Davie P

Given the fact that C1872 has voted in exactly the same manner as King and the 3B, would this not be viewed as another 'concert party' arrangement?

What we have seen is that King included the cost of his share purchase as part of his investment into the club (5m of the 18m already invested, from memory?) If he now has to make an offer of circa 11m to acquire the balance, I would imagine that would basically be the full wad of 30m that was envisaged. So perhaps he would have to revert to the original 50m stated in order to support the manager with player acquisitions. (Is he a manager or Head Coach?) Having said all of that, I am sure there is an appeals process, which King will go through. Don't think anything is likely to happen in the near future.

It was a free kick to us, so all the players were forward. It got semi cleared to Tav and when Hyndman took his shot, Clint was still too knackered to have got back to his position, so just stayed where he was! Thank f**k for old legs sometimes!

I think Pedro Mendes is an agent now, so unless he is able to off-load his clients to another management company/agent, then I don't think it would be possible. (Although I have to admit I was quite excited when I saw Mendes next to the Manager before I found out he was an agent). Graeme Murty would be my preferred choice, but in reading the interview, it looks like Caixinho is looking for someone who knows Glasgow and environment, as well as local football knowledge. Having just joined the club last summer, would Murty fit that criteria?

Its just the hypocrisy of the whole thing 1. Ally says 'The club needs investment' - Yes Ally, it does and yet you find that you are unable to support the resolution that would have enabled us to do so. 2. Ally says 'I was out of the country at the time' - Perhaps you may have forgotten to mention this to the person who you assured that you would vote in favour of the resolution. You may also have heard of a proxy vote? 3. Ally says 'it was leaked to discredit me in the eyes of the supporters'. That ship sailed a long time ago Ally, when you continued to take a massive salary while on gardening leave, even after the 'good guys' came on board. You can argue about the contractual position and the fact that he was entitled to that pay-off, but morally, if you wished to remain an icon, then the remaining pay-out should have been waived. Why does he benefit from not voting in favour? I can only imagine that his shares become more valuable in the open market. For example, the remaining shareholders may wish to acquire these shares at a premium, in order to ensure that future resolutions pass/fail. What you can be sure of though, is that whatever Ally does is for his benefit, and his benefit alone.

I laughed! But wouldn't the resolution have allowed for new shareholders to participate in a share offering, rather than be restricted to existing shareholders?

100% agreed. Not really sure I understand the delay in more shares being issued, but can only imagine that this relates to legal issues. The concern that I have with the soft loans/debt being converted into equity at a share offering, is that no money comes into the club from those shareholders. Any new money raised would need to come from the existing shareholders wishing to maintain their percentage but not currently participating and providing the soft loans. Would King/Park/Taylor hold roughly 30% of the existing shareholding? What would their percentage increase to by the conversion of debt to equity? How much could we reasonably expect to raise from C1872 and other non soft loan providing shareholders in monetary value? All of the above are legitimate questions, not being sarcastic, but if C1872 can find other Rangers projects to invest in, in the short term, surely that has to be good. If, to use the Paul Murray example at the time of the regime change, perhaps C1872 purchases the Ibrox pitch (think Chelsea has something similar) which then basically ensures that Ibrox could not be used for any other purpose. We then rent this back to Rangers for a notional amount? Again, I don't know if this would fall within the CIC conditions. However, I do believe that we have to be a bit more creative in our thinking in order to get money into the club and to get us back challenging sooner rather than later.

The difficulty right now is that there are no shares for sale in the open market. C1872 is taking in funds on a monthly basis and sitting on a pile of cash. They either have to save the funds for a share offering, or offer a soft loan to Rangers (in return for equity ala King etc.) which has been put on the table per the meeting with SR. Not sure what else they can do at this time?

I do not believe that there is any possibility of an appeal winning, but perhaps the Machiavellian in me is considering whether there isn't another purpose in this i.e. highlight the general poor standard of refereeing in Scotland. No doubt they will show the tackles on McKay in the same match as mitigating circumstances. Although I do not believe that there is a plot for all referees in Scotland against Rangers, there is no question that we are not getting our share of the 50/50 decisions and when it comes to Clancy and Thompson in particular, it does appear that there is an agenda. Just too many 'mistakes'. For all the contempt that I hold towards Lennon and Celtic, they have had very few marginal decisions going against them since the time of the Refs strike. Perhaps as we continue with our dignified silence mentality we may be trying to find a more measured approach?

I thought Clancy was poor and inconsistent but for Kiernan to go through the back of a SJ player is taking stupidity to a new level. As soon as he made the move towards the ball, you just knew that it was going to result in a red card. To be fair, I have seen worse tackles being made against our players with at best a yellow being awarded, but if Kiernan is not bright enough to have already worked out that Rangers are judged by different standards, then I am afraid, he never will. On the night, I was pleased to see Holt and McKay return to form. McKay poses a greater threat to any team when he is located more centrally, as he can become isolated when left out on the left wing. No surprise that he scored from a central position. Hyndman was excellent and has probably been our best player, since arriving at the club. I was also pleased to see Halliday put in that quality ball for Hill to header on to Hyndman for the winner. He has been awful this season, so hoping that this gives him a bit of a confidence boost. Although Miller was really quiet last night, he does bring leadership to the team and it was noticeable when he was replaced. I have tried to defend Garner and still think he may be a decent player playing in a different system, but he is not a natural goalscorer (and that's being kind!)

It's not going to happen, but I do think that the 3 - 4 -2 -1 formation would suit our current squad better. We cannot half 2 CB's who are totally and constantly exposed by the lack of awareness of our full backs. In that way, the spaces left behind by Tav and Wallace is less gaping. In every match this season, the opposition have merely played the ball into the spaces which then pulls one of the CBs out of position to attempt to cover. (None of whom have any pace). We don't have natural wingers (you could perhaps argue the case for McKay, but definitely not Waghorn), so rather let them play as 10's. Garner has no support as the wingers are so far from him, so useless trying to play him as the target man. GK Foderingham CRB Senderos - CB Hill - CLB Wilson RM Tavernier - (CM Take your pick from Holt/Torel/Halliday) - CM Hyndman - LM Wallace 10's Waghorn - McKay ST Garner

Difficult to argue with much of the article, however, I do think it is important to also highlight the positives: 1. The losses have been cut substantially. 2. The directors are attempting to run the club in a sustainable manner. 3. Ibrox and Auchenhowie are now fit for purpose, after years of neglect. 4. Paul Murray is a CA, is he not perhaps providing the guidance that a FD would offer, at no cost to the club? (This is obviously a full time position and of vital importance for any business, but perhaps they had to make compromises to spend cash in other more pressing areas?) For all of us, we just don't know what was 'under the hood' (to borrow from Kieran Prior.) We know that there were many onerous contracts awarded to mysterious investors in order for Charles Green to finance his lifestyle in France. We also know that the SD agreement was possibly the worst example of corporate greed and conflict of interest, that could have happened to our club. What we don't know is the extent of these contracts; penalty clauses for early cancellation; can these be challenged in court etc. Most of us, who are not in the know, can only look on from the outside and say WTF is going on. Although we all want transparency, we saw what happened to King when SD wanted to have him arrested and thrown in jail. Who is to say that other contracts do not have the same secrecy clauses? Is there issues that are preventing him from pumping in the stated millions from his children's trust funds? Is he above criticism? Of course not, many of the items mentioned in the article could and should have been better handled. Is he the best custodian for the club? Probably not, but where would we be under Greenock s***s and MA now if King hadn't stepped up. Probably looking for new grounds after Ashley sold Ibrox for parking or flats or a shopping centre! Things are not looking good at the moment (I was the one greetin' about it a couple of weeks ago), both on and off the field, but I would rather that we take the time to get the best possible replacement and structure (even if it means that Murty stays in place until the end of the season). Unless we are going to get a wealth off the radar benefactor, the problems at the club will take years to resolve. There are no other instant fixes.

Thanks Pete, I think that SSN were reporting that Hill is unlikely to be fit as he has Whiplash (?) from the Dundee match.

God knows we could use a boost, but I would be surprised to see Niko playing again this season.

Garner would be a better option to partner with either Miller or Waghorn imho. He gives you the outlet for the longer ball if we go direct. During the Morton match , neither MOH (when he came on) or McKay work back when we lose the ball, so defensively we were massively exposed. MOH just looks like he has zero confidence though, can't see how he will remain at the club beyond the summer.

I was trying to follow it on Twitter last night. My cursory overview was that English was intimating that King and other Directors (who have stated that they receive no remuneration for their services) may have their costs included (and hidden ) within the playing staff salaries. Could be wrong though, I was trying to watch the Champions League matches at that time!

The only truth that we can rely on, is that the signings have been poor. McParland therefore has to accept the criticism for those signings and hold his hand up. As an outsider looking in, it appears that those signings have been via agents rather than scouting. I know that we are shopping in the bargain basement corner/Bosmans, which limits your choices, however he would have known this when he signed up.

Does anyone know anything about this first hand? Did anyone witness this? I am not saying it didn't happen, but has it been blown out of proportion by the papers? Was it a couple of individuals who had had a few pints before the match? Obviously, no place for this at all and you would hope for better from the support but would be interested in hearing the first hand account.

Difficult to disagree with the article, however, I would question where is the progress? Is MW, as he constantly states 'going away, analysing and learning from this'? If so, why are the same mistakes constantly being made i.e. playing it from the back at a snails pace; defenders being caught out of position; Inability to defend corners or crosses; being too slow in possession (yes Andy Halliday, this is for you!); being inflexible in formation and unable to score goals. Plan A has not been improved upon. Our away results against the better teams (even within the Championship) should have ensured a more pragmatic approach, instead we plough on regardless. Believe it or not, I am not calling for MW dismissal, instead, I think that he would make a far greater impact on the club by being the Director of Football. We do require a longer term plan and Plan A is great, but you need the players to be able to play in that manner. Given our financial restraints, we need the Academy to be producing players who are able to carry out Plan A. MW could give the entire structure of the club an overhaul and direction as the DoF, but I just believe that his inexperience at a massive club and his inability to influence a game, is showing.

It's interesting, isn't it. In my more rational moments, it has to be said that Warburton's record at Brentford with identifying young talented players, bringing them through and selling them on at decent profits was excellent. He has attempted to replicate this at Rangers, but the weight of expectation on players at our club versus Brentford is worlds apart. Perhaps unreasonably, we expect Rangers to be challenging for the title, whereas for Brentford avoiding relegation is job done. I can only imagine that the players he signed in year 1 (i.e. the Championship winning team) were expected to be replaced by better players as we progressed up the ladder. At face value, certainly Rossiter, Barton and Kranjcar would be expected to be an improvement on Halliday, Holt, Shiels, Law etc. but it just hasn't happened. I mentioned elsewhere that certain players cannot play in the style that MW favours (MoH, Garner) so it seems that he has reverted to those players that can i.e. the Championship team. Only problem is that the teams that they beat last season had inferior players and were intimidated by playing against Rangers.

Not sure how everyone is feeling at the moment, but for me personally, I am totally depressed with the state of the club. Since the Kingco take over, when we had Rangers supporters taking over the running of the club and removing us from the whims of Ashley (to a certain extent), I have gone from a feeling of euphoria to one of despondency. The false dawn that presented itself when we beat them in the SCSF probably heightened the expectations that we were not a million miles away from them, and in fact with some astute signings, we could in fact be competitive this season. Obviously, we don't know who the manager attempted to target over the summer and if the players he ended up with were his first choice (hope to God not). However, the fact remains that most of the signings have been an unmitigated disaster, for various reasons, much of which was out of Warburton's control. However, what is within his control, is the style of play and formation. He has attempted to continue with the 'dominate the ball' philosophy, which with talented players is an attractive concept, but is a recipe for disaster with journeymen playing at the highest Scottish level for the first time. The only two 'big' money signings, MoH and Garner struggle to play in a 4 3 3, MoH is ineffective against a deep lying 2 banks of 4 defensive set up, while Garner needs a partner operating in close proximity to pick up the loose pieces that he competes for. Warburton's comments that this style of play is foreign to Garner then begs the question, why on earth would you blow virtually your entire transfer budget on a player that will struggle to fit into the structure of the team from the get-go? (Why even go to the English Championship for value for money?) As a result, you have a very disjointed performance week in week out, where we are almost reliant on the opposition making a mistake in order to score a goal. By contrast, teams playing against us know that high pressing on the back 2 and GK will very likely result in forcing the error and at the very least creating the chance. We are soft in midfield with no ball winner, and the continuation of playing inverted wingers for 90 minutes per match to no effect, is baffling. The fact that we did not receive a single offer for any player (other than Gilks) during the transfer window is a damning statement on Warburton's ability to improve the performances of purchased players. You could argue that Wes and Barrie are the two exceptions, and could be sold next summer. On top of the brainless performances, the financial distortion created by UEFA and the Champions League, has just seen Celtic announce record revenue and profits. Other than a further share offering, much of which will be diluted by the need to 'pay back' the soft loans by way of equity, I cannot see any manner in which funds could be raised in order to prevent them from winning 10 in a row (and beyond). Every Champions League entry just widens the disparity between us and them. The conundrum of selling McKay and Foderingham and then providing those funds to a manager who buys players such as Garner and MoH without the foresight of being able to see how they would fit into the game plan, doesn't fill me with any confidence that he could improve the team by taking that approach. Off the field, we appear to be no closer to resolving the merchandise impasse, one of the few ways in which we could bring funds back into the club. The most successful club in Scotland cannot get a representative onto the governing body and we are under continual attack from the press with speculation that the information is emanating from the Rangers board room. Could someone say something positive to give me a smidgen of hope, pretty dark at the moment. Thanks for reading, just had to vent!

Sounds more like an agent attempting to put pressure on the board by hinting at Miller's options. He has done well this season, but he has never been a prolific goal scorer, and if he goes at the end of the season, I will wish him well for the future (except when he plays against Rangers, of course!)

I don't disagree, but why would the board drip feed this type of information to 'friendly' journalists (Friendly to the director not necessarily to Rangers)? What is the end game? Attempting to put more pressure on the team that obviously knows that anything but a win could have severe consequences for the management and ultimately for themselves? Attempting to get MW to resign and walk away from his contract with nothing? They couldn't even get the previous Rangers man (!) to forego any of his gardening leave package, so why would Warburton? Perhaps Warburton starts putting his feelers out for positions down south if he is feeling insecure? Nothing about this makes sense to me, I just cannot see any benefit the board obtains from leaking information of this nature.

Part of the problem with Garner is that we play with inverted wingers. It is very rare that McKay/Waghorn will get to the bye line and get a ball into the danger area on their weaker foot for Garner to attack. When either of those two receive the ball, their immediate instinct is to cut in-field onto their stronger side. In the previous game McKay was ripping apart the Motherwell RB, so Ross County just put two men on him which always forced him to play the ball backwards to Wallace. Result, McKay gets substituted as he was totally ineffective. Garner gets pulled as he gets no service. Not difficult in this day of video analysis to negate our strengths. The defence is horrible, with error after error being made, but as has been said elsewhere, if we are scoring more often, then the odd goal being conceded does not harm our points difference, only the goal difference.