Anchorman

Never get fed up listening to it - brilliant!

Totally agree. He sells us well to the English media. Keys and Gray love him being on and they give us good publicity. We need all we can get. OK he does make a lot of cliched soundbites but what harm has that done anyone? His appearances on Keys and Gray to date have resulted in nothing but positives i.e. the Conference League saying "hell yeh, we'll have them". Keep spouting your stuff Charlie - I for one am happy when I hear anyone talk well of the Club. P.S. Just one thing Charlie that you've bugged me on - the singing issue. DONT EVER ASK A GLASWEGIAN TO BE A GRASS!!!

When? For what?

Outnumbered 3-1 by Thompson, Spiers and English, and Chris Graham left them for dead. I loved it when they were all spewing saying "a massive cloud still hangs over Ibrox", and the bold Chris, as cool as a cucumber laughed and said "no cloud over Ibrox I can assure you. It's a great day for us!". Britney was turning beetroot red by the minute. Chris was by far the top man out of that quartet. Got to hand it to you mate - you were really put on the spot tonight, but you played another blinder Chris under plenty of pressure.

Hutton, to me. should spend less time trying to look like Steven Gerrard (when being more like Bob Malcolm) and get his feet planted on the ground again. Get the basics of walking right before trying to run. Naismith was completely wasted in the wide right position he was played the other night. That is a gifted left peg he has, and he has really good balance that should be nurtured. That boy should be given a more free role as he has ability in abundance to go past people and spray the ball about. A decent full back will show him down the outside on to his weaker foot when he is stuck on the right, and whenever he does venture inside from the right wing he just get overrun by the extra bodies they have in midfield.

The worrying thing for me the other night (apart from my cojones freezing off) was the incredibly poor attempt at implementing something that could pass off as a 4-2-3-1. When your 'holding' 2 don't venture much further forward than the toes of your back 4 (either through laziness, bad coaching or unable to carry out instructions) you start to lose the central midfield and isolate your front men. Especially when your back line sit very deep rather than squeezing the game with a high line (fear of being exposed through lack of pace at the back, or just laziness?). If you then insist on your mid 3 consisting of 2 wide men hogging the touchline, and 1 playing in the 'hole' behind the striker, you can quickly see why your 4-2-3-1 formation (if done badly) leaves no central midfield at all. This is exactly what was happening time and again. At one time Black went to the edge of their box at a set piece. They had one man up front. We already had 3 players back marking that one man. Ally\KM shouted to Black to get back and he shouted back "what for - we've got 3 on 1 already?". A 4-2-3-1 formation should never leave you isolated in central midfield. It should give you 5 in the middle when defending, and numbers is abundance when going forward. We had neither, and honestly the guys at the side didn't seem able to rectify it for some bizarre reason. I want them to do well as a management team but they worried me seeing them at very close quarters.

DB - honestly mate, although I agree with some of the points you make it was more than that. As I stated earlier in the thread - I was right behind Ally etc and the lack of guidance, instruction, reprimanding, basic leading, was staggering. Basically the most vociferous Ally got all night was shouting at Durrant for something (I think Durrant was sitting sniping at the time). "Keep working lads" was as good as it got. We are playing in Div 3 with a formation 'not to lose' which is staggering. Rangers playing two holding midfieders (ineffective otherwise most of the time as well, especially Black). The chasm between our back 6 and the front men was embarassing. The midfield was overrun with red shirts, but when they won the ball they piled forward as a unit with us all over the place at the back. Every successful side in the modern game moves around the park as a unit and hunts in packs. There is never a no mans land between back and front. I don't shoot the management team down for the sake of it, but the tactics are very poor and there is an obvious unhappiness in a number of the players (and staff).

That reminds me - at one point in the first half Durrant was sitting back against the wall (I'm pretty sure it was him) obviously just making sniping comments about what was going on, and McCoist turned round and gave him the hair dryer treatment. It didn't look like a one off.

I decided to go along tonight and chance my arm at getting a ticket. Ending up getting one for the home support West Stand behind our dugout. It is actually quite staggering when you see it at close quarters and hear what is being shouted by the management team and players alike. Apart from freezing my bollocks off, what really got me down was the ludicrous formation we seemed insistent on sticking to. They had one man up front when we were going forward, but more often than not we would keep a back four and two fucking holding midfielders in front of them in Hutton and Black (why the fuck are we playing 2 'holding' players in Div 3 FFS!!!). So you would have Temps\McKay taking a ball from one of our back six. None of that 6 would then go forward. Our 3 other front men would basically be up in the front line, with the whole midfield swamped by Stirling players. Temps\McKay would then be left with 3 choices - (1) launch a hopeful ball to the front 3 in the distance, (2) try to thread it through the eye of a needle to get it to the feet of one of the front men in the distance, or (3) try to take on the 4 or 5 red shirts that stood between him and his nearest blue shirts up front. What was even more worrying for me was watching our 'leaders' on the sidelines looking blank, with no clue how to change it. The formation was so obviously wrong. As soon as I saw wee McKay warming up I thought surely it is a chance to remove one of the holders and change the formation to a more attacking midfield in support of the front line. Nope - straight swap for Temps. No formation change. I've never been an Ally basher but I was almost for running on if I had heard him shout 'keep working lads' one more time. I don't think I heard anything more from him the whole second half. A complete tactics free zone in our dugout of blank expressions. I was so gutted seeing how inept they look at close quarters and it really saddens me to say that. It was one freezing, hellish night!!

I paid a monthly fee of £5.99 last week for the first time. Does that get me tonights game?

It doesn't make me wonder. Dave King "thought a CVA was possible". Charles Green also "thought a CVA was possible". HMRC were not to be trusted to agree to anything as CG found out and by the time CG tried to negotiate with them Whyte had done so much damage the rest is history.

Och, the youths round my way have been grappling opponents on corners for years! :box:

The article doesn't actually say an awful lot other than CG has promised some things that might be difficult to achieve in Spiers' mind (like raising £22m in a shares issue which you also said would be very difficult to achieve in "today's austere climate" ya little scrotum!) Oh and it also slips in a little bit of his true nature i.e. looking down his nose at people less academic than him (Big Jig) in this case. And he also manges to 'inform' us of the subtle way that Selic do their business (we do it, Man U do it, but Selic do it 'subtley'(?) - no explanation why their way deserves this description - just his biased). Oh and BTW ya small turd - Selic manage a lot of things in a 'subtle' way - sectarianism, manipulation, bullying etc - they are well versed in 'subtle'. Also - how ironic that this proven little lying fucker has the brass neck to question the sincerety or integrity of Charles Green's statements. Fuck off Spiers you little non-entity!!

About 1 hour and 45 mins

Did you never see Tennant in that 'Who Do You Think You Are?' programme. He traced his roots back to Ulster Orangemen\Protestants, and he was nearly physically sick. It was fucking disgusting how embarassed he was and he didn't hide it (worried he would lose his 'Luvvy' Equity Card). He eventually managed to trace one guy on the Republican side and he was all over him like a rash telling him about his trauma when he found he was from good blue stock. I still feel like fucking killing him thinking back to the pretentious prick.

What a result. ha ha ha

Slimey, but the required level of sliminess? No sure, but possibly. What about that twat David Tennant?

If they make a movie who do you think would play Whyte? Got to be somebody that you want to put his lights out the minute you see him.

Organic milk (semi-skimmed and full) has come down in price in Asda, but 'public school' milk price has stayed the same. Something going down - no fuckin doubt about it!

Yes, create arguements, just see the negative side (for 24 years he said FFS), be completely unyielding in your attitude. Spoil the debate for everyone else continuously. I think you will find that's why he is banned.

Here we go round the Mulberry Bush - just let it drop eh? If you are joking - apologies. If not, just shoosh eh - it's just tedious.

:DPoor soul. How could anyone not crack under that pressure? Gie's a break!!

He didn't turn out to be so out-of-line. It was bubbling under the surface with every thread he was involved in. That is why I threw him the 'Fergie' line last night, and the questions as to when he ever felt positive about Rangers. I expected him to bite, but I didn't expect him to spew in the process. He hasn't felt positive about Rangers since 9th July 1989, and then the stuff about Fergie and Souness' wives. You have to ask why he was on in the first place, if the Club has only brought him negative thoughts for 24 years!

Ally is a real proud EK man, and he actually has lots a pals in EK who support that mob, but he is shit hot at taking the piss out of them. We played Albion Rovers at Ibrox in one of the cups and a guy called Tony Gallagher (guess who he supports?) was playing for them. Tony has been telling Ally for weeks what he is going to do to him. Anyway, the bold Tony sees his opportunity and throws his (big) bulk at Ally. AM nutmegs him (makes a whopping noise in the process), and then when play stops, produces a main stand ticket from God knows where in his shorts and says "here Tony - you will need that to get back in to the game big man".

I'm not trying to be a smart arse. I am actually intrigued as to what makes you bother any more. You openly admit that you've not been happy as a 'Rangers fan(?)' since 9th July 1989. Yet you spend a lot of time pouring out negativity about my Club. That's what gets me angry. It's MY Club. I don't wake up a day in my life that I don't think about it even just once (sad as that might be). It was my dad's Club when he ran the local bus. It was my wee grannie's Club (she lived in Bridgeton and had King Billy tea towels, cushions, the lot, but she never hated Catholics. Yet you can talk of the 'actual sport' in one breath yet say get rid of 'bead rattlers' in the next). It was my great grandparents Club after their parents brought them over from Ulster to Bridgeton. Yet you sit there saying you don't care but you care enough to spill out constant negativity. Why bother? "Rangers used to stand for something" you say "Now it's just another money making scam for suits that couldn't give two fucks for any of our history or traditions" you say. Well no - it's fucking not! That's my point continuously. I don't go to support ANY suit. I go there to get the same buzz as I did as a 5 year old kid when the first royal blue jersey runs out that tunnel whether it be John Greig, Willie Henderson, Wee Bud, Davie Cooper, Brian Laudrup, David Templeton, Lee Wallace. It's what my family do. Suits may not give a fuck about heritage as you say, but my family do and Protestants don't generally have a tendancy to need an eminent figurehead anyway. We follow family traditions not suits or figureheads.