Walterbear

No certainties in any of this that’s for sure mate. We’ll just have to wait and see but of course concentration levels have to be extremely high and reading the game is part of a lengthy learning process. Put it this way it’s no bad thing we have a couple of young keepers getting rave reviews

Fair point Rousseau but perhaps a bit easier in Scotland in a team which should have massive amount of possession. Much harder in a tough league where your conceding a lot of goals at a high pressure level. Probably over optimistic with the 2 year projection right enough but physically he is well on so it’s about blending guys like him and Kelly in at the right time and in the right games. Deepite the pressures even this year I hope we can find the opportunity to blend more youngsters into the first team squad over the next few weeks.

Hope Murty stays with the club but not as first team manager. I find the criticism of him against celtic is partially justified but also ignores a pretty basic point. If players themselves are unable to reorganise and adjust to play against 10 men then they are lacking in leadership and tactical knowledge. Tactics against 10 men are known by everyone who has ever played a game of football and are practiced in training. I don’t think it is a lack of tactical knowledge. Implementing the change in front of a 50000 crowd in an OF game or in any high pressure game is the issue and requires leadership, experience, confidence and ability both on and off the park. Murty should have made changes of course but let’s not overlook the real problem which is we need another player refresh. Perhaps not as big as last time but good quality and money still required. In terms of who leaves then apart from the dross hanging on it has to be those who are unable to roll their sleeves up when they are not having a good technical game themselves and who are unable to recognise what is happening tactically in a game and therefore cannot make a personal adjustment. We can only afford a Davie Cooper level of effort if the player has his level of ability and we have 10 other winners. No one fits that bill and if they think they can do nothing in this team fi 45 mins or more they need to be removed. A surprise to me in the article is the level of expectation on guys like Goss. Like previous ‘interims’ he and players like him is not the answer. Perhaps over time but you can’t face up to midfields like Celtic’s unless you have been there done it. On that front the Board have to take a step up. This is a big year for them as well imo.

Spent some time with a few Berwick Rangers fans over easter. They go to all matches home and away and were all raving about the lad. Berwick have conceded a lot of goals but he has been picking up a lot of MoM awards despite that. He could be the answer to our goalkeeping position in the next couple of years. I might be stretching it a bit but if he and young Ross become features in our team our central defensive understanding may take an upswing. At least they will know what each other is thinking. On another positive we seem to be quite popular down there unlike the rotten mhob who caused major (unreported of course) problems last time they visited.

That’s what negotiation is about bluebell. The key is to create a win win. Nothing cannot be changed. How do you know they would kick us out instead of taking a bigger share of the pot? You don’t because we haven’t discussed it with them. Sorry but I don’t buy that there are no alternatives. The assumption I am making is that there is more money out there. The only thing which brings my argument down is if there is not. If the numbers add up (and I do t know if they do) then people will change.

Pete, the last few years have proven that Rangers are box office.We are the biggest show in town and without the OF games on top of that Scottish football is worth nothing. The SPFL (the clubs) need Rangers. They are not a mythical unconquerable beast. They either represent us fairly or we negotiate a different relationship. Why would they turn down our share of the BBC money? My whole argument is based on the unreasonable behaviour of the BBC. I’m not offering belligerence for the sake of it. At the moment the other clubs ie the SPFL are all happy it is an issue between us and the BBC when I’m fact it should be an issue which the SPFL supports us on. We are creating money for the other clubs right now. Of course the club and fans may be happy with the status quo and I may be in a minority of one but I think our marginalisation by the BBC is not only vindictive but it is intentionally damaging our brand and therefore our growth.

Well tell the SPFL they can keep our share of the BBC money and we state we will withdraw from that agreement (the other 11 would get more money) And we set our own up. The BBC offer the same financial pittance they currently do to the SPFL , they offer the same shiite broadcasting service, we do a deal with whoever and take a share of advertising or whatever. The current setup where we are abused and ridiculed by the BBC, we don’t get a service, we get a pittance in renumeratuon and the SPFL fail to represent us not workable and not acceptable. If the other clubs want to wirk with us then then let’s build bridges. If they don’t then let’s challenge the while set up. The one thing we can be sure of is the other 11 will look at the effect on their pockets first and foremost andbif there is a financial advantage they will recognise that. The football product is being sold cheap. There is more money out there but the SPFL and SFA are amateurs.

The dispute is with the BBC Boabie. It’s about the behaviour of one of their employees but it is the BBC hierarchy who have backed their man or rather what they see as principles of journalistic integrity. The correct course of action for the club to take in this dispute is to take it up with the SPFL. The SPFL may not back us up but they would need a very good reason to refuse to assist. That gets noted and put in the leger and/or it provides an excuse to break the mould. There are some legitimate doubts expressed elsewhere about whether or not Rangers should be building bridges with other clubs. This situation is a good example of why we should.

I understand that Boabie but the SPFL can’t be doing deals with broadcasters who dont cover the interests of their collective members. They (SPFL) represent Rangers on these deals. The SPFL represent us and have a duty to ensure it’s members are treated fairly and equally. That’s what collective deals are about. We have a dispute with the biased contribution of one person from the broadcaster and the SPFL should be standing up for us and we should be demanding that. The broadcaster is claiming journalistic integrity is threatened unless they can have a press pass for their biased reporter. If the SPFL cannot fulfil the function of ensuring a fair deal is available fir everyone then we should tell them we have no alternative other than go elsewhere if we want our fans to access commentary of our games properly. Then see what they do. If we believe we are right on this then why not? Are the SPFL going to kick us out? The worst they will do is fine us and withhold the BBC sums due to us. The reason nothing happens is because no one is doing anything.

Great idea. Perhaps one one item could be to exhibit Rangers memorabilia, add some historic match footage or other additional descriptors or people related to said items, explain history and relevance then offer channel for online bids. You could maybe do that on a regular but not too frequent cycle to ensure decent stuff. Bit like antique roadshow.

Another thing - if the BBC refuse to cover our games properly we should look at options of striking a deal with other broadcasters even if it is local radio and just return our share of the BBC contribution. I don’t see how we can be tied into deals made by SPFL or SFA that do not give us equality with other clubs. There is something not quite right about the BBC doing commentaries on a Sky broadcast when we are being marginalised in terms of coverage. There must be some angle here.

Partial renaming of Ibrox at the right price totally acceptable and would be great news in current circumstances. I doubt any one company would put a massive amount into Scottish football but don’t see why it is so difficult to get a handful of smaller deals and perhaps a medium sized one for something such as stadium renaming. Our sponsorship deals at the moment seem modest for the publicity we offer. Renaming any part of the club name would obviously be unacceptable but why couldn’t things like Rangers TV be renamed, logos on corner flags etc. I am no expert in marketing but there must be some easy money out there.

If we’re not using Cummings what would the argument be for Hardie? I must admit i it I thought Windass was turning the corner and I for one could hardly stand the sight of him in a rangers shirt a few months ago. I’m afraid I’m back in that place. Motherwell was a real test of the team and players and he in particular failed abysmally, even during our good spell on Saturday he wasn’t the catalyst and never looked like doing anything apart from giving away stupid free kicks. If Windass is in the starting line up for Rangers then we either have bad management or poor alternatives or both. The only role I could see for him would be an impact player but even then it is more often than not going to be a waste of a substitute. Id take a million. I’m sure there are English League 1 teams can use him.

For 25 mins in the second half we were actually very good and it looked like we were ragdolling them. We were however hopeless for most of the first half and were on the back foot due to a poor central defence. A lack of leadership l, steel and nous in the middle. Murty must have said the right things at half time but overall it’s just the same as we have seen since Warburton. A lack of consistency due to a lack of quality. We went 45 minutes with no one taking control on the park. Some of the decision making on the right flank was also atrocious. I don’t understand why that cannot be drilled out of a player in training. It’s pretty basic stuff to understand that the likelihood of scoring from narrow angles on the edge of the box is about zero. Does my head in and someone on the park should be dishing out rollickings when they see good positions like that squandered. It’s not as if there weren’t options. Despite that ragdolling period I don’t recall their keeper having a serious save to make.

Whatever we do involves a major gamble. Our financial issues are still there and we need success for that reason alone. Celtic can fritter away millions in experiments but we can’t. I don’t think any manager without a record of winning trophies would be acceptable. That means looking outside Scotland which has of course proven to be risky in the past. The biggest problem we have in the club however is the lack of winning experience and a winning mentality. Anyone who can bring that back gets my vote. We also need to get in a couple of players who are used to winning even if it is from a lower level either from our youngsters like McRorie or from another league. Again Alves was someone we thought would fit the bill here but it’s not a one man job. All in all it’s s really tough decision and the stakes are huge.

I think Murty would be told in the context that his previous job was still open if he wanted it. Rangers would need to recruit into his old position if he didn’t want to go back.. It would be a sensible approach and Murty seems the kind of guy who behaves in a professional manner.

It’s a global professional game. We should bring in refs from abroad as ours are not up to scratch. When the refs went on strike the standard rose with their replacements. It would also get rid of the problem of bias.

This game will tell us a lot about the character of some of our players and their leadership capabilities. If any of them hide then they should not be considered for the SF. Alves has done very little overall and I fear he will struggle with the pace of this one but he still has a physical presence. It would be nice if the ref protected players more against this team of thugs but as that is a forlorn hope so our players will need to protect themselves. Perhaps Alves can at least lead the way on that front.

Hearts gave HMRC a penny in the £ deal for a couple of million debt following administration, they spent £30m they didn’t have which then got written off by a Lithuanian bank which was liquidated and lost ordinary Lithuanians their deposits (during that period of financial skullduggery they beat Hibs in the cup final), they paid players in Lithuania to avoid NI contributions and were owned and run by a Lithuanian oligarch type mobster. Perhaps the questioner should have asked Ann Budge what steps Hearts were taking to protect the reputation of their own club based on their own history of financial impropriety. Perhaps the Daily Record should be pointing out Hearts financial record rather than giving credence to the ramblings of one of their fans. You do wonder about the level of fear of Rangers with all of the anti-Rangers press out there these days. Hopefully we will get back to wining major trophies pretty soon and it will be the best of times when it happens. Hopefully dying ‘newspapers’ like the Daily Record won’t be around to report it.

Rarely listen to sportsound for more than 10 mins without having to turn it off. Last night EBT ‘Tommo’ trying to assert himself (presumably after BBC had trained him to stop bending over to Michael Stewart) and making a total erse of it. Kept on interjecting loudly but with nothing to say. Stewart appeared to be humouring him and the louder ‘Tommo’ shouted the more stupid he appeared. It amazes me that an organisation which was loud on exposing tax avoidance openly employs one of the benefits of the EBT scheme using taxpayers money to further feather Thompson’s nest. Mind you I’m sure there are plenty BBC employees or contributors who have their own tax avoidance schemes which go beyond an ISA. In fact I know they do. An organisation steeped in hypocrisy and self esteem.

Probably in a back 3 would be ideal imo but until Jack comes back I’d sit him in front of our car crash central defence and if we dont go to a back 3 stick him in with Alves for the rest of this season. I know Alves hasn’t set the heather slight but he’s far from unknowledgabke and McCrorie could get a lot from a few games beside him.

He looks like a leader in the Rangers of old mould. I think he will galvanise those around him and tell them what’s what if they’re not pulling their weight. Folk have been quite critical of the team since the disappointment of the OF game but with Jack, Dorrans, Murphy, Morelos, Docherty and McRorie there are good players yet to really come together as one team. Throw in Windass, Holt, John and 3 quality signings with similar leadership quality as McRorie it will be possible to stop Celtic. McRorie is still young and needs good quality around him to help him and the team develop.

I had the misfortune of being in his company a few years ago and he came across in private exactly as he does on radio. No one can get a word in edgeways. Very little self awareness. Bag o ‘shite is just about right. His side kick Cowan is a modest enough chap and actually quite likeable and puts on a show on the airwaves whereas with Cosgrove his radio persona really is him.

Thought McBurnie was one of the very few players to get pass marks v CR. If it was a choice between him and Moult it’s an easy decision.

What if your born in an airport compo and that’s the only time you’ve been to that country?