maineflyer

Completely agree. We need to get beyond the cult of personality that Murray promoted and look at the plan any new owner brings with him... and if he doesn't lay one on the table, I'd suggest we have made no progress whatsoever. It's not a change of face we need so much as a change of style to one of openness and honesty.

Sorry, meant the NOTW, bastards.

Is this for real?

In that context, it's less of an issue whether Ellis buys the club or not - than how he will lead it if he does.

Ach, no need to apologise, we already knew you'd be wrong.:box: For what's it's worth I'd prefer if you were right.

I didn't mean to open another enquiry into PLG. I just didn't think it was an astute decision to take him into the club at a time when things were at such a low ebb. If he arrived with a plan then he didn't show it in his choice of signings, he didn't show it in his man management, and he sure as hell didn't show it in his ridiculous tactics. If what he showed us was discussed in advance, in detail, then he either changed his mind after getting the job or no one who knew about Rangers or football asked any meaningful questions. If Murray genuinely knew what he was getting with PLG then he's an even bigger mug than I thought. I think it's nearer the truth that Murray's ego told him he could make the appointment on intuitive judgement alone.

Oh don't remind me. That was a hellish time.

I tried (but probably failed) to make it a comment on the people who managed us. I think, apart from PLG, they all did their best and had at least a degree od success. However, that doesn't mean they were what we needed at the time. We owe them our thanks for what they did but I think we always seemed to be taking chances with inexperience just at the time when we needed a proven hand on the tiller. As for PLG, I find it hard to accept that we hired him without scrutinising his management plan in detail - instead he didn't seem even to have one - which just exemplifies the impulsive nature of Murray's leadership style.

Murray was abyssmal at choosing his managers. It's not just about the people who managed us but, imo, they were never what we actually needed at the time. Murray just seemed bottled the decision every time and usually rang the changes a season too late. He bottled it when he gave the job to Walter both times (I know, I know, Walter has done a great job) and he bottled it with Eck. He was forced into it with Advocaat and damn near allowed him to ruin the club. The one time he tried to bring something new to the club, he made such an arse of it with PLG that he completely lost his nerve and went back to Walter.

I've always believed that Walter recognised his shortcomings more than anyone and considered standing down well before he did in 1998. he's no fool and must have suffered from the lack of progress more than most. Many look back on Murrays decision to replace Souness with Smith and laud it as a stroke of genius that could have come from no one else. In fact it was a cop out. At the very time we should have brought more managerial experience to a well-funded club, Murray decided to bring less. THAT was the pivotal moment in the Murray legacy and, much as I dearly love Walter Smith and admire him deeply for his undoubted achievements, it was absolutely the wrong decision for Rangers. However, with Murray in charge, it was also, sadly, an inevitable one.

"Murray" .... doesn't that sound better than the constant fawning and forelock tugging that used to go on whenever Sir Blowhard was mentioned. It's snippets like this that give me some hope that Rangers is still there beneath the Murray, Dingwall, RST, Spiers, handwringing, self-policing, sanitised, sit down shut up bollocks (that word again) of the last decade or more. Season ticket application on the way the day it finally reverts to the great, proud club we once were.

What am I missing here .... which paragraph? Edit ... sorry, I see it now.

Makes you think right enough. NIAR achieved mythical status but a lot of the period was a complete failure to progress and in the end we'd actually gone backwards.

..... or the Souness years, which were mad, crazy and saw some of the most exciting football of the last thirty years.

I still don't know how we managed to lose that cup final? You're right though, it was a poor season.

I was at the last game in 1993, McCoist's testimonial. Their fans filled the Broomloan and made their presence felt. We had just finished a hugely successful season and everyone was geared up for more of the same. Instead we were completely flat and never got off first base. I remember the general disappointment that evening and it was well founded as we headed for a 1st round Euro exit and realised the previous season had been a one-off after all. Nuts.

Cheers CB, I did see that on earlier another forum ... from BdTS I believe, although I've no idea who that is. What I don't get is why he doesn't just stay cool, say nothing and wait for the facts to vindicate him? He doesn't need to offer these assurances (if that's what they are?) and achieves nothing by doing so. Either he's right or he's wrong and time will tell everything to everyone. Didn't I see something a few days ago saying we would know by today? Or am I just not paying close enough attention?

Agreed, thirty is too old and inevitably too temporary. What was the point of letting a settled Novo go if you're only going to replace him with someone who probably won't be here two years from now and who might take a season to settle. Mind you, Boyd ain't gone yet.

I think maybe you're slightly missing the point. No one minds speculation, guessing, or theorising ... that tends to be fun. What's been going on is quite different. Instead of saying, "I think this might happen" we've had people saying "this or that IS happening" or "HAS" happened, backing up these statements with reference to "sources" and "contacts". Then we've had others rushing in to assure everyone of the excellent credentials of the people making these statements. This isn't being offered as speculation, these are being touted as REVELATIONS by people claiming to be in the know. They're alluding to leaks from some of the main players and special access to inner sanctums. We've had it about everyone who has appeared on the horizon as a potential buyer and, frankly, it's been a shambles. Even if it turns out to be accurate as far as Ellis is concerned, it is no less irritating and, despite assurances as to the character of those involved, something that smacks of self-promotion. Only my opinion of course.

Well said mate, well said. If there was nothing more said that that until something actually happened, we'd all be better off.

I don't like to see anyone persecuted (well, expecpt for Aids McGreedy) and there's certainly no call for it on this occasion. But it's not as if it wasn't predictable either. To my mind, none of these informed individuals, with their hotlines to Gods knows where, have added one iota to the knowledge of the average supporter.

What's this I read (elsewhere) about him getting all stressed by attacks from all sides? Are we talking about posts attacking his info ... or something more sinister. I hope not

What is it that drives certain people to exhibit themselves by promoting "information" that they cannot possibly substantiate? What weakness prevents them from either just keeping their own counsel or posting it as the unsupported rumour it always is? Why the need to try to invest these rumours with credibility they don't deserve by expressions of personal faith in un-named individuals who always seem to be waiting for further corroboration from even more opaque and distant sources? Is it a disease ... because is sure is spreading everywhere. There now appear to be droves of people who are waiting by the phone for calls from God knows who. Then there are even more people in the second division who feel the need to announce that, while they're not actually in the front line, they are close to people who are and can't you just see the reflected glory. People should show more personal dignity.

If debate was restricted only to facts there would be bugger all to say about Duffy, McColl, Park, King, Ellis, Sheik Mufty et al. You might have missed it but a great deal of this thread hasn't been about Ellis or his takeover - but about the persistent spread of unsubstantiated rumour. It's not a case of "I think something" ... we're continually bombarded with "Poster X, who's NEVER been known EVER to be wrong, has just said ELSEWHERE that SOMETHING is DEFINITELY going to happen" ... backed up with declared intentions to be SMUG if it turns out to be correct and endless re-invention when it's wrong. Little surprise then that all of this seems to emanate from the same direction in every case. That is what is really tiresome.

You bastard, it's a double bluff. He's really here, isn't he.