Danny

See, the problem you, and perhaps others, may have overlooked is that it wasn't just one match against a supposedly inferior team, it was 4. None of them were victories. You're spot on to say football is more complicated on the pitch than it is on paper, but it's also a way of over complicating football in general - you kind of imply any result is technically possible so winning a championship is basically a bit of a fluke - just because Man City win the league doesn't make them the best team because they could only draw with certain inferior teams. Let's try and get out of over complexity here - you, me, Zappa and Jim all know that while Maribor and Malmo are not pub teams, they are the quality of team a side with the personnel that Rangers have should be able to overcome over 180 minutes. Sweden nor Slovenia are hotbeds of football. League wise anyway. But thanks to what happened this season, we're below Maribor! Even Shamrock Rovers are above us. Are you guys actually going to turn round and say these 2 teams are historically better than Rangers?

Pub team is a bit nonsense. They were poor teams in the grand scheme of Europe, but slightly better than the Nag's Head 11. As we all said prior to playing both though - if we can't beat this team, we don't deserve to be in Europe. And we didn't and didn't.

We're normally discussing targets, wondering what players might leave for big money moves, and just thinking about general transfer activity. I feel hamstrung that we can't do a fucking thing this summer! It's like a party Rangers are not invited to.

Cheerleading? Stop talking nonsense. I disagree with the guy in the sense I could never want Celtic to do well, co-efficient or no co-efficient, but he comes nowhere near close to cheerleading. I can see his point and understand it, even if I disagree.

See, those comments beneath the article are great in theory - an overhaul of the squad etc. Problem is most Scottish youth, these days, isn't anywhere near as good as the Barry Fergusons and Alan Huttons of even recent old. We have produced some good players, like Perry, McMillan, Ness, McCabe and maybe Little - but none of an outstanding nature who just looked like they were the stuff of the future. The only player we've produced in the last 3 years I really rated highly was Danny Wilson - and he's ended up at Blackpool after failing miserably at Pool. And even then, I still think he's the best Scottish defender around right now! The famous examples are Man Utd and Barca - using kids who developed through their academies and became champions and world class with it. Problem is we're not Barca or Utd, our Murray Park hasn't produced enough really good players for us to be able to rely on it for the next however many years. With only kids, we'd end up really mediocre.

Unless I am misreading this, Doncaster appears to be trying to be fair and more 'lenient' in comparison with the shit we've gone through recently. I guess he read my blog.

Just looking at the majority of threads and it's all related to the club's state. Even my last 3 blogs have had bog all to do with football. I yearn for the days we're arguing about formations, personnel, management and tactics. Because arguing about this stuff has been bad for all of us. Just wanted to say this.

Possibly. I just thought there was some legal basis for the confidentiality.

One inconsistency here is that he said he could not name anyone because of rules and restrictions based on him by the admin - and that until the CVA was agreed the names would remain anonymous. So why's he now shelling out names? What's changed?

No, because he said they came to him. That they had interest in investing in the club, and would he be able to spearhead the entire consortium. No one asked him for any money - just his knowledge and experience.

Truth is as a manager his only real success was us. He's had a very indifferent journeyman career - Benfica, Galatasaray, Liverpool, Newcastle, Blackburn, Torino, Southampton - he's managed some domestic cups but despite some near misses, never topped any league he managed in. Not sure what would be different now.

I agree with Andy Kerr on this, just rattled off a blog about it actually. http://ibroxnoise.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/no-one-likes-us-we-do-care.html

But Green never claimed to be an investor. I keep saying this, he has never professed any of his own money - he's only organising the consortium. It's the media who are misreporting him as wealthy and being the new owner.

Funny how he'll never be either.

I don't. He never made any claims at all - apart from a feeble one about investing £5M a year on players. A lie, of course. The point is Green may have 20 parties pledging, but only 5 or 6 have as of yet actually stumped up the cash. Kinda like that SaveRangers notion - folk pledging to throw in thousands - but not actually having to genuinely do it. The question here is will those who have not yet stumped up the cash, indeed do so. For all Green's potentially honourable intentions, he's hamstrung by his consortium - if some of them don't give the money they promised, Green ends up looking like an idiot. But £20M, if true, is a decent amount so far.

He's their worst manager since he took them over back in 1991. Lowest win rate. His time there was a flop and I very much doubt they'd ever take him back on any level.

I think it is only fair to give the guy a chance, and his consortium. I am not convinced but I'm not 100% skeptical either. At least we know about this guy's past and former colleagues have spoken about him, both positive and negative. Whyte literally had no background, nor anyone behind him - it's not even vaguely valid a comparison.

It's interesting that Souness would only have been interested had it been Kennedy. So basically his own friendships are more important than the club's survival. Cheers Souey.

I remember you from afar, 'Oot'.

It's been pretty blatant that the SPL and SFA have had a distinct bias against Rangers particularly since admin. And the fact Lennon barely gets any punishment for his outrageous behaviour before his club gets this award shows just how skewed the hierarchy in this backwater football country have become.

How many times are the media going to spin the line that Green will be the new owner? He is the organiser of a consortium - THEY will own the club among them, and Green will merely be the hands-on liason within the club - no one even knows what position he'll take up such as CE, Chairman etc, nor if he has put any money in. And my understanding is he's put in only one pound. But the media spin this line that Green will be the owner. How much longer will they try to mislead those who are not so clear on the issue?

Of course it doesn't affect it, it's not just preferred bidder. He's entered his consortium into a legally binding contract. 'Irrevocable'.

We all know what I think of Leggo and his writing. But for once I'd like to thank Ian for posting this - it just shows what a complete fruitcake he's (Leggo, not Ian) become. Leggo is now as bad as Spiers, and unfortunately, not as intelligent. Spiers provokes responses by baiting people and deliberately being controversial - Leggo just seems to be a blowhard with absolutely no evidence to back up any of his nonsense. So not only is he a bad writer, but the content of his blogs is now complete twaddle. There are much much better writers/bloggers out there, way more credible. Chris, McKellar, and others. Even Pacheco who struggles with his English.

Enjoyable wee article there Andy, well written and a lot of good points made.

Cheers. Looking at the business sheet of Kennedy, for all his current success, his own record isn't infallible either. I thought he'd publicly stated he was going to destroy us - that's how negative folk have been about him. As for Craig Whyte, being involved with him doesn't have to tar Green with the same brush.