Rousseau

It really doesn't matter which brand it is, we cannot command the amount we want. We just have to take what's on offer.

Sarcasm? Subjectivity? You're calling Conservative voters stupid? (This thread is going to have to be moved: it's turning into another political debate!) Edit: I actually feel the same about SNP voters, in the sense I hope Scots are wise enough to see through their rhetoric and propaganda. Who's right I wonder? Or are we both unduly subjective?

Any means of sticking two-fingers-up at the SPFL/SFA 'cabal' I am in favour of. Well done Rangers.

He is a goalscorer that can't score. His negatives/detractors and positives/advocates are irrelevant.

That's basically a GIRUY!

I think we all agree that he is not the finished article. I worry that after only 50+ games we are quite dogmatic in our condemnation. The lad has certain qualities, can we not use them? He's quick, so when we need a goal or some pace in the latter stages could he not play a role? Not all youngsters are going to be like Mcleod, but they all have certain qualities that we can use. Moreover, he is 20! His career has not even started, but we've deemed him not good enough? He can still be developed, and that's what I hope the youth coaches are able to do. I thought we all wanted our youth players to get a chance? A couple of seasons in 3rd and 2nd division games is not a real chance. Just because he has disappointed this season does not mean he is finished. We need to develop players properly; and use their strengths.

You've summed him up perfectly. He does require service; and the right type of service at that. His touch has always been poor, but his finishing has deteriorated; whether that is down to the type of service or age, I couldn't speculate. I'd keep him.

Agreed. I think the fans have to take some of the blame. We have not given players the time in the past. hopefully it's changing now though. Scotland in general is living in the past. What's the answer? Cathro? (Not him as such, but that type.)

It was a terrible documentary. No depth whatsoever. But what do you expect from channel 4!

He's found his level!

Ah McLeod...what could have been...

For me the worrying think is that these guys (McKay I'm think of; good touch, quick, technical, good interplay, but not too strong -- hopefully it'll come!) could be left out because they don't conform to the typical Scottish type of strong, tall and powerful. It's like Jack Harper at Real: he obviously has talent, but the Scottish coaches omitted him because he wasn't tall or strong enough. I think it's an out-of-date worldview. We need to move on. To do that we need a coach that is knowledgeable in this area, not another former Scottish-based player.

Let them in for a quid!

If the SFA are running scared of any person/institution over which they are supposed to govern then surely their position is untenable? It's a ridiculous position for a Football Association to be in. Only in Scotland. Nevertheless, the King decision is not easy, but I don't foresee any problems. The main issue was the tax avoidance, which has since been settled amicably.

It's not what he is earning, it's the fact he is earning whilst doing nothing.

That was intolerable. I suspect it may may be beaten if we get promotion!

It's the fact he is taking a wage that really frustrates me; the fact he was a failure as manager is neither here nor there. If he is a Rangers man, he wouldn't take a wage.

That's very true. He didn't actually buy most of the players I mentioned. I forgot about 3rd place. As I said: he's the same old type; doesn't excite me, in fact it frustrates me.

McLeish was OK. He didn't have much money, but the players were pretty good: DeBoer, Canigga, Arveladze (spelling?), Ricksen, Amoruso, Numan, Ferguson, McCann (Arteta?), etc. Not convinced he'd be any good with a reduced budget again. Anyway, he's the same type we've always gone for, what's it going to take for us to go down a different route? Doesn't excite me.

We need someone different. But then the issue is: will someone 'different' get the time? We have to take some of the blame for not allowing a probationary period (is that the right word?). We have not had many moments where we can say ' we should have given that guy more time, he was on to something', but there have been hints, but we've been unremitting in our short-term judgement. I understand we demand to win every game, but perhaps it's time to let someone different have a period of 'failure' (maybe not as bad as that) to allow the team to push through into a new era. Van Gaal was awful at the beginning of the season, but now they look like they are finally building something special. I keep coming back to Cathro; he's the type i'd like to see.

Even if we could by some miracle tempt him back, our team and the football we play would not suit him, and so it'll end up turning out like the first time: huge talent, great ability, but won't fit into the team. He plays well in a midfield three, so he has support. At Rangers he'd play (a) out wide, or (b) in a midfield 2 where he'd get run about because he does not have the energy. It's not his fault, but our teams, or more specifically our management; it's out of date. A team has to compensate for players deficiencies to benefit from their talents, we just shoehorn players into a position with know knowledge of how it affects them.

I think the board just don't want public shares. How does that affect rights/share issue? It's still possible, surely?

Any links?

For me its the complete opposite: he cannot be criticised for being a bad manager, because he tried his best, unfortunately he wan't good enough -- neither was Greig; but taking wage when he's not doing anything -- and the amount -- is ridiculous. It's the wage that taints his reputation in my eyes.

I agree. He is a genius at setting up teams to win. What I like best is that he tweaks his teams to exploit a weakness, or defend against an oppositions strength (Fellaini last week comes to mind; he put Zouma in midfield to battle with Fellaini and he was completely ineffectual!). It's like Barca play to play, Mourinho plays to win. You will always get people criticising the way a team plays: you have to play good football to be considered great. I disagree. You are great because you win. And there are many ways to win. He's the anti-Barca because he can win with 20% possession. How many teams can do that at the highest level?