Anchorman

Good strong 'plain English' statement - to the point. To me it comes across as "Right listen, before you start being fecking stupid about this .........................."

Deal off and the boy has gone home.

Heard a suggestion of stink bombs out of Tam Shepherd's joke shop (rancid they are!!) - One of them going off at peak times across the country in certain retail outlets. That would really be a shame and cause a bit of chaos trying to get rid of the smell and all that. We wouldn't want that would we? Especially over a sustained period, and so difficult to find the culprit. That would be unfair on any hardworking shop owner.

No absolutely wouldn't want that! Would make good telly though.

But if we sign him then we have a replacement for Zelalem, with many screaming that we should be playing our own players, and not loan players.... right ?

Not saying we shouldn't sign him. I'm saying don't expect fireworks. Would we miss Zelalem really?

Only thing is he describes himself (and the videos back it up) as a 'neat and tidy' player and passer. So is Zelalem but their best passes on videos always seem to be when there is space in behind the defences, which we dont get often. I would rather see someone with a bit of special guile that can unlock packed defences (not easy to come by I know.

With these 'neat and tidy' passers it generally tends just to get knocked along sideways in front of the back 4 (and more).

The decision and the reasons for it seem all the more ridiculous each waking day since the decision was made, especially given the growing dismay being voiced by subject matter experts.

I can't help thinking of a boxing analogy, - two renowned heavyweights who keep having rematches because neither can ever inflict a knockout blow on the other. The fighter in the blue corner has won the last two fights on points because is a a better technical fighter and the judges are experienced enough to see beyond the flailing arms of the fighter in the red corner, and can spot the technically better punching of the 'blue' corner man. Many of the watching public see the flailing arms of the red corner man as some kind of positive aggression, especially given his loud shouts of "re-match - I'm coming back for you until I beat you" (reluctantly agreed to by the blue corner even though they will win each time within the laws of the noble art).

So a third bout is arranged. The same pattern follows, the man in the red corner comes in with nothing new. The blue corner have the upper hand technically again, which once again is there for all to see. The two men go through the formalities at the end of an identical fight to the previous two and those knowledgeable in the Marquess of Queensbury rules await the blue corner arm being raised.

BUT WAIT - the red corner arm is raised - much to everyone's astonishment!! An immediate inquest begins among those in the boxing fraternity - who are the judges - what was their motive for this decision? The red guy offered nothing technically different. the blue guy had the jabs and telling short hooks inside as before - so why? The power of the media manages to force an interview with the judges. "We decided this time to ignore technical accuracy - as is our prerogative". "WHAT??? shout the onlooking journalists. What the hell did you use as your decision making process???"

"Well we thought a subjective approach might be refreshing - and as lead judge I advised my colleagues that we should all follow our hearts and apply what we thought might be 'common sense"

ALL HELL breaks loose as the boxing world loses all credibility and goes into meltdown!!!

What constitutes cheating and who decides the definition of it?

What if a member of your staff has been guilty of committing a detestable crime over a lengthy period? "You couldn't hold the club to account for that" many would say. But consider if the club in question knew of this horrible crime and failed to hand the perpetrator over with a major disregard for the trauma of the victims?

"Why would they do that?" many would say. To save reputation, credibility, standing - call it what you like. What would be the potential outcome otherwise? Who knows? Loss of sponsorship, impact of merchandise sales by association, potential loss of players. Who knows? However you look at it - covering up a horrible crime to save reputation and associated income is cheating in my view. Ring any bells?

This is why threads like this do my head. 'Reliable' source????

Dave King is often in London on business (more than Glasgow)

He likes football.

He has contacts that get him privileged seats.

He was in town on the day of a big game.

No story.

That's not as daft as it sounds. He was reputedly going to sign for us in 2012 had it not all gone pear shaped.

 

38 is getting on for a midfielder but if I had a choice of Lampard who would be just turned 38 or Eustace who would then be well on the way to 37, I know who I'd take.

This is getting silly now.

Ihe's someone I've seen play for West Ham and I'd want to watch in a Rangers shirt; can anyone truthfully say that about Eustace?

Mark Warburton and Davie Weir - and that will do for me.

We're 8 points clear with almost 3/4 of the season left, the league is already won.

I think you argued with yourself in that statement - 8 points with 3/4 of the season to go is nothing, especially if we lose on Sunday. I seem to remember us surrendering a 15 point lead with only 1/4 of the season to go - not that many years ago!

The way I see it is that MW sees him as a player worth waiting for, given that its a very long season and we are only a quarter of the way through, without even counting on the Scottish Cup. Why risk him at the moment when we are running away with the league? Injuries and the winter months will take their toll and come the turn of the year he will be like a new signing coming in to steady the ship and steer it home. I'm really looking forward to seeing him once he gets going, albeit it may only be for a season and a half.

Derek Lyle is only a year and 3 months younger and we seem to have problems controlling him every time we play against him. He still runs around like a youngster. Too much being made of his age.

So was the 'HMRC Lose Again' title bollocks then?

First thing to say is I'm not moaning that we're now playing actual football. I love it. But watching Arsenal getting bullied out of the game against Chelsea, not for the first time, made me wonder what it'll be like here, where refs are even more lenient of physical football.

 

When we're in the top flight, will Warburton's teams be tough enough to play real football in the SPFL bare knuckle arena? I suppose it depends who he buys in the next two windows but I haven't seen anything to suggest an enforcer in on the shopping list.

 

I'll need to make a decision between maybe losing some games to teams playing 20th century garbage or watching us go back to that style ourselves. Actually, there's no decision to be made, I hope we tough it out and keep on playing the right way.

Our central defence would get bullied (and goalkeeper) as it stands. Without doubt.

Have we even heard officially they've lost again?

any photos of the banner from yesterday?

The best teams in the world frequently have lackluster perfomances for exactly the same reasons, but they have players in their side who can produce a moment of inspiration that sees them through, as long as the team are on the front foot.. Stand up Lee Wallace and Martin Waghorn.

Why were we not able to do it in previous seasons then? Because it was normally us under the cosh due to utterly inept management and tactics.

We must have different expectations and experiences.

It's very old now in a computing context and hasn't been developed for about 3 or more years. Video quality depends on the codec, with the industry leader currently being H.264 (although H.265 is coming as well as VP9). Although later versions of Flash could use H.264, I don't think it's commonly used, and instead it's more likely to be VP6 or Sorenson which will either be lower quality or higher bandwidth.

Flash might be even solid but the Rangers video player is not impressively implemented. Apart from the horrible adverts, there does not seem to be much buffering and so unless you have a constantly and consistently high bit-rate (which not all of us have), it will stutter instead of buffering and playing for a bit when ready. The latter is a bit annoying but the former is just unwatchable.

It is not officially supported and if you look it up you'll find that it's the spat between Apple and Adobe that pretty much killed Flash.

Youtube (and other services of quality) have moved to HTLM5 - not surprising due to the 60% mobile device figure.

As said, it's not official, and what you have is people shoehorning old technology in there without much financial gain and so it's not going to be that great. Android also no longer officially supports it (not surprising as neither does Adobe, it's pretty much dead technology) and so it also suffers from a hacky conversion. That will be why the experience is not good on mobile devices.

For you maybe, but for others it falls massively behind other premium services and even the RaithTV highlights shown in another thread trounces RangersTV in a manner which juxtaposes the match.

Just turn the flugelbinder 45 degrees and 'Bob's your auntie's live-in lover'. Result.

As a progress guide, how about Hearts in the next round?

Good shout

I'm being honest here. I still think we are miles short in defence to beat that mhob. Yes, we would create chances but we would give away plenty as we are. I would also be very worried about our lack of height and presence against them at every set piece.

Very pleased with the progress but still concerned about certain areas. It's a 'No' for me at this stage. Sunday was a wee bit of a reality check for me.

I also think we will get a very tough game off Hibs at the weekend. It wont be a stroll regardless of previous results. Again I think we will have to score at least 2 or 3 to win.

I remember as a wee boy watching Alex Ferguson bag a hat trick when we hit Raith Rovers for 10 in 1967.