Bill

He wasn’t debating the issue, only expressing a personal opinion. Shame to make a joke of it.

23 points out of 30

You won't find many serious observers who think Rangers will be ready to win titles under Gerrard in less than two seasons, at least not without a sensational collapse over at Torbett Towers. The objective this season is to finish the league campaign with a coherent platform for progress, something we've not done since Walter left. Only then will we be able to move on. Anyone can muster outlandish criticism if their expectations are equally misplaced. Gerrard has a long and difficult job on his hands, let's allow him to do it.

I listened to about three minutes in the car before turning it off in disgust. I'd rather not know that listen to that sneerfest. The question I was left with was ... why would any Rangers supporter with an ounce of self-respect listen to the BBC, let alone campaign for Rangers to make gestures of reconciliation to the weasels at PQ?

I’m not calm at all but I share your surprise at the lack of debate.

You can speculate all you like about the reasons for the SFA upholding Collum's decision but the upshot is everyone outwith Rangers will conclude the referee is vindicated and Candeias deserved to be sent off, which he clearly didn't. So the next referee who doesn't like Rangers is encouraged to take any daft decision he fancies. I don't believe there was no scope within the SFA's powers to rescind the yellow card and football would have been a whole lot better if they had.

The SFA was never going to admit fallibility by overturning this decision. Rescinding the red card would mean admitting the gross incompetence of at least one of their referees ... which would have opened the door to further such challenges and admissions. Much better to sweep it under the carpet and infer the referee must have seen something the rest of the world couldn't ... but they won't embarrass us by proving it.

I hope I'm wrong but I think this will prove a challenge too far at this stage of rebuilding. The best I'm expecting is a competitive showing and heads held high on return. Spartak looked a good side at Ibrox, hard to break down, and we seem to have completely lost our counter attacking confidence. We'll see. Like Ian, I'm disappointed not to have RTV coverage, the only match reporting that doesn't include making Rangers look bad.

I'd rather have Mickey Mouse

There isn't a business I know where a cancelled order, a significant bad debt, an unexpected resignation, a change in export legislation, a swing in FX rates, new competitive technology, or any number of factors, can have an impact on projections. Which is exactly why companies take weekly or monthly soundings in the form of financial variance reports. Many businesses have to cope with unpredictability, football is no different and there's absolutely no basis for football clubs adopting less stringent management oversight. BTW if you have any interest in business I'm not sure Dragons Den is where you'll learn anything. It's a highly scripted entertainment show.

I wasn't laughing. There isn't a half-decent business plan that isn't constantly stress-tested and reviewed. In fact, if you're not doing this then you shouldn't be running a business. No one, least of all me, has said the football side doesn't impact on the commercial side of the business ... or equally that the financial side doesn't impact on the football side (as we've seen only too clearly these last 18 years or so). However, a more sensible perspective is to accept the Club is a multi-faceted business where many things affect many other things. There are a lot more than two sides to Rangers and a lot more than the two simple categories of ambition you are focussing on. All of these need to be constantly and frequently monitored, measured and assessed against the plan and none of them will be free of shocks and surprises. But if you don't have a plan (and I'm sure Rangers does have a plan) then how on Earth does anyone decide whether we're performing to expectations, exceeding targets or falling on our arses. Simply saying we might not win every trophy or have every signing turn into a world beater is no reason to run a business in a chaotic, shoot-from-the-hip manner. If Club1872 professes to represent supporter interests and claims to serve as a check on future mismanagement then it first needs to know where the board is trying to take the club. The board isn't going to publish the financial budget but it could and should issue a high level strategic business plan in the full knowledge that football, like every other industry, is an uncertain business. In fact, that very uncertainty that you say makes business planning worthless is all the more reason why you should absolutely have a strategic plan.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I'm talking about an outline business plan, not a financial budget. The former is what business leaders use to guide and maintain direction, the latter is what accountants use. For example, what is the board's intentions with respect to debt, equity, differentiated income streams, reliance on domestic/European income sources, merchandising strategy, international profile, partnerships, etc. It's not difficult unless you think accountancy is the same as finance. If you don't have any insight into this then what's the point of ever turning up to an AGM again?

You’ll know best.

There are a lot of things in football that need to be improved but taking penalties isn't one of them. Every week there are countless glaring examples of bad offside decisions, often changing the result of games - the offside rules are clearly beyond the means of referees and lineament to get right. Do something about that. Or simulation ( by players or yellow-toothed managers). Or red cards conjured up from referees' imagination.

That's just nonsense. A business plan isn't a prediction. It's a basis for forming targets and assessing performance against those targets, which may be specific targets or just general in nature. You don't get a leg amputated if you fail to meet targets but you are expected to be able to explain why ... and similarly when exceeding targets. Those targets might not be anything to do with achievements on the park, probably better if they're not, but they could be business aims and objectives that crystallise our direction and pace of development as a sports business. Why would that be so difficult? In fact if it's not already in place I'd be both surprised and disappointed. My suggestion was that this could be shared with the support in an overview form - big picture stuff. The detail might well be necessarily confidential but the overall direction and aims should not.

One thing I never see are figures projecting future financial performance, which would be hugely interesting. Not in an annual financial report of course but surely the club has a financial plan that must include broad targets, assumptions, etc.

That's not policies, that's wrapping paper.

But they didn't get any of those things. Not the first time, not the second time, not the third time either. So what ARE they voting for? Your faith in human nature is touching but we're beyond tales of idealism where the SNP is concerned. The tories had to be judged in 1997. Labour had to be judged in 2010. Now judgement of the SNP can no longer be avoided.

I don't think it's presumptive at all, since the SNP only has one policy. What else COULD they be voting for? Better healthcare, better education, better law & order? Better local government? Fairer taxes? More personal freedoms? No, looking at the SNP's record in power, it can't be any of those and THAT is precisely the problem. Hope over disappointment.

Reformed? Rehabilitated? Surely the SNP IS a simple box. "Independence at all costs." Nothing else matters, everything else is sacrificed for that one goal. If ever there was a simple box, it would have SNP stamped on the side. I've posted on here several times that if I believed independence could reasonably offer better life prospects for me and my family then I would be giving it serious consideration. It clearly doesn't, by any measure I can see. Taking that together with the disastrous failure of the current administration to carry out the responsibilities of government, I'm utterly bemused why anyone would be voting SNP and yet many obviously do ... so why is that and isn't the pursuit of an honest answer worth the candle? Families, job, health, wealth, and other such issues ... do you really think that's what drives the average SNP voter? Other than the SNP, the only other party I've seen in govt in Scotland is Labour and that was only slightly less mired in the politics of bigotry than the SNP. As for being quick to condemn SNP voting Rangers fans, I think we need to be careful not to allow false indignation to colour the facts. As far as I can remember, no one has said to anyone they shouldn't vote SNP. What HAS been said is that, for obvious reasons that have been outlined time and again on here, anyone who votes SNP and professes to support Rangers must inevitably be conflicted and that the equally inevitable outcome of that has to be a reinvention of one or the other. As far as I'm concerned they can kiss Elsie's arse twice daily, so long as they don't continue to revise what Rangers has been and largely still is. Which they always do. I don't belong to any political party either. Nor do I have any allegiance to one although I'm sure the assumption is I'm a tory, which I'm not. There are people here who would gnaw their thumbs off to see Corbyn in power (it's easy when you don't actually live in this country) while I wouldn't give MAY another day in No 10. If I vote, which I usually do it is based on which party can best limit the damage perpetrated by the worst choice. For many years now that has meant voting for whoever could best limit the chaos of the SNP. BTW, a really good post. I seldom read more than a couple of lines of anything but I enjoyed yours to the end.

The Russians are ruled by a king. The Chinese are ruled over by a king. The PRK is ruled by a king. Same in Egypt, Iran, and the entire Arab world. Kazakhstan, all the other Stans and most of Africa are ruled by kings. So many it's going to be boring to mention them all. They can't all be wrong. ? What ... was king not the right word?

You must be seriously short of brownie points to come out with that sh*te

I’m sure that’s amusing if you try hard enough.

That’s nice. Why the rudeness?