craig

The time to not accept it though Ian is BEFORE the rule becomes legislation - that is the time to fight it. However, once a rule is set and is legislation you have no option but to abide by it. You can still fight it but you don't fight it by simply ignoring the directive. A non-sporting example might be something like the poll-tax - people fought that tooth and nail but once it became legislation they had no real option but to pay it. You can, even then, try to have it abolished but not paying poll-tax wouldn't necessarily accomplish that. To put it in terms of our songs, once UEFA deemed them sectarian we have to abide by that decision and the way to fight that decision is NOT by continuing with the songs - lobbying UEFA would be one way, another very effective way is education - much like what the RST's summer conference is trying to do.

Ian, The point calscot is making is that once the rules are set then you have to abide by them. It was an example of seeing another rule - and then not abiding to it - no matter whether you believe it to be right or not, it is the rule and must be adhered to.

Welcome back Calscot

I agree Ian - best value bet of the coupon this weekend is Georgia !

The system is a JOKE. It was brought in to try to ease up the number of games played and teams end up playing MORE games (went from 36 to 38) AND you don't get just your 2 home and 2 away games. Trust the SPL to screw things up !

Yep Away - lost 2-1 Home - won 3-0 Away - won 2-0

Did the wife give you your weekly allowance for your beer ?

You are making the bold assumption that people even read your posts

Why not play Burke on the left then, having him cut inside ? He also tracks back quite well to help out his defender - we could do worse than play Burke on the left.

Cheeky cnut. I was gonna say Pete as well.

Did you ask Cammy whilst he was lying in bed beside you ?

If it was in Gribz' neck of the woods it would be "phukkim"(as in ladyboy)

I am no master tactician but I reckon that AM will play with Ferguson and Hartley in the "engine room" and I think both of them are creative enough to try to make things happen for Boyd. Have a suspicion Burke might get a game too. I think it will be a 4-4-2. I can't see AM going with a 4-5-1 and certainly not a 3-5-2 at home to Georgia, especially when we really need the win. Anyway, 1am and time for some kip (I said kip, not kippers - that is for Gav and Beattie....). Have a good one Gribz - laters

What pace do we have up front aside from Miller ? I actually liked the way Boyd and Miller linked the last time they played together. I would start with those 2 - I know Miller has been rank this season but all we would ask of him is to do Boyd's donkey work and Boyd will show him the road to goal !

The layout of a squad can also be confusing though Gribz. If you look at the Brazil WC squad (I remember looking at it in disbelief) they only had FOUR strikers listed - reason ? They had guys like Ronaldhino, Kaka etc listed as midfielders - I suppose technically speaking these guys are midfielders but they woule be equally adept at playing up front. We dont have that quality but guys like McCulloch and Scott Brown can both play up front too - so although it looks like 4 strikers you could argue some of the midfielders are there to be back-up strikers. I am giving AM the benefit of the doubt - although I still would have taken Naismith and left one of the defenders behind (or even the keeper).

Re UEFA tournaments I think it is a good start - and it may also be the rod to the back of ALL the supporters (the idiots may stop it as they will no longer get away tickets until the attitude improves AND the good fans will also take action when faced with the ***'ers because they won't want self-imposed sanctions again). I think it is a move in the right direction and I also think that it will be looked upon by UEFA in a positive light AND also show that the club really DO want to rid themselves of the problem (HOWEVER, the club has to do more than this because a self-imposed away ban can also be construed as simply sweeping the problem under the carpet - instead of dealing with the issue just saying "dont give us tickets" is only a short-term solution to a long-term problem (I can already see Cammy steaming into the "short-termism debate )

I think the problem is that AM was going to go with a 25 man squad rather than the full 26 compliment - so to fill the roster he brought Turner in. I don't see that as a problem. To bring in another player for experience would take you down to, effectively, a 24 man squad - and at whose expense ? Personally if it were me and I had an extra slot available for another player I would have brought in Stevie Naismith from Killie - seeing as we have only 4 strikers I would have brought in an extra striker rather than defender. It is all about opinions though.

Could the Trust not contact the financial institutions in London or do they not have contacts with high net worth individuals who would put together a consortium of like-minded people to look at purchasing the club ? I actually am more and more impressed with the professionalism and pro-action of the Trust (not that I wasn't impressed anyway) and am strongly starting to think that the Trust (with various representatives) who should be owning and running OUR football club. If the Trust could somehow muster up the finances (very difficult) it would be very hard indeed for SDM to walk away from the table as, in his words, he will "only sell to someone who has the best interests of the club at heart and who will take the club to the next level". I think the Trust IS that "person". Achievable ??? Who knows, but we could do a whole lot worse than having the Trust being our custodians.

He may not be afraid to shoot but his shooting is worse than his crossing....

What you mention above Ian is EXACTLY the narrow-mindedness that we as Rangers fans are competing against. The UF is a British flag which incorporates the nations of the Union (including the saltire) - yet we have fans from almost EVERY club in the SPL who find it offensive - yet we have, just a few miles across the city, a club who flaunt a flag which has NOTHING to do with our country (whether it be Scotland or Britain) and yet it is NOT deemed offensive. Double standards ? Hypocritical ? You bet. And if you take it a step further you could also call that being anti-British, as many of those who find it offensive do so because they attach the UF to the English. I am actually more annoyed when the English use the UF, not because they are English but because it is not England's national flag.

It will definitely be Gordon - AM won't put that type of risk on the line in his first game IMO. Stick with the experienced guy and if he fails then you cant blame AM for going with the inexperienced guy. Gordon will be the safer bet for AM's first game in charge - even if McGregor is playing better.

Fair point !! Cracking shot though huh ?

Piss off - I tried my best

Can you guys not just kiss and make up ? Go on, you will both be the happier for it (just ask Jon about and my fantasies about him since Juffries posts and the wife being away....)

Del, I can't respond for Jim but there is a difference between being anti-British and pro-Scottish. Jim's comments could be either. You are spot on about the PC mad world - the things is though, we as a support and a club (because the club has to take action too) have to adjust in that changing environment - because make no mistake about it, if we don't collectively move on then our club is DEAD - it really IS that simple.