SteveC

Well Tav's certainly thrown him off the scent if it was the latter!

ffs Well, it has been coming.....

Aye, BT Sport

I think I heard them say that he's been linked with a couple of theirs. Makes you a bit worried re one of ours having a blinder though. Our away fans singing their hearts out, as ever.

Sorry, Pete, I just couldn't resist....

How about on the 30th?

Some right sad f@ckers posting there

Which by Scottish standards makes him comparatively good to those that would be around him or that he'd be facing. By having a "bit of football" in them, Zelalaem and Vukic have an advantage over most in Scotland.

Sky are saying Clint Hill is to be assessed tomorrow as well as Windass

The injuries make it more difficult to pick a team. I worry about Halliday and Holt, the former looked awful to me in what I saw of the last game (sorry, but he did - perhaps it was just the bits I saw, work debarred me from seeing the whole thing.) On the other hand if I pick McKay he might get blown away....I'm not even sure between Kiernan and Wilson as they both have had both horrific and good games...Ach, what the hell, my choice is irrelevant in any case Gilks Tavernier Kiernen Hill Wallace Mckay Holt Forrester O'Halloran Dodoo Miller

Tweet updates on MW: MW: we have won 5 out of the last 7 and we're unbeaten in 32 at home. Those are stats I don't often read in the paper. MW: if the right people are available at the right price we'll move in January. Players don't have to go out for players to come in. MW on Joe Garner: Joe has only just started his career here and people are quick to judge. Give him a chance to settle in. MW: he adds a different side to the game and he has a bright future ahead of him here. I have no doubts about Joe Garner whatsoever. MW: I have made my decision on my starting XI for tomorrow MW: Josh Windass slipped on the Astro at the side of the pitch on Saturday & picked up a hamstring problem. We'll see if he is fit tomorrow. MW: Jordan Rossiter has a grade 1 calf strain and he suffered a set back the day before he returned to full training. We must find out why. We must indeed!

It depends what they are in it for. Even out of pure spite far less a longer strategy (say to eventually regain control and re-appoint Ally,....aaaaaaaaaaaaargh) they might look to increase their percentage. They could do this unless everyone else spends to keep their relevant percentages up. The dual ownership/interest thing is hardly a tight binding and, in any case, Ashley could just pass on an excess percentage to a docile pal/acquaintance. That's if anyone actually tried to hold him to it and there seems little appetite for that or much legal weight behind the concept.

Me too. He still thinks he did a great job. Said we had many more happy days than sad ones under him etc.

Yes, I admit that I thought "goal" when I saw that you had replied to the thread However, I agree with you re Niko and although I don't agree with you re Zelalem I would never put him on the same plane as Niko. We were so unlucky there.

Well that would be my first choice, yes. Sooner they can't do it the better I'll feel though, that's all I meant - should have made that clearer, sorry.

We need someone to stop the unmentionables form getting a treble. C'mon the Doonhamers!

They both should be.... More seriously, think the reason is two fold - firstly, that McCoist is a bigger figure and a huge part of Rangers' history and secondly that McCoist's vote would have carried the board over the percentage needed whereas Murray's wouldn't have. I'm not saying that changes or negates your points, I'm just saying it explains why one is mentioned on this thread to the exclusion of the other. One of the two would have made all the difference and the other would not have so it's the one being focussed on. You are of course correct that both are guilty of what seems a crime against our club - unless they have reasons which are hidden from our eyes. It seems unfathomable to me what these could be but if there are good reasons, then good but, if not ..............

Oh, I liked him. Kept his head and kept us playing at times when all around him were lost. I just recall some in this board being obsessional against him and was being a bit devilish.

Craig, I don't think MM had been absolved of criticism. Not by me, certainly. He has not been accused, as Ally has, of promising to vote and then not doing so however and that adds fuel to the vitriol. As you say, there may be a good reason for Ally's behaviour. We may never know because a statement now could just be a defensive reaction to the abuse. A statement in advance as to why he went back on his word or what accident had forestalled him voting would have been more believable. Whatever, what is done is done and we remain in shackles as the other lot pull ever further ahead on an off the field.

I pressed "thanks" and it is true in a way.........but hardly apt

I am still hoping the Record story is untrue if that's what you are getting at. That's why I used "if"s all the way through. I fear I am hoping vainly though as it had all the stenchmarks of a leaked story to that rag from our club. (Another annoyance).

My point was in reply to Darther asking what the difference was. The differences being manifold in that McCoist's shareholding had been identified as being significant enough to be essential and that the board had apparantly been assured it could count on them as part of its "votes in the bag" which is why King at the AGM said he htought/hoped we now had enough to pass the resolution. The above differentiated McCoist from the others Darther was alluding to as far as I am aware. There's also a presumption - or used to be - that McCoist would act in the best interests of a club he claims to support. I do not know if everyone else that Darther was comparing McCoist to are professed Rangers fans or not.

Did they promise to the board that they would?

One to warm the hopes of many on this site (cough, splutter, can you just imagine....): http://dailycannon.com/2016/11/update-gedion-zelalem/? Back at the start of 2014, Gedion Zelalem made his Arsenal debut in a cameo appearance against Coventry. Operating as a central midfielder on the evening in the FA Cup, it was sure to be a memorable occasion for the talented teenager – who impressed and had been tipped for excellence ever since. Having remained in north London this summer, despite clubs declaring their interest in taking him on a loan deal elsewhere across England, seems to have been a beneficial choice for the midfielder’s development. Playing in the newly-revised u23 Premier League, he’s one of the more experienced heads in an ever-improving Arsenal side who are all essentially fighting for the same thing: senior minutes with a view to a first-team breakthrough. Having played six of Arsenal’s u23 league matches this term, Zelalem has mainly been deployed as a defensively-minded midfielder and done well there, usually alongside Ainsley Maitland-Niles or Ismaël Bennacer as part of an effective holding partnership protecting the backline. It has evidently worked, meaning that the Young Guns concede fewer goals on average in Zelalem’s presence and have only lost once all season when he was involved, a 2-0 away defeat against Reading. Both goals were conceded after he was replaced on the hour mark. Questions have been asked in the past about Zelalem’s suitability to a midfield role, as he didn’t look physically imposing on the pitch. Since then though, he’s been doing strength and conditioning training to improve and the benefits are there for all to see on the pitch. Gedion turns 20 in the final full week of January and although he’s performing well at youth level, that’s genuinely unsurprising given his current ability. Unless Arsenal go deep into the cup competitions, it’s unlikely that he’ll get more than a ten minute cameo appearance for the senior side. As beneficial as training with the first-team players is, it feels like another loan spell is in the offing for Zelalem as he continues developing with experience to play in a number of different roles across midfield. Provided the right club is chosen for him, one where he’ll have an opportunity to play on a regular basis – but his place is not guaranteed – he can appreciate the rigours of competitive football, just like he did in Scotland with Rangers last term.

If the McCoist story is true, then it is a disgrace and he has turned himself into an enemy of the club in a way that far outstrips any earlier damage to the club he caused out of personal greed. One would suppose if this betrayal is true, then it is greed or pique that is behind it again. He is genuinely deluded and thinks he did a great job so won't understand why he wasn't offered the job by King. So it could be petty revenge or could be not to dilute his shares or perhaps he just couldn't be arsed. Whatever the reason, if it pans out to be the truth, it makes him one of the worst of all the characters in our sorry saga. Whyte, Green, Ashley were pillaging and ruining a club that means fuck all to them (at best) - this would be viciously wounding a club you once called your own and to which you pledged your heart.