quinty

I agree with all of what he's said. It's high time we found out who owns the club and what their agendas are. The fact remains that whoever these guys are (Blue pitch and Margarita) are still puling the strings at the club, despite a new look board with a minority shareholding.
A King backed fan takeover is the only way to be sure that the people who own and run the club have it's best interests at heart.
The only problem is that the Shysters over at Blue Pitch and Margarita etc. are going to demand a hefty fee for their shares, that'll be more money in the pockets of faceless people, and less going into the club.

Baaa! Baaaa!

Unbeaten run continues, unlike some

Oh its great to have an unbeaten record.

am i not allowed an opinion?Am i just to forget his "clueless" dig at me yesterday ( which he started, as usual) and play nice?
If you think i am overstepping my boundaries, report ne mate and we will get an official ruling.

Having been away for the weekend with limited internet access, and having finally reached the end of this thread, can I now throw in my tuppenceworth? To start with, as he is obsessed with "yes/no" answers, I will answer GOAT's question as yes. This, however, is subject to the same results, id est unbeaten in the league and still in 2 out of 3 cups.
I would also like to make some points, some relating to previous posts and some not :
1. As regards Ally standing with his arms folded, I never saw Scot Symon jumping up and down at the side of the pitch and he was not a bad manager.
2. To those wanting a team of youngsters, is this not what hearts are moaning about; their youngsters are being ruined by having to play?
3. As regards the standard of play, If I was being kicked about by lesser quality opponents, I would not try to play silky attractive football. I would rather not have a broken leg. Look at the treatment Black has had to endure with the knowledge that, should he give it back, it is he that will walk.
4. Allied to 3, the standard of refereeing means that opponents will try to stop good attractive play by rough tactics knowing that they will likely get away with it.
5. Jim Baxter was an established player when he joined and said, when capped for Scotland, that he was no better a player than before he joined Rangers; it was just that he looked better because of the players around him.
I am not an "Ally can do no wrong" fan and would love to see better play but I like to think I am being realistic in saying that, as far as our progress is concerned, he has not yet let us down.

May I take this chance to remind you that you only get 3 points no matter how many goals we score.

of that there is no doubt in my mind.

Another school of thought is we can only beat what is put in front of us. Furthermore every team has slumps.
At the start of the season good football was being played.
We may get back there, the Dunfermline game recently was a good game and the team played well.
At the moment the job is getting back to where we belong as quickly as possible. We have also managed to find some very good young players, especially Aird.
Hopefully things will improve as we advance to the Championship, but I am not clairvoyant, no one is.
Walter Smith did not always play attractive football but he managed to do us proud. Maybe history will repeat itself.

I would rather talk about the football instead of listening to your repetitive drivel.
Do you actually ever say anything positive about Rangers?
I mean we may not have played well at the weekend but we came from behind twice and went on to win.
Or maybe you would rather us lose to prove your point.
If that is your attitude then YOU are the kind of fan who is holding the club back and not those YOU attack in your thread title.

Since 19 Oct, Swansea have won 2 games in the PL. That's the type of form that would go down brilliantly at Ibrox

And here, exactly, is the point.
He is not failing at his job, in fact he is succeeding. On games won he is the best manager in Scotland, UK, Europe.
What you are suggesting is that his job is to have the team play in a formation, style that you approve of.
Ally doesn't need to go, but perhaps you need to go and find a team that plays to your criteria. Shouldn't be difficult to find

I said at the beginning of the season, let's give him to the start of October when the team is bedded before we call for sackings. And I feel justified in asking that, the team is top, unbeaten and with a vastly superior goal difference... We are in the final of a cup competition and considered overwhelming favourites to win, we have as much of a chance as anybody to win the Scottish Cup. If the only thing that is not up to standard is the performances of the team, then I don't see what we have to complain about. Regardless of who the manager is there is this unwavering belief that we should be playing 2 up and dominating everyone. Walter was slammed for his tactics in the run to the uefa Cup final, plg was slammed for trying to change how the team play, which didn't work in the league but was working in europe... Souness was slammed for bringing in Mo Johnston.... The point is that no matter what the club is doing or how well it is doing it there is always something that some sections of the fans base won't like. These 3 years in the wilderness were never going to be the best football we have ever played, and to be fair if we played kids or most of the side was kids we would be playing very similar to what we are. The kids are not the finished article and most people on here have commented that a number are mince. We have achieved a lot considering where we started at the beginning of last season.

Yip we are playing like a third division team, next season we can play like a championship team and the season after like a Premier team.
The thing is when we struggled to win the league by 20 odd points last year we looked at QOS and compared them to us, we wanted to scoosh this league like them, in one thread someone made the point why don't we sign the whole team and the Manager, fair do, this season we are where QOS were last year, we have more points, we have scored more goals, we have conceded less, how is it we are pish and they were fan fukin tastic.

I can't wait for the doom mongers to come on....
Oh wait

Just wondering if Mr Spiers of the Herald has a similar moral dilemma to that he expressed on the day after the FTT decision. In case he's misplaced his moral compass, I reproduce part of his article here:
There are two distinct issues for legitimate debate here. First, the legal argument, and second, the moral argument.
Legally, Rangers stand vindicated. There should be no dubiety cast on this (though some are trying). HMRC may well announce they will appeal the Rangers decision but, as things stand, within the legal framework, the club under Sir David Murray did nothing wrong.
Morally? Quite a few take a more dissenting stance. The EBTs system allowed for tax-avoidance on a grand scale – tens of millions of pounds – which might have been put to far greater use than lining the pockets of footballers and football clubs.
The moral cliché used here is “money for schools and hospitals”, which has come to sound over-earnest, but it still touches a truth.
Not for nothing were EBTs called “a legal tax loophole” because that is precisely what they were, prior to being reined in: they allowed for unpaid taxes via disguised remuneration which everybody knew would ordinarily have gone to the Revenue.
Are we allowed, even after Rangers’ legal victory, to cite this scheme as having been morally distasteful? I hope so, because that is how many have viewed this pocket-lining process.

A few guys on here might remember that celtic lost a tax tribunal in '97 due to not paying vat on season ticket sales as they claimed that each voucher in the season book had no sell on value . This most definitely got overlooked by press & public back due to no internet .

Just wondering if Mr Spiers of the Herald has a similar moral dilemma to that he expressed on the day after the FTT decision. In case he's misplaced his moral compass, I reproduce part of his article here:
There are two distinct issues for legitimate debate here. First, the legal argument, and second, the moral argument.
Legally, Rangers stand vindicated. There should be no dubiety cast on this (though some are trying). HMRC may well announce they will appeal the Rangers decision but, as things stand, within the legal framework, the club under Sir David Murray did nothing wrong.
Morally? Quite a few take a more dissenting stance. The EBTs system allowed for tax-avoidance on a grand scale – tens of millions of pounds – which might have been put to far greater use than lining the pockets of footballers and football clubs.
The moral cliché used here is “money for schools and hospitals”, which has come to sound over-earnest, but it still touches a truth.
Not for nothing were EBTs called “a legal tax loophole” because that is precisely what they were, prior to being reined in: they allowed for unpaid taxes via disguised remuneration which everybody knew would ordinarily have gone to the Revenue.
Are we allowed, even after Rangers’ legal victory, to cite this scheme as having been morally distasteful? I hope so, because that is how many have viewed this pocket-lining process.

Just wondering if Mr Spiers of the Herald has a similar moral dilemma to that he expressed on the day after the FTT decision. In case he's misplaced his moral compass, I reproduce part of his article here:
There are two distinct issues for legitimate debate here. First, the legal argument, and second, the moral argument.
Legally, Rangers stand vindicated. There should be no dubiety cast on this (though some are trying). HMRC may well announce they will appeal the Rangers decision but, as things stand, within the legal framework, the club under Sir David Murray did nothing wrong.
Morally? Quite a few take a more dissenting stance. The EBTs system allowed for tax-avoidance on a grand scale – tens of millions of pounds – which might have been put to far greater use than lining the pockets of footballers and football clubs.
The moral cliché used here is “money for schools and hospitals”, which has come to sound over-earnest, but it still touches a truth.
Not for nothing were EBTs called “a legal tax loophole” because that is precisely what they were, prior to being reined in: they allowed for unpaid taxes via disguised remuneration which everybody knew would ordinarily have gone to the Revenue.
Are we allowed, even after Rangers’ legal victory, to cite this scheme as having been morally distasteful? I hope so, because that is how many have viewed this pocket-lining process.

Just wondering if Mr Spiers of the Herald has a similar moral dilemma to that he expressed on the day after the FTT decision. In case he's misplaced his moral compass, I reproduce part of his article here:
There are two distinct issues for legitimate debate here. First, the legal argument, and second, the moral argument.
Legally, Rangers stand vindicated. There should be no dubiety cast on this (though some are trying). HMRC may well announce they will appeal the Rangers decision but, as things stand, within the legal framework, the club under Sir David Murray did nothing wrong.
Morally? Quite a few take a more dissenting stance. The EBTs system allowed for tax-avoidance on a grand scale – tens of millions of pounds – which might have been put to far greater use than lining the pockets of footballers and football clubs.
The moral cliché used here is “money for schools and hospitals”, which has come to sound over-earnest, but it still touches a truth.
Not for nothing were EBTs called “a legal tax loophole” because that is precisely what they were, prior to being reined in: they allowed for unpaid taxes via disguised remuneration which everybody knew would ordinarily have gone to the Revenue.
Are we allowed, even after Rangers’ legal victory, to cite this scheme as having been morally distasteful? I hope so, because that is how many have viewed this pocket-lining process.

Just wondering if Mr Spiers of the Herald has a similar moral dilemma to that he expressed on the day after the FTT decision. In case he's misplaced his moral compass, I reproduce part of his article here:
There are two distinct issues for legitimate debate here. First, the legal argument, and second, the moral argument.
Legally, Rangers stand vindicated. There should be no dubiety cast on this (though some are trying). HMRC may well announce they will appeal the Rangers decision but, as things stand, within the legal framework, the club under Sir David Murray did nothing wrong.
Morally? Quite a few take a more dissenting stance. The EBTs system allowed for tax-avoidance on a grand scale – tens of millions of pounds – which might have been put to far greater use than lining the pockets of footballers and football clubs.
The moral cliché used here is “money for schools and hospitals”, which has come to sound over-earnest, but it still touches a truth.
Not for nothing were EBTs called “a legal tax loophole” because that is precisely what they were, prior to being reined in: they allowed for unpaid taxes via disguised remuneration which everybody knew would ordinarily have gone to the Revenue.
Are we allowed, even after Rangers’ legal victory, to cite this scheme as having been morally distasteful? I hope so, because that is how many have viewed this pocket-lining process.

I remember that mate
Scored 6 headers from what I remember
4 with the forehead

Jimmy smith scored six twice and Davy Wilson did it once

4-0.
Got a feeling Clark will get at least 2 in this one.

Clark will score a hatrick tomorrow. He's going to click