Danny

Yes. It's quite possible it was a drunken fight. In which McGregor came off worse. What I am saying is anything could have happened.

I ignore posts from wabash now, hence overlooking that one. So McGregor has stated he was assaulted?

Given no one will give official comment, we don't know for sure he was attacked, just that an incident led him to sustaining an injury. I'd be very surprised if he starts on Sunday.

The 'irony' was not lost on me, it was just the same as the rest of your post - a waste of time and peppered by what seems to be close to hate. I'm done talking to you.

I must have been too subtle I was trying to say 'who cares what a nothing who plays for them says'.

What bmck's getting at is the press shouldn't be of the beast that it is. You both make very valid points, some of which I strongly agree with, but the bottom line is the press IS the way it is, whether we like it or not, and complaining about it isn't going to achieve a thing. The beauty of this country is the right to free speech, the right to complain, the right to object to the perceived objectionables. The flaw is objecting rarely makes a difference.

I don't disagree with much that you say there, but what you're ranting against isn't people who consume the press, but the nature of the press to lure in people to consume the drivel. And it's a bitch isn't it? The modern press is vile, but it is also inescapable. STV News: Allan McGregor in nightclub incident - cue Raman Bardwaj telling us about it. You buy your paper, same story on the back page. You log onto Gersnet, BBC, Sky Sports - it is plastered over all of them. What is one to do? Black themselves out of the entire modern media so McGregor can do what he likes in the privacy of his own skin? Idealistic, yes. Utopian. A wee touch. Impossible - totally. It's the way of the press that everything and anything is reported, and if you complain about it, as valid as your view might be, it's like complaining about the bad weather.

Oh, so now it's about companies and how good a signing he is? There was me thinking your thread was about an alleged incident involving him as reported in a rag. No, once again you've turned it into a slag off a Rangers player fest. tbh, I find your stance not befitting of the conduct of genuine Rangers fans - what you're saying sounds extremely like the sort of insults tims would chuck at our players. I would never dip so low as to call any Rangers fan anything other than a good fan. But they have to behave like one and I can't think of any other Rangers fan who outright refuses to say a good word about, or support, one of our players. In short, get a grip, and get over yourself.

Who the fuck is Rogne?

I haven't taken any stance on McGregor's life - it doesn't affect me personally so why should I. But it DOES affect Rangers, and THAT personally affects me. I don't really understand your indignation of my view, but I guess we can just leave it there because we're not going to agree.

How fucking hypocritical. A rag comes out with a pathetic story which we can't even know for sure is true, and you absolutely condemn Lafferty, hang drawing and quartering him. But when another player finds himself in the news, the BBC and Sky for that, you 'sit on the fucking fence'? Sorry, but you just continue to condemn yourself with every further post.

And yet the Allan McGregor thread doesn't even register an opinion from you, far less any condemnation. If this wasn't personal, you'd have cited an opinion on both. Stop pretending it's about 'standards'. You hate Lafferty and that's it!

I'm glad you've clarified your view here, because previously you were tainting all these people who might be curious about these things as not being sensible, which was a pretty clear slur on their character rather than reasonable advice to them that they shoud, in your view, disregard such publicity. Allan McGregor is a famous person and because he's carried out acts which have left him with women going to the paper - in his position that's irresponsible and foolish. Just because you seem to have installed yourself as, no offence, a slightly morally righteous individual with regards this issue, it doesn't mean that these stories should be ignored. bmck, there's no bubble in which people are cocooned from the outside world - rumours, salacious news, scandal - they travel fast and like it or not sensible and unsensible people take interest in them in equal measure. The word you used...'voyeurism' - it's spot on. And I'm sorry to say that even the thickest and smartest people are guilty of indulging in it. Oh, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I am saying it happens and is human nature. And it's not really fair to smite someone for doing it under certain circumstances. And discussing this story is one of those.

Bit of an unnecessary slur there? So if any massive golf fan took interest in Woods situation, he's not sensible? Bit of s smear that. I think you're quite wrong. The fact this thread exists proves you wrong. An incident involving our own goalkeeper and we're all discussing it, his future, what happened etc etc. Oh, and in your view, sorry to say it, but anyone in this thread making comment on this story isn't sensible.

Protecting? How is withdrawing him from Scotland protecting him when he's apparently not being protected for Sunday's match? So when Tiger Woods and John Terry and Ashley Cole's misdemeanours became public, you morally advocated a personal media blackout and avoided every piece of news pertaining to them? I don't believe that. Like it or not, his private life has become public, much do to his position, and also much due to his own willful participation of newspaper spreads. That's why I said innocent, Andy? All we know is it was something - he is either innocent or guilty of something. There's little more than can be said. Am I wrong? I knew exactly what you meant, it's why I posted my reply. And I also disagree with you - my support is primarily for Rangers, and as much as I rate him highly, I support his interests less than I support the teams'. So whatever happens should happen for the sake of the club, not him - because they pay his wages and any time he is in the paper through bad press it reflects on the club and gives ammunition to our opposition. I like McGregor, I like him a lot - I think he's our best goalie for some years and has saved us so many times - I do not want him to leave for his sake unless his performances go south. And he's been through worse experiences than this recent escapade only to come back with better displays. So him leaving serves no purpose. To anyone.

I don't want a new manager. I've been fickle in the past and lost faith and trust in Walter at times, but truth be told that despite dreadful club circumstances since his return, all he's done is progress and make us better and better. I think he's a much better manager that our circumstances should allow us to have and we should be grateful for that. He may drive us mad now and again with some dodgy personnel choices and the odd baffling substitution, but you can't argue with the steps we've taken since he took over. 1: 2007 January to summer - made us the best defence in the UK and we beat Timmy at Parkhead - comfortably sorted us out and got us safely into second place when it had looked in doubt under Pee Ell Gee. 2: 2007-2008 - but for assholes in bureaucracy, we'd have won the league - we also managed the small feat of getting to the Uefa Cup final - what a run that was. Won both the domestic cups. And beat Lyon away 3-0. 3: 2008-2009 - won the league despite a few ups and downs. Kaunas was a blot to be forgotten. 4: 2009-2010 - finance has really limited us yet despite a dreadful CL we've been excellent domestically and are 7 points clear with technically 2 games in hand. The thing holding us back from progress in Europe is simply money - you could put Mourinho in charge of this Rangers team and he'd struggle in the CL. It's more than good enough for the SPL though, and after the hell of PLG, we wanted domestic dominance back. We seem to be getting that. Europe will follow should we become financially better.

He claimed on STV News that if Walter stays, he will. That's the reason for the delay in signing the contract - he doesn't know if Walter will still be here come summer.

I'd be shocked if Beasley starts. Well off the pace in his return, and that wasn't the blood and thunder of Timmy.

I'm not confident with Whittaker in defence at a level higher than the SPL. I'm with him tbh. He was castigated by the SFA. Absolutely no reason why he should come running back like a puppy with a ball.

Wabash has had a real hatred for Lafferty for as long as I can remember. Not a word of praise for him for the few games he played well recently, yet when he gets a chance to attack him he takes it. It's personal with him, however much he pretends he wants to see Lafferty play well and prove him wrong.

Gordon Hutton Berra Caldwell Wallace Brown Fletcher Thomson McFadden Boyd Miller I think that will be the team. Can be a 4-4-2 or a 4-3-3

Surprised there's no place for Ferguson. Probably because of his non-committal stance about it.

If Walter Smith has endorsed this decision, it's very bad news for McGregor indeed.

A few years ago the idea of Allan McGregor being in the news for the wrong reasons more often than Artur Boruc would have been laughable, but that's exactly what's happened. From his 'shagger' exploits in the summer of 2008, to his stupidity in featuring in a centre spread with his mrs, to boozegate, to the rape accusation (which I don't believe he's guilty of but I'm not sure), to this. Whether or not he is guilty of this latest misdemeanour isn't the point - more and more now he's becoming bad baggage, and for all his talent on the pitch, his reputation suddenly precedes him. He's now a target, and seemingly a legitimate one.

Was that not when he was out for almost half a season with an injury sustained just after he'd joined his new club? Or does my memory not serve me well.