Bill

That certainly seemed to be what Clement was hinting at in his interview. I took him to mean that our players are too thick to think for themselves so we'll work at routines until they don't have to.

It has nothing to do with the difference between English or Scots (whatever that is). I see it now creeping into speech south of the border too. It's really just part of our poor education system and lazy speech.

I've felt for a long time that the dressing room suffers from a malign influence and suspect the removal of a couple of individuals could go a long way to solving the problem.

I have often spoke my mind on this subject but I've gave up trying to convert the natives to basic English. I've went the extra mile but I've came to the conclusion there's no helping these poor people. They've wrote and they've spoke this way for so long that I've grew weary trying and failing. I have now fell into despond and I've took to ignoring it.

The usual sanitised first interview but if he has really done his homework he will know there are some eggs to be broken

Another complete non-story in an endless line of complete non-stories that drip from the gutter press

Is there a rule that says Kirsty Howatt can't turn out for the men's team?

He'll need a magic wand to sort out Beale's duds that quickly. We might have a new manager but it's the old one that's going to have most influence on the next couple of months at least.

Despite the clear and obvious failings of previous managerial appointments, I think no one should be criticising the board for their efforts this time. This is no lazy experiment driven by old-boy association. They've flushed out as high a calibre of manager as we could reasonably have hoped for. I hope, as the months pass, we see a significant improvement in the fairly lacklustre squad he's been left to work with. However, it takes a dedicated optimist to think some of our duds will ever perform to expectations.

At least the search for a manager has filled the usual void of a pointless international break. Why can't the SFA offer permanent central contracts to players like cricket does and stop taking players away from clubs. International football can compete for players like everyone else and stop leaching off the clubs?

I imagine the board has to keep both parties engaged until a deal is quietly finalised. Hence why nothing can be leaked about either candidate being favoured over the other, just in case the intended deal falls through at the final hurdle. I'm beginning to think the board is exercising better process this time but time, as always, will tell. Is it even possible this could be the difference between Robertson and Bisgrove and between Park and Bennett?

Thing is, it's not just Rangers making offers for the candidates to accept or reject. Clement and Muscat will also be making counter proposals for Rangers to assess. Back and forth until everyone's position is as clear as possible ... only then can an informed decision be made.

I don't see any reason for coming to that conclusion.

It's inconceivable the board hasn't selected their target by now but tying down a deal is another matter altogether. In any case, things wouldn't have got this far unless all parties believed an agreement was possible and I think an announcement can't be far away. That will be the time to leave behind the despair of the Beale era and adopt a renewed air of optimism, however temporary it might be 🥳

Manager fatigue? 😂

Or a neither? Or maybe it's only a bit of fun and not to be taken so seriously we can't bring ourselves to take a view. 😉

It's interesting that 54 members voted in the poll about sacking Beale but only 22 (so far) appear to give a shit whether Muscat or Clement take the reins. In fact more people voted against sacking Beale than have voted for Muscat and Clement combined. Clearly, we are far more concerned with the past than the future.

The Phantom seldom makes serious tweets, so I wouldn't imagine this one is anything but tongue in cheek.

I don't think anyone can predict a timescale for this, since it's a process involving multiple parties and there's no guarantee any offer will be accepted or how vigorously agents will negotiate. I'm sure by now the board would like this settled every bit as much as we do. Btw there's a lot of talk about the board having split opinions but I've seen not a shred of evidence to support this.

I've felt the same way for some considerable time. I suspect there's some quiet poison in our dressing that's been wielding more influence than our managers and pulling in completely different directions.

It's important to remember this is just football. There's always a light on the horizon and hope has to spring eternal. The really dressing stuff is what's going on in Israel and in human trafficking or drugs gangs.

How he ever came to manage Rangers is hard to fathom but, to be fair, he was a disaster of his own making. I've no doubt the board appointed Beale with the best of intentions - y'know the stuff that paves the road to hell. Their big mistake was thinking good intent was a substitute for sound decision making. Turns out it was a huge mistake. Gerrard was a decent appointment at the time, no doubt. Van Bronckhorst wasn't a bad appointment in itself, it just didn't work out in the end and that happens at all clubs. But the decision to appoint Beale was just reckless.

Well I feel a sense of renewal with either Muscat or Clement. It might turn out to be misplaced but these look like the people we should have been appointing after Gerrard. It might take a year or two but I think these two will take us a long way forward. It's all about the quality of the individual and they both make the appointment of Beale look ridiculous. Let's go.

I've tried to remember what it was back in 1997 or 1998 that signalled a change in Murray's attitude to Rangers ... but it's now lost to me. Whatever it was I do remember thinking Murray had become a liability rather than the asset he undoubtedly had been. Maybe he just grew bored with the kudos of owning Rangers. The reckless spending that came with Advocaat's arrival was the clearest indication he was on a course to destroy Rangers and when he couldn't find a buyer, the inevitable was locked in. That he continued to receive blind support right up to the end should be a lasting memorial to the dangers of group think.

Is that the same as saying you think he should still be Rangers’ manager.