tangent60

Personally, I'm dissapointed to hear this. I honestly thought he was going to take the team to a 3rd and final promotion and then step down. That would have been (and still is) my preference.

100% agree with Telfer's comments. This ancient long-ball football has to stop. Higher level football clubs -- "big clubs" -- have all moved-on from it.

My feeling is that McCoist/McDowall/Durrant will stay in place for the rest of the season. I hope they can deliver promotion as failing to do so is unthinkable. However, for next season, I'd be heartened if Rangers looked into taking a progressive, modern-thinking manager + assistants from English League 1. (That's where I think value can be found.) The kind of people I'd love the club to look for would be: * completely and unequivocally committed to an attractive, modern style of play which involves moving the ball around quickly on the ground. * good coaches. * serious minded and detail orientated. * happy to accept scouts' recommendations on "value priced" players (young, touch, pace, can improve) from the lower leagues of England and Scotland, accept them into the club and work on their game and physical development. This would be part of a move to a more sustainable and entertaining football model.

The number one cost for Rangers (and any football club at the higher end) is player wages. Number one. That in my view, was what Green was seeking to cut, and it was unpopular, naturally, on the footballing side of Rangers. (He was doing other things also by the way, such as agreeing new sponsorship contracts.) And although Green has now departed, it is my belief that Rangers must not fall into bad habits, such as spending outrageous sums of money to bring too many players near the end of their careers to the club for a final pay-day, with little or zero prospect of a sell-on value for the club after their contract comes to an end. My personal opinion is that the model must be to bring good quality, young, hungry players to the club, who can be "trained up"/improved (physically and technically), who can succeed, and who can move-on later for as large a transfer fee as possible. (This, largely, is the current model of our friendly rivals from across the city, which explains why certain journalists and other parties constantly talk-up certain players and attach ridiculously over-estimated values to them, while proclaiming faux "fears of losing them". Rather, they are in fact keen to "lose" them and repeat the process.) If Rangers are to be self-sustaining (and popular with city investors), I'm absolutely convinced that the "selling club" model is the only way forwards. Outside that, the only other solution is new investment (and that can't be found in perpituity), and possibly new ownership by parties able to be benefactors (rare, in my view). If there are parties out there who are suitable for that model, I'd rather only hear about them after any deals have been done, and certainly not before-hand. All of the above merely my personal opinion of course.

Thankfully, Rangers' strong attendances (and season ticket sales) are one of the things that ensures a semblance of stability at the club, and which gives confidence to city (institutional) investors. As to any other areas of uncertainty (e.g., footballing strategy, costs vs income), I do hope these are addressed soon.

My opinion is that Green was indeed trying to cut costs. In my view, that was the correct thing to do. And while I am on-side with McCoist remaining in place, I am certainly not on-side with calls for "war chests" and £10m spending sprees. And I don't want to see a Rangers first team full of players near the ends of their careers. That isn't sustainable. The only sustainable footballing model is to aquire the best young, talented players available (scouting), train them up (physically and technically -- via daily coaching and strength and conditioning work), have them succeed, and then have them move on, with thanks, to an English club for a healthy sum.

Well, I did say it *appeared* that this is what he favoured for many players. The reason I said this is because, at the time, I read a number of posts on all the Rangers forums that he had a number of players running *many* laps of the training grounds. That could have worked for a player who perhaps needed it (say, Charlie Adam for instance), but perhaps for other players (e.g., older players, players carrying injuries, players operating "on the line" between fitness and injury, weak players), it would not be the way to go. Still, at best, this is guess-work (based on anecdotal internet posts), and I do admit that!

It is an interesting comment. I do agree that in order to prosper in EPL football, being physically strong, quick and fit enough (conditioned enough) for 2 x 45 mins of reasonable work-rate helps. Being technically very good helps significantly too of course. (And being good on both fronts, as well as being strong mentally, will open doors to the top clubs in my opinion.) On PLG: my view is that his adjustments to training were actually not optimal -- it appeared he was an advocate of reasonably slow, longer distance (and extended session) running, which is not necessarily always the answer to dominating physically. I do believe that there are players who are dominant in physical terms at Rangers. For instance, Wallace is a clear example of that in my opinion. Shiels and Little are both fine athletes. Black's fitness is very good -- note how he is always able to receive the ball and keep it moving (that is a definite skill that not all midfielders have). McCulloch and Bocanegra are both physically very strong, albeit lacking a little in speed. Argyriou looks like a really excellent find in athletic terms. Sandaza is a good athlete in my opinion, despite criticisms I hear of him being "ungainly" (whatever that means). There are of course players who are lagging behind a little, but I expect them to get up to the level required.

In McColl's favour, at least he did not stoop to the posturing and game-playing of P.Murray, B.Kennedy et al. I still think McColl has something to offer.

This is an interesting insight. It tells you that Scottish players are more aware of the physical performance aspects of the game than they are often given credit for. For what it is worth, I believe Kyle has the capability to get himself into good physical condition at Rangers, and to stay that way (using the right training and maintenance/injury prevention methods).

It is definitely a substantial improvement. I have spent a fair bit of time browsing around on it and it is a big advancement. Glad to see the back of those horrible adverts at the top, plus the summary of the RangersTV services on one page is much better.

I concur with the opening post. If it transpires that investigative (and in particular, legal) personnel on this issue are persons who have previously been (or still are) employed by Rangers' principal rivals, I would find that unacceptable. It would be akin to a rival club "setting their lawyers" on Rangers. Surely a conflict of interest I think. As to allocating resources for this particular fight, I believe that the club (and Green's ownership group) will certainly do that. (As titles are part of the historical and intrinsic value of the club, which must be defended.) Moreover, if necessary, RFFF assistance may be useful here. (Out of interest, the RFFF, with regular donations, can be an infinitely funded.)

So far, my perception of Mr Green is that he is a bit of a scrapper who gets things done.

So be it then. This will be the making of McCoist as manager.

So be it then. This will be the making of McCoist as manager.