Davie P

If it was Soutter, Hearts would already have released their obligatory statement deriding the offer as miserly!

Funny enough, I think that Gerrard would see a move to Newcastle as a deterrent to eventually taking over at Anfield. Say that he becomes manager of Newcastle, and Ashley and Co do their usual shafting of the manager act, and Newcastle are relegated. That would damage his opportunity of being appointed at Liverpool. If he stays and does well in Scotland (i.e. we win the league), he can take credit for 'turning the ship around'. Ryan Kent was a nobody who had not performed well whilst on loan at other clubs. He came to us, did well and now he is rated as a 12m player by Liverpool. So being in Scotland, should not in itself be viewed in a negative light. I think there is far more chance of doing well (i.e. in terms of silverware) in Scotland, than in taking over a crisis club. Also, Gerrard's old gaffer (and mentor) has just walked away from the club, and no doubt he would get the inside scope before even considering a switch.

4 - 3 - 2 -1 McGregor Tav - Goldson - Katic - Barisic Jack - Davis - Kamara Arfield - Murphy Morelos Don't know enough about Aribo to bring him over Jack at this moment in time. For me, Jack (playing in the defence midfield three) allows Tav to get forward to great effect. If you take him out of that position, I am not sure that Kamara has the discipline to cover for those forward runs. The other toss ups are Ojo/Arfield, Murphy/ Jones and Barisic/Flanagan. Still hopeful that we can get to see the bandaged warrior from Osijek in a Rangers strip at some point.

Remember that Murty was recently with Norwich and no doubt still has good contacts down there. They would have told him all about the current player and had it been good, Murty and Allen would have tried to sign him. The fact that they didn't suggests to me that he is not the player who left us to go to Everton.

Those responses are truly pathetic. SR is Bain without a tan, merely doing what he is told to do by the board, without any real input. On all of the companies where I have sat on the board, we largely provided governance and guidance to the executive management team who were provided with the necessary authority to ensure a successful business. If they failed, then the appropriate action was taken. What is SR's mandate? What are his roles and responsibilities? How is he measured? What triggers his bonus? Generally the number of seats on a board that you are allocated is aligned with your percentage of shareholding. Typically, we would have one seat for every 10% of shareholding held. C1872 needs to stop tugging the forelock and start drilling down into the performance of both the board and the management team and hold them accountable. As the second largest shareholder, board representation should be a given. Although I don't believe that any contributor to C1872 is doing this as an investment (all done for love of Rangers), C1872 almost needs to take on the role of an Asset manager who has invested into a stock on behalf of their investors. They would not reveal privileged information to their stakeholders but are able to decide whether to buy more shares or hold if they are uncomfortable with the answers. Obviously they (C1872) are not going to sell but in my opinion, there is zero point in increasing shareholding if they are going to be treated with complete disdain by the existing board. Even if C1872 became the largest single investor in Rangers at the next share offering, what would be the point if we are still unable to access real answers or be treated in the same manner that King shows to his remaining individual investors. Does anyone think that Julian Wolhardt would be satisfied with those answers had he asked the questions? Really disappointed and generally fed up with the club in general and the board in particular.

His name has never been in the frame for the manager's job before, has it? Wonder if he is saying the right thing now for a reason?

For the most part, I am in agreement with your ratings. I felt that any one of Holt, Wes or Danny Wilson could have been MOTM. McCrorie was probably better than a 6, and Barjonas was possibly a 5, but it is a hell of a match to get thrown into. Tend to agree with Pete that Candeias had a nightmare last night and 4 is generous. I just feel that we almost need to change the structure to get the best out of him but I am not sure he is that good that it warrants the change. Inconsistency does come with the position (unless you are Brian Laudrup) and he had been one of our most creative players until the need to change to the 4 4 2 diamond. I hope he hasn't taken the huff because there is certainly a role for him and his work rate has helped Tav in shoring up our defensive play on the right hand side.

C1872 should have a seat on the board, before any other investors. As the second largest shareholder, they should be demanding this.

After setting reasonable standards in both of the Aberdeen matches, this was a real let down. This may have been our worst performance of the season, but one of the few positives was that we managed to get the elusive 3 in a row, and collected a further 3 points. Wes - 5. I thought he was poor for the first goal, but he is much more comfortable as a shot stopper than collecting crosses. Nearly conceded a last minute equaliser when he collided with Wilson. Tavernier - 5. Cross for the winner was the highlight of the game for him. Unusually quiet as an attacking force. Alves - 6. Should be playing for Sam Allardyce in that every ball played forward is a variation of route 1. However, other than the goal, was never really troubled by a deep lying Ross County. Wilson - 6. Would have been a 5, but need to bump him up for scoring the winner! John - 5. We are so lopsided as a team, poor old Declan patrols the entire left hand side by himself. He has done very well for us, and I hope that we make a move to sign him on a permanent basis, but I just feel that we are asking way too much of him. McCrorie - 8. Man of the Match by a long way. Credit to Murty for moving him into the midfield, where he has been a revelation. His through ball to Windass was a thing of beauty. His run down the wing and crossing on his left foot was probably the highlight. Pity not one team mate attempted to follow his run and provide support. You do wonder how long we can hold onto this young man before the English teams come sniffing around. Candeias - 5. Don't think the shape of the team suited him. Did well to beat the first man on almost every occasion but the final pass/cross let him down continually. Pena - 4. Basically non existent. I think he does march to the beat of his own drums but if the rest of the team can't hear the beat, you are as good as a man down. Holt - 7. Endeavour, great attitude, drive. Thoroughly deserves his place in this current team. Windass - 5. A square pass to Morelos would have put us 3 - 1 up but he went for the 'Hollywood' goal (and missed). No question that he has ability, but I just get the impression that he thinks he is better than he actually is. Miller - 4. How bad is his control for a professional footballer? Not sure that he has done anything since Hearts, but can't see him being dropped for the Hibs game. He does bring experience and effort, but by God, it is a struggle to watch at times. Morelos - 6. Still looked a bit rusty, but certainly knows where the goals are. Good finish. Barjonas - 6. Appears confident, was looking for the ball and moved it around tidily. Certainly not out of his place and may fit into the 4 4 2 diamond better than Candeias. Herrera - Difficult to give him a score as I can't remember him even touching the ball.

Barry Scott was one of the lenders who helped pay off Ashley's £5m. He is based in Hong Kong.

What do you think of Erik ten Hag, Pete? Seems to be highly rated, worked with Pep at Bayern Munich and appears to have done a good job at Utrecht?

Traynor leaks what the board tells him to leak!

Well, Palace went from Allardyce football which is very direct and set piece orientated, to attempting to play possession football under de Boer - with the same set of players. When I heard of de Boer's appointment and the subsequent lack of investment in the playing staff, I felt it was a stick on that he would fail there. However, it was more a failure of the owners rather than the manager.

My concern with Frank de Boer, is that he would be in a similar position to when he joined Crystal Palace in the sense that those players are used to playing in a certain way. Are they comfortable, or able, to play possession based football? His advantages are that Holland would probably have a similar league set up in that Ajax and PSV are the dominant teams, with Feyenoord being an occasional disrupter. He has played for Rangers, knows what the club is about and was a world class player, so would instantly command respect. Lots of positives, but as I say, the existing group of players would possibly struggle with implementing the Dutch football style and unless we are going to throw money at recruitment in the next transfer window (seems unlikely), the struggles could continue.

I have said for a long time that 3 - 5 - 2 is the only formation that can work for the current set of players. We have been abysmal down the left hand side since returning to the Premier and yet we have continually attempted for Wallace (now John) to overlap the inverted left midfielder (always a right footed player, first McKay now Windass) who's natural inclination is always to cut in on his stronger right foot. It is no wonder that we are both predictable and easy to defend against. (I nearly fell off my chair when Windass put in the left footed cross - certainly took Hamilton by surprise too!) The current formation is a 4 - 2 - 3 - 1, with Miller dropping into the Defensive midfield role when we lose possession to make it a 3. (Isolating Morelos as neither Windass or Candeias are providing immediate support). As it is a position Miller is not accustomed to, invariably he gets in the way and creates confusion. Every opposition team will keep it tight in the middle of the pitch and sacrifice the width to Candeias, hence our 50 crosses against Hamilton. However, if Morelos is the only player in the box and he has a defender in front of him cutting out the near post crosses, unless there is a mistake, he has no chance of getting on the end of these. Every time (and I mean every time, I replayed the match to check - I am a masochist that way!) Morelos would attempt the near post run and Candeias - having no other option - would attempt to drill it into his general direction. Not once was Miller in the box to attack the far post, at best, the closest he got to the goals when Candeias was attempting to cross was about the 'D' on the edge of the box. The only problem with a 3 - 5 - 2 is that we would need to lose either Candeias or Tav on the right hand side. Alternatively, we could attempt Candeias on the left in the place of Windass, at least until Wallace returns. I suppose we could then have the same challenge in deciding between Wallace and John. For what it's worth, this would be my team and formation (fitness allowing): Fod Cardodo/Alves/McCrorie Candeias/Jack/Dorrans/Holt/John Morelos/Herrera