Gaffer

I've read a lot on the forums suggesting that many people (or even the majority) are against DK. I just don't know where that comes from. I realise there are a number of people who have strong feelings against him and hence find it useful to express their anti DK opinions on the forums. However, speaking as someone who is a straight forward supporter without the baggage of knowing what others appear to, I'm still supportive of what he's doing so far. All of my family and friends are too, so what is it that others know that we don't? This case involving the Takeover panel is a nonsense and is a waste of public money as far I'm concerned. It makes no sense, albeit I understand the need for protection laws in relation to takeovers. The Takeover Panel has had opportunities in the past to take action and they haven't? This case makes no sense to 'prosecute' and I'm disgusted that public funds are being used for this purpose. Why is there such support from some quarters for such a ridiculous stance against our chairman? There are too many people who just roll over for instances like these and I, for one, am glad he's taking a stand against it. I do however wish we'd take a stand against many of the other injustices to hit our club, but we're in enough battles at the moment I suppose. As far as I'm concerned this is a private matter for him to deal with as he sees fit, and doesn't impact the club, other than his association with us. I'd be happy for someone to point out other wrongs he may have perpetrated but this doesn't appear to me to be one at all. Am I missing something? What's the big deal here and why are so many fans interested in it? I listened to his interview a couple of weeks back and he once again came across as a sensible guy who is trying to save his club. Until such times as I believe his motives have changed, or until someone can give me good reason why someone else would be better off in the chairman role, he will continue to have my support. He's delivered against all the things he said he would as far as I know and those actions are worthy of some respect. I'm much more suspicious of those people that seem to have such animosity towards the only person willing and able to save my club. I don't know DK, and he may well turn out to be untrustworthy, and a charlatan as other have suggested. Our scrutiny of his and the board's actions will continue to be intense, as they should be, but let's not be so hasty in casting aspersions when it's unreasonable. Happy to be challenged or enlightened on this. Until then I'm just going to get back to enjoying the football.

I hope our club takes these stats more seriously than you do. Welcome to the twenty first century TB. Whether you agree with these stats or not, they are important and will continue to be an important part of the game. Some of the alternative stats you propose are already available and are not very useful at all in assessing a player. We need a smart DoF that will use the available info like this and identify players early for us. Maybe if we uncover a few gems you'll be convinced.

I agree with you Craig regarding conflicts of interest (perceived or real), however these exist on most boards are not a problem providing they are identified, communicated and managed accordingly. I have to declare my own conflicts of interest to my board and this is common practice. It sometimes means nothing more than making sure that there is awareness, however it can be managed in more extreme circumstances by being excluded from voting or removed from discussions and decisions completely during those relevant agenda items. Therefore, I share the confusion regarding the so-called governance experts on the board. They should know this. If they don't know this, what is their value to the board? If they do understand this but made an error, this could have been resolved with an acceptance (and perhaps an apology if only to appease the members) of that error and action to put appropriate controls in place. I state this opinion in good faith. I want the Club 1872 concept to work, but this issue of governance concerns me. Equally, I feel guilt because I am unable (or perhaps unwilling) to spend the time required to help. Bluedell (I think) asked earlier who in their right mind would volunteer for these posts with the scrutiny involved. In my opinion, there's very little intrusive scrutiny involved in such a position (compared with regulated FTSE registered companies) and people who have retired from any senior roles in large businesses should have the necessary skills and experience to help if they have the desire to do so. Where are they though? If no one else comes forward I think we should continue to support this concept, albeit with a more critical eye in terms of how the Club is being managed.

Blue dell: I think many of your points are fair, but it seems like CH is taking all of the flak here and none is being directed at the three who resigned. If this statement from CH is true that they resigned without due process of arranging a board meeting, or even attempting to call/email other directors, it is in my opinion a petty and unprofessional reaction. They should have followed due process as a respnsible board member. The irony is that they are chastising CH for not following due process when they themselves are guilty of this - if CH's version is accurate. I think that under the circumstances, CH should have declared his position early and this was a mistake. However, this response by the three resigning directors was very poor and perhaps Club 1872 is better off recruiting better candidates more suited to this role.

I just watched PC's pre match interview .... Reporter: what do you expect from Aberdeen today? PC : I expect them to lose to us. That's all!

Now way ..... I predicted 4-0 and should have had it right there

The same defenders from the start of the season now look as if we can keep clean sheets. (Hope I've not jinxed this now)

No way, this is just brilliant now .... PC has turned this around with his subs and change of tactics

2-0. Ya beauty

I'm not a Club 1872 member, but I'd like to be. I believe in the concept of supporters having a strong say in the direction of the club, and that can only be achieved by having a significant shareholding. However, I would not contribute a single penny to this until I had confidence that the power of this shareholding was to be wielded with the right motives. There appears to be a number of factions here: On one hand you have a group of relatively well known Rangers supporters who put their names forward, based on a personal statement about their skills, etc. I also understand from this discussion that these are unpaid roles. It seems to me that these people have many skills and attributes, but nowhere in there is the key skill - leadership. Then there's a faction of disgruntled fans who are criticising these same individuals for making an apparent mess of it, or for their apparent self interest above everything else. Why don't any of these fans give up their jobs and go run it? Afterall, to do this properly requires a focus and total commitment, and having another job would only dilute the time required to do it properly. And finally, there's a bunch of us (me included) just hoping that someone else is going to take responsibility and show leadership to take this idea forward. Unless there's another faction somewhere I can't see how this will work. If this concept is sound (which I think it is), then we must start seriously considering having some professionals take over. The problem is that it costs money and I don't know how many people would feel about what they'd perceive as big salaries for these positions. I can't imagine many people with the right skills that would be willing to do this for nothing, despite their love for the club. Perhaps we are expecting too many from the board. If they're the only ones willing to put in the effort for free (assuming that's the case), then who are we to criticise?

Having listened to the way PC read out the team, we will be using a 4-2-3-1 which means that McKay and Waghorn will have their chance to play more centrally with the two wing backs (Beerman and Tav) offering the width. This is how I think he wants us to line up but it needs a striker who can hold the ball up and play a quick pass to one of the attacking mids. Waghorn is decent at that but runs into trouble too often. Perhaps this is Joe's chance to show he can do it. It's going to put pressure on Halliday again at the back in the holding role. At least I'm assuming it's him that'll do that job, but with PC we just don't know.

Another entertaining and confident press conference from PC. The highlight for me was when he was asked about Kenny Miller. He said (and I'm paraphrasing) that he doesn't care if a player has two months or 3 years on his contract .... if the player isn't good enough they won't be here and if they are, he will offer them the chance to be here next season. Ultimately he will decide and in his own time when he's properly assessed them all. He doesn't distinguish between the players in any other way. That may be the case, but he may find that there are no buyers for those players he doesn't want for next season.

After Saturday's second half, I wonder if he'll play Wilson, Bates and Beerman in a back 3 with Tav and Andy playing as wing backs. That would allow McKay, Holt and Hyndman to dominate the centre of the midfield. I'm so excited about the game and just hope we can put in a really good performance. It would be a great boost to the newly introduced players and a kick up the backside for those left out (regardless of the reasons). MW always said he'd have no hesitation in playing the younger players and yet it never happened, no matter how poor the others were. PC is taking chances rather than playing others out of position and it's very welcome. I just hope it pays off for him and us. He states that he wants players with character. He's already demonstrated that he has the character he's looking for in his players. He appears to be leading by example.

I wonder if Kiernan is injured. If not, it doesn't look like he has a future. The timing of this statement (before a game where Miller and Kiernan are left out of the team) suggests they've no future. Am I reading too much into this? I'd be surprised if he's not injured because Kiernan was really strong on Saturday and didn't put a foot wrong in my opinion.

He is a very decent player and would be a good squad player, however I don't think we can afford to spend any money on squad players. I think every penny we have has to go into players that can enhance the first eleven. We've got enough squad players in the first eleven at the moment.

I think the other 44k bears were saying the same in their heads if not out loud. The guy behind me stood up and hurled abuse just as Garner scored. He didn't take much stick for it because we all knew we were just as guilty. To be fair, it looked like he mis-hit the cross.

??? I agree about being slow out of the blocks today, but it wasn't disorganised at all in the second half. In fact, they had to be very organised to play with only two defenders. PC went for it in the second half because he knew we needed to win the game. He has to get credit for that. And although Foderingham had some great saves, we could easily have scored a few at the other end. So, there's no way you can selectively pick out their chances and suggest we deserved a hiding. It was an exciting game of football, and although we didn't get the result we were looking for, I really enjoyed it - as did most people I spoke to afterwards. It is a game of many different opinions, but I'm surprised at your characterisation if it.

There's no doubt the physical nature of Motherwell's approach today caused us some problems. There were too many times when Hill, McKay, Holt and Miller were easily shoved off the ball. We need to be stronger because they are not the only team that will treat us this way. In that respect, Kiernan was great today. I don't remember him losing a single challenge and gave his most composed performance of the season. The other three defenders were however too slow today, both in possession and in closing down Well's players. PC was apoplectic on so many occasions in that first half and it would have come as no surprise to any of them that they were hooked. There are far more chances being taken with the forward passes and the diagonal balls out wide are obviously a tactic we had practised, although Well did really well to close the space down quickly. If Well played like that against other teams they'd be much higher up in the league. I'm so excited about the next game now. Pedro is clearly someone who doesn't accept anything less than total effort so it'll be interesting to see who keeps their place in the team, and who replaces those that don't.

Just back from the game, and I agree that it was the most exciting 45 minutes of football in a long time. You have to admire PC for making those changes at half time. We were always going to then be vulnerable at the back having taken off 3 of our 4 defenders but Kiernan was excellent today. Not sure what formation that was towards the end but something like a 2-3-5. This manager has guts and it's never going to be dull, that's for sure.

Alex Clelland was a decent player for us, but there was one evening against Juventus when he looked like the worst football player ever (not just for us). Del Pierro tied him in knots that evening and I still cringe when I think about how bad he made Clelland look. I bet he still has nightmares about that. Having said that, Del Pierro would have made anyone look bad the way he played that night.

Whatever Billy decides to do, he deserves credit and congratulations for having the skills which have attracted attention from so many clubs. Well done young man and hopefully it serves as an incentive to others. If we hold on to him then that's just brilliant. If we don't, I'm sure we will all wish him the very best of fortunes at his new club. Decisions like these are difficult, but it's much better to have these decisions to make, than not. It's better to train people well and have them leave, rather than not train them well and have them stay. That applies in all professions, not just football. I'd hope that more of our youth players in future will have similar decisions to make. That will surely be a sign of an effective youth development programme. I've already said that I'd want my son to have the best opportunities to develop into a top player and I'd encourage him to make his decisions based on that rather than anything financial at this stage. I'm sure that'll be the basis of any decision they make and wish the family good luck whatever the decision.

I'm a Rangers supporter. Your are Rangers supporters. Any other label that results in separating us from each other is irrelevant and divisive. Nationality, religion, sex, and jobs don't matter as far as Rangers is concerned. We quite rightly pride ourselves in having a truly multinational and multicultural following so let's not alienate anyone in the Rangers family by criticising or challenging their attitudes towards anything outside of our football club. I'd be happy to wear one label ..... "I am Rangers and We Are The People"

It's all relative and in our league we are a top team, so the proportion of goals from set pieces still applies. These proportions apply to the main 64 professional leagues of which we are one. In a broader sense though, we are definitely not a top team. I'm hoping I see it again though in my lifetime.

The club needs appropriate licences to be granted for some of the pre match entertainment so it makes sense to scratch the back of the council in anticipation of a reciprocal scratch. With all of those stakeholders on board I'm hoping we get the necessary permissions to implement some of the ideas for next season. They've set the expectations with such publicity so it's time to deliver on them. Should be a really positive improvement.