Union City Blue

This is the problem with discussing these things - an honest appraisal can be interpreted as being on someone's back. FWIW I never abuse Rangers players at the match because I think it's counter-productive. But chatting on the internet about strengths and weaknesses do no harm whatsoever. I can only speak for myself but what I was saying is that I can't see what all the fuss is about regarding JF just yet. I accept it may be still to come and there's plenty of time and I'm cool with that. I'm not looking for hat-tricks or MOTM displays from him. I just want him to be as effective as possible. I would like to see him having more an end product, which I think he might be capable of. I accept he's only very young so I cut him more slack than with others. Just being honest about what I see. Whittaker is hot and cold. I don't know why, but he is. Thomson worries me. A hugely respected ex-player with excellent contacts at Ibrox recently told me that KT's "attitude is apparently not the best". When I hear that and look at his game I start to get concerned. I think he might deserve a bit of criticism tbh if he's not doing all he can to get in shape and contribute his best. People who aren't as fit as they could be or who don't try their best should not be in the team if at all possible.

Regrettably disagree tbh. I kept a close eye on Fleck yesterday and couldn't honestly work out what he was supposed to be doing. One minute up front, one minute very deep, not really doing much productive even when he had time on the ball. I haven't written him off at all but I can't really see what the big deal is. For small players the step up from reserve to first team is massive when they don't have one prominent part to their game which makes them stand out. For example, Scott McDonald who's a good finisher gets away with being small. I still can't see what JF's particular strength is. Having said all that, he's only 18 and I'm probablly judging him (in the analysis above) as a 21-22 year old because he came on the scene so young. I would say give him more time, definitely. But he needs to show what he 'is' in my opinion because I honestly can't see much to get excited about yet.

I also agree with those who say that Lafferty shouldn't have started. The guy has been off-form. Problem was, with Beasley and Miller out and Novo being preferred in the wide-left position it's difficult to see what else he could really have done up front. Fleck up front would have been a massive gamble because he's not been making any kind of impact when he's been playing. Personally I would have put Novo up front and possibly (& reluctantly) Fleck wide-left but I can understand why he wanted to keep the shape with Novo at left-mid. It's a shame that Rothen turned out to be a waste of space because we got a guy there who could have solved this problem but for some reason it's not worked out - which may or may not be Smith's fault.

As has been said by Craig, you only need to look at the bench on Sunday to judge how good a draw was for us. Average age of the 6 outfield subs? 20. Three of them barely even kicked a ball for the club, then we have Edu (23) playing for the first time in 7 months, 18-year-old John Fleck plus in-and-out man Stevie Smith (24). Make no mistake, we were down to the barest of bones on Sunday and they still couldn't beat us. I'd say Walter deserves a lot of credit this time round rather than criticism.

JF is still only 18 and hadn't even started a game for us 12 months ago. There really is no rush - he'll get another chance this season and it's up to him to shine when he does. I believe he's had more games already this season than all of the last one and remember he previously got his arse kicked for his attitude and was dropped. He didn't deserve to come on yesterday IMHO but I don't know why he'd need to leave either. Bottom line is, he needs to do more when he plays i.e. take more responsibility and play as an equal adult who deserves to be there. Not easy but that's what he needs to do when he gets his chances. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is he the latest scapegoat? This thread would suggest so. Yes, his tackle on Robson was out of order, and sure, he wasted a move forward later on, but he tracked back and defended as much as he could given we had ZERO impetus going forward. Did you all expect him to come in from the cold, forge an immediate partnership with Boyd and immediately play like the ghost of Van Basten? It seems to me that now Rothen has been effectively given his marching orders, we need a new 'big reputation' character to assassinate, and Lafferty fits the bill. Happy New Year everyone! I think lafferty is being given a reasonable chance by most supporters at the matches. Considering how rarely he manages to shine I'd say he's had a fairly easy ride so far. I just put that down to most folk (including me) seeing some potential in him as a player - though he doesn't show nearly often enough. His career record proves he's not a goalscorer of any note so he should be able to play wide left supporting the CF in my opinion. Or can he only play up front as a largely non-scoring second striker? Really? He might get his chance up front with KB next week so I hope he takes it because time will start to run out eventually for him. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And so the love-in continues........ :devil:

Credit where credit's due though and the OP has been close enough to a few things recently to be able to comment case by case.

Agree with that. It's another symptom of the huge hole the club has gotten itself into.

But the manager would do that - who else would? Martin Bain's certainly not going to suggest or insist on it. Nothing will change until everything changes I'm afraid

I apprecaite that. I just think that WS is doing a lot more than football at the present moment in time (see what I did there ). Only realistic solution I can think of is that he takes a back seat and allows McCoist to run the show until the end of the season while he oversees things. That may also be a good tansition plan in a lot of peoples' minds. But Smith himself would need to see that he's associated with the problems on the field at the moment for that to happen and I'm not entirely sure he does. So I don't expect anything to change.

The club and the team are going backwards..... would any new manager turn that around in the face of more cuts and no investment possibilities? It would surely be a big gamble at this stage. Not being able to buy a player for 18 months is taking its toll, inevitibly. FWIW I think that Smith is probably holding the CLUB together to a large extent just now, even if the team is faltering at the same time.

Not sure yet - you are going Civil (not criminal) then?

You fixed up with a lawyer mate?

It's been a total shambles, obviously. Many of the players are not good enough and some don't appear to be trying enough. In the old days at Rangers the manager could sell them - now he's got to play them. I fully appreciate Smith's faults but Ive never felt sorrier for a manager. He doesn't even need this shit but he's sticking around. Much respect for the man from me. We are in deep shit and unless something changes, things will only deteriorate Big ups again for all the Bears who still went to Seville. We have a fantastic away support - amongst the very best in Europe.

Never thought of that. It certainly seemed to be chucked-in there out of the blue when he said it so I suppose there must have been a reason.

I think AJ was daft to rule this out tbh. But then again, he may not be around to deliver the promise so maybe he was just playing to the crowd.

Paying off this �£1m pa over 18-19 years is the least of our worries. 10% interest?

OK, so Murray owns the shares, he controls everything, everything's going his way and nothing's changed or changing. Like you, I'm not getting anything out of this conversation so I'll duck out. Cheers.

I've not seen anyone who doesn't understand or admit Murray's vote carried the motion. I see AJ as 'independent' of MIH to the extent that he states Rangers' case first and only. I see Muir as 'independent' of Sir David Murray and Lloyds to the extent that he is the "liaison" between MIH and LBG and has the freedom to change strategy and "teach old dogs new tricks". Naturally, both of these things are complicated by the fact that SDM (it is claimed) pays for both individuals. However, Murray is being stood up to by both Muir and Johnston (unless the whole thing is a sham?) so he is ceding control to some extent or another. The extents of these things are the grey areas. Can move things into more black & white? And if you can, would you outline what is fact as opposed to your interpretation please?

In what way is is counter-productive calscot?

Wouldn't surprise me at all. But the time to judge who is "triumphant" is surely when the story ends, not when it's unfolding?

Now that's not quite right mate. Of course the 'vote' was futile, as it was doomed to fail. No contention there. What diffference does it make to the context? You can't state as fact that the answer is "none", so let's leave it at that. My reading of the Muir/Lloyds/MIH/RFC thing is that it is complicted and has been (maybe still is) fluid - you seem to paint it as very simple and static. One thing is certain to me - Muir is not there first and foremost for Rangers; that is Johnston's job and it's why he stated yesterday that he had to be a counter-weight to the wishes of MIH/Lloyds/Muir (take your pick). Can you clear this up for me if I have it wrong please?

Muir can presumably insist - or apply great pressure towards - things being sold to recoup cash if he believes that an acceptable offer is on the table. It's believed he did just that regarding a certain big building in Bothwell Street recently... "focus on deleveraging and asset sales" anyone? Your interpretation of the vote/poll is only one of a few available.

At the most basic level it's about the thousands of little guys telling the big guy in public they don't like what he's doing. Other people see it as useful in the bid to move Lloyds into selling mode.