Corky True Legend

A real tragedy. A real loss to the game but, more importantly, to his loved ones.

Perv! However, I agree.

That's the problem; too many fucking dinners.

It's a forum, mate. A way to vent your anger and frustation. I am sure that any player who reads this, although I doubt if any do, will be affected by comments on here. I would rather this than getting on their backs during a game.

I would have preffered 4-4-2 with Miller and Dodoo as the 2 upfront.

I would have preferred 4-4-2 with Miller and Dodoo as the 2 upfront.

Welcome back. One simple question. Are you satisfied with the way your work has turned out?

The more members, the more money available to syphon off. Short term loss for long term gain. Only Rangers would not be the beneficiaries.

What a supercilious attitude to take. I fully understand the problems faced by clubs, not just semi professional, not bankroled by Sky. I have never indicated otherwise. That is why I said that there are too many senior teams in Scotland. Dunferm;ine, Raith Rovers and East Fife could combine in the same way as the Inverness clubs. I did not intend to imply that you suggested FO for Rangers althoiugh it could be taken that way; I meant that a section of our support did. Ther were many posts in the early days of RF along the lines of "The fans will own Rangers". Are you denying that a section of our support want this. At the time I asked TLT if RF would consider putting a cap on their shareholding. All I got in reply was OMOV. As regards the Highland League, I duggest that you contact them as they say that they are "The most northerly senior football championship in Britain". I would not be against fans having up to 10% shareholding. Anything above that, to my mind, is asking for trouble regarding further investment.

Whether a club is fully professional or semi professional is immaterial; it is still a professional side. You keep trying to introduce foreign clubs which has no bearing whatsoever on the situation in Scotland but, hey ho, if it makes you happy then who am I to rain on your parade. Swansea City - they may have been "saved" by fan involvement but it took 2 major shareholders (individuals) to get them where they are. Our fans, magnificent though they have been since 2012, would not be able to raise the necessary funds to finance Rangers to the standard we expect and deserve. Hearts - it doesn't matter how many legal agreements are in place, if the money is not there, it can't be paid. Dunfermline - you have just proven that FO is fine for minor clubs. The Highland League is, and always has been, a senior football league; not "seen as". You aked a specific question regarding the "Yanks Go Home" debacle. I was simply stating why I was unable to answer it. For all I know, every member of that group could have been shareholders. You, however, appear to be pretty certain that the group concerned were not shareholders. You may well be privy to information unavailable to me. If you are trying to read anything else into it, then you are way off the mark. Much as I hate to say it, what Rangers needs is a Fergus McCann type individual, not what we have at present.

My first paragraph was in relation to your references to Spain and Germany, but you realised that, didn't you? I had already commented on your references to Dunfermline and Hearts; Dunfermline have nowhere near the running costs which we have and Hearts required a major cash injection from Ann Budge. It may be their intention to pay it back but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I shall wait and see what happens in that respect. The only amateur team in the SPFL that I know of is Queens Park. Pray enlightene me as to the others. With 4 divisions of the SPFL and the Highland League, which is considered to be a senior league (I do not know about the South of Scotland league), that by my reckoning makes over 40 professional sides. As to the " Yanks Go Home", as I do not have access to a) the full list of shareholders and b) a list of all those involved in that behaviour, I cannot comment as to whether or not their group held any shares.

Why do you keep quoting examples outwith Scottish football? It gets more than a little exasperating when you use teams who are under a completely different regime which bears no comparison to that which we are subject to. Do you think Scotland can, in present circumstances, support over 40 senior teams in addition to the Highland League and Lowland League? I have agreed that we require a united voice but not through shareholding. All that does is scare away major investors which we would require.

Hearts were saved by Ann Budge, not the fans. They were unable to raise suficient funds to keep the club going. I will give you your point about Dunfermline but it also proves my point that they are, at best, a mid table championship team. That is not what I expect of Rangers. You use Swansea as an example; they are not under FO. Wimbledon are a third tier club, again we have been there recently and it is not Rangers' standards. I see SD as the organisation which facilitated the abomination that is Club 1872 so do not expect me to fall down and worship them as the panacea for all ills. What positive effect have they had in Scottish football? It is in the worst state that I have seen it in over 60 years of being a Bear. There are too many "senior" clubs for a country our size when society has changed and grounds which used to be full every Saturday are now lucky to attract a couple of thousand, if that. Your final paragraph is where we are in total agreement. We do need a united voice but without the need for shares, projects, etc. These can be catered for by separate bodies whose constituent members wish to follow that route. Finally, if you have to resort to personal insults, then it is you who is writhing about.

What numerous others in Scotland? Remember we don't get England's level of TV money so don't bother quoting English examples. That reeks of clutching at straws to justify your position.

If you read the first post you quoted, nowhere do I say "solely". St Mirren were a Premier League team not so long ago, now, since SD got involved, they are languishing near the bottom of the Championship. Motherwell are in a similar situation. You probably think this is a coincidence, I don't. Prove to me otherwise.

I have never said it was their sole objective. However I did highlight your assertion that it was their ideal. I am certainly not against supporters being kept informed and having access to management. I do not think they should have control. You seem to think we should go down the Arsenal route. 2 Cup wins and 2 Charity Shield wins in the last 10 years is hardly a successful side in my book.

Must admit I was not confident before this match but, by God, I am sure going to celebrate it. Maybe about Tuesday I shall reflect on the poorer aspects of our game but for now, we are world beaters again. As has been said, we could have been up at half time; if so, I don't think Aberdeen would have come out as strongly in the second half. To me, there are plenty positives to be taken from Pedro's management. For a start, and most importantly, we appear to have seen the last of the 60 minute subs for the sake of it. Earlier subs if required and a change of formation. I would like us to try starting 4-4-2 with Miller and Dodoo up front. He is giving the younger players a chance and, much as it goes against the grain, we must show a bit more patience with them. For those who say that second has gone, I think we can still do it. After the split, I honestly think that Aberdeen will crumble against better opposition every week; I just hope that we don't do the same. Our next game against them is definately a 6 pointer. I am not going to get carried away after one game. Even under Ally there were one off games when we thought we had turned a corner only to be let down within a couple of weeks. However, I am a bit more hopeful this time.

English language is not your strong point is it? Perhaps you attended classes of ESL. You clearly stated that FO is the ideal to SD. Now you are trying to say that it is not. Make up your mind.

You highlighted "ownership of the club" and then said "not solely FO in any way shape or form". Ownership is defined as "the state or fact of being an owner"; thus it follows that your statements are diametrically opposed.

How on earth do you reconcile the portion which you have put in bold with your final sentence. They are diametrically opposed.

The aims of SD are FO. Read their website. It is like saying you support Jeremy Corbyn but do not support Hamas if you support Sd but do not want FO.

So you think that the present board of Club 1872 would run Rangers better? After all, that is what they were set up to do - get FO.

FFS. So now Rangers are the equivalent of Exeter City, Chester FC et alia. If you really think that then your idea of Rangers is vastly different from mine.

He doesn't give a damn. It's just another brick in the wall to him but another kick in the balls to us.