Big Jaws

Murty is talking about the players needing stability in his post match... There is no stability in defeats everyone's job is on the line when a team keeps losing. Thats whats wrong with this team they have no instability they are part of the squad and they carry on regardless... Feck that!

Unless you've got information and evidence that you are prepared to put in the public domain then I suggest you label your opinions as speculation rather than trying to present them as fact. Otherwise you run the risk of losing the people whom you wish to influence.

He's not asking about Barton ffs!

These are not Sunday afternoon goals ffs they are just run of the mill chances that any SPL player could put away given time and space to do so! I'm afraid if we keep with the current set up then we'll lose more than out current 1:3 ratio. I was quite prepared to allow Mr Murty the time to impose his vision on this side but so far I've seen nothing that impresses me in the slightest. He seems to be letting the players pick the team and we know how good they've been this season so far. No its time to get someone in who can tell these lightweight what is required of them to be Rangers players. Terry Butcher till the end of the season wouldn't be a bad shout.

Keeper beaten from distance yet again never mind that he was allowed to get the shot off in the first place.

Really poor today so far second to every ball. No pace, no physical presence and our passing is sloppy this could become really embarrassing in the second half..

Aye Boabie that would be my reading of what their Agents position would be too but we've seen their statement and its saying that they didn't resign. Its an attempt at a fly move by him, that is, if what the board are saying is true. Now if what the board are saying is true its actually down to the board to show that the Agent was working on their behalf which is easily done.

It appears to me that MW, as we have noted from his on field tactics, has indulged in his A-typical high stakes gamble and lost again. BH says he thinks there is a possibility for compensation due to his reading of 'no termination date' in the above example. Personally I would argue against that notion as its clear that MW, DW and FMcP all had somewhere else to go to, which is crucial, therefore not only would it make no sense what so ever for them/their agent to leave the date open but it is highly unusual behaviour in any resignation letter as good practice suggests they have either a specific date or immediate. From my reading of it and the timeline of events the hasty way in which proceedings were rushed through the processes I would postulate that the Agent approached the club on Monday with a resignation proposal. We don't know if this was a verbal intimation or if this was done through email? If this was a verbal intimation then the fact that Rangers board have said they have an email of this means they requested it after they were approached. If it was in email form from the beginning then its been in writing from the beginning irrespective of verbal resignation being valid or not. Now because of the nature of the resignation and the speculation surrounding a possible appointment to NFFC then this resignation would be with 'immediate effect' provided the Rangers board agreed with the terms in the resignation email. We know from the poorly written statement that the Rangers board accepted this on Wednesday. Since subsequently the NFFC deal fell through the Agent then contacts the Rangers board again on Thursday to withdraw the resignation. If this is to be successful it has to be agreed by both parties which we know from the Rangers board released statement that the board decided to keep to the agreement settled on the Wednesday. That's why I think the boards wording of 'with immediate effect' is crucial because this refers to the agreement that took place on what appears to be a deadline of Wednesday for the three Stooges. To be absolutely clear what I'm saying here the 'with immediate effect' was the result of the board decision agreed on Wednesday NOT Friday. What was agreed by the board on Friday was to not accept the withdrawal of resignation. I do have one concern though, that being that MW statement on behalf of the three Stooges states that they did not resign in person. Even though Uilliam rightly says that you cant withdraw a resignation if you never presented one in the first place it is a possibility that they could argue that since it was the Agent who tabled the resignations then it was a third party which would in all likelihood be found in their favour by a tribunal. It would be up to the Rangers board to present the case that this third party was the interface for ALL contract discussions regarding the three Stooges.

The last game they beat us at Tynecastle in the League was the 30th of Nov. Since then we've had 2 H wins 1 A win 1 A draw 1 H draw 1 H loss I'm not including tonights loass.... What were you saying about one single game?

Its not just one result though is it JFK-1? Its every time we play a top five team we cant beat them away from home. Incidentally I thought Walker for Hearts was outstanding.

WTF is he doing taking Hyndman off?

I'd agree with you on the Toral comment Frankie but their threat isnt down our right flank its down our left McKay is a passenger and Wallace was away for a smoke at their goal. Not to mention big Rob getting caught under the ball again.

He certainly has been this season that's for sure.

Built like a tank and when he hit the ball it came off his boot like a howitzer. One of my favourite Jorg Albertz moments was when he did Paul Lamberts dental work for him and then got up and scored the penalty.

I fully expect Hearts to kick everything above the grass tonight with Halliday and Hyndman getting some extra attention.

I'm not sure what the hell he's attempting to do with this article other than use it to proof his own opinion from the last article. That may have been possible if what he was saying in the last article was generally accepted as common knowledge However, only those from the Eastend have suggested that such a situation is as 'common knowledge', and we already know where their agenda lays in all of these story's, reports and articles regarding our club. His posits from the previous article are based on supposition from some 'fly on the wall' source whom isn't named nor quoted. In fact the previous article is written in the style of... 'pssst cmere tae I tell ye this wan mate' in much the same way a whispered secret might be. Its not written in the perspective of 'from sources close to the action I have reason to believe'... The second style would lend more credibility to this pub conversation masquerading as a journalistic piece in the first article he's written but it would still be an opinion piece. What makes it even more galling is that he's actually using himself as the source of this rift .Now as far as I'm concerned quoting yourself as a proof is never a clever trait to adopt because the reader has no reference there is no recoverable data. What do we know? On signing as manager Mark Warburton and the board agreed a three year plan based on stability. I've chosen to concentrate solely on the first team football aspect. From what has been presented to us via the Rangers press releases we know about developing the non-existent scouting network, legacy stadia issues, the poorly implemented youth development and other key legacy issues specifically regarding court cases, contracts, IP rights etc etc etc which are all part of this three year plan too. So a simplified results plan based purely on first team competitive football might look like; 1)Year one win the Championship and go as far as possible in any domestic tournament. 2)Year two challenge for the SPFL title ensuring any European football and go as far as possible in any domestic tournament. 3) Year three go as far as possible in any European tournament, challenge for the SPFL title ensuring European football for season four and go as far as possible in any domestic tournament. Jackson is suggesting there is tension in the board room because these targets are unrealistic. He is trying to proof that by citing his own non recoverable assertions as a reference point coupled to MW discussing unrealistic targets in interview. There may be tension in the board room but it wont be because MW has set unrealistic targets. If there is it may be because of an inability to secure transfer targets. I don't think that's necessarily true either as MW has been talking to the press and to Rangers fans about their/our expectation levels needing to be better managed and that we wont buy a player we feel is not value for money and he's been saying that since day one. If there is tension its probably because the board are all Rangers supporters and want us to be in a much better position than we can be given our present circumstances. Personally I'm struggling to see where these targets are unrealistic. The toughest target I can see from that list was winning the Championship because its the only target that stipulates a win. Of course they are trying to win everything they are involved in but it is the only target that was a must win and they succeeded they did that. We're also well on the way to completing phase two of the above plan and if we finish the season in second place and enter a European tournament then all targets have been met. If a team anywhere else in Europe (probably even the world) was to gain promotion from the second tier of its football league system, finishing second in its top league gaining a European club tournament place it would be reported as a Roy of the Rovers story by the press. We've done much more than that we've come from being kicked out of the football leagues having to re-applying to play, our first team decimated, transfer embargoes placed on us, and then through all of that worked our way back up from the lowest tier possible in our professional league system to second place in the top league in only five years. Our story is unique and both the fans and people like MW, DW and DK who have been instrumental in that rebuilding process deserve far more respect than what the vast majority of these two bob c**ts are affording them.

The previous pod you posted by these guys was excellent. I'm half way through this one and so far the standard hasn't changed.

I don't do twitter either but I do know that @tedermeatballs is Jackson.

Jacksons article has no quotes in it at all. I'm not saying there is no friction as like you I don't know if there is or not. All I have to go on is what MW says with regards to the working relationship between the board and his management team. Jacksons article therefore at this time is simply an unsubstantiated opinion piece. I've just read through this other person BMCRangers Rants twitter posts and they have absolutely nothing to say on their twitter account that isn't negative. We have a couple of negative posters on here, I've been known to have a bit of a moan myself, but none of them even come close to this person.

Toral isn't quite there yet. A couple more games and some match fitness to get the pace of our game and he will be. To me he looks stronger on the ball than Holt. However in saying that on a couple of occasions on Sat he looked completely bemused at the ref/officials when he was clearly pushed or manhandled off the ball. He'll need to get used to that when he's wearing the blue jersey.

The more I see of this lad Hyndman the more I like what I see. Quick thinking, quick feet, good use of the ball and he's not afraid to break their lines either by playing on the shoulder last man or by being in the space between. Toral on the other hand is not match sharp yet. We need to be careful with the ball and stop giving it away as easily because they are dangerous on the break with Moult.

I agree there was a passage of play where from the camera angle you could clearly see Motherwells two banks of four defenders with no one in a blue shirt in between or even forward of them.

Ball through from young Hyndman was prefect for Miller to run onto. lovely goal.

Its the same interview Boabie. I interpreted it as... Aye we've got the two we wanted and if something else comes up we'll think about it. To me that wasn't exactly inspiring as it seems to suggest they haven't been looking to release and improve the positions throughout the team. To all intents and purposes those two guys are only loan(temp) players after all who may or may not go back to their teams come the close of season. As I've said I don't think what we have is good enough to win the SPFL never mind compete for a place in a Euro league tournament of course I may be completely wrong about that.

According to DW in his presser yesterday we're not looking to bring anyone else into the team so as far as I'm concerned you've got a point Steve because I don't think the team we've got at the moment can win the SPFL or challenge for a spot in the Thursday Euro league next season. That's assuming we keep all our contracted players.