calscot

I mistakenly thought that his father was Scottish (because he played for Aberdeen) or had a Scottish parent... my bad. Looked it up and his mother is from Hull, no idea where her parents are from but the odds are against being Scottish.

What about for Scotland? It's a lot easier to get into the team, ability-wise, although playing for Rangers might make it more difficult.

I can't see how this is a non-story when it was clearly a big story here for previous players. The press are transparently anti-Rangers most of the time, but to be fair, this is definitely a story, albeit a small one. And it does have the added spice of what Rangers fans think of this after many pilloried the previous players for doing it. Are we going to be hypocritical about it? To me, the "nothing to see here" attitude is not unlike the Celtic fans criticising why the press are focusing on the tax affairs of DD. When you make a hoo ha about someone else, you set yourself up for scrutiny when the boot is on the other foot.

Probably the most disgusting post I've seen on here for a while. Sometimes you have to wonder what moral high ground we have to slag off the Tims. Or like them is it just the jolly craic?

I doubt McInnes could ruin whatever reputation he has by not doing well at Rangers - I doubt anything would block him going back to where he was, at one of the bigger SPL clubs. Maybe it would stop him moving up the ladder but so would any failed attempt at a middling Championship club - which is probably more likely. With the proof of the pudding metaphor, if he's any good he would at least do reasonably well at Rangers, and if he can't make it there, then I don't think he can make it anywhere. I really don't see what the risk is, except of being found out.

I doubt we have any spare money from the accounts, but we do have some rich people who are partial to giving us loans - and Club1872 have offered too.

I think the most damning thing about Miller was that he was that he was lauded by the anti-Rangers press with a load of bollocks. You've got to sink pretty low to get the haters on your side as a stick to beat the club with.

I agree Hampden is not great, (although I've only sat in the north stand which wasn't too bad) but that is not the fault of the stadium itself. Like all stadiums it's been through many incarnations, and can do so again. But if you move it, you lose the history. I think our problem is the mismanagement of the SFA for decades - how can Rugby with a fraction of the interest, have a much better stadium - and always filled at that? Although part of that could be the amount of money that SFA have disseminated to the clubs who would have been crying out if they hadn't received it. Whereas the SRU probably kept the money more in house. I'm still envious of the way Wales went about joining forces and having an excellent stadium and can't help thinking we could have had a bigger better one, with a roof that we need more. Imagine and Old Firm final with say 84,000 - or any final with us and someone else where all our season ticket holders get to go plus plenty that don't get to games so often. However, again with the SFA's mismanagement, the national team would be constantly playing in what looks like a half empty stadium or worse.

I think he might be alluding to the fact that if the board first swap loans for shares, then they will increase their holding, and so if there is a subsequent share issue based on how many shares you have, the board can increase proportionately to keep the same level of share ownership. The fact that this seems a benevolent board, especially compared to the previous one, and that none of them individually have over 30%, I don't really see it as a problem. It seems to me that they put the work in and the cash, so fair enough.

Nobody concerned about losing the massive amount of history and tradition that comes with the Hampden venue? It is way into the top stadiums in the world for that. And for a Rangers reason - the amount of times we've played there which meant that it was called our "second home".

For me, he would be more interesting than most, and I'd be much more looking forward to watching the team play than under McInnes. But maybe I'm going down the foreign is more exotically exiting than mundane old home-grown. But the trouble is, Scottish football is completely rotten these days. I'm probably also put off by some of the stuff he's said about Rangers - foreigners don't tend to have a history in that regard.

Just had a look at McInnes's European record and while he beat some mostly unheard of minnows in the early rounds, he's lost to some incredible mediocrity, Real Sociadad aside (but shouldn't the second finishing team in Scotland be able to go toe to toe with them). This year it was Limassol...

What is "outstanding" about Lennon other than his bigotry and crassness? And why would Rangers even think about a manager who is clearly a Rangers hater and the Rangers fans hate him? Even if he was the best manager in the world and he was willing to come for buttons, there would still be no chance. But yes, anything that failed blogger writes about Rangers is sneering at an outstanding level.

The team need what more? By eschewing swapping equity for loans, you don't end up with any more money. However, having zero debt, makes it easier to borrow more... Also by consolidating control of the shares, it makes it more comfortable for the board to open up a more public share issue which also raises more money.

6 doesn't sound too bad until you multiply it up over a season giving 20 points. However, I do think that not all of it was the manager and feel the officials - and the "you are allowed to cheat against Rangers" mentality that referees the CO and press have encouraged have lost us a least a point against Hibs and two against Kilmarnock. These were a bit outside the manager's control although you could argue that he could have instilled a bit more mental toughness in the players. So we could have been just three points behind - with the difference just being the Celtic game. That kind of makes it look like Caixinha being sacked mainly for the Progrés and Motherwell games - but maybe with the added background of some of last season's results, falling too much on the wrong side of the marginals in other games, as well as how little we've given against Celtic in three games. But I'm thinking that once again, Murty is going to make it look like it shouldn't be so hard for our recent managers. Although that also suggests that the players have generally been less than professional.

Why would he rule it out? His chances are probably about the same as winning the Euromillions, which is astronomical. But it doesn't mean folks rip up their ticket...

Interesting words from Walter and McCann on choice of manager 7 months ago. McCann gets it spot on about Caixinha.

To be honest, I'm probably not that critical of the board. It did seem a bit of a bizarre appointment but sometimes that's what you need to do if you want the chance of something special - especially when you're not going to be able to attract those with well established success. On hindsight, having seen Caixinha in the interviews, you can see why he was so compelling to the job interviewers. He comes from a country that for its size are world leaders in football philosophy and did have some notable success in Mexico for not the biggest and richest side around. If nothing else he talks a good game, and sometimes his team plays a good game, just not often enough for a club like us. I don't think going with a safe choice will get us close to Celtic, firstly as they have more money at the moment, and secondly Rogers seems to be far better than any of the safe choices available. We needed someone more clever than Rogers and Pedro looked like he might be that guy. Now I'm thinking we need someone like Rogers - who has been somewhat (however mildly) successful in a top league. I probably wouldn't personally want Moyes, but he's the type that fits that bill. Frank De Boer and Michael Laudrup are the more exciting choices for me, but I'm not sure if we can get them - as while their reputations maybe need rebuilding, Rangers are a huge gamble as a vehicle for that. We can both make or break a manager's career.

I get the impression that when Souness was young, without really being an avid fan, he had a soft spot or liking for Rangers, and went to a few games. After playing and managing us, I think that's influenced his memory, to remember it now as being a huge fan.

It's a good question, although I can see the likes of King now saying, "Right, we tried it your way..." considering how he completely distanced himself from the appointment decision. That bothers me too, although if it bridges the gap I'd take it. However, I don't think that basic style will bridge the gap, even if I suspect it would guarantee us a distant second place, well ahead of the rest. Managing Rangers is always different, but he should know that well after his playing days.

With the meeting coming so soon after the Kilmarnock game, it does seem like the last straw - although it could have been arranged earlier. However, I think it makes more sense to me that while the Motherwell game put him in last chance saloon, the Kilmarnock game made his position untenable. It would have put the board in an awkward position if they had already decided and then we had gone on to play fantastic football and won by a large margin in that game - which is what he needed for a stay of execution. But with the way we played he could still have been gone if we'd won 2-0 due to the performance and the lack of anything to give hope to the team becoming successful. I think Dave King being in town at the time was also significant.

While McInnes is probably one of the safest choices, he's got to be one of the least exciting and expectations will be runners up in the domestic competitions for some time to come. That's all safe can get really get us right now.

Technically they are correct, we can't really afford it right now, but they point they keep missing is, we know a man (or quite a few) who can (and they will get their money back in shares pretty soon).

Even the one that went 9 points ahead of Celtic? I doubt it.

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/news-category/match-analysis/807-video-analysis-rangers-attacking-play-v-celtic