rossco87

Prodan?

I just commented in another thread that I thought Law had been performing below par recently. Personally, I think he is being asked to play to deep, but deep midfielders covering a defence is something we have had since Walters return.

I think Black has been decent for several weeks. Good at breaking up play and reuses the ball effectively, granted it's not an incisive pass everytime with him, but he always has his head up looking for a blue jersey and always makes himself available for the pass. I feel that for large parts of the season Law has been fairly anonymous. Not sure if that's down to the tactics being employed or the player, but he seems to get a lot more leeway from the support for average performances than Black.

DBBTB we must be around the same age!!! I can remember being pretty pleased with his appointment, I think like Inigo said the fact that it was widely known that Advocaat had had a large say in his appointment. Given his early record I think that was rightly justified. Granted the latter years were not our best, I wonder if he would ever be welcomed back as a future manager?

Helicopter Sundae That was my post which you quoted. To clarify the 2012 comment, it was a reference to the quote of a previous blog of Thomson's I included where he talked about treating Celtic equally to the "investigations" he is reporting on Rangers; "Right – let me make two things absolutely clear at the outset. First, I am writing this imagining that one or two people outside Glasgow use the internet, so I might make some observations familiar to Clydeside surfers. Second, this arises from my continuing investigation into Rangers which is still in early stages. That is to say, I am not investigating Celtic. If I were, rest assured RFC Bears – they’d get just the same treatment" The above was posted in 2012 and my inference was that if he was true to what he had written he should be investigating the State Aid and cheap loans story instead of writing fluff pieces about Craig Whyte, not that Thomson had knowledge of the State Aid stuff back in 2012 as I think you have taken from it. I was rushing so wasn't my best piece of writing! Sorry for any confusion it caused!

Typical Alex. Instead of being a proper investigative journalist you write a fluff piece, using an unnamed source, with the (one must assume) mission of spreading as much unease amongst the Rangers support as possible. Meanwhile the European Commission has in recent weeks written to a Scottish football club and Glasgow City Council requesting details on alleged state aid and stories continue to appear on blogs and twitter regarding further questionable dealings between the football club and council and the Co-Op bank. Where is the journalist who wrote; "'Right – let me make two things absolutely clear at the outset. First, I am writing this imagining that one or two people outside Glasgow use the internet, so I might make some observations familiar to Clydeside surfers. Second, this arises from my continuing investigation into Rangers which is still in early stages. That is to say, I am not investigating Celtic. If I were, rest assured RFC Bears – they’d get just the same treatment." One might suggest that given your inability to report (what a journalist does) on a potentially giant story breaking in Scottish football with documents, facts and figures in the public domain already, contrasted with your continued determination to comment and speculate (what a gossip columnist does) using unnamed sources render your above comments nothing but a smoke-screen for a determined attack on a football club, and by extension a section of British society. Who knows, the above article may yet turn out to be true, or it might prove to be once more all Craig Whyte bluster. The European Commission may yet find Glasgow City Council did not partake in "State Aid" and that everything is squeaky clean in the East End of Glasgow. Or it might find a level of dealings which may border on corruption. This is all speculation. What is for certain the continued double standards of all reporting on football matters in Scotland stinks to high heavens, and will continue to do so while editors a one sided agenda such as yours to continue. Think I'm wrong Alex? Prove me wrong and do some digging into land deals and cheap loans like you promised you would back in 2012...

Glad we have an agreement on Wallace's position being particularly difficult. I have to admit I would be somewhat bemused if, during the meeting, McCulloch didn't even ask "Who else's wages / what else is getting cut?" as a bargaining piece at the very least. Actually I'd be pretty angry if it transpires that the suggestion was out right refused without any discussion as to how these cuts fit into the wider context of restructuring the club. I'd also be angry if it ever emerged that Wallace gave the same answers to McCulloch that he gave to English. It is one thing controlling what answers you give to members of the press, but when you are asking people to take a pay cut the very minimum I would expect of a CEO of Rangers is some level of transparency. I guess we will never know what was discussed during the meeting unless one of the parties comes out and speaks about it.

I don't really understand what you want Graham Wallace to say then? He gave an interview and openly answered questions regarding the players cuts. Granted the quotes may not be expansive enough to be classed as statements, however to call them "political speak" is disingenuous. Let me play devils advocate for a moment and suggest that (as I assume you want) Graham Wallace came out with some brash comments that all the directors and non-footballing staff would be taking a cut (I seem to remember Charles Green being rightly castigated for making brash unqualified statements) and then for some reason - perhaps may we speculate the public announcement of cuts before any negotiations have been concluded - the proposed cuts don't go through. Do you not think that might seem a little unprofessional to investors who Graham Wallace or, other members of the board, may have to approach in future for funding? Or perhaps Graham Wallace is aware of the historic tendencies of groups who do not fully support the current regime to take answers given in good faith and twist them to suit their particular agenda. For example; "GL – What will be the low point for our cash balances in this current year. BS – April of next year we will have over a million at that point plus we will also have an optional unsecured facility provided should we need it. CM – the million is without counting any Rangers Retail dividend. So there will be more than a million at our lowest point." The above quote is from the RST's own minutes from the meeting between Stockbridge, Mather, Traynor and the RST, RSA (Assembly) and RSA (Association). It is convinient that in the build up to the AGM, and indeed since, the second part about £1 million being a figure not accounting for the additional revenues mentioned by Mather has been dropped. Could it possibly be that Wallace is aware of examples like this and does not want to give answers which can be misrepresented later?

Wallace had to go public on the players’ salary leaks to try and stop the press driving the agenda when it came to that story. In the same interview he also commented; "We're looking at the executive team as well as the wider staff organisation. We're doing it." and; "We're looking right across the whole business and need a little bit more time to complete that project" Granted that these quotes were answer's related to Brian Stockbridge's popularity and "changes at the top", however they fit into the narrative of changes to the way the club is financially structured which Graham Wallace has talked of since the AGM. Again I ask, what factual evidence do you have to counter the statements made by board members?

Or.... The non-footballing staff cuts are still in negotiation stages and announcing them at present would not be appropriate. Seems strange to constantly put across a negative view which contradicts statements made by club employees without any factual evidence which counters these statements.

As stated above Bill has made major assumptions in writing his piece. The board are currently around 1/3 into a 120 day review of the whole company structure, of which players wages are part of. The fact the Wallace had a discussion with the manager and captain regarding the possibility of the players taking a 15% wage cut which was leaked does not mean that the board are not also looking at their own payment structure at the same time. The truth is unless you are on the board, or have direct contact to a member of the board who is leaking this information to you, then nobody fully knows the scope of this review other than what Wallace has revealed in interview or at the AGM. To speculate that somehow the board are not going to take a wage cut without revealing that you have information that directly contradicts that the board are undertaking a comprehensive review of the entire business model of the club is nothing but agenda driven drivel.

Guys, Need to keep the pressure on this one and keep asking for answers / keep it being discussed in the news. E-mail to clyde; Dear Sir/Madame, I feel compelled to write to you for confirmation on what, I assume, was an editorial decision during last nights (09/01/14) broadcast of Superscoreboard Phone in. Returning after (I believe) the 6.30pm news bulletin, in which the news reader highlighted a breaking story that Celtic and Glasgow City Council had been asked to provide information to the European Commission regarding land deals, a caller named Chris called into to discuss the very same issue. During his call Chris highlighted that although these were still allegations, should they prove true the ramifications could be similar (albeit through a different agency) to those suffered by Rangers during their First Tier Tax Tribunal (FTTT) vs. HMRC. The caller then invited the panellists to speculate on what the ramifications of Celtic being found guilty of these accusations being true might be. In response the presenter read Celtic's official statement and then cut the caller off stating that the panel were not "experts" in this particular field. This is a marked difference to how panellists and presenters acted during the FTTT, where rather than consistently read a statement from Rangers, potential ramifications and at times other aspects of the case, were debate openly despite to the best of my knowledge not one of the presenters or panellists being an "expert" in tax law. Could you please explain why and this (assumed) editorial decision of not discussing matters that members of the show are not "experts" in was made and why it was not alluded to on air to ensure callers to the show understood the correct parameters they could call in to discuss; or if it was not an editorial decision what steps are made to ensure that, in the interests of balanced and fair journalism, in future callers wishing to discuss matters regarding this particular subject are given the same airtime as those wishing the discuss Rangers' FTTT. I look forward to your response and explanation. Regards,

Unless of course he subliminally thinks Stickbridge is King of Ibrox?!? Surely not Mr Mccoist?

There are no squad numbers, so as BF2 says each matchday squad is 1-11 then 12-18 for the bench. Therefor in theory someone could have a different number each week (a number 1 up top would be interesting) which would make it really expensive if they were your favourite player...

And how is a vote between the current incumbent and a group who wish control but have not, in the manner of proper politicking offered an alternative on how they would operate differently, democracy? True democracy would be a vote by the shareholders on every position open to any candidate who wished to stand for that position. By that process all parties would have to provide an explanation on why they feel they would be the best person to fulfil the role they wished to hold. Ultimately however, this is yet another example of both sides utilising as emotive language as possible to sway fans support their way. Boardroom votes have very little to do with democracy, and both camps know it.

Best part was watching the BT Sports guys (I think McLeish was one of them?) trying to carry on with their half time analysis right as the band started up right next to them!

You either are or you aren't, black or white. Both parties seem to be happy enough to talk about snippets when it suits them and use rhetoric and scaremongering/appeasing language when they don't want to divulge too much information.

Surely both sides now realise they need to stop the mud slinging match and come out with facts and figures if they want to win the hearts and minds of the Rangers support. Green's statement last night made some attempt to address this, but was mainly the bluster we have become accustomed to. Unfortunately it seems that TBK Mk2, and particularly McColl in this statement, also seem unable to make comment in a clear and concise manner. I am sorry but using terms like "It could take 10 to 20 years to repair the damage they are doing" and "Make no mistake, this is as serious as it gets." without any credible information to back those statements up seems like an attempt to spread panic and fear amongst the support to try and win backing.