Bill

Yes but I'm not sure congenital miseries like you actually count

Unless there's a minor mutiny underway on the board, King has no leverage. If he had, he would never have left in the first place. No, if King is on the way back then there are far bigger changes coming down the pipe than anyone here has so far alluded to.

I agree but only to an extent. There isn't a Rangers supporter who wouldn't be happy if we had won trophies while serving up tripe. As someone else already said, performances are nice but winning is everything.

King returning to the board would be a strange and unexpected event ... why would he do that unless he can table a large majority of shareholders and impose himself as chairman ... and surely no one on the board wants that, apart from perhaps the adolescents at Club1872. So, assuming there's any truth in this rumour at all, what could his motivations be? The only thing I can think of is that he has new investors behind him, investors the current board desperately need and who would of course provide King with a means of disposing of his shares. King returning and Park leaving is just far too much of a coincidence.

You're making the assumption that the board wants King back. A worse scenario is that the board needs King back. Hopefully neither is the case.

"Back" being the operative word.

A realistic appraisal from @Rick Roberts

Changes bring risk …. but not as much risk as no changes when things are going badly. Many Rangers fans are now so risk averse as to be reluctant to risk even success.

Clearly a good idea ... as long as fans don't think this is a platform for them to run the club and that there will be some questions that cannot be answered.

There are persistent rumours of new investment but I've seen nothing at all to substantiate them. This look more like the housekeeping that accompanies new leadership taking over. I would take more notice if the changes were around the boardroom table.

If true, that could potentially be as many as 15 players leaving, which I suppose is the sort of number it will take to reduce the squad size, root out the deadwood and make a significant difference.

Along with a couple of others, Morelos hasn't been a Rangers player for at least a season.

Let the purges flow.

I wonder if Beale had a hand in Mulholland's departure? In any case, there's no point asking for change and not relishing it when it happens. I doubt Mulholland will be missed.

And at the other end of the park, when both fullbacks devote so much of their efforts to making crosses into the opposition box you'd think there would be better return but their much-vaunted crossing ability only rarely amounts to anything, certainly not enough to sacrifice defensive abilities for. Two new fullbacks and a new captain please.

In any case, perhaps there isn't such a thing as the right man, only the best man we can realistically get.

Unless of course he's also the right man for the job. Which I think he might be.

With next to no resources, Livingston is a minor miracle.

I've lost count of the goals we've conceded at the back post this season to an opposition player arriving totally unmarked behind Tavernier. He seems to have almost no defensive awareness.

I'm not convinced he needs more responsibility but he certainly needs to make better use of the responsibility he has. Robertson has always looked like someone who was too keen to delegate upwards. That's what I hope he's doing but it's also possible these are defensive moves to try to stop the upper organisation disintegrating while he looks for new blood.

I wouldn't have listened to it anyway. Some principles are worth upholding.

It may just be a reallocation of the combined responsibilities previously held by Robertson and Bisgrove. In fact, it's difficult to see that Robertson was anything other than a COO anyway, given the lack of structural development at the club these last couple of years. The titles, frankly, mean very little. It would however be logical to appoint a Commercial Manager, with Bisgrove retaining principal oversight of commercial development. The thought has been raised that Bisgrove's elevation is merely a retention bribe to avoid losing the two of them at the same time.

My work here is done

There might have been a majority vote for accepting a BBC invitation but in fact there was little offered by way of coherent justification. Much was essentially "get intae them" and "give them a piece of our mind", neither of which would have lasted beyond the introduction music. It was a trap waiting to be sprung and undoubtedly the right decision was reached.

Consider this. If Patterson had stayed, would he still be wasting away his career on the bench waiting for Tavernier to be dropped?