Bears

Well he couldn't have left next year as it would be too obviously linked directly with our return to the top flight. And waiting even longer would have been risky. Any mention of him not having enough of a challenge is nonsense - what was his percentage success in all competitions? Not that much! Clearly in his head this was the last safe time he could have left and the budget excuse is interesting. Where is all the money going? Big biscuit tin? Clearly all the funds from player sales and the CL is going somewhere. Maybe they are worried about the land deals...

So the rules need to be changed - make an appeal, it cannot be withdrawn. Sporting integrity indeed.

We could see what would happen if they set a precedent with us. Too late, Mr Jackson, even if he tries to blame it on us a little, by claiming... 'This residual need for revenge is understandable. They believe their club was wronged and so they will demand parity across the board. Even if it reduces Scottish football to a bloodbath. In fact, so bitter have some of them become that they would wish it to be so. They make no attempt to hide their delight at the suffering of others and nor should they be expected to as Rangers is their only concern.' Maybe they need to come out and say 'We were wrong to do this to Rangers', apologise, return the money the SFA/SPL withheld from us and compensate us for loss of earnings. Okay, we can dream...

This idea of pay-offs, generally, stinks a bit. I realise that contracts are contracts and if the club wants to terminate a contract then it should be paid up in full. But if the player is pushing for this, then the chance to have full pay, early is a great deal. Add this to a salary at the new club and this is a great money-spinner. Players need to stop seeking a new club simply when they are not favoured by playing regularly. The choices are either to work hard to get back in the team, accept their loss and negotiate a lesser payoff (if that is what they are seeking, it should be less), or to sign shorter contracts in general. I am not applying this specifically to Shiels here (we don't know all the details), but in general it is getting ridiculous how many great players are signed, play for a while then seem to go off the boil and get a profitable payoff. And the agents won't complain either.

Jardel cannae come.

Fair enough. But as others have pointed out, it is debatable if McCoist was justified in postponing or not. And it's also debatable if the two situations should be linked: one is to do with fixture planning and the other whether a manager thinks he should play with a depleted squad.

The problem with the 'Tweeter' is that he didn't even respond to what McCoist said but to what he thought he said. Does the 'Tweeter' think fans should be given fixtures lists unnecessarily difficult?

You may say you have no issue, but then immediately use it as a springboard for having a go. I would believe you if you could simply write 'I agree with Ally on this.' For trying to back up the fans, he is being attacked on a related but different issue. Can the guy ever win?

Do you think it is fair that fans are asked to attend three away games in a row straight after Christmas? Do you think that many clubs would benefit from a bit of practical thinking in arranging fixture lists? Do you think that the reality of someone's point could have more importance than whether you like the one who says it?

Not the same thing. He cancelled after a late call-up IIRC. At least there was a purpose for it. This time he is pointing out that the fixtures could easily have been made easier for the fans, which would also ensure more income for the small clubs. For this he is pilloried. Why?

Just a pity the 'Tweeter' ignored Ally's point, or more likely just totally misunderstood the point. It was about fans suffering, not players. The point was that some fans cannot afford 3 away games in a row straight after Christmas. This could easily have been avoided by whoever organises the fixtures being a little thoughtful and decent. But we are talking about football authorities and Rangers fans, after all. A pity that the opportunity for pointing out yet another lack of decency regarding Rangers' fans and the football authorities has been lost amongst the opportunity to deride our manager.

I don't believe it is relevant here. I know what happened around the UEFA Final and the situation was due to fixture lists being mishandled, deliberate or not. This is about fixture lists being mishandled, deliberate or not. The former was an insidious attempt to make it as difficult as possible for Rangers' players. This time it is arguable that it is about making it as difficult as possible for Rangers' fans. Ally was complaining on behalf of fans. If one fan cannot go for financial reasons then he has a point. So why is he being pilloried by many Rangers fans for defending Rangers fans? You can either complain about fixtures when there is a reason or not complain at all. If there is one fan who cannot attend because of these conditions, then there is a reason.

A quick glance at the comments on several papers' sites show not onlt the papers getting the story wrong, claiming it was all about the players, but also plenty of Rangers' fans agreeing with "other" fans that Ally is out of order with his comments. So sad to see not only being completely misrepresented but also attacked by his own fans in shared fora. As for the manager mentioning it's also not easy on the players, I'm just wondering how any here can complain about the messing us about with fixtures around the UEFA final then attack Ally for making his point now. It leaves them also unable to complain about having such a fixture list at this time of year. Yes, Ally postponed matches late because of late call-ups but that is a different issue. The manager's point was that the fixtures could easily have been fulfilled at more appropriate times ( the empty weekend recently?). Further, I wonder if the loudmouthed Gemmell will see the point if not all the tickets are taken up by Rangers' fans due to this fixture, which would cost his own club in revenue. Maybe he'll have to eat one of the cheaper own-brand pot noodles...

As individuals (albeit some pairing up to gather bravery) a number of self-professed Rangers fans, who also happened to be players, walked away from the club. This was at the precise time the club and its fans needed stability and solidarity. Those employees of the club deserted a ship they thought was sinking. It was not. If they cannot admit they made a terrible mistake, then they really need to question themselves as to their understanding of what it means to be a fan, and the definition of loyalty.

Before the Board get rid of Ally, assuming this is actually the case, they will need to have a pretty good idea of who will replace him. There is no guarantee that even a successful manager elsewhere will be an improvement. And as fans, we need to be aware of the same issue. By calling for his head, recommending his departure or just predicting it, are we jumping on a bandwagon which might leave us one day with a poorer manager? I have mixed feelings but until Ally really messes up, it is a big gamble to talk about changing the manager. Especially as, on the park, matters have vastly improved, at least with results, it may be time to get behind Ally more.

Wouldn't be a bad thing to bring in one or two, even as subs, more often. This could happen while the run continues without really jeopardising it.

Law's energy has made a real difference so much so that I think he has been the most significant signing. Daly has been up and down at times (yesterday apart!) and Jig often played that role, though maybe with less movement. Mohsni's goal-scoring is excellent for a defender. Hopefully his defensive qualities are just as good as he hasn't been heavily tested yet in that department.

If you can face it, the Rangers page on the BBC website has only one "photo gallery", named 'Rangers: The Players' Moves'. This is a gallery mostly of those who walked out on the club, but includes the two Lees and Kyle Hutton (umm...they didn't move!). No surprise that the same-old agenda appears in Jig's caption: 'The experienced Lee McCulloch indicated he would transfer his contract to a relaunched Rangers if the old club could not be saved.' (My bold) Will they ever get the message or are they just playing chicken with the BBC Trust decision?

If Spiers were to rewrite that article without all the polemical and highly emotive word-choices - livid, war, eruption of bitterness being only a few examples - would he actually have a story? Are we the first club or fans ever to complain about being mistreated by journalists with an agenda? Were these hypothetical other clubs/fans reported as having "venom and anger [which] are showing no signs of abating? Probably not...

Cheers, gb

So that's how to do it! And here I was waiting til I thought I had something vaguely worth saying... <img />

.

Ally's face said it all.

We are Rangers and no other. We have taken the path of being 'punished' for many 'crimes' that were no fault of the club or the people who are being punished. We have embarked on an adventure through the divisions which will be talked about for decades. When we return to the Champions League it will be a great day in our history. A very long history. But you suggest we should have bought another club, sneaked back in to the CL, left ourselves open to justified accusations of not being the same club, destroying another club and being hated for something we have actually done. No. Just no.

A very welcome statement. Covers a number of issues that have needed to be dealt with. Interesting to see the reactions.