sparky88

Exactly. Rangers Media is the gift that keeps on giving. I kinda wish I knew more Old Firm fans at times like these. My Facebook feed is alas bereft of 'verge of tears' moments.

And he's completely correct.

There are any number of boycott/ protest threads on RM and they don't amount to anything. Don't get your knickers in a twist.

In the wake of the ongoing crisis at Ibrox, Rangers Media's posters have taken it upon themselves to tease the most important issues out of the ongoing situation: WILL SONE ALUKO BE ABLE TO RE-SIGN?

A Clyde boycott of SPL grounds is like an 18 handicap golfer refusing to take part in the Open.

Nope, but there are guaranteed to be a few posters along soon who claim to know everything about the process but are actually talking out their arse. I'm basing this on, what, 70% of the posts on this thread.

It took Murray 4 years to offload rangers from the time he put them on sale. No-one wanted to buy them then so what's changed since? Maybe some would value the assets the club has but apart from that, the only hope is some fans with money to come out the woodwork somewhere.

Every single thread on Rangers Media seems to mention boycotting a club, with also the acknowledgement that said boycott will never happen in a million years. I love the fact also that they are patting themselves on the back having donated 1872 pounds or whatever it is to their pishy wee fund - that's .001% of the debt wiped out! YAAAAAS!

I just want to say how fantastic it is that we're getting a completely unbiased, knowledgeable analysis of Rangers' administration from Bearwithme. Bravo, kind sir!

Think of Rangers as a cash cow (and celtic for that matter) there to be milked. I don't blame the chairmen of the other clubs thinking with their pockets when considering whether Rangers should be admitted to the SPL or not. Peoples' livelihoods depend on the money that the Old Firm bring in - directly or indirectly. I hate to blow smoke up their arses but its the truth - though that situation is the same in every league you care to think of since big teams always bring TV companies round the table. I inititally thought of the problem of setting precedents, but really there are none and are hardly likely to be any similar circumstances again (unless Rangers don't learn their lesson)

Ah alright. So does that mean that I could make up an alternative account to any event in history, compare it to the recognised account of what happened and say the truth is somewhere between the two? I merely focused in on the similarity between the 2 accounts - that bias was brought up. I honestly wouldn't care so much about this but there are loads of issues that the sfa should be brought to account on - if they are going to be subjected to idiotic, baseless comments (calling them biased comes under this) then they won't meet the fans at all. The fans will become more divorced from the decision making process. Then we all suffer.

I wouldn't give Regan anywhere near that amount of credit. Let's be clear about this. Regan doesn't come out of this looking well - even if you take the sfa's version of events. The SFA's statement, however, makes the top of the RST look like retards, who wasted an opportunity to have a civil discussion with the head of the SFA (an opportunity other clubs' supporters groups would kill for - i hasten to add)

As far as I can work out from the reports in the newspapers and from Rangers Media (I presume how the rangers posters know about the fans version of events) there is little to suggest that the idea of Regan being biased against the club was not brought up at the meeting. I wouldn't blame him for leaving if that was the case. You can't reason with people that steadfastly believe that opinion, wrongly. The idea that anyone in the media or spl is biased AGAINST rangers is laughable.

That's convenient! I don't see what Stewart Regan would gain from leaving a meeting early without good reason(storming out is tabloid speak) especially considering his standing amongst other supporters groups. Old Firm fans already moan about bias in the media constantly (preposterous as that has-been friendly last night has been promoted in the gutter press solidly for the last 2 months) Just have a look at Rangers Media - with the talk about bias against Rangers. It doesnt take much imagination to guess that some fans would go off on one in a meeting with Regan, does it?

I honestly, honestly thought the fans at the top of the rangers supporter groups would be more sensible than that. I hope their actions don't make it more difficult for other supporters' groups to meet the high heid yins at the SPL and SFA. Neither wonder they don't listen on a one to one basis to fans when they are as cretinous as them.

Apparently Whyte isnt a fit and proper person to be owning Rangers. The words stable, horse and bolted come to mind.

Oh so that'll definitely happen then.

Since the crackdown on MPs expenses, Ed Miliband's been forced into a second job?

Best for ages

Christophe Coke-heart

Haha, I was just thinking this about some of these. Some are completely brilliant.

Teddy Cher-and-ham

Paul Gas-Coin

Kirk Broadfoot

Well Murray has got a woeful record against Cilic, and IIRC grass suits Cilic so theres easier folk he could have played. Roddick loves Wimbledon and Gasquet is a bit of an unknown, ie which Gasquet will turn up, It's a lot more difficult than his draw at the French, but if he's got his head screwed on, he should manage it. I've seen no evidence to suggest that the top 3 will have to play their best against Murray to beat him. Has Murray beaten any of them in a grand slam? I'm almost certain he hasn't. It's all in his head, get that sorted and he could be going on a 46 match unbeaten run (or whatever it was) like Djokovic.