Uilleam

The "SD loans" from Newcastle were worse. Most of them did not even play.

My pleasure, Jean Jacques. If you scrabble and scroll around on You Tube, you'll find a wheen of stuff on Baxter, well worth exploring on a slack afternoon. Then , Grasshopper, you will have learned, and will understand why he is rated so highly in the panoply of great Rangers' players.

If you are picking a "Greatest Rangers' Team", the 1st name on the sheet must be Baxter, J., at No 6. The same rule applies for a National XI. Don't just take my word for it, check this for starters:- There are lots more videos of/on the Great Man on YouTube. Peruse them on a rainy day, and weep

He looks a decent player, but, really, should a young player, on loan, be expected to "carry" the midfield? His 'strike rate' with loans was poor.

We care that the team is piss poor, and has difficulty coping with the League's bottom side on a Friday night. I think that it is the larger part of his legacy.

Atkinson. The team with Batson, Statham, Cunningham, Regis, the odd cameo by Willie J., The Browns, etc...

That seems pretty clear; if he underrated the League, it would impact on the quality of both signings, and loan signings.

And up to 8th. Not quite the halcyon days of Big Ron, but we can hope....

There's no "manager", the team is keech, the Board members, it seems, are united only in their disunity, there's nae money, and we are talking about PR? It sounds ridiculous, but you are spot on.

Agreed. But to go forward, the far from stupid Board members have to stop the apparent, ridiculous infighting, off the record briefings, and careless talk, or take a walk off Govan dock.

Yes, but did they speak to Warburton, or merely drift a juicy financial arrangement past his man?

OK. But how many "discussions" come to fruition? How many in the fraught and fabulous football world do not end in "mutual agreement"? (Straight sackings, I suppose.) I think that it happened quickly and left the Club on the back foot. I think also the speed with which circumstances seem to have changed suited Warburton & Co, rather than the Club. As Harold MacMillan said, "Events, dear boy, events."

It seems, to me, that the writing was on the wall for Warburton & Co. Performances, and results, were piss poor; acquisitions did not deliver; Who knows whether he was tipped the wink by the Board? I doubt that such was necessary. McLeish and Rae? Well King and the Board are damned if they didn't speak to potential successors, and, equally, damned if they did. We are told that certain Board members are unhappy, that the Board is divided, that there are issues with the departure of Warburton, yet none of the apparent stand up guys are prepared to stand up. They prefer, it seems, to deal in rumour and innuendo, nods, winks, and taps of the nose, to those, and such as those. The unwillingness to speak truth renders them complicit in any of the malfeasance, which their whispering purports to condemn.

Forget Hollywood tripe. The Club issued statements. Either Board members agreed with them or not. If they did not, if they contained lies, they should have acted properly. If they disagreed with the lies, and said nothing, then they assume responsibility for the lies. In other words, they too are liars. Therefore, we may trust no one on the Board, even those who are leaking "the truth", to their friends, acquaintances, relatives, and 'football writers'.

It would seem that none of them are.

I am taking what the Club has said. If these statements were lies, or terminological inexactitudes, whatever, I would expect Board members to resign. I would in such position.

I am unconvinced that MW's departure was "engineered". Apart from any other consideration, if what you and other "ITK" guys have posted, here and elsewhere, is correct, the Board would fail to organise a piss up in a brewery with a free bar, far less be so successfully manipulative with the contractual position of Mr Cutey Pie and his circus. My reading is that MW, or his man, dealt the cards, they fell happily for the Board, which exploited that hand, for primarily financial reasons. After the resignation was tabled, there was no way back for the three caballeros. Nor should there have been. How anyone may countenance their retention is quite beyond comprehension. The timing was wrong, and the outcome unsatisfactory to date. Quite how the Board may be handed the totality of blame -if blame there is- is beyond me. Quite how part of the Board may be handed the totality of the blame -if blame there is- is beyond me, too.

It looked (and looks) to this observer that MWs departure was almost a fait accomplit presented by his man to the CEO/Board, and the Club, therefore had to react. As I said, it was not a clean offer, but was circumscribed by financial conditions, to which the Club, also, had to react. That the Club did not have a new man in place was surely determined by the fact that the resignation was unanticipated. It would have been, in my view, close to ludicrous to retain Warburton & Co as management, after the resignation. The outcome is less than optimal, and perhaps the Board should have installed a manager, pro tem, but that is easier said than done, quite frankly, as, if it was not to be an audition for the Big Picture, it would have to be a favour; given the circumstance, and the possibility of reputational damage a pretty big favour, at that. The description "shambles" is one I have heard bandied about on many, many occasions over the years, mostly inaccurately, lazily, and based on little analysis. It's a great shorthand for a situation you don't like, or which is not covered in the textbook. Again, I would say that if Board members are unhappy, let them say so, publicly, telling the truth and shaming the devil, rather than pee heeing with 'football writers', pals, or second cousins twice removed, powering the rumour factory, and, I may say, making themselves look like school lassies, and young ones at that.

Most of the ITK stuff is, as they would say in court, hearsay. It may be accurate, but, generally, it seems to be filtered through at least two pairs of lugs.....Add in that the information is from one witness or participant, or one side, is always off the record, and one may be inclined to take a measured view.

Precisely what was "shambolic" about Warburton's resignation? It was unexpected, for sure; unusually, perhaps, it was conditional on a compensation waiver, which, I imagine, meant that it required the imprimatur of the Board, which was given, as I understand it, reasonably timeously; Warburton, or his man, tried to withdraw it; this was declined, again in a reasonable timescale. Warburton pitching up at Murray Park was outwith the control of the Board, and was, clearly, a tactic on his part, probably under advisement, designed to provide some kind of "evidence" of good faith, etc., for any future claim against the Club. Shambles? At best, arguable, and not of the Club's making. I need hardly say that after tendering a resignation, esp. in the particular circumstances, Warburton could not have been welcomed back into the fold without let or hindrance.

I think that I agree with you. McKay is a low busted flush, who was, and could only be, rescued from the midden by Nhepotism FA

Appearance money?

I thought that MW (and the others) had resigned. As far as there being no consensus among Board members re: "the way forward", surely proposals should be put to a vote? If the losing members feel so strongly about it, they should resign. Oh, and demand an EGM. King is criticised for not having options, even in mind, for a post MW appointment, yet we hear now that he may have had actual discussions with potential candidates, over some time. Presumably, they were informal, sounding out exercises. If so I should not inveigh against him for this. The Board is criticised for inadequate funding, but we hear now that there is no agreement on "who will supply the funding". If external finance is sought, then it would be at least prudent (read essential) to have a coherent, united front, when dealing with potential investors, or lenders, or, even, philanthropists. Ultimately, dissension will do nobody any good, and it may be best to deal with it now, ie those troubled souls on the Board should put up, or shut up.

I see this getting worse. Are any of the 1st team pool saveable? They look like a job lot of barrel scrapings, which is, I suppose, what they are, and there are no players of sufficient character or quality to drag this dross even half way towards a performance. Where does one start? Well, at the back, I suppose, with the defence, which has let more men score than Annabel Chong. Foderingham: adequate Tavernier: dud Kiernan: dud Wilson: dud Wallace: on the cusp of dudness Hill: on the cusp of being done Senderos: dud Seriously, and before we start on midfield, are any of the above redeemable, retainable, re-trainable?

Maybe worse? Not a lot in it granted.