maineflyer

Would it make SPL lives any easier if the other 11 clubs just agreed now to concede the title to Celtic, thereby removing any need to play more than a reasonable number of games between now and the scheduled end of the season, while removing the unnecessary pressure of pretence from media and administrators alike? After all the signals have been clear enough these last few years that Scottish football is is run and reported chiefly for the benefit of our Oirish immigrant community. Why are we continuing to swim against this tide of preference? Perhaps if they win twenty SPL titles in a row they'll grow bored of it and fuck off to infest someone else's midden.

I looked at the topic title and assumed Wabash was back.

That, as they say, is the natue of the bheast.

When you replace a manager you look to do one of two things in the process. You either select someone who will maintain a desirable status quo or you choose someone who will deliberately bring change and improvement. Obviously, if things are going well and you are enjoying success then you want more of the same. On the other hand, if things are not going so good then you want to lead things in a very different direction. All of which is hardly rocket science. So what does Rangers need? More of the same or a new direction? And the answer to that simple question is the reason why McCoist cannot be the choice after Walter Smith. The club is crying out for regeneration, a new start, that only new blood can bring. Fail to do that and we will waste a huge opportunity.

When someone tries to sit in judgement of you like that the best response is never to feel you have to explain or justify yourself. When they stoop to questioning your username you know for sure it doesn't deserve a response. only my opinion of course.

We'll win the replay.

I'd punt him or any other player if we could replace them with better. No problem. But to suggest punting decent players when there is currently no chance of replacing them is just daft. What good does it do? Losing him for the rest of the season clearly isn't good news at all, in fact it's bloody awful news in our situation. Having said that, there are times when I'd gladly punt Whittaker tomorrow without any fear diminishing our chances. He must now be challenging Olivier Bernard as our worst post-war fullback. Of course then there's Davis, who clearly abandoned all interest last September. Or Edu, who ... well I really don't know what his role in the team is because I've never actually seen him do it. Then there's Papac .... or did he leave in January?

That's the VB filter at work. Most appropriate too.

Well done Cammy ... and Mrs Cammy too of course!

D'you mean The Manchild bits?

This latest NOTW claptrap copied from VB. Not one attributed statement, perfectly timed and almost certainly as honest and accurate as everything else that arse wipe of a newspaper comes out with. You just knew they wouldn't let this weekend pass without something like this. Should be lapped up by the mopes, as they knew it would be. New threats to Celtic boss mean his house is under police guard Exclusive by Graham McKendry, Scottish Crime Reporter February 6, 2011 CELTIC manager Neil The Manchild's home will be under police guard today after the News of the World uncovered a fresh Loyalist terror plot against him. Thugs from Northern Ireland, who have already posted bullets to the Parkhead boss, have planned an attack on The Manchild's plush house and car during the Scottish Cup Old Firm clash. But cops will now be waiting at the property after we uncovered the chilling threat. Last night a senior police source confirmed: "Everything that needs to be done is being done. "This lot are not going to go away. They planned to do the house and car today knowing The Manchild would be at the game." Although The Manchild would be at Ibrox, his partner Irene McCloy, 34, and their five-year- old son Gallagher could have been at the house in Glasgow's west end "All of this is designed to terrify him and his family. They are determined to land some sort of result," said our police insider. The new threat comes after militant members of the UDA posted bullets to The Manchild and two of his players following a bust-up with fans after Celtic's 2-0 victory over Rangers at Ibrox on January 2. The trouble flared when the 39-year-old Hoops boss refused to shake hands with Gers ace Kyle Lafferty. He then clashed with fans as he left the pitch. Among those fans was a senior UDA member. The thug - third in command behind brigadier Billy "The Mexican" McFarland, who controls North Antrim and Londonderry - then plotted to terrify The Manchild. The inspiration has come from the way footballers' homes have been targeted by housebreakers in Manchester in Liverpool Our source said: "There is no way the Mexican isn't aware of the plot. Those involved are his men, and he keeps a tight rein on them. Bottom line is that they are still furious about the bust-up last month." The idea for the latest threat came from match day raids on football stars' homes down south. Among the break-in victims was Scotland star Darren Fletcher, whose Cheshire mansion was targeted in 2009 while he played for Manchester United. The source added: "The inspiration has come from the way footballers' homes have been targeted by housebreakers in Manchester in Liverpool." We revealed last month how the UDA thugs sent bullets through the post after The Manchild's clash with fellow Ulsterman Lafferty, 23. Detectives in Scotland and Northern Ireland have stayed in contact as they probe the bullet packages, which were also dispatched to Celtic players Pat McCourt, 27, and Niall McGinn, 23. McCourt has made the squad for today's Scottish Cup fifth round clash, although McGinn missed out. Details of the latest plot have been shared by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Strathclyde cops and Celtic security chiefs. The highly-placed police insider added: "There is no way we will put up with people coming to Scotland and targeting Neil The Manchild or anyone else. "The information is being taken very seriously indeed and this sort of thuggery will be dealt with robustly. "They'd be fools to go anywhere near the property now that we're aware of their plans. There will be a determined effort to track down those involved. Mr The Manchild, and anyone else for that matter, should not have to live under a cloud of fear and intimidation." Celtic chiefs also slammed the plot and insisted they would continue to do everything possible to protect their manager. A spokesperson for the club said: "Neil has the full support of everyone at the club. "Clearly, any right-minded person would condemn such threats and the club will rightly treat this issue with the utmost seriousness." The bullet plot is not the first time The Manchild has been the target of intimidation and violence. In 2002 the Northern Ireland captain quit international football after receiving a death threat. In 2008 he was attacked in Glasgow's west end by two Rangers fans, who were later jailed for two years each. Last night The Manchild's agent Martin Reilly confirmed that security had been stepped up. He revealed: "All threats are taken seriously and as a result of recent events we have had to take appropriate action." A spokesperson for Strathclyde Police added: "The appropriate measures will be put in place." Meanwhile Celtic fans sparked controversy ahead of today's Old Firm clash by setting up hate sites against new Rangers signing El Hadji Diouf - who once spat on a Hoops fan while playing for Liverpool.

We don't need a supporter in the boardroom and might actually find it weakens our ability to challenge the board when it's necessary. What we need is fans to stop looking for a person or group to do what ordinary fans could and should do for themselves.

Good to see a healthy degree of scepticism about what seems merely the latest in a long long line of unsubstantiated half truths. Only one thing is for damned sure .... if this has been done by Murray or the Bank, it won't have been done for the benefit of Rangers or it's fans. Neither, I suspect, should anyone make too many assumptions about the effect any such move will have on the sale of the club. If it actually happens though, Donald Muir may yet turn out to be the one responsible for removing this particular cross from us.

This was posted on RM by the Rabbit......... It seems that one of the main sticking points of any potential takeover by Craig Whyte may have been resolved in the past few days. The Daily Records Gary Ralston is reporting that the responsibility for the impending HMRC tax case has been taken as the responsibility of Murray International Holdings and Lloyds and not that of Rangers Football Club. The story reports that Craig Whyte is on the verge of finishing his due diligence and should be on schedule to make a bid for the club sometime soon. The HMRC problem comes from Rangers' use of controversial remuneration trusts, where players were paid using offshore trusts. There are differing reports of what this would mean, however a sum of around �£24 million seems to be the common denominator for monies being saught. If the �£24million was to be demanded from HMRC then it would effectively double the existing debt owed by the club. The pending tax case was due to be settled at the end of last year, however it was delayed until the middle of 2011 and believed to be completed towards the end of the year. Craig Whyte's bid had seemed to have been dead in the water as the different timescales and deadlines that he set for himself had came and gone with no movement. However it does now appear that there are movements happening that will facilitate a deal for the club, including movement of Sir David Murray's shares. One name that seems to have dropped off the radar completely is It is now believed however that MIH and Lloyds are willing to relinquish Rangers responsibility for the �£24 million in order to facilitate a sale which would allow Whyte to plan the minutiae of his takeover bid, which he is confident of now completing by March. Whyte has insisted that should he gain control of the club, he would make �£5million per year available for the manager of the club, who he expects to be Ally McCoist. Any sale has further been made easier as some trading of Rangers shares yesterday saw director Dave King consolidate his 5% share holding of the club through his company Metlika. Previously King hadn't owned shares of Rangers directly, his �£20 million investment was in Murray Sports Ltd, however this now means that King has direct ownership of his 5% of shares and perhaps more importantly, Murray's 85% ownership can be more easily sold.

No, a takeover WOULD increase ST sales and I've no issue with that. It would also allow me to return to Ibrox for the first time in years. The problem we have faced year after year is ST sales being inflated by empty promises and deliberately false dawns.

If we're to believe some parts of the media today, MIH and Lloyds Bank have freed Rangers from any liability in the event HMRC imposed tax penalties as a result of current investigations. If true, and it seems to be, there really should now be no obstacle to a genuinely interested buyer and a genuinely intent seller. The only question should be whether we have either of these in play at the moment. If we do, surely a deal should be announced within weeks and npt delayed to bolster season ticket sales.

Like too many, you're determined to find something that just isn't there, something to hang your emotions on. The simple fact is that players who turn in dreadful performances on a regular basis get criticized, that's all, where's the problem? There is no witch hunt against players for other reasons. The proof you're wrong lies in the speed with which under performing players always recover the support of their detractors as soon as they start playing well again .. Alan Hutton being a perfect example from your list. The boring truth is that fans almost always criticize play, not players. Whittaker IS playing very poorly on a regular basis and his play deserves to be criticised. Charlie Adam may be the darling of the EPL but his form before leaving Rangers was two notches south of shite and he also deserved all the stick he got. By the same token, I've never seen a previously unpopular player fail to recover his popularity as soon as he performed well. Rangers fans respond to the form of their players, not the other way around. Of course, those who have previously worn the green and grey should have no place at Rangers and deserve all the shit they get, independent of form.

I don't remember Frank Rijkaard being demonized in this way by those moral guardians aka the Scpttish media. Funny that.

Sure is, which isn't exactly a disaster but it does weaken us even more. This sort of thing is what will likely screw us in the end.

Rangers fans defending the work of Andrew Smith. He would piss himself if he knew.:sad:

I saw this on article on Yahoo but believe it was originally posted on Eurosport.com ...... not sure who penned it and won't claim there's much new but thought I'd share it anyway. Edit - seems it was written by one Desmond Kane (oh dear?) Rangers Pay the Price for Murray's Self-indulgence A fool and his money are soon parted. To leaders suffering from hubris, such a proverb can prove to be gruesomely true. As a spectacle, the game of football continues to contain an innate ability to reduce sober-suited, profitable businessmen to regretful rags. Sir Alan Sugar continues to be depicted as a wise old sage on television programmes such as The Apprentice, but the barrow boy from London's East End who discovered a a beach of gold after founding the Electronics firm Amstrad in the 1960s, never managed to use his gumption in avoiding the unique pitfalls of football. The world game remains a forum where can you can squander millions of your personal fortune for the love of one club, and continue to be booed by its supporters when you return. There have never been any laws of logic governing the fundamentals of football. Sugar conveyed the message that he viewed his period as the controller of Tottenham Hotspur in the 1990s as a waste of his time. "Football is about the only business in the world where it's embarrassing to make money," said Sugar. Football is not the only business in the world where it is embarrassing to lose your bread, but it can prove to be the most painful. The dearth of funds affecting Glasgow Rangers, champions of Scotland over the past two seasons, would be embarrassing if it was not so serious. As chairman of a club in the English Premier League, Sugar made money on his controlling interest in Spurs when he sold up a decade ago. He received Ã?£22 million for two thirds of a stake that he paid Ã?£8m for in 1991. Sir David Murray, the owner of Rangers in the Scottish Premier League, put up around Ã?£6m for the Glasgow club three years earlier, but looks likely to be left with nothing more than a series of gilded and galling memories when he finally departs a scene he has been trying to escape with some urgency for several years. He will be left bereft of vast financial rewards for investing his emotional capital in Rangers. In trying to apply the Midas touch to the game of football, Murray has been left badly scalded. There is a growing sense that the worst is yet to come for Rangers as the club is forced to face up to its fiscal responsibilities. Debt has gripped Rangers since the former Dutch coach, Dick Advocaat, was given carte blanche to blow over Ã?£80m on players over a decade ago in an attempt to furnish the Ibrox trophy room with the European Cup, a vision commensurate with such an extravagant commitment to excess. Pride comes before a fall. Common sense, if not finance, was in short supply when Rangers began spending money they evidently did not have. The Glasgow side are again jousting with their eternal foes Celtic as they pursue a third successive Scottish Premier League gong this season in a championship that has not been won been by another club side since Sir Alex Ferguson ran Aberdeen in 1984. They do so against severe financial hardship. Having failed to find a buyer for Rangers over the past few years, Murray has been conspicuous by his absence in failing to inform the fans of what is going on. These are the same diehards who lavished praise upon the proprietor for helping them match Celtic's record of nine successive domestic titles in 1997. It must be said, the supporters of Rangers deserve better than they are getting from a figure who once liked to project himself as a figure of dignity in a rabid Scottish football scene prone to moments of madness. Murray bought Rangers in 1988 before leading them to the fore of British, if not quite European football. To a neutral, Murray is a man to be admired, a brave figure who recovered from losing his legs in a horrific car crash in the 1970s. He is one of the country's leading businessmen, a so-called pillar of society and owner of one of the country's largest sporting institutions, but money never made a man. Before the advent of Sky Television and the English Premier League as we know it in 1992, Rangers were arguably the biggest and wealthiest football club in the United Kingdom. Funded by Murray, Rangers reversed the trend of talent departing Scotland for more lucrative shores. Mark Hateley, Brian Laudrup, Paul Gascoigne and Giovanni van Bronckhorst are a selection of the names to have washed up at Ibrox during Murray's stewardship, but all this has come at a price. It is a price they now seem unwilling, or unable, to pay. The owner's treatment of Rangers since around 1998 has proved classless bordering on reckless. The sums involved are truly astonishing, and not just in unloading Ã?£12m to purchase the much-maligned Norwegian striker Tore Andre Flo from Chelsea a decade ago. Net debt at Rangers reached Ã?£82m in the early part of the previous decade, but they have not yet got their house in order. Murray remains owner in name only with the club's bankers Lloyds TSB taking an active interest since the recession bit deep into his company Murray International Holdings three years ago. To cut a longish story shorter, Rangers are inextricably linked to Murray's other assets. They have taken a hit, and Rangers have been dragged along for the ride. It is unclear where the final destination for the club will be in all of this. Run in the interests of Lloyds, who are attempting to claw back debts of Ã?£27m, it is interest on an unpaid tax bill that leaves Rangers sporting a jaundiced look. Prospective buyers Andrew Ellis and Craig Whyte have appeared to be Walter Mitty characters in failing to purchase the club, but it seems the figures do not add up for them. If they are toying with the idea on whether investing in football makes sense, they need only study the man they are buying the club off to understand the pitfalls of such a foolhardy venture. Money spent without care on Scottish football tends to be money lost. It must be assumed that the real reason why Rangers have not yet found a buyer to purchase the club is that no prospective owner wants to be left with an estimated tax bill of Ã?£24m and interest of Ã?£12m, a figure touted by several commentators on the subject, once a hearing into the case is played out in May. If you read some of the literature swirling around this mismanagement, added penalties for failure to pay tax to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) over wages paid into offshore accounts to the club's employees in the past decade could apparently see the tax bill rise to over Ã?£50m by the end of next year. This is before the bank debt is totted up. There remains a possibility that Rangers could be forced into administration when this reaches a crescendo. Rangers look unsellable unless some rich Sheikh in the Middle East decides he suddenly has a penchant for golf or the Scottish Highlands. There has even been talk about Glasgow City council coming in to to take over the running of Ibrox Stadium and leasing it back to Rangers. It is little wonder that Lloyds Bank are refusing to release sizeable funds for new faces if the tax man is about to take back what is his. None of this is good news for the general health of Scottish football. Rangers opted to sell top goalscorer Kenny Miller, a man who had discovered 22 goals in the SPL this season, to Turkish champions Bursaspor for Ã?£400,000 at the outset of the January transfer window rather than watch him walk away for free during the summer months. This was a decision taken by the bank. If Rangers were in rude health, Miller would have signed a long-term contract last year. He walked away because the club is financially paralysed, unable to meet his demands. They were apparently outbid this week by Celtic for the attacking Derby midfielder Kris Commons, who was offered a modest Ã?£20,000 per week compared to the maximum of Ã?£15,000 Rangers could unearth. Who would have countenanced such a possibility when Murray vowed to put down a tenner for every fiver Celtic spent a few years ago? Rangers now toil to stick down a ha'penny without the permission of the bank. Of course, apart from the loss of face, these are trivial moments compared to the wider issues. It is ironic that for a club which wraps itself in the Union Jack and God Save the Queen, Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs could help Rangers plunge into a period of deeper despair. Murray must shoulder the blame. He used to court interest from a fawning Scottish press in the 1990s when money was no object. A few newspapers in the country were furnished with a bottle of Scotch from the Rangers owner back in the day, but he is nowhere to be seen when the going gets tough. The constantly impressive Walter Smith has helped Murray by luxuriating in trinkets since he returned to manage Rangers in 2007 a decade after he oversaw nine-in-a-row, winning with the spine of a team purchased three years ago. An appearance in a UEFA Cup final and two SPL titles in three seasons suggest Smith is more an alchemist than a football manager, but he has been left exhausted by his inability to strengthen his squad. It would not surprise this onlooker to see Smith manage in the English Premier League or Championship next season if he so wishes. At least Sir Alan Sugar got out of the cursed business with millions for his shares in an English Premier League concern. Not so Murray. His silence on the subject speaks volumes. "There is a massive moonbeam of success coming to us. We've got big plans," said Murray at the time he bestowed the job of manager upon Paul Le Guen in 2007. Such sentiments now sound like the utterances of a fantasist. Rather than Sugar, perhaps history will remember Murray as a man who was more similar to Leeds United under Peter Ridsdale, a custodian of a club who believed his own press, a figure who spent money without preparing for an economic downturn that was just around the corner. 
As has been said in other quarters, such treatment of a great club like Rangers amounts to a form of financial vandalism. The fans will thank Murray for fuelling their rise to nine-in-a-row, but they are also discovering that the road to ruin lies in living outwith your means. Time may yet be a great healer for Rangers, but in poring over the effect of the Murray years at Ibrox, it has also been a great revealer. His empire appears to have been built on shifting sands.

We need to know our enemies in this world. I read on VB some time ago a really good summary of who's who in the world of the anti-Rangers press, I'll see if I can find it (rbr, I don't suppose you have a note of this?). As you'd expect, it's quite an extensive list and Andrew Smith has been resident on it for a long time.

I dare say we'd survive just fine with nine if you find intelligent debate too taxing.

That's the only sensible way to see it really. The problem with over the top criticism of players like McCulloch is that it inevitably ends up being entirely self-defeating. To suggest McCulloch makes no useful contribution, simply as a means of expressing frustration at what we might see as his lack of certain qualities, is patent nonsense. Of course he makes an entirely positive contribution .... whether another player in his place might make a greater contribution is another matter altogether and in the circumstances, purely academic. But to suggest he makes no useful contribution is to indulge in wind-pissing.

You wouldn't expect anything else from Andrew Smith who has earned his anti-Rangers status from long years pouring out just this kind of cheap, watered-down poison. A shite of a man but hardly good enough at what he does to bother hating.