maineflyer

I think that is an excellent question. I wish I knew the answer.

Loss of CL revenue and the effects of having to sell the few decent players to compensate. Who in their right mind would buy Rangers shares now except out of emotional motivation. The tangible asset value of the club has ebbed away. The trading prospects are going down the toilet. The support is increasingly saying we've had enough. You could buy every share available for the next 100 years and you still wouldn't have a fraction of what's required to influence how the club is run. For the same reasons that Murray cannot hope to sell his shareholding and almost no one was prepared to enter into the last great share issue, I wouldn't add to my shareholding if it was the last investment on earth.

This illustrates all the worst problems at Rangers. Opinion is by invitation only. There is no consultation. Murray chooses a few select individuals, tells them what they want to hear and relies on dependant airheads like Templeton to say the right words on record. Who does Templeton represent? Who empowered him to speak on my behalf? But the rest of the world reads this crap and assumes this is what the general support thinks. Why is it at such odds with what I've been reading on various forums all week and hearing from fellow bears? Appease and deflect. Appease and deflect. Even the inference that supoorters representatives had travelled from the other side of the world for a meeting with the chief. FFS!

Have you ever seen anything more certain. Cuellar has been brilliant for Rangers, the best I've seen in years, but I doubt we will see him in a Rangers shirt again. He's gone, end of.

Who knows? However, that seems to be the latest gossip.

Will Middlesborough allow Boyd to play?

I certainly have no time for the chairman. The rest of the board are irrelevant. I have great respect for what the manager achieved in the past but he certainly isn't what we need right now. He is however all we're likely to get while Murray is in charge. Rangers are still under the most appalling financial constraints - Murray probably cannot afford to sell, whether he wants to or not, and it would take a share purchase at about twice the current value to bale out the debt Murray Sports carries on behalf of Rangers, which just isn't going to happen. We have a chairman who can no longer deliver success while others perhaps could - but we simply cannot get rid of Murray unless he is prepared to swallow a great deal of the debt associated with Rangers. It's damn nearly a catch 22 situation and the club will never prosper until something very fundamental changes. I don't hate any of the players*, that's just absurd. But we have all had plenty opportunity to see and agree that many of them are either not good enough or are the wrong type of player for the current team's needs. Much of this is down to the Manager. What I want is success on the field. Trophies. Competing with celtic. I just don't see that happening under the current circumstances at Rangers and There appears to be no way out of this mess. You really need to take this seriously. The situation is quite desperate and only tissue paper obscures the cracks. All we have to look forward to is what we see today. This is how it is going to be from now on - there will be no more of what we enjoyed in the 1990's. We're not in the old cycle of domination we used to share with celtic, this is a completely new and perilous reality. At loggerheads with fellow supporters? Not all of them. * Except Kenny Misser

And what? You resent someone voicing an opinion? I thought that was the point of all this. I could well be miles from the mark but I feel strongly about this and feel the need to express what I think is needed. How do we move on if we don't debate? I'm quite prepared to do more than type but this is a place only for words.

Every time we get rid of a manager we face the dilemma of what will the next one be like. I guess that's the uncertainty that inevitably comes with change. The same would obviously be true of a new owner. However, when things are so obviosly going backwards over a number of years, perhaps you just have to take one thing at a time. The issue of whether the next owner will be better or worse than the last is a question that can only be answered after the event. I'm not sure it adds anything constructive to agonise over this in advance, when the identity and performance of said new owner is necessarily unknown. The immediate issue for Rangers is that the current owner appears to have given up the fight altogether and has become a destructive factor in the club. For me the current and urgent requirement is to reverse the decline and that will need Murray to sell and leave. Neither you nor I, or anyone else, can influence the choice of a new owner. That will be determined exclusively by Murray. The shares are his to sell and his alone. He won't be consulting you or I so to conjecture over the merits of possible new owners is in fact pointless and futile. All we as fans can do is see what we have and voice our opinions accordingly. We can also exert a degree of pressure on an owner, especially if we are organised and work together (just ask the president of an Italian or Spanish team if this is the case). I think you will see that pressure being exerted on Murray before too much more time has passed. Finally, I think we are already beaten if we cannot accept the prospect of change simply because we fear a future we cannot see.

Of course, having it and spending it wisely are two different things, as our manager has demonstrated already his summer.

Oh, I get it. The silly sniper on the sidelines trick. Very good.

If Smith plays 4-5-1 tomorrow, he should spend the game with derision ringing in his ears, because he will have shown himself too stupid to continue managing Rangers.

My suggestion is to get of our collective arse and hound Murray until he feels he has to get out of this club. He absolutely IS the limitation to recovery. He simply isn't good enought to do what needs to be done at this rundown club. His role is crucial and he isn't up to the job - as we have seen time and again these last ten years. A good time charlie who courted the public stage when things were going well but has crumpled like a cream puff in adversity. Back him all you like, make excuses for him if you want, but don't pretend he isn't the root of many of our problems. Sure, there are no guarantees for the future but hey, that's life.

No, you still don't get it. No money went into the club. What happened was that debt went out of the club. The only way that the removal of debt could be used by the club is if it made it possible to go out again and borrow from the banks, which would have been ludicrous. The debt still exists, it just exists elsewhere. This transfer of debt had nothing whatsoever to do with funding the club and the club benefited from it not one iota. It was about addressing previous mistakes that Murray had made, not about putting anything into the club. That debt was simply exchanged for shares. Either way, the club had nothing to show for it that cpould be used to buy players or even a pot of paint for the scabby parts of the stadium. It is a complete fallacy that Murray has put any money into Rangers. What he did was to manipulate debt in order to increase his shareholding in the club - a shareholding that has value - value that now desides in Murray's business empire rather than in the club or its other shareholders. What is it about this that you cannot get your head round?

No, the point is that he got Rangers shares in return for that money and when he (God willing) sells those shares, he will get all of that money back - so he has put none of that money into the club. What he did was transfer debt. The club received nothing from David Murray, you really need to understand this. Anything that Murray has done for this club has cost him not one penny. And when he sells, all of the value will go into his (company's)pocket.

Sad? Not at all. I didn't want him at Rangers. He'll never be considered a Rangers player by this bear. I want him as far from Ibrox as his renown stamina can take him. Unfortunately, we won't ever get our �£2m back, it has gone forever, wasted. I just hope he's not out of the team for anything trivial. Perhaps he doesn't fancy the welcome he was going to get from the away support?

I think you're confused. I'm not chairman of Rangers. It's therefore not my job to find the right manager. It is however the chairman's responsibility. That's what a chairman does. If we haven't had the right managers then you need to start thinking about why that is.

No he hasn't - not a penny that I'm aware of. What money are you talking about?

January wasn't the right time to sell Hutton either in a reconstruction season when we could have guaranteed �£10m by winning the league - but Dodgy Dave did it anyway. Well, what does the Rangers mean to him beyond the balance sheet. Surely you wouldn't really be surprised if Cuellar is sold in the next week? Not when you've seen it all before.

You're going to seriously challenge some of the spineless ones with stuff like that. I mean, you just come right out with the truth to people who have spent their formative years swallowing lie after lie from the Great Guardian. There will be a few having nightmares if you keep that up. Some folks can't handle anything as potent as the truth.

What do YOU expect from them?

Miller out - not all bad news from Ibrox then.

Perfect response. Couldn't say better than that. (that's sarcasm by the way)

The RST has been nothing but a manipulated deflection that has achieved sfa and will in future do no different. We have no united voice, just more disunited organisations than any group of fans deserves. No one hears the supporter at this club and I suspect it will be some time yet before the pain is bad enough to galvanise the serially apathetic. Until then we will continue to slide in the same way we can all see these last few years.

No he wasn't and that's why he left. He might have been a credible manager before he came to Rangers but for whatever reason he could bring that credibility with him. The facts are clear. The chairman's responsibility is to identify, appoint and resource a manager who will bring sustainable success on the field. In the case of PLG, Murray clearly failed to do this. What could be less ambiguous? I'm not biting at this old chestnut of "you can't pin everything on Murray". No one is trying to do that. What I am prepared to do is pin his failings on him, unlike so many who can see no wrong in anything Murray does, I think he has generally been bad for Rangers and it's certainly getting worse. Why shouldn't we be able to voice dissatisfaction with Murray where it's due, without being wrongly accused of blaming him for everything. It appears to me you are defending him against something that just isn't there.