Bill

So, with no HSV, are we backing the Paderborn Billy Boys or the Leipzig Loyalists?

For those prepared to consider the reality of our position, the harsh truth is Peter Lawwell has out-thought and out-fought Rangers for the best part of 20 years. He has succeeded is establishing Celtic as the pre-eminent club in Scotland and has done so by removing Rangers from any position of influence it had in Scottish football. Celtic has been better run in every respect, to the extent they are now far better financed and much better connected than Rangers by a country mile. Since returning to the SPFL, Rangers has succeeded in making second place its own but remains far behind Celtic in almost every respect. If we are ever going to shake off our current mantle as second best and step out of Celtic's shadow, we will need a far better calibre of leadership and it's far from obvious to me that we currently have the people on board to provide it. Clearly, we're now heading in the right general direction but if we don't improve and get it right, we could spend the next 20 years heading in the right direction without ever arriving at a destination. I remember when Rangers was recognised by everyone as the gold standard in Scottish football, when Celtic was the perennial bridesmaid. But we got lazy and careless and frittered away every advantage we once had. I don't think we can just assume Celtic will do the same. There's a tacit understanding that we have to stop Celtic winning ten in a row but, seriously, I'm more concerned about them winning 15 or more in a row and, frankly, nothing I've seen so far persuades me we yet have what it takes to stop them. My hope is that recent boardroom changes will pave the way for new and more aggressively competitive investors/directors and that that will translate into something more than the half-hearted challenges we've mustered in recent years. Something significant has to change and I hope the current directors are smart enough to realise that.

Exactly right

You seriously need to review your thinking on this.

The addiction runs deeply in some.

I'm sure every Rangers fan will pay close attention to which clubs vote against an investigation.

I would expect we're already engaged in that direction.

The mouth is now completely disengaged from the brain.

Doncaster is in his position by virtue of Celtic's patronage and sufferance. He will stay until he's told to go and he will go when he's told. This entire affair looks like coming apart in Peter Lawwell's hands and can only be contained by avoiding an independent investigation. Therefore, Doncaster may well be sacrificed on the condition there is no investigation and to keep the Celtic name in the clear. Celtic may well succeed in this but it looks like Rangers have enough to force the issue in court or at least to destroy the cabal Lawwell has worked so long to establish.

The ICTFC statement makes me more convinced Doncaster will resign tomorrow in an attempt to persuade clubs not to vote for an independent investigation.

If he thinks he's going down anyway but can salvage another arranged "appointment" elsewhere in return for preventing an investigation that would expose Peter ... then of course he would jump at it. I could see Doncaster landing a job at UEFA for example, where you know who has some connections. At the end of the day, SPFL strategy will be determined by Peter Lawwell, for the benefit and protection of Peter Lawwell.

I was thinking more of him agreeing to step down if clubs vote against an independent investigation, thereby protecting certain other, shall we say more important, people. It will be easy enough for him to be given a soft financial landing without bothering SPFL funds.

All you get is a message saying this is "temporarily unavailable". Figures.

Could Doncaster step down before Tuesday?

I know we're of like mind in this respect and I find myself thinking that there's plenty of credible business experience on the Rangers board to realise the same thing. Might it be therefore that either cost cutting is already planned in and/or some means has been secured to cover costs for at least a period? You know my inclination is to cut costs first and ask questions later but it's also the case that precipitate cost cutting could quickly undo every bit of progress over the last couple of years. So perhaps there's some understandable and practical sense in delaying and minimising the damage that cost cutting could do. Not my way of doing things but I'm not running Rangers and I'm certainly not privy to what I imagine has been a period of considerable background activity on the investor front recently.

I hope the trophy will have a large asterisk welded to the top of it.

That's the first time I've heard John Bennett speak. He exudes confidence and credibility. An effective interview. Why has it taken so long, so many years, for Rangers to find its voice?

Presently on border duty

Thank you. I don't use FF but no doubt they'll appear here in due course.

Has anyone seen the appendices to the Rangers report yet?

That's a hell of a thing to happen at 88 years old.

This is clearly quite a complex situation which I imagine goes well beyond what we've been allowed to see so far. However, what is quietly reassuring is not only the degree to which the opposition has been triggered by Rangers but the increasing loss of composure in each new statement blurted out in public. It looks like they know they've overreached themselves this time and are having a hard time stuffing the genie back in the bottle. Interesting times.

I look forward to seeing Appendix 6

Maybe the whole point of it is to draw them into the open.

It looks like this has been a long time in the preparation.