maineflyer

It's a matter of tradition and you know how important tradition is at Rangers. Aaron is fortunate to be one of this season's traditional mystery signings who will make no contribution and will return to whence he came with our money in his pocket. I believe there is already a long queue forming to land this coveted role for next season and it currently consumes much of Mr Smith's time.

Let's hope this isn't true because I'd hate Pedro to be faced with a decision between Smith and Rednapp.

Final proof, as if it was needed, that Walter Smith is leading Rangers up yet another blind alley of failure and frustration. Charlie Adam has fluffed and stuttered his way through every game he's been involved in these last two seasons. If Charlie's ability matched his ego we would have nothing to complain about - but it doesn't. How like Smith to attack the support rather than judge the player on what every one of us can see with our own eyes.

The reason you're right to say you might be wrong is that neither you nor anyone else can point to a shred of evidence to support any of the claims you make for McCoist. You know nothing about his relationship with the players. You know nothing about his abilities as a tactician. You have no real knowledge of his perception of midfield requirements. In fact all you have a basis for claiming is that he has been a great goalscorer in the past and part of a successful dressing room for a sustained period. Hell, even now we have little idea what his contribution as a number two might be - like much of what comes out of Ibrox these days, McCoist is evaluated purely at tabloid level and that is hardly enough to judge anyone. And surely that's the whole point about McCoist. We know almost nothing about his abilities because he is entirely untried. Everyone who supports his appointment as manager does so on the basis of hope alone. I happen to think that the selection of a Rangers manager should be based on a little more than wishful thinking. Hope alone doesn't do it for me. I'd like to see a Rangers manager chosen on the basis of known ability, some kind of track record that at least allows people like you to support him from a platform of knowledge rather than speculation. Try to take your heart out of this and give your head a chance. Rangers have won two out of the last eight titles so this is hardly the time for us to be basing managerial selection on what someone achieved as a player more than eleven years ago and who has devoted most of his energies to pursuing TV celebrity status during the period since. McCoist MAY be a good manager but it is blatant irresponsibility to assume he will be without him ever demonstrating he can achieve results at a club like Rangers. What particularly worries me is that Murray seems willing to gamble like this with Ranger's future. Does he really have so little concern about our success that he is prepared to appoint McCoist as manager? Or is it just that this would give him sufficient distance from criticism to meet his personal needs?

What "others" are those then? Smiling, joking, needing to be loved?

A daft idea ...... unless anyone actually thinks McCoist is the best manager Rangers could attract. If that is the case then we're beyond help anyway.

That's not quite how I see it. I have no expectations of David Murray at all and his battles are of no interest to me. However, I do expect the chairman of Rangers to fulfill the duties that go with the office. The failure to consistently and vigourously act in the interests of the club is, in my opinion, why Murray has never been the best man for the job. I can't for the life of me understand the purpose of his recent statements. It makes no sense to fight battles you cannot possibly hope to win or from which you cannot be certain of extracting some tangible gain. Reid is very bad news indeed and has undoubtedly introduced a much more partisan and aggressive element into the relationship between the two clubs. If Murray cannot get serious he will be eaten alive by Reid. And what good will that do for Rangers?

I see what I've always seen. The chairman of Rangers hiding behind David Murray's silly ego. Has there ever been a more ineffectual figurehead at the club than Murray? Somethimes I think he simply doesn't understand the world that Rangers inhabits. It would have been a good deal less embarrassing had he just said nothing because Reid's reply leaves him with only the options of escalating, which he will not face, or backing down with his tail between his legs, which he certainly will do.

Yer just a bogit

Why apologise? It's just a word and as far as I know it's not yet mandatory to observe the dictats of feenyin propaganda.

A bit risky for the SFA surely. A minutes silence from the Tawdry Army for a Rangers man?

Agreed, he's clearly not got a future at Ibrox and we tend to carry far too many expensive passengers as it is.

The best man on the park was Bougherra. Miller was indeed awful but midfield continues to inhibit this team with no forward penetration, no width and a complete absence of ambition. The worst performance by some distance came from Walter Smith, the man who told us after we were canned by Kaunas that "he could see that coming". 75 minutes and he makes the last substitution we needed but the one we all knew he would make. Utterly uninspiring and predictable management. Aberdeen, St Mirren, Dundee Utd, Motherwell ......... who's next to show up the weakness that pervades this team.

A very astute member of the Vanguardbears website. It is such a good piece of writing that Cammy has done a service by posting it here. I read it earlier today and felt it was one of the best pieces I've read in a long time.

What changes will those be then? Charlie Adam? Chris Burke? Lee McCulloch, The Invisible Velicka?

Sadly you're right. However, just why Smith felt he had to come out and state the obvious is beyond me. Does he really think either the players concerned or the fans are unaware of the situation?

The number of fans taking part in forums like this is tiny. However, it is not unusual to see these sites act as a catalyst for ideas that find themselves spread and debated amongst a much wider audience. I suppose the extent to which you notice a difference in opinions over time may be a function of the social circles you move in but I remain convinced there has been an erosion of the sense of infallibility that our chairman used to command amongst so much of the Rangers support. There will always be an unquestioning rump but it has definitley diminished over the last couple of years in particular, a trend that is hardly likely to be reversed.

Little did I realise how privileged I was in the 1960's to be watching Davie Wilson and Willie Henderson on the same park. Truly great wingers who could both make and score goals. Only Brian Laudrup, Davie Cooper and perhaps Bud Johnston have filled the void since then - not many in 40 years - which shows how precious these people were and why they should be cherished like few others. By comparison, DMB and Chris Burke are mere imposters.

Just not the type of player you bring to the SPL and I hate to say it but DMB illustrates yet again the bizarre signing selections made by recent management regimes. He definitely has skill but he wants more time and a whole lot less attention that the SPL affords. A bit of a Capucho when it comes to being tackled. If we had a chance to recover anything like we paid for him I would bite that hand off to take it.

You are hitting part of the head of the nail here. However, while I cannot see the whole picture, the relationship between MD and Murray is more complex and intertwined than first meets the eye. I hope debate will be allowed on this subject since MD is not just the owner of another Rangers forum, which might introduce some sensitivity, but has also been one of the central characters in the RST and in an ongoing, semi-clandestine dialogue with Murray over the last few years. Any involvement of Murray in that website is also hugely relevant to every other Rangers forum on the web. The ebb and flo of that particular relationship is intriguing and seems to show that both parties continue to depend on each other to a lopsided extent, while simutaneously despising that very dependency. Murray has has certainly attempted to influence the running of FF with a combination of sticks and carrots and has succeed in the large part, with continual censorship purges on selected topics and some areas of debate relentlessly denied and removed on the basis of subject rather than content. That this often followed "meetings" is no coincidence. However, such self-censorship, however manipulated, must involve at least some compliance and underlying aspiration - and I've never believed that the relationship was entirely confrontational. Exactly what it is remains well hidden and it's not immediately obvious to me exactly who spins what. Personally, I haven't visited that particular website for a very long time and have little interest in how it chooses to run its affairs. But the provision of facilities for the free expression of opinion on Rangers matters is important to me, as is any attempt by the club to coerce or intimidate that opinion, whether here or elsewhere. Murray clearly seeks to control and influence but well-moderated forums such as this probably offer much less purchase than others and it is hard to see how he can actually succeed. I have seen a quiet but profound shift in the wider attitude towards the chairman during the last year or so, with opinion hardening, not on his historic contribution but more importantly on the prospective value of his methods and his ability to move the club forward. Partly this is due to the further passage of time and the fact that people have sufficient memory to recognise the repetitious failures, and partly it is because the open exchange of opinion on forums like this allows knowledge to grow and propaganda to be weakened. I think Murray now increasingly sees the lack of space around him and it must be a concern. Fewer fans than ever are willing to be spun and deflected, and there may soon come a time when the attitutes of even more moderate supporters will harden dramatically towards Murray. The AGM outburst and the ridiculous compromising of Walter Smith that followed show me that Murray realises this.

The only way the SPL trophy will cross the city is if we impose sustained pressure on celtic with consistent results. Sadly, there is absolutely no sign to date that this can or will be achieved. Poor buying decisions pre-season and baffling team selection and substitution strategies continue to undermine our title challenge. It's only my opinion of course but actual results do tend to bear this out. We remain as erratic and unsettled as we were last season, with an entrenched Walter Smith still showing no sign that he actually knows what his best team is. I really don't enjoy being so critical and when more than the veneer at Ibrox changes, I will be delighted to stop. The January window will decide the league title - unless we shift some deadwood and finally sort out this team so that we can both defend and score goals, it will undoubtedly become four in a row. Which will be an unmitigated disgrace. I fear we are looking at 2 titles in nine years, with the rebuilding process stalled and all the money gone again. One hell of a mess if it does turn out that way. No doubt it will be those nasty internet wallahs who are to blame.

A really good OP. That needed saying and gives much needed clarity to an increasingly worrying situation. The points made about money and competition are quite superb.

A dim, vague and pointless statement. Just what is this sectarian bile that he speaks of, this description that is bandied about as if it actually meant something, as if it had entered the social lexicon because Mr Murray had willed it. What does it mean? Which words does it apply to - are they the ones directed at Murray or at the ever-more-incredible hypocrisy of the MOPES who have attached themselves to Celtic Football Club? It is entirely typical of Murray that he should throw his non-insubstantial weight around without first having properly identified the target or the exact cause of his distress. The behaviour since the dawn of time of people who feel the need to be in charge but can't or don't want to take the time to get the details right. I make no secret of the fact that I despise David Murray's performance as chairman of Rangers. Am I one of his 40? Do I spout this "sectarian bile"? I've had the odd thing dribble down my chin from time to time but I honestly couldn't say if it was bile, sectarian or otherwise. How do I or others know if we are being accused by the Great Leader of breaking the laws of this land - or just that we're in danger of permeating the faalse veneer of his questionable performance? If just for once David Murray would risk being specific or risk (as almost all posters rightly say above) defending the abundant good in the Rangers community, how much more unified and progressive might this club have become? How did that man ever manager to raise children? David Murray has finally become the clear focus for stupidity and ill-judged policy at this great club, more concerned with his own reputation and the ability to walk away with bulging pockets than on implementing sustainable improvement and implementing meaningful strategies that he clearly hasn't even bothered to formulate. I felt when I landed in this forum that more than a few members thought I was intent only on becoming a disruptive influence and that I was irrationally anti-Murray. With such statements as we've heard recently, I just hope that Murray himself has gone some way to explain better than I can why he will never be the right man to be Chairman of Rangers. The alternative? There's always an alternative.

I'd like to think every supporter of every club in Scotland would endorse those sentiments. Unfortunately there may be some dissenters.

Where does this quote come from?