UCF2008

I know Ally has. I'm not so sure that Pacific Quay would be the first port of call for Walter if he wanted to send a message to the support.

If it happens I'll be prepared to speculate on the reasons for it. Otherwise it's just speculation based upon speculation from scrote that something might happen. Pointless.

Without a doubt they're easier to be dismissed as excuses or blowing off steam, which in itself is a convenient excuse for making them in the first place. The bottom line is - what influence can these comments possibly have both on the power struggle and supporters opinions thereof? Already today we've gone from a requisition for the removal of Mather to him being offered an olive branch by McColl's group. Coincidence?

What is the actual damage beyond it giving a section of the support an excuse to stick the boot in McCoist? The 'war' at our club has been and continues to be played out in public anyway. McCoist has now made it clear he's not on the same side as Green. He's also publicly defended Mather which has made for some interesting developments today. Should the manager be getting involved in a board room power struggle? not normally, but these circumstances are anything but normal.

It's easy to deal with the press. Just open your mouth and let your belly rumble. Keep talking. That's the secret to making sure they don't have a chance to ask any awkward questions. If at any point you put your foot in it - which you no doubt will - just carry on and pretend it didn't happen. You can go on for hours this way. It's second nature to me. Usually it only takes a few sentences to give them what they need, but I just keep going on and on and on... and on until they eventually manage to get a word in to end the interview. It's easy. You should try it some time.

If he should have made the comments at all he should have done so at the pre-match press conference. Under those circumstances I think we'd be having a very different debate here.

Alex Ferguson boycotted the BBC for seven years because of a documentary which painted his son a poor light. Not that BBC boycotts are anything other than championed about here. Ally was responding to criticism of his team. He dealt with it. Probably not as well as he could have done, but a boycott wasn't an option.

I agree. He didn't mince his words though and they were clearly aimed at a single individual. I'm not sure if he should have made those opinions public. In one sense he was drawing a line in the sand and responding to an attack on his team - Something many fans are quick to criticise the club for failing to do time and time again when it's attacked in the press. He could definitely have picked a better time for a full frontal assault. Same applies to Green.

I haven't personally read any of the articles covering Green's comments. I have however seen numerous versions of what Ally said and they all focus on whatever suits the headline or agenda of the reporter. The following quote is from the article which was removed from the club website... 'The manager was furious to waken up this morning to comments from the former Light Blues chief executive – appointed as a consultant to the club yesterday - in a national newspaper. In the interview, he insisted McCoist had to win the league and a cup this season or he would ‘have a problem’. Green also reiterated his belief last season’s team was the worst in the club’s history and described events at Ibrox as ‘a circus’. Maybe you should go ask them for their source.

It was in response to questions about comments made by Green in the press on the day of the game. Not about comments made last year other than Green repeating certain comments. The thing is that he does have a point. If you're a club employee or official you shouldn't be making comments to the press about how the current team is the worst ever or what competitions the team should be winning in the season ahead. It's fine for the fans to make those sort of comments, but comments from club employees should be more dignified. On that same token McCoist probably shouldn't have said what he did about Green. He's clearly nailed his colours to the mast and left no room for doubt though.

It's a new season and I'm not holding any grudges from the last one. I can see that some fans obviously are though. As for talking up our chances, if anything I got the impression Ally's been doing the opposite and trying to temper expectations for the cups over the past week or so.

The U20's league is a joke imo, but that's a different debate. You're pro-youth obviously and I respect that, but it's not about technicalities of how many players are under 20. It's about their level of experience in the game and the required balance for a consistently successul Rangers side between experience and inexperience.

McCoist has apologised to the fans for poor results in the past. I'm sure as well that he genuinely meant it. I don't see any reason why it should be the first port of call for a manager in his after match comments following a loss though.

I don't think that's the point he's making at all. When he says 'the eight players will come in and help out some of those younger boys who played' I'd take that at face value. I think Ally wants more experience in his side than he had yesterday. Does that mean the players aren't good enough? Probably some of them aren't, but if you look at yesterdays squad: Gallacher; Hegarty, McCulloch, Faure, Wallace; Black, Mitchell, Crawford, Macleod, Templeton, Little. SUBS: A Smith, Aird, McAusland, Gasparotto, McKay. That's five players in the whole squad who you could call experienced. I think Ally follows the line of thought that you'll get inconsistency from a team with too many youngsters. I think he would probably prefer to only have a maximum of three of our best youngsters on the pitch at any one time. Maybe that figure would be slightly higher if we had some of the best youngsters in the country nevermind the world. Instead we've got some who are good, but maybe only a couple who are good enough for Rangers. If we were free to field our summer signings in yesterdays game would it have made any difference to the result?. It probably would have, but we can't know for sure. What it would have done and what it should do come September is eliminate one potential reason ( or excuse as some might call it ) for poor results.

That would be a yes from me on Fleck. I liked him as player even though he didn't develop as well as some thought he would. I think he's best suited to playing SS, but depending on tactics and players available he would offer us a different option either up front or in midfield - not the wing. As for his attitude, I couldn't care less about that as long as the player stays out of trouble and does the job on the pitch.

No. It wasn't.

The Blue Knights were against the newco option from square one and as it turned out they had good reason. However, in what was eventually the final round of bidding the proposal they put forward DID include a newco option. If you need to refresh your memory you can do so here They proposed an asset purchase with the following amongst the conditions... '8.4 that the SFA and SPL grant approval to the transfer of the Shares in the SFA and SPL to our Newco purchasing vehicle' The adminstrators appointed by Whyte rubbished this bid and opted for Green & Whytes CVA proposal instead. Awarding Sevco 5088 preferred bidder status they then refused to reopen the bidding when the CVA was rejected despite the fact they transferred the assets to a company other than the one which had the supposedly binding preferred bidder agreement. FWIW I'm trying to point the finger as little as possible at Green here, but those are the facts.

If it was anyone other than Leggo putting this point across it would be welcome, but I think on the few occassions he actually gets it right he does the truth more harm than good. By his own mere association he casts doubt on any words he hammers out of his keyboard these days.

“If not, and if there is a request to transfer their share, the matter will be dealt with by our board. “There is no point in speculating about what may or may not happen." Of course there isn't any point. The rules rules were changed to allow the clubs to vote in Rangers case, but the 'new' SPFL board can do whatever the hell it likes.

I realise there are one or two reasons to hold a grudge against Dunfermline, but I'm happy for them and looking forward to our games against them this season. If Dundee Utd or Aberdeen died completely I'd find it hilarious, but even though part of me wants to see what would happen to another club going through the same process as us, I don't really wish it on any of them of them or their supporters except for those two ...plus that other mob.

They didn't have a problem with filling the stadium when Celtic visited them for a Scottish Cup game last season. ....Then again, maybe they did have some problems and that's the issue here - us getting tarred with the same brush.

Eighties... ________________McCloy_______________ Jardine___McPherson____Gough____Brown Cooper_____Ferguson___Durrant___McMinn ___________Fleck_____McCoist__________ _________________Woods_______________ Stevens____Butcher___Roberts______Nichol Steven______Wilkins____Prytz_____Walters ___________Drinkell____Francis___________ They might all talk about the influx of foreigners Souness signed in the 80's, but that was tricky to put together an XI

Or we could work it by decade starting with the 80's when we had more foreigners coming in

________________Goram_______________ Hutton_____Gough____Weir_____Robertson Naismith___Durrant___B.Ferguson___Cooper _________Durie_____McCoist____________ _________________Klos________________ Stevens____Butcher___F.De Boer___Numan __Laudrup____Gascoigne___V.Bronkhorst__ ____R.De Boer____Hateley______Prso_____ That was more difficult than I thought it would be. I decided to keep it within the past 30 years to make it more balanced. It was tough to leave some players out though. Especially Mols, Albertz and McCall.

I see no clanger. What I do see is that you refuse to admit that I'm not wrong. I don't have the same problem with you mate. From Alistair Aird's Laudrup biography... 'Laudrup boasted a fine CV. He could list Brondby, Bayer Uerdingen, Bayern Munich, Fiorentina and AC Milan as previous employers, and he was also part of the Denmark side that stunned European football by winning the European Championships in 1992. When he arrived in Glasgow, though, his career was in dire need of resuscitation after a tortuous spell in Italy when his undoubted talents had been stifled by the defensive formations that most Serie A sides prefer to employ. Astutely noticing that Laudrup had to be free from the shackles that go hand in hand with such tactics, Walter Smith gave the Dane a 'free' role within his team, allowing him to roam freely around the pitch and showcase all of the skills that he possessed in his repertoire. The result was instant and devastating. On Brian's league debut for Rangers against Motherwell at the start of the 1994/95 season (the photo above is during the game), the scores were tied at 1-1 as the contest entered its dying embers. Motherwell won a corner kick, but the ball was cleared to the edge of the Rangers penalty area and picked up by Laudrup. He proceeded to embark on a thrusting diagonal run from the right that carried him through the heart of the Motherwell defence and to the edge of the Motherwell 18-yard box. He then slipped a perfectly weighted pass into the path of Duncan Ferguson who shot home the winning goal. It was a breathtaking introduction, and proved to be the first of many flashes of individual brilliance during the Dane's four-year stay in Glasgow.' ...and on that note I'm done