maineflyer

I can't agree. It may be wearing his heart on his sleeve but it's fundamentally political and has no place on the field of play. By not allowing him to wear the armband, he is not being prevented from disclosing his views. He only plays 90 minutes most weeks, which leaves a lot of time for him to express his politics. But not in a Rangers shirt for my liking. What would your views be if (say) Steve Davis wanted to wear a black armband every week and told the press it was to commemorate those members of the loyalist Ulster community killed by the IRA? Where's the difference?

It's impossible to be sure about your first point, at least without reading Murray's mind. He SHOULD be desperate to sell the club and he MAY be coming to that conclusion. I agree on the second point. It is inconceivable that nothing would have leaked had Murray ever conducted serious discussions with a buyer or buyers. In which case of course, he would be guilty of overtly lying to every supporter of the club.

RANGERS ace Madjid Bougherra plans to wear a black armband at today's game in protest at the bloodshed in Gaza. The SFA say he won't be let on the pitch wearing anything political but the devout Muslim insisted that he doesn't care if he is fined for trying to make his point make in the Rangers v Falkirk game at Ibrox. He added that he'd refuse to play against an Israeli team in Europe. The Algerian defender explained: "As a Muslim, I am deeply touched by the barbarity that has been suffered by our Palestinian brothers and sisters. "I hope we will soon find a lasting solution to enable the Palestinian people to live like everyone else. Everyone must make a gesture about this. "I will wear a black armband as a sign of mourning and protest. I want people to know I do not agree with what is happening in Gaza and throughout Palestine. All Muslim players must make a gesture." He praised Seville striker Freddy Kanoute who was fined for revealing a T-shirt with a message of support to Palestine after scoring against Deportivo La Coruna this week. But an SFA spokesman stressed that FIFA rules must be obeyed and said: "Players are not allowed to wear anything - out with their kit - with a personal or political slogan. "If any player does wear anything which is deemed inappropriate, he won't be allowed on to the field of play." A spokesman from Rangers FC refused to comment. But Mick Napier, chairman of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign welcomed the move. He said: "We, like the majority of the Scottish people, support the Scottish Government who have expressed disgust at the situation in Gaza. We praise players like Bougherra." Philip Mendelsohn, president of the Glasgow Jewish Representative Council, said: "We would not seek to stop anyone expressing their personal views. "But we'd look to those with influence, such as Mr Bougherra, to ensure his actions can't be misconstrued and damage local inter-communal relations." Andy Kerr, president of the Rangers Supporters Assembly, said: "He is an employee of Rangers Football Club and would have to adhere to club policies." The Ranger Supports Trust refused to comment last night. So why are the RST refusing to comment? Don't like the hard questions or just run out of jaffa cakes? Pathetic.

Murray says repeatedly that he will only sell to someone who he (Murray) believes has Rangers best interests at heart. All very laudable until you realise that he has never once been persuaded to reveal to us what such a person or group would look like - or what the criteria are by which he is judging potential buyers. The whole thing sound like a complete crock to me. I make no bones about it, like much of the business community in this country, I think Murray is deeply untrustworthy and I do not believe a word of what he has said on this subject. In fact, I'm far from convinced he has ever seriously intended to sell the club thus far. I hope that will soon change.

Anyone can see this is a case of all the old favours being called in. Mediahouse have finally persuaded Murray to listen to them and the orchestrated campaign to influence public opininon is well underway. Yesterday it was Walter "hoping" that criticism of the chairman wouldn't have a negative effect on the team. Today it's Eck's turn. The Sundays will no doubt have numerous old playing hero's leaping to the regime's defence. I expect Murray himself will be persuaded to keep a much lower profile for a short while. Many will buy this nonsense. I just hope most will not.

I love the way you spin the truth. I take it "spent strangely" is a euphemism for made a complete arse of it and blew �£10m that we didn't have. Or perhaps you're thinking of the strangeness of getting knocked out of Europe by a bunch of tradesmen and losing our only financial lifeline - BEFORE buying the new players he later said he badly needed - and then announcing in public that "he saw it coming". I think you might be the one who needs to get real when assessing Smith.

With respect, I think you're missing the point. The suggestions of Jeffries, etc were distinctly tongue in cheek but were raised on the basis that more appropriate managers simply wouldn't touch Rangers with a barge pole these days. No one who raised those names believes for a moment that they are the best people to manage Rangers. If you think Martin Jol or either Laudrup would take the helm at Ibrox then you're in dreamland.

I know the cross you bear, mate.

I wouldn't actually argue with a word you say.

I may be damning Jim Jeffries with feint praise here. Didn't mean to. I actually think he has displayed excellent management credentials over a long number of years and at different clubs too. He seems to have a particular ability to bring through youngsters, which is a rare and valuable asset.

Because he would never be accepted by a large part of the support after the dogs abuse he's ladled in our direction over the last year. If you want unity, Levein won't bring it. If you want a current Scottish manager you'd do worse than Grumpy Jim from Killie, at least he knows the game and doesn't bad mouth Rangers at every opportunity. I wouldn't choose him myself though.

No one of any current stature in the management world would touch the Rangers job and probably won't until there is new ownership to attract them. That's why Walter is in the job today. It would therefore need to be a higher risk candidate and I would suggest Richard Gough - untried perhaps but more of a leader than the likes of McCoist will ever be. Of course, since Gough was never one to toady up to Murray and always chose to say what he thought (a la Souness), the chances of him ever being offered the job are somewhere south of zero.

If Murray had replaced failure with success we would have called it progress and rightly supported his achievement. However, what he did do was inherit success and, gradually at first, turn it into failure. In no way can this be seen as progress and, unless we have very perverse aspirations for Rangers, it is right to challenge and reject this decline and his leadership of it. People point out to me that Murray was capable of success in the past and he could lead us to success again. What is most significant to me is the direction of Murray's tenure and it seems to be consistent throughout - from good to bad, success to failure. I see no meaningful reversals of this trend and no reason to suppose there will be any in future. Success or failure covers a broad range of issues however and I'm deeply concerned about more than what I see on the field of play. Posters have reminded us how bad it was in the Greig years and I also clearly remember the terrible run of the late 1960's and early 1970's. But throughout those low periods it was still possible to stand at Ibrox amongst a support that had yet to be taught to be embarrassed by our traditions - sporting, cultural and religious. If the last twenty years are characterised by anything then, for me, it has been the extinguishing of the Rangers heritage, and unjustified sanitising of a set of values that I felt bound me to every other Rangers supporter and which I felt every time I walked down those old terracings. I hold Murray personally responsible for betraying what was built by better men and women over the 115 years before he appeared on the scene. They did so because they wanted to be part of the Rangers world and were rightly proud of it. In contrast, he bought the club for what it would do for him, that seems abundantly clear. And in the process has done much more lasting and essential damage than threatening to sell Kris Boyd. Rangers was a more united and tighter community before Murray and I greatly regret the passing of what were infinitely happier times, even during periods of failure on the park.

Really good OP. You have to see these comments by Walter as a premeditated rallying call at Murray's behest. The only thing I saw that wasn't entirely predictable is that he says we have a financial problem, which might be a little at odds with what his chairman was saying only yesterday. I feel sorry for Walter. He's a bloody hopeless manager and is now reduced to grovelling for his master's benefit. Total loss of pride, waiting for laughing boy to be given his job.

I think there is very little chance that Boyd will still be a Rangers player on February 1st. He's well and truly in the shop window and there are many clubs that need what Boyd has got. He'll be sold. Birmingham was only a sideshow.

I still don't understand how it is possible that "we" can be careful about who we end up with, when "we" have absolutely no possible role in the selection. We might be able to influence Murray's willingness to sell but never who he sells to. Since you have faith in Murray to get that right, there is obviously nothing to worry about. Our main problem is not Walter Smith, it has to be the guy who brought a dinosaur like Walter back to the club. Responsibility lies where the buck stops and that certainly isn't Walter Smith.

It would seriously piss me off if a talent like Fleck is sold before even getting a chance to contribute to the club. If this really is the reason behind Smith's recent conversion to giving youth a chance then it represents a whole new low as far as I'm concerned.

That was the figure quoted but I'm convinced it must have been a typo. There is no chance of anyone making a first offer of over �£7m for Kris Boyd.

Walter has just spent two years being Walter. Whatever the reason for this latest statement he's almost certainly working to someone's else's agenda.

I would think it must be in that bracket somewhere. Which seems an appalling sum of money for someone who cannot get a game.

I don't remember hearing what wage he was on - does anyone happen to know? I imagine it will be considerable.

Thanks. I love intelligent satire and I'm forever in your debt for that.

Proud to put my name to a post like that. Murray is no longer a credible answer to the needs of Rangers and is clearly unable to provide the leadership the club requires. Signed

A Capucho-esque waste of time in the SPL. What was on Walter's mind when he signed him?

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see an announcement coming before the end of January that Walter is stepping and McCoist is taking over. It would be a bit ahead of plan for Murray but he is starting to look like he needs something to deflect attention and I don't see new players being signed this time. It would be a classic Murray move and if the heat stays on him for a another week or so I can see this happening.