AGM_72

I'm suggesting we have a mix of players who have experience there plus those who could play now. The point being that our first team is a plethora of players who are experienced or capable at a higher level than they're currently at. Rangers and Celtic would both struggle in the EPL. I think both would be in the bottom 10 by the end, with a possibility of relegation. We'd get 10x as much money and could easilly break into Ufa cup spots within a matter of years. The likes of WBA, Wigan and Stoke get triple our cash for struggling to stay in the PL. But both us and Celtic would struggle in the first season. It would take a few seasons for us to establish ourselves. Once we do however, the size of both clubs coupled with the size of the league and money would mean that both would do pretty well and perhaps break the big 4 after a few seasons. Absolutely spot on. The fan base we have, facilities and the worldwide status that Rangers do have would mean that if we were in the Premiership we would need only 5 seasons at the most to rake in the mega-bucks in TV money and we could start competing with the big 4 in terms of both signings and on the park. If we were on a level pegging with the likes of Everton and Newcastle we could easily compete with them for signings right now. As it has already been said, teams like WBA and Stoke get triple the amount we get (Even those who win the Play-off final in the championship get 30 feckin' million) and because of that we can't compete with them on contractual level.

Attention seeking much? Someone obviously wants to pander to the green half of glasgow to try and improve record sales. I suppose they'll need something depressing to listen to as their hopes of 4 in a row are dashed.

They do deserve a start on current form and application, however, if I'm not wrong Boyd was just going through a difficult time when we played Killie at Ibrox last time, we went 1-0 down and he was there to score the two goals that won us the game that day. Following that match was the beginning of his hot streak, if I'm not mistaken. Personally, I wouldn't risk leaving out Boyd for this game. However, I take the point that his attitude over the past couple of weeks hasn't been what it should be. Though I would argue that, until recently it has been. Killie are likely to sit deep and play 4-5-1 like earlier on in the season, so I expect the game to go like last time and I feel we need our best finisher on the park.

The two games I remember seeing Boyd playing upfront as the 1 in a 4-5-1 was Panathinaikos and Aberdeen as a sub. He was mince against Pana last year, but against the Dons this year he was better than Miller by a mile. He won the flick ons, he took the ball in well and generally linked well. Can he do it against Caldwell and McManus? I have my doubts, but can Lafferty or Miller? I doubt them just as much on current form(of course form does go out the window on derby day). So where does that leave us? For me Boyd should start because of his goalscoring form this season. Sure he missed his one chance against Celtic December 27th, but he's our best bet for me. No matter the formation he has to start, I would not be against the 4-5-1, aslong as he starts. His workrate and all round play is better this year. Aslong as we do not lose the game though, I'm happy. It's there to be won, yes, but we all know form goes out the window on Derby day and we just have to make sure we don't lose as it could do some major damage mentally, to the team.

A few things I'd like to point out. First thing's first; Cuellar activating his release clause? That doesn't wash with me. Particularly after watching Alan Hutton have a suspicious 'change of mind' 6 months previous which reaked of him being forced out the door. It's far more likely that in the wake of the Champions League failure this season, that Murray alerted potential buyers to our most saleable assets release clause and they came calling. Murray probably saw this as a way to cover our losses. Except, he didn't wager on such heavy backlash and was forced into spending said cash to cover ourselves. Poor planning seems to have been Murray and Rangers' downfall, financially, this season. He stated recently in an interview that he didn't plan for Champions League failure. Are you serious? And people wonder why we're in such a 'mess' financially. That lack of preparation cost us with the fire sale of Cuellar and possibly one 'star' before febuary 2nd, 5pm. We spent the Cuellar money on three midfielders, two of which are key players, one which has potential. You'd think the first thing we'd spend the money on would be a Cuellar replacement, Bougherra was obvious bought as a parter for Cuellar. Now we find ourselves in need of a central defender and possibly a left winger. Instead of the purchase of Edu, perhaps securing Berra would have been a more astute move? They're both of similar ages, so 'one for the future' could be applied to berra, while he could easily provide backup/slot into the first team in a way that Mo Edu has not (Yet. I do believe he will come good). Now if we'd budgeted for the loss in the CL, perhaps we wouldn't have gone and bought Lafferty for 3.5m so quickly a move which, if you compare his goal scoring to Boyds (as much as Lafferty has the potential to be a good player) you can quickly see who is worth 3.5m +, and we not be in this situation this January. Edit: In conclusion, I feel that it was mainly the error in not budgeting for the Champions League exit that cost us dearly with the sale of Cuellar and the sale of a star this window(if it indeed happens). Of course, the actual exit could have and should have been avoided but thats a whole different kettle of fish to debate, at the moment the focus is Murray and how he could have lead from the top. Now, I'd love to propose a solution, but unfortunately we can't solve an error which has been made in the past. All I can suggest to Mr Murray is that he: Learns from it. As his buisness' will not last long if there is some more management of that poor standard.