting the opponents' shape during the transitions isn't going to be as effective against those that play with ten men behind the ball. Still a long way to go, but the signs are there that we will be competitive.

When you say "our" detractors, who do you mean by "our"? Do you mean the supporters, the team, the manager, the board? What I like about them is that they write about the facts, mixed with some opinion, to ensure that our (everyone I mentioned above) position is well represented. Many have read that article and don't like it because in this instance it represents the facts about our manager, and there are those who just don't want him no matter what the circumstances. He is just as much part of "our" as everyone else here, so perhaps it was written to address some of the people on this forum who are "our" serious detractors. I say serious because it hurts us on the pitch (where it matters) if supporters don't get behind the manager. I think that TRO could continue to be well respected if it is critical of all detractors, including some of our supporters. There's an element of the support that hinders the club, whether that be people that criticise the players from the first minute (or even beforehand) of a game, or those that delay matches by throwing paper onto the pitch, or those that sing certain songs. I'm all for dealing with all of our detractors. It's just sad when you realise that you/we may be one of them.

Worth a read. I enjoy reading their stuff .... https://www.rangersobserver.com/views/2017/7/28/pedro-caixinha-the-story-so-far

It's one of a few clubs that we could build a healthy relationship with. The manager there is a great man manager and coach so I'd expect it's a really sound option for developing players going out on loan.

I thought there were some cracking goals in there. He seems quick, aggressive, and has a brilliant touch. His movement and anticipation is also top notch from those clips. I've not watched out for him much, but there's definitely a player there.

The best way to identify the leak is to feed different suspects with different false stories, and then see which ones come out. Classic counter intelligence tactic!

I will admit I was intrigued so read a lot of it. What surprises me is that the writer (like many of the other commentators) spends so much time typing such a long statement, and apparently spends very little time checking any of the facts. It's a very well written article which gives it credibility for many. However, it has been written completely in isolation of the facts. These are the most dangerous bloggers. They are smart enough to be able to decipher the facts from fiction, but choose to adopt a deeply sinister stance and spread the poison. The outcomes won't change and I hope these people drown in their own bile. They deserve nothing less.

I can't imagine for a second we'd get Pandev, but then I wouldn't have thought we'd get Alves either. I don't think he's a striker though. When I've seen him, he's been in central attacking midfield roles and although he'd be miles better than anyone else we have, I don't think the manager sees this as the priority area for signings.

I like Wallace too and I'd like to think he'd be staying. I wonder if Beerman did enough though to show that he's able to take that position. Wallace and Miller have been constants in the team though so you'd have to think it's Rossiter, if the rumour is true at all.