calscot

What would they sue him for? He's certainly committed libel, but in court you are suing for losses as a result - and have to prove that the libel caused those losses. He's such a fart in the wind that I don't think our case would be tangible, except for the repulsion of his stench.

I'm Scottish, British an live in England too - but don't see how that's relevant to Paisley... Paisley is in Britain, so that's the least of my distaste - but we do play in a Scottish league and are completely barred by the English from a British one to our great detriment. Again don't see the slightest relevance to Paisley. That's why it's a piss poor flag - it's all over the place and does not represent the origin of the supporters club. Where is the American flag for the thousands of supports there - or Australia or Canada? Where's the Irish Tricolor for our brethren there? Or the German flag for DB and the many German supporters he informs us of. Then there's the Russian Rangers who are about the most useful foreign supporters we have as they provide extended highlights of our games. By including some and not others, are you not ironically snubbing many of our foreign bretheren? To be honest, I don't think there is much value in prominence of either the Uniion Jack or the Saltire on a club flag. All the teams in Scotland can do this for the same reasons, so what distinguishes us? Americans are much more patriotic than Brits but can you imagine every supporter of sports team there, having a big portion dedicated to the stars and stripes. The rest of the world would really be taking the piss. The saving grace for this flag is the crest and badge. To me it's the English equivalence of "chavishness", where instead of having a bit of class, it goes for some notional, lowest, common values. It's just another reason for fans of other teams to have disdain for us - especially the non-Rangers supporting population of Paisley. As a Rangers supporting Scot in England, it really doesn't make me proud. I wasn't saying it was controversial, just piss poor due tolacking in relevance, imagination and class. Chavs aren't generally controversial, just cringe-worthy.

I think Zelalem has to prove to us he can be useful as a starter till the end of the season. I think we're now in a position where everyone has played us and will play us three more times - and they are finding a way of playing against us. So far has not been effective in gaining any points, but it's close and better for their pride than a drubbing. Just as we need our most creative player to step up a gear to penetrate packed defences, Zelalem seems to have gone into neutral. It's his time to shine, so he needs to take the opportunity, otherwise the likes of Shiels and Law will be the better options, and the American will start to look like a passenger.

I've had the opinion for years that the Guardian is a pathetic rag, and a mouthpiece for bizarre propaganda. I would be far more likely to give credence to a Daily Mail story than one from the Guardian, and that's really saying something...

Slightly off topic, but that is a piss poor flag. The most dominant part of it is an English flag for a Paisley supporters club of a Scottish team - what's that all about? There is also nothing wrong with an NI reference if that's where you're from, and we do have a big support there, but when you're from Paisley it's just a bit weird and I see it as more pathetic than the Tims with their "Irishness", as there is less of a connection. Sometimes I wonder why so many Scots are not proud just to be Scottish and why being a Rangers fan is just not enough.

I think one of the reasons that he is considered a good speaker is that he is measured in what he says and tries to say the "right thing". This right thing is guarded, formulaic and repetitive, which means he never really conveys much at all. It all "sounds good" but 90%+ is pretty empty, so you have to wait for the odd nugget that hasn't been said before.

I think it's plain that the manager doesn't think Hardie is quite ready yet, maybe soon. But the new contract shows he sees the potential and he's in the plans. I think Aird needs one last chance to show whether he's useful to us or not. He wasn't brilliant but did add some energy to the team and got into some useful positions. Seemed to be a bit lacking a bit in confidence and too shot-shy. Played much better than Zelalem...

There's got to be a milk pun or joke in there somewhere... (Pergal of milk and flow)

If the fan ownership group(s) achieve a certain level of share percentage, they will have to be given a seat on the board. How the fans decide who represents them could be complicated, and with all the confidentiality, it might not increase transparency at all. But hopefully having someone we can trust, can be in a position blow the whistle if things start getting dodgy again, and in the mean time provide reassurance that everything is ok. How much do you think they will need? 10%, 20%? Unfortunately the share issue will probably dilute the current standing somewhat.

I think most of the time there's not so much we can do anyway, and when things appear to be plain sailing, why rock the boat? I think before, while we could see an iceberg from a long way, away and rightly set about doing something about it, at the moment we seem to be making steady progress in good waters, although our destination port is still quite a bit away. At least our current captain and crew seem more worried about the welfare of the ship and the passengers than their own personal glory and enrichment. Personally, I don't think this is the time - there are no warning signs and there are milestones coming up which we can use to this effect. As alluded to, there is an AGM and accounts due - that seems to be an ideal, ripe time to scrutinise things, and ask meaningful questions. Other milestones will be how the court stuff pans out. I do think we should expect that over time that some reassurance over confidential matters could be relayed through the fans bodies without revealing details to the general public. A the moment, I'm hardly expecting that there's much to report. I'm not sure what you're asking for here as they have already said they will supply it. If you didn't believe them before, why would you believe them for saying it again now? It seems obvious that they are already highly invested in the "project", more than any of us, so I can't see any motivation for not following through. Even at the most cynical level, they would surely want their money back? We can't worry about everything all the time - and that is usually a strategy that forms a self fulfilling prophecy. The more you stress about some unlikely negative event, the more you create a situation where it will likely happen, and the less you enjoy the good and/or calm times. I agree with the vigilance but you also do that when you're watching a baby, but that doesn't mean you should keep waking them up when it's time to sleep because they seem too quiet.

I think it's obvious that there is a lot that King and co are waiting on before they can proceed - like buying a house there are a lot of hoops to jump through before it can be completed, and asking why it's not done yet because you've had an offer accepted and arranged a mortgage isn't helpful. There's a lot of things like a search, a survey, and quite a bit of conveyancing to do, while still running your life. In this case there are several court cases and a criminal investigation in the way as well as other stumbling blocks and things to wait on, like the first set of accounts. But they seem to be slowly but surely getting the ducks in a row - auditors and potential nomad being negotiated for entry into the stock exchange, as well as rebuilding the fan-base and engagement with fan groups. I'm also sure that behind the scenes there will be negotiations with potential investment partners which need to be confidential, and would be happening that way whether our board were good or evil. The extra year in the 2nd tier and the current success on the park means the urgency has been deferred to next season. Even those ducks have been steadily lining up too, with the recent appointments to the coaching and scouting staff. For me things seem to be ticking along, and with so much sub-judice, I'm not sure what kind of transparency can be shown at this point. It seems like there's a bit of a lull in our crises between the saving/rebuilding and the refinancing, with not enough headlines, and so the press are trying to pressure things to happen or news/plans to be given to them. I'm pretty relaxed at the moment but will be more keen for action and information once the court cases are sorted and especially after our promotion is secure. I think we're all expecting a share issue, sometime in the new year - it's unlikely to happen before then. In the meantime our losses should be reduced this season, and the shortfall has been taken up with soft loans from the board - which I assume will eventually converted into equity when that option is more available. While we should be vigilant, I don't think we should be regularly shaking the tree just because due process is too slow for us. It is best to save that until the time is ripe.

It does seem that we need to drop this "manly game" attitude if we're ever going to progress in football. Ironically we (Queens Park) invented the passing game and the heading game and were at the forefront of football innovation for decades. Through the decades, we lauded the great dribblers and skilful players, many of whom were diminutive and not fitting into the modern "big hard man" type of player we seem to prefer now. The nearest we have now is our English loanee. We've had a dearth of exciting players in the decades where we have not qualified for any finals, and perhaps the most enduring memory which gives rise to that is of the horror tackle on Ian Durrant. Seems to me that to improve our game we need to get soft by coming down hard on the hammer throwers in the game. We should be more strict than anywhere on dangerous tackles and outright assault. We need to show, in they drunk driving or casual racism is now, that it's just not acceptable and serial offenders driven out of the game. If that makes us soft in Europe and Internationally, what would the difference be in our results? These days, I'd rather see a very skilful team lose by being kicked off the park and lose, than have a bunch of hard men who are completely played off the park by far more skilful, but lowly football nations, never mind the big teams. I once watched an Okocha training video, and what the kids were demonstrating at the school he was showing, was amazing - and reminds me of Oduwa. It makes me think, why don't we see our kids doing that? That's what we should be teaching - as well as how to defend and tackle well, without threaten to end someone's career.

Bit racist sounding...

With rugby though, players are not allowed to talk back to the referee. Only the captain can talk to the ref - and the ref talks to him if players are getting out of hand. Seems like a good system that football could follow. However, rugby does seem to be a type of game with ingrained, deliberate breaking of the rules, where the ref continually dishes out the penalties. This makes it a difficult game to referee, and that's why they've been very forward thinking with sin bins and TMO. Shame it all let us down in the world cup.

I can understand ruling that football club employees should respect the referee and UEFA, but ruling fans should respect anything is just dumb, autocratic and a bit like the thought police. The fans are the ones that pay for UEFA, it's them that deserve the respect.

To me, it was more than just clumsy, as I believe FIFA have long outlawed this kind of tackle, so much so, I'm sure you can be sent off for it even if well timed and you contact the ball first. Reckless, lunging tackles with studs showing like that are banned for the very reason that a mistimed one can cause serious injury. Therefore his intent cannot be completely innocent as he should never have chosen that kind of tackle in the first place. You can accidentally shoot someone with a gun, but that doesn't make you innocent if you're messing around with one.

I really don't know what you're trying to say here. What relevance is there to being in a stadium with other people there? That sounds a bit weak. Maybe unlike some people, he's not a tattle-tale and actually stands up for himself... It's not the most inspired advice as what would complaining have done? It's all on camera and still the perpetrator wasn't punished, yet the victim was severely, so what would have been the point? This shows why incredibly poor moral thinking by referees and the sporting authorities encourages retaliation. If Mohsni's attackers had been more severely censured than he was, you might have a point. The weird thing is that you, the referee, the SFA and many others actually think it's ok to attack someone, not ok for the victim to hit back, but ok for a gang of the attacker's mates to simultaneously attack the lone victim again. I call that, "mental". What's the difference? Seems very vague. Mental? Shoving someone in the back for nothing sounds more mental to me. Gang attacking someone for retaliating against your violent mate is far more mental. A quick quick and punch to someone who has attacked you out of the blue from behind, seems like an angry but reasonable survival reaction. You're saying you would be very calm if someone shoved you hard in the back? I don't see the relevance, but using your logic, if the guy he headbutted had hit someone before then it seems like you're saying he deserved it for having previous. So according to you, Mohsni could be innocent there. I disagree. For me, headbutting someone without provocation is assault and he should be condemned for it, and not defended. That is an embarrassment. See my consistency? If he headbutted someone and the victim hit him back, I don't think I'd punish the victim and not the attacker. But funnily enough you're making my original point, Rangers fans don't always defend our players' misbehaviour.

I think it's obvious by this post that you're not being objective in the slightest...

It's all very well giving him the benefit of the doubt but wasn't he booked for hand ball later in the game? Even a clumsy tackle should have at least been booked (although this is exactly the kind rash tackle FIFA want to eliminate using red cards) - then a second yellow would be a sending off. And this is only his 12th game? He certainly needs a good talking to. But you've got to look at his motives firstly through the 7 second timing of the challenge, and the multiple assaults that Oduwa endured by his team-mates that meant he couldn't play the second half. I think the evidence points towards his manager defending the player due to the player being dirty under the manager's instructions.

A guy stands up for himself and that's embarrassing? Retaliation to assault is normal and therefore can be defended as self defence - and as was shown he had no other form of retribution or justice from the authorities. I've already explained in great detail at the time, for those who don't get it. But the point is that although his actions are understandable for those with empathy to the situation, they certainly weren't defended. Contrast that innocuous punch and kick from Mohsni, to a non understandable, potential leg breaking tackle and a similar physical assault that Mohsni perpetrated, with kick and forearm to the neck/head on Oduwa, with no provocation or initial assault, which is then defended by his club. I find it amazing that you find a punch and kick, in return for being shoved hard in the back, followed by being gang attacked as more embarrassing than firstly the criminal assaults on Mohsni by Motherwell players, but also compared to an Mohsni type of UNPROVOKED attack on one of our players. The sad fact is that so do most of people in Scottish football. Our nation certainly has corrupted morals.

Not sure if I agree with that as sometimes our players are reasonably innocent and own our fans still get stuck into them - Novo's "stamping" incident, that looked like it was totally unintentional, Mohsni and his pretty normal reaction to being physically assaulted after the game - he was ostracised by the club and his contract not renewed. Plenty have been slated who have deserved it, and Black was never popular. I also don't think you'd see Warburton defending that kind of tackle - he would probably be talking about having words with the player. Same goes for Smith and McCoist. Hurlock was under Souness who was very guilty of this kind of stuff, I agree. And I don't remember us getting upset at Del Piero's drag back; it was highly applauded, even though it embarrassed Clelland.

No, I listed some players - pretty much a fact. You seem to take an issue with that. However, I do tend to counter extreme viewpoints such as your own, with facts and rationality. And I know you also take an issue with that. The difference between us is that I look at reality and reasoning and use them to form my opinion to suit. You take your opinion, and use it to form your reality and reasoning to suit. I'm not sure what you're arguing here, there are many reasons why a player would come into form, one of the realities that you like to ignore as it doesn't suit your opinion is the boardroom crisis we permanently had when McCoist was the manager. Reality shows that affected the players. Not to mention the depression of the fans and the difficulties put before McCoist for signing players. Our current manager and team cannot be purely compared due to having had a bright, new, optimistic dawn. But it could even just be, that other than far more motivation, he might just fit into the new system better. But in the end the player is the player, and Ally signed him - which is my point, and why you have to try and trash it. I didn't say he was any good, I just listed him, so again you have to trash him. The fact is that he's still very young and may turn it around like McKay. Ah, that old excuse when reality doesn't fit. There are not many managers who play so many young players without necessity, but again that doesn't fit your opinion. The fact is that he played them. McKay is his player, he signed him and gave him 46 games at 17/18, but obviously didn't think he was ready at that age for winning the higher divisions and sent him out on loan - a pretty normal thing for a manager to do when he doesn't think a player is ready for the first team but wants him to gain first team experience. Hence why we have three right now - or are Venger and Pochettino just as shit as you think Ally is? See where your reality starts to look inconsistent? Again that's a skewed way of looking at it. It's ignoring that the young team were not consistent enough for the fans when winning the league, and so McCoist was under pressure to lose less games. He had a very tiny opportunity to sign some players and which manager would not take that and play them. It seems to have worked as he never lost a game in the league, so there is some justification there. McKay also came back and fought for his place and is doing well, and so the loan spell seemed to have worked also. Now here again you seem to be twisting things completely. I don't think Ally was responsible for how many games he played on loan. Perhaps he would have played more had his attitude been better or his form better or his maturity or whatever. But your point makes no sense except in context of your constant anti-Ally tirade. BTW what is talent without application, or form or maturity or whatever? I don't recall you saying he was one of most talented players at the time... Yes, that viewpoint is nicely twisted to your immutable opinion. So if Zelalem goes back a better player, does that mean Wenger is shit? I looked it up and he's started 7 this season and come off the bench 7 times, so your point is again meaningless. I think the point with Oduwa was that Law puts in a shift and can be effective, whereas Oduwa often flatters to deceive without much end product. They don't have to play in the exact same position for one to replace the other, they can both play at right midfield, Oduwa just plays wider as a winger. BTW Oduwa has started 8 and been subbed on 5 times, so maybe he doesn't really play for us either... Still Ally's player. Again your version of reality doesn't seem to fit with what has happened to Rangers recently and the position we've been in regarding signing players. You really think we could have signed a keeper or the quality that Celtic could sign at the time? Really stretching here. Ally signed him and played him so he was obviously in his plans despite being 17 years old - now that really messes with your reality. Ally resigned halfway through that season but he went on to play 6 times. Despite being a year older and under a manager you approve of, he's only had two substitute appearances so far this season. Give what a rest? So he played only two teenagers regularly which is deplorable. So how deplorable is Mourinho, who didn't play ANY teenagers regularly in the last two seasons? Looking it up, they had 0 games two season ago and 7 last year (although two players who turned 20 had some games). Ally's two played about 61 games between them despite an injury to McLeod which limited his appearances. Funny how Mourinho also looks more "clueless" than McCoist this season using your criterion of being clueless if you don't always beat teams with less money and are below any in the league... So one real dud out of 10 of Ally's players? Doesn't sound as bad as you make it. The reality is that there are 10 players that can be attributed to Ally out of a small squad of 23. We can't get rid of them all in January and Warburton has been using them at about 30-40% of the team. They are therefore 30-40% responsible for our recent success. Just because there were Ally's players, does not make them all duds, as some would like to see it to fit into the "Ally can do no right" type thinking. Lee Wallace, Nicky Law, Dean Sheils, Barry McKay, Kenny Miller and Nicky Clark are all getting significant game time. Bell is a keeper and injured in any case, but when fit you'd expect him to deputise. Templeton had a few starts, but to fit his reputation, is again injured. That leaves Aird and Hardie. The latter will probably be part of the future, the former who has just had his international debut, is on the wait and see list. As I pointed out in an early post, I see quite a few leaving at the end of the season, but it looks like the majority are very much part of the plans for this season. You don't change the horse midstream when you're winning... well, in football it means you don't change it too much. Of course I'm wrong about McCoist - in your version of reality. In this world, I think I've shown your twist things to fit your extreme negative opinion of him. I've seen how you are very uncomfortable with people disagreeing with you, but that does not mean I can comply with you plea. As I've always said, his crime was to be mediocre, and reality fits. To try and blame him for pretty much everything and anything, twisting everything to suit, seems a bit of an obsessed vendetta which diverts so many threads.

Unless you have a definitive answer then it's a bit of an open ended question. Could the right answer not be to to drop the player and then send them out on loan...? Seems to have worked. Seems to me you'd have to blame every manager in history for any player that had a bad attitude or didn't play to potential. Giving him about 46 games at age 17/18 wasn't a vote of confidence? As I said without knowing the definitive answer, it could be something so simple as putting him out on loan. It seems as likely an answer as any, unless of course you want to play the "Blame Ally for anything and everything" game...

I would say the opposite. Embarrassing is when we sign an injured player who subsequently never plays, or we pass on one and he plays fantastically for someone else. Seems we want him, but only if he's fit. I would guess we might be currently paying him a nominal wage on a casual basis while he gets himself fit and/or shakes off an injury, with his duties being to help with coaching and mentoring. Seems to me that we're doing the right thing for a change. The guy wants to sign, we want him, and as he's out of contract, there's no hurry. As for his level of speed, is this observed or presumed? Linford Christie won his 100m gold medal at age 36. More recently Chris Hoy won a gold medal at 36 also. They may be exceptions but they show what is possible, and we're not exactly looking for Eustice to be the fastest in the world. However, I think there is an underestimation of the value of experience - especially that of an older player who demonstrates he's above average for football intelligence.

I don't see how that affects his ability to do it, just his motivation. I also don't quire about him not caring at all, it is plausible he cares about its well being, at least on a related level - even the most egotistical care about their own success and failure. Rangers were ultimately a huge and highly public failure for him. I find this area a bit muddy, but get the impression that once a company is in liquidation that no-one has a claim. I have no expertise but it seems like anyone can come along and buy the company - as long as they appease the creditors and sort out the legal stuff - and all the associated fees. I can't see why Murray couldn't do it. But in any case, his ability to resurrect the company does not mean he has to own it or even be a shareholder - he just needs to supply the money - say to King. Like I say, I assumed that once a company is in liquidation, your rights as shareholders no longer apply. I would have thought this was ultimately for protection of the shareholders and the purpose of a limited company. When you're liquidated the shareholders don't have liability but nor do they have any rights or say in how the company is dissolved. My argument relies on my assumption that there is no "benefit" of the shares, but in any case is irrelevant as I said, Murray's ability to resurrect the company doesn't logically require him to own it or be a beneficiary. It only requires him to fund it. I don't disagree. But the topic of debate was his ability to do this, rather than his motivation to do so. I think that's all the original assertion by Pete was - now Murray has money again, morally it could be argued that he should fund it - but we know he won't... I don't doubt it.