amms

C'mon mate, frankly the 'reaction' has been surprisingly muted. I don't know about Germany but for anyone in the public eye in the UK to use the words 'Paki' and 'Darkie' in whatever context shows such a frightening lack of awareness as too stagger me. He sounds like he's escaped from a shit 70s sitcom, it's bewildering. The term 'Paki' is such a loaded term, carrying so much baggage I'm stunned anyone would say it even in jest far less admit it publicly. Green deserves all the derision and criticism he gets, his 'explanation' is a joke, he's an embarrassment.

See I've no problem with people having a bias or a favourite. Hugh Keevins was raised a Celtic supporter, I know this and as such I read his stuff knowing it is framed by that background. That shouldn't discount him from having an opinion or expressing it or anyone from disagreeing with it. What I don't understand is the self belief some hold that they are 'neutral', they clearly aren't, and why should they be? I've always felt that Speirs background has led him to over-compensate. For a long time he was one of very few Scottish sport's journalists willing to say he had been a Rangers supporter, ironically whilst writing articles that angered huge swathes of us. He found success with this and so has kept that style. However I think English is one of the few 'neutrals', I genuinely don't think he's got a favourite here, most southern Irish don't actually. He writes stuff I disagree with, he makes mistakes, but I don't think they are just bad journalism as opposed to anything more sinister.

Surely if the 'proposal' doesn't go through, no matter who scuppers it, then 'SPL 2' kicks in?

Great match preview GS, well done. I missed the game and the aftermath, what exactly did McCoist say?

I think tapping-up is an integral part of professional football and has been for years. Sam English worked in Yarrows whilst playing for Yoker, he was being being pursued by a host of senior clubs but wasn't allowed to speak to them because he was a signed Junior, his foreman in the yard approached him and asked him not to sign for anyone and Rangers would sign him in the summer, his salary in the shipyard then mysteriously doubled until he left. Football, like many businesses, is circles within circles, I accept that. Sandaza was stitched up, he should take a lot of the blame for that, but what in essence did he do wrong? For me we should have put him on the transfer list. Realistically all he did was tell someone what he earns and express an interest in earning more, that's not a sacking offence in my book whatever the terms of his contract.

I disagree, nothing, absolutely nothing, can make a player less attractive to other clubs. A self-proclaimed Fascist has just been given one of the biggest jobs in England, players have served prison sentences and returned to clubs like conquering heroes, we ourselves had a wife-beater who remains someone many of us retain an enormous affection for. Players can basically go on strike just to achieve a move, see Jelavic and Rapid Vienna, and clubs don't care. Professional football is amoral and has been for a while now. So no, mouthing off to mystery telephone callers won't do his career any harm, considerably less harm than scoring only 2 goals in Div 3 has done certainly. I've got to say I think agents across the world will have sat up at this story and are calling Championship clubs this morning wondering if they'd be interested in Barrie McKay if he suddenly found himself unexpectedly out of contract.

Yeah, that's not answering the question though is it? I asked if you thought it was proportionate, not if it was legal.

You feel terminating his contract is a proportionate response GA?

Am I alone in feeling this is over the top? It's opportunistic and sets a dangerous precedent. Any player wants to leave Rangers early now knows what to do. You have to aks just what's going on at the club just now?

Bloody hell, three nights in gaol for singing a song at a football match, I'm glad there's no crime in this country. The Sheriff's parents clearly didn't have much imagination when it came to choosing names.

The ASA will 'investigate' any complaint made to them, that's their job and reason for being. They will respond to any complaint with an assurance it'll be investigated and they will reply to the complainant once they've investigated. In every case they'll write to the advertiser (Rangers in this case) and ask them to prove the claim being disputed. So the 'fact' this is being 'investigated' means nothing, that's the procedure they follow. If they are satisfied the advertiser has acted in good faith, not tried to mislead or gain commercial advantage they'll allow the advertisement, and any future ones, to stand. The only way they could rule against the club is if they believe Rangers cannot lay claim to the titles and trophies won by, erm, Rangers. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion all this is stuff is a form of mass psychological projection, Tims really just want to be us, it's killing them inside, making them do crazy cruel things. Freud would have field day with them.

For lying down and letting them win the league back in 85. It's a long overdue recognition, just don't tell Chris Sutton.

Neil Murray is smarter than the average bear, perhaps his friends are too.

Reading the article it has clearly been leaked by someone close to Murray or with sympathy for him. If he's been suspended then employment law really prevents Green and Rangers from commenting on it in anything other than a bland and formal way, choosing to say nothing isn't the worst decision in that case. Even if Murray had been caught melting down trophies from the blue room he'd still be suspended initially before a formal hearing took place, otherwise the club leave themselves open to potential future litigation if the dismissal didn't follow procedure. So I wouldn't read too much into that side of things either. As for McCoist he's not quoted and his views are unknown, the article claims he's bemused and standing by his colleague. Perfectly fair seeing as he's not been found to have done anything wrong yet and he probably enjoys a friendly relationship with Murray and known him for years. Now is it worrying our chief scout has been suspended by the club, yes it is. Do any of us know if he's doing a good, bad or indifferent job, no not really, we've no idea who he suggests only who is signed. Green seems to be irascible, as such he's going to fall out with people fairly often. The only thing we can take from this is that someone did speak to the Record. They use quotes, albeit anonymously, but it's very, very unlikely Jackson simply made that up. So someone like an agent, a player or backroom staff or someone close to Murray leaked this. That's a concern and not a good sign.

It's a poor piece by Keevins. The only people who'll be upset by this guys nationality and religion are a section of the Celtic support who'll regard him as some kind of traitor. He'll not have to hit the ground running any faster than any other Rangers player, he'll get a game and half to prove himself before we all make our minds up about him as normal.

Maybe Charles Green thinks everyone called Murray is related to Sir David. That's Malcolm and Neil now, Andy, Bill and Max must be sitting by the phone shitting themselves...

Och c'mon, they got put out the cup to a 3rd division side, Johnson should be sacked...

He's the Director of Communications, c'mon Tom, Google would have told you that.

This is like the Durrant thread, read what McCoist actually said before lambasting him - "It's far from an ideal situation," he confessed. "I've spoken to a number of players who have been put off due to the overall situation. "The only way I can sell it to players is the size of the club and the fans. There are a lot of negatives, but I can use the training facilities and the fact we're getting 47,000 at Ibrox every second week." That's it, that's the only quote in the entire piece. It's also clearly the answer to a question, yet we don't get to read what the actual question was. Cotter is dead right, this is pure speculation on the part of a journalist who has got to fill a space in his paper with a story on Rangers. This article tells us nothing.

These are Durrant's words Gribz from the first page of this thread - “If you can’t handle the pressure at Rangers when we’re in the Third Division it doesn’t bode well for the future. It’s the players’ jobs to win games and entertain. In the last few weeks we’ve seen the fans’ frustrations because we’ve not done that. There’s a winning mentality here and that has to be instilled into players. You either come in and be a winner or someone else comes in and is a winner in your place.” Here is the full quote from the Daily Record - "These are difficult times but we've just got to get on with it," Durrant said in an interview on the club's official online channel. "It's the players' jobs to win games and entertain people. "In the last few weeks, we've seen the fans' frustrations because we've not done that and pressure is part and parcel of playing for one of the Glasgow clubs. "There's a winning mentality here and that has to be installed into the players right away. You either come in and be a winner or someone else comes in and is a winner in your place. "It's that simple. It's quite a ruthless situation but you've got to step up to the plate week in, week out. "The fans demand that and there will be nerves, but collectively we've all got to rise above that and deal with it." Durrant, who was a Rangers regular aged 18 and scored on his Old Firm debut, added: "If you want to play for Rangers and you can't handle the pressure when we're in the Third Division, it doesn't bode well for the future. "We can see the finishing line and I don't know if the players are so far in front that they've just taken their foot off the gas a bit. "But we had a meeting yesterday, we've addressed the problems we've got and our aim is to go on and win the league before we start enjoying ourselves." He doesn't mention young players in either quote far less suggest there is a one-size-fits-all approach to managing them being taken. He says' "players" he doesn't mention age or experience. What he's saying is that not winning at Rangers is unacceptable, and if you don't win then you get replaced. Frankly it's the most accurate thing someone in our management team has said for a while.

I don't understand the criticism of Durrant on this thread. Everything he's said is true and he is uniquely placed to say it as neither McCoist or McDowell were a young player at Rangers. Durrant didn't absolve the experienced players of blame, he was simply talking about the young ones. To state that they need to perform under pressure is a statement of fact, to say they need to develop a winning mentality is a statement of fact. He didn't single anyone out, he didn't humiliate anyone he pointed out that playing for Rangers carries pressure and they should get used to it.

I'll take Berwick on the 4th May if you'd like?

For the record, and to clear any confusion, I'm not giving the Green Brigade credit for what happened on Saturday. I'm simply stating I've some sympathy with their initial grievance and that I feel the policing of the event was disproportionate. Ironically it has given the Green Brigade far more publicity than if they'd been allowed to march in the first place. I still don't understand why the police didn't simply film them breaking the law and then arrest them later, I imagine most of them are fairly well known to the police already.

I think the only real difference is the unlikelihood of any counter-demonstrators at their event. If they were marching along Paisley Road West that would be different, but the Gallowgate on a Saturday afternoon when the Tims are at home strikes me as fairly safe ground for them.

The 28 day rule was introduced to suit the police and the government of the time. Previously only 7 days notice was required, by moving to 28 days notice it prevents anyone from marching or protesting on a spontaneous issue. Prior to that some of the largest marches were on spontaneous issues that caught the imagination or caused widespread anger. The police complained about the cost of policing marches at 'short notice' and demanded bigger budgets, the government responded by changing the rules on marches. I feel that's undemocratic myself, and political. Marches are usually arranged in protest against something political, it suits those in power to limit that. I've no idea why this particular march was turned down, perhaps they didn't apply at all, i've no idea. For the record i've no truck with the Green Brigade, I dislike them, but anyone should be able to complain about the police and policing without the police turning up 200 strong and kettling you.