calscot

I'd chip in to pay for one to sit outside for a short time just for the photo opportunity... The more I see Lliambias the more I think he looks a bit like a rat, and he certainly scurried around like one at the airport.

How many realise that we had a win rate of 74% this season under Ally but only 37.5% since he left? I'm not saying Ally was any good but it does say our team became a lot more "garbage" after he left - a fact many will find too hard to acknowledge. In fact we had an 85% win rate for the first 20 games, while Hibs were at 45%. BTW If you discount managers of less than 5 games, Ally has the top win rate in our history, while McDowall has the worst. So unless you think Ally was any good, it's surprising if you can't see a correlation of results with the machinations of the board. Like I say, with all the slagging off for those that didn't see the board as "bad", there are a lot of people who are strangely still totally oblivious to the damage influenced by the board to the results and form of the team.

It will be a shame it that's true because they have yet to have a reason to come back. Those boycotting due to the board should be back pretty swiftly. The next attendance should tell us which it is... (ie if it's a bumper crowd, it's definitely about the board and not the football as that will be the only change.)

No idea what you're getting at. No matter how garbage we were before McCoist resigned we still looked headed for an easy 2nd place before he went. We're still currently in the 2nd strongest position no matter what your opinion of the management or team is. Like I said, there's a lot of people who are blind to what's right under their nose.

Gate money is dwarfed by TV money these days. A boycott by NU fans would not have the same affect as in Scotland - I feel sorry for their fans.

Good points. A lot of it will depend on how we deal with SD and the other onerous contracts.

Where can we compete with Celtic within 3 years? Income Gate money - yes, possibly more due to rejuvenated support Sponsorship - yes TV money - yes Prize money - depends on how we do Merchandise - depends on dumping SD contracts Europe - depends on relative performances but no reason why not if we play things right Share issues - Obviously we have the advantage here but can see them raising money to try to keep their current advantage Expenditure Wages - should eventually be about the same Player purchases - big gap but as both sides have little money for transfer fees, I think this can be bridged relatively cheaply Stadium and training ground maintenance - we have a big initial bill and then it should be similar Debt maintenance and repayment - we have the advantage despite the Ashley loans, hopefully to be paid in full in return for equity Executive pay-offs - TBC So the current gap is basically: finding a new coaching team while paying for the current one, the playing squad, the immediate maintenance, the onerous merchandise deal, plus the lag in income streams. We could equal things up in bigger crowds, no debt and far more investment. How we do elsewhere could radically depend on an inspired choice of manager and team. PS Just remembered: Also we have to account for a loss this financial year.

I don't think that is true, it's Advocaat that took us way into the red - and included stadium expansion/renewal and Murray Park. That's the point. That's what puts us above the rest of the league, we could afford this. However, times have changed and while prices and wages ave gone up massively for the best players, we're no longer in that arena of income due to TV money. However, we will still be as relatively richer that all but one club. Again, that's the point. We had the financial clout to do it and turn it around. Can't see how that makes it irrelevant without qualification. Again that's the point. We will be back into the top two biggest budgets and hopefully have a reasonably high class manager with matching coaching and scouting teams. I don't get what you're saying here. If we spend nothing it will take forever not 10 years. 100m? That should be twice our turnover in a few years. To get to where Celtic are, we basically need to spend as much as them or as near as but with better value. To get second we'd just need to outspend the likes of Aberdeen by say double. It's hard to put a number on what we'll need as it all needs qualified about what you're spending it on. I don't think King et al would be so confident about what they are saying without having an idea how much they need and how much they can raise but a lot of it will be based on a team in the Premiership, with nearly full Ibrox charging top prices, with at least two home games against Celtic to boost the season ticket numbers. With Rangers back in the top tier, TV money, sponsorship and prize money will increase dramatically. We can easily be as financially as strong as Celtic in a short time - bar the merchandise money till we exorcise Ashley. All we need is money to bridge the current gap in paying off loans (although we can live with some alternative debt to benign creditors), doing the necessary maintenance, hiring a manager and backroom staff, and putting together a squad to rival Celtic's. I think that would take about £50m over a couple of years and I think we have the people to provide it.

But won't the reasons behind that quickly change now? We were pretty solid in second place before Ally resigned and the boycott started, and that was WITH the sickness of our troubles with the board and the poor relationship with the fans. There's so many congratulating themselves on how they saw it all coming but have been totally missing this part which was under their nose for over three years. We'll also have half a new squad for the Premiership and our current squad was already capable of beating three Premiership sides, despite all the goings on.

I thought a NOMAD was only necessary to be listed on the stock exchange, but as you don't have to be on an exchange to trade, therefore, they are not required for any normal business...?

Probabaly not that relevant in the scheme of things, but boy is Lliambias an incredibly unlikeable character to my eyes and ears.

It's been demonstrated many times that a club with a bit of investment and a decent new manager can be dramatically turned around in a year or two. We've done it with Wallace and Souness, Celtic did it with Stein and O'Neil, then we did it again with Smith. Hearts are looking dramatically different in less than a year too. And there's plenty of other examples. In today's Scotland it's far, far easier for the likes of Rangers to at least get back up to second place within a year. The opposite is also true, a well run club can come off the rails in just one year. Most clubs spend more than they earn, and so the only infrastructure that is truly invested in for the future, is the stadium and training ground. Something we still have, albeit in need of refurbishment.

Sounds far too sensible, and although it would give Scottish football a shot in the arm, there will be too many dissenters playing the "sporting integrity" card. For me, I wouldn't want it as it would be stick to beat us with for a long time to come by you know who.

I think the same squad bar one player have shown they have the ability to get promoted after beating Kilmarnock, St Johnstone, ICT and Hibs (once). It seems obvious that we're more recently seeing how much a team can be affected by off-field strife, fans revolt and a lack of leadership. The first two should be cured soon, and bringing in a new manager should help cure the third. There is still the problem of lack of motivation for those whose contracts are running out or who don't think they are in future plans, but as has been said, we could bring in a couple of players on freedom of contract, and we already have some loanees and a couple of promising youths. At the moment I can't see us not getting to the playoffs, but getting through them won't be easy. I'd make us the favourites - we're doing better than Hibs in the league despite all our massive problems which they don't have to bear, but would put our chances at about 50-50 to win both ties. However, bring in a decent manager and get the fans back, and we should be a totally different side in no time.

I think any employee that demands full contract payment that we can't get out of should only be given so by continuing to pay them a their due salary while on gardening leave. There is no way we should pay them and allow them to walk into another job. That includes the playing staff. At the same time every single misdemeanour should be investigated, punished if guilty (docked pay?), and publicised where the law allows. For these two, an investigation could lead to them being sacked without payoff. I realise previously this has not been done in return for a gagging clause to stop the employee from speaking out against the employers, but for these two, any criticism can only be against themselves and their cronies.

No, it's a lot worse, it's a tank top cardie...

Is it time yet for this?:

I think the worst thing about that is that it was the immediate default position. No polite, "Do you mind taking that FaceBook page down, please?" to start with. It's threatened from the first communication (which I'm assuming it is).

Teachers may not openly create sectarianism but there is too much coincidence in what Scottish Catholics come out with all the time for there not to be a very large element of indoctrination. "Revisionism" is their biggest weapon, which makes it all too easy to dismiss ANY history that shows your chosen side in a bad light or those you hate in a good light. But there is also all the anti-armed forces and royalty stuff that is endemically ingrained. And of course a venomous hatred of everything Rangers is highly encouraged and not supporting Celtic is highly frowned upon. It's obvious that if those brought up as Protestants chose Rangers at prevalently as Catholics choose Celtic, Rangers would have about three or four times the current support and the rest of the SPL and below would have a similar support to 4th tier clubs.

If you imagine two secular secondary schools within half a mile of each other, you are going to have a rivalry and a divide - it's just natural. They even portrayed this on Grange Hill. However, if they are secular, then when you grow up and leave, you only have negative feelings for the rival school which become irrelevant as you won't encounter many people from that school or even know if they are - and there's a good chance you'll move away in any case. When you put religion in the mix, you have the rivalry which is also labelled by the religion and so you grow up with negative feelings towards that religion. The thing is, religion is always on our radar, no matter where we move to. This is highly exacerbated in Scotland with having only two large clubs, each with a religious connotation which mirrors the schools. I suspect most of it is banter, but they way things are set up, it's never off the radar, and you always get the idiots who take it too far.

Surely the Nomad issue is an non-issue. Just appoint a professional Nomad within a month. If the current board can find a new one every six months or so, why would a new board have the slightest trouble? At least we expect the new board to appoint one with a decent reputation and start running the club with proper corporate governance.

I would say that at least 50% of sectarianism is stirred up by the media, especially rags such as the Herald.

I think there has been an excessive amount of criticism of the coaching staff that ignores the external circumstances, but with the current state of the results and squad this season, I would rather we just replaced the whole coaching team. We need to bring in a new manager and build a coaching team around him and his philosophies - although it has to be balanced; I'd be against another Le Guen scenario where there was no local, knowledge, experience, culture or even reliable communication.

I think there is the point that King made that there will be large shareholders who previously supported the board but now don't want to be on the losing side as it may not be good for their interests. Some will be switching allegiances. You have to wonder what the positions of Margarita and Blue Pitch are now. They must have been getting something for their "quiet" backing of the Easdales and Ashley - but that's about to end and it may no longer be in their interests to be in the minority - or indeed if they are marginalised by the new board it may be time for them to sell up. I'm wondering what the long term plans are for RF and BR as it will be harder and harder to find shares for sale as their holding increases, and at the same time, none of the money goes into the club. It seems to me that the new board could release new shares every year for these schemes to buy up, thereby increasing fan ownership and simultaneously increasing cash available. There must be a cheap way of doing this. I realise that this dilutes the potential percentage share holding for the fans but it does make the club stronger and makes the increased share holding practicable. This could potentially raise about £2m a year for the club - not much in terms of the EPL but could be significant in the SPL.

You really don't do irony, do you? "hilarious" "master of deception" "nonsense" "clueless" Talk about running a mile from the subject.