maineflyer

I've heard this is an interesting tour but, like Pete, this sort of organised stuff doesn't appeal to me. Of interest, can anyone post a list of those on the Founders Committee?

The MIH shares will be sold as the seller sees fit, banks notwithstanding. My info has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone who posts on here and I can assure you there are plenty of people who see Murray as anything but peripheral. I only hope they're wrong because I don't think I'll ever feel fully part of this club again until he is no more than a lingering bad smell.

I've no wish to offer protection for any poster on here but if you believe wabash, or me, or anyone else is a celtic man, come out and say so ..... but then set out your basis for believing so. On the other hand, if it's just your way of having a go at someone who irritates you then keep it to yourself and your pm clique. That's all I'm saying and how long you've been a member of Gersnet shouldn't make any difference.

What if he buys a significant chunk of the MIH shareholding and continues to be the dominant shareholder? I'd be bothered, very bothered, although I don't think that is on the cards.

There's an undercurrent gathering momentum that says a deal is close to being announced and, surprise, surprise David Murray will continue to be part of Rangers. Some of you may already be aware of this but I suspect most will not. I don't have privileged information and I don't know this to be definitely true but I'm prepared to believe it might well be. If so, I guess Wabashcannonball has been on the right tracks after all, if he'll pardon the pun.

Murdo's makes the right sellick noises now and then but his fundamental problem as a spokesman for filth fc is that he started life as one of us.

What you're saying is that a few short months at the beggardome turned an honest man into a desperate liar.

Check the author's name - he's got to be at it eh? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece

Mowbray was just showing classic bheast behaviour. If you don't like the truth, deny it utterly and invent a more convenient one. Lie to everyone, especially yourself, and keep doing it because eventually some daft buggers will believe you. Then consolidate your victimhood by telling everyone that it's all the fault of the nasty hun.

Couldn't agree more but, personally, I've been a supporter ever since the gallant pioneer David Murray founded Rangers.

Murdo thinks so too ...... MURDO MacLEOD couldn't believe his ears when Tony Mowbray's farewell message as Celtic boss was dedicated to running down Rangers in the middle of his own disaster against St Mirren. The manager watched the clock tick down on his reign by attempting to camouflage his team's 13th defeat of the season while launching an unprovoked attack on the Ibrox side's style of play. He said: "Rangers have been very consistent, they haven't lost four goals in any game. They set up differently. Maybe that's the way to go. Maybe it isn't a league for trying to force the game and be expansive. Maybe it's a league for playing negative, defensive football." MacLeod helped Wim Jansen boss Celtic to the most important title win in the club's history,stopping Rangers 10-in-a-row bid in 1998. And he understands there's a need for proper, professional respect between the two clubs. The former Hoops midfielder said: "Celtic have gone from bad to worse and what happened against St Mirren was unacceptable. "I couldn't believe what Tony said about Rangers, other than he was right about one thing. The sooner Celtic become more like Walter Smith's side, the better it will be for them. "Rangers have scored more goals than Celtic, conceded fewer than them and have a better team by a long way than my old club. "The Celtic fans want to hear about their team. They don't want to be embarrassed by someone going on about a team who are theoretically 16 points better off. "Celtic had just lost four goals to a side who were second bottom of the league when the game kicked off in Paisley. That wasn't the time to run down your rivals. "Tony had to look at his own performance. Was his way of motivating the players good enough? Was the way he set his team out to play good enough? "Celtic have good players but they don't have a good team. The way they finished up against St Mirren was schoolboy stuff, everybody chasing around up front looking for a goal and nobody at the back giving any thought to defence. "Saints were supposed to be the team in disarray after losing the League Cup Final to nine-man Rangers. It was team-work that got GusMacPherson's side through against Celtic - that's one quality Tony's team lacks. "There's something missing and I wonder if they might get round to going down the Henrik Larsson route. It would be early in his coaching career but the club needs somebody who understands how they work." The next managerial appointment Celtic make on a permanent basis will offer a clue to where the club's long term ambitions lie. Whoever that man is, MacLeod says his first task will be to address two major problems. He added: "The fans have dropped off in large numbers. The team isn't attractive and lacks fight. "Rangers have had no money to spend, can't buy players and yet they're romping away with the title. They don't lose easily while Celtic had a win rate of only 51 per cent under Mowbray. "Rangers fight as a team and Celtic operate as individuals. Losing out on the Treble by going down to Dundee United in the Scottish Cup was a big disappointment for the Ibrox fans but a league and Co-op Cup double is still a fantastic achievement." The last, damning indictment of Mowbray's reign for MacLeod is that he leaves behind a team with a questionable temperament. Celtic have Ross County in the Scottish Cup semi and even diehard fans don't believe there's any guarantee of victory. MacLeod said: "The new manager has to restore a Scottish spine to the team. You can sell all the replica kits in the world to an Asian audience but you can't get foreign players to be what Rangers have been this season. "Celtic have decent players but no team spirit. Rangers, meanwhile, are everything Celtic aren't - that's why they're successful

When he was at Hibs I thought Mowbray was a decent bloke but some of his outbursts aimed at Rangers these last few weeks have changed my mind. He's been coming across as just another bitter bheast tbh. First it was the referees then it was the Rangers style of football ..... when he needed to be talking about issues much nearer home.

All I can think of reading your post is ...... what the hell are you getting so upset about? If you don't like his responses, why don't you just stop reading them? If you want to challenge his point then do so but why the personal attacks? I thought this was a place where people were free to post their opinions, in words of their choice, without being attacked in the way that wabash has been over the last day or so. To play your own game, maybe you could explain exactly why it is that you're sufficiently worthy that you can ladle out criticism of others.

As the record of my posts will show, I certainly don't agree with everything wabash has to say. However, that's a different matter and a long way from openly suggesting (for it was no less) that he is not a Rangers supporter. Are we saying that someone who adopts a different stance and with whose sentiments we disagree is to be categorised as "non-Rangers", simply to placate the discomfort of the accuser? For my part, I think the "he's an imposter" accusation should never be used unless there is evidence or corroboration and I'd like to distance myself from Cotter's cretinous post.

Of course it's a crock. They know it and we know it but their real targets are the people who don't know it. It's of no concern to them that the myth is based on bullshit, only that it gets spread and that the gullible continue to swallow it.

I haven't seen any hint that he's not a bear. You're making a big call here - what makes you think wabash isn't a Rangers supporter?

Neither did I mate but this thread is full of people who only see Rangers reflected in sellick's misery. What kind of muppet doesn't care if Rangers don't win the Scottish Cup ffs? Or considers trebles to be too commonplace to be concerned about? I thought I left that bollocks behind at FF.

What sort of shite is this? I put forward no conspiracy, only commented upon that suggested by others. How about you wind your neck in a little.

If that was true, he deserves a swift boot in the nadgers and has put club politics beyond his real job. In fact, it would be a dereliction of duty and unforgivable.

Agreed. last night was a massive loss. Trebles are the hardest thing to win and ultimate domestic achievement. I'm amazed at how easily some people are dismissing it. And using the sellick result as consolation is, I'm afraid, only too typical.

It isn't a case of either or. The idea was to win them all. We could lose several league games and still win the SPL comfortably but one loss in the Cup and it's gone for good. So where did the margin of error really lie. It has nothing to do with whether one trophy is more important than another. What's done is done but, for me, tonight saw an error of judgement, a mistake. That's all. Now we move on.

Thank fukk for someone with a sense of proportion wabash, some of the shite being written about tonight's result is dreadful. Too many pretending the SC isn't important to Rangers, some even (incredibly) saying they're relieved we went out. Tonight was a miserable failure, nothing but, and every supporter should feel disappointed. Whatever the reason for it, we don't relish defeat and we certainly don't welcome it ffs.

Never mind Rangers, if that muppet raises capital gains tax then I'm going to be extremely unhappy.

Just must not be allowed to happen. A real test of the current board and any new owner.

You're right, a good player need not be a good signing, and vice versa. But in terms of comparative status, one is as much a moot point as the other. In my opinion, he not a good player and he has not been a good signing, although he has been a better signing than a player. As for gushing admiration, that merely served to describe the allocation of unwarranted attributes to a very ordinary player, simply because of the goal he scored on Sunday. If the accolades had described the goal or the importance of the goal, I could have agreed with them. What I was questioning was the elevation of his overall status and abilities over 3 or 4 websites, all exclusively on the basis of that one contribution in a cup final.