Leaderboard

Meanwhile the waiting list for a wheelchair space remains over a decade long and once again this close season not one new single wheelchair space has been created. Four years ago when charges were introduced we were informed that any monies raised would be ring fenced for increased facilities, we're still waiting to see one penny spent in that area.

Let's not spoil valid constructive criticism by posting playground insults of club staff.

As I’ve said before the position Candeias played no longer exists, part of the reason for moving him on I’m sure. In the 4-3-2-1 the 2 don’t play wide they play narrow, the formation is nicknamed the “Christmas Tree” for a reason. Of course Arfield is more natural at this than the likes of Jones, Ojo and Hastie who tend to drift wide from a central starting position, but as far as the right wing is confirmed Tavernier has it largely to himself and will take responsibility for crosses from the right. In my opinion this formation doesn’t actually suit Jones, Ojo and Hastie but we signed two of them before we switched formation. Murphy, Stewart and Docherty are options who are more comfortable playing centrally.

Concerned that Rangers’ female supporters are being thrown under the bus by the club in their endorsing of the gender identity agenda. This woke nonsense impresses no one but the politicians.

If we do look to bring someone in there. We are already overloaded with players in the position. Arfield, Ojo, Jones, Hastie, Stewart, Murphy. Could even add Docherty and Middleton to that list. You’re talking 6 players players for two positions. If Murphy gets fit he could be a big player. You feel like a broken record saying that with the players we’ve had in the last couple of years at this club but surely he can do it. In terms of the question of another signing in general, it is surely dependent on outgoings. Shifting Dorrans and Grezda would free up a huge amount of wage money.

Yes, its an absolutely hollow gesture from the club which annoys me. Get the feckin wheelchair spaces sorted, get access for disabled fans sorted, dont make a song and dance about it, just get it feckin done. While all our supporters are taken for granted at times, the disabled Rangers supporters are treated with utter contempt and as a club we should be ashamed of how little we have done in this area. But never mind, we have clearly spent a large sum of money on this campaign which will do very little to nothing to improve access/facilities for match-going fans on matchdays, so all must be good then!

We do need to clear out players , but i'm not convinced Candeias should've been one of those players. Not great business imo, good luck to him though.

He's 31, with one year left on his contract. If he was keen to leave and SG wasn't too bothered then £250k isn't that bad, all things considered.

It's a tick-box publicly exercise really, isn't it. All clubs do it, which makes it generic and rather hollow - particularly when fs's post is taken into consideration.

I really can't wait to read Gollum McLaughlin's latest spin on this never-ending story. Yawnzzzz

Can club 1872 not help with this? That's really disappointing to hear about your experience, and I'd hope that's exactly the type of cause that Club 1872 would want to fight for.

I agree. It normally will work if both sides are thinking rationally and commercially, but it's clear that this is much more than just about money. I didn't realise that we actually paid £3m to create a new contract. That's astonishing. Without knowing the rest of the detail, it just shows how bad the previous deal was. If we knew that SD had the right to match any offer, it seems stupid to me not to have given them that chance. We could then have continued to boycott the main store but allow the club to make money via the popups, etc. The board members involved in this aren't stupid so they must have thought this through, but in the absence of any details (which we shouldn't really see anyway), it does look like we've shot ourselves in the foot. I hope this doesn't drag on though because I've been enjoying the football and this shouldn't detract from that.

I suspect our board are playing some kind of war of attrition. It doesn't look like it's working but no one can say for sure.

Gender neutral toilets will have to be built, next to the prayer room and chapel. Disabled fans don't whine enough to come higher up the list on the identity politicking hierarchy (that's a compliment, fs).

If they matched the best offer we had to go with them.

I’m struggling to understand the issue they think fans have with the recent court decision. If they think they only need to be reassured that they’ll still be able to purchase this seasons replica kits then they have massively underestimated the fans concerns. I just hope they have a plan b, because it sounds like they have gambled on the £1m penalty being the worst case scenario. I actually don’t care that much if I’m buying merchandise from SD or Elite or whomever else, as long as the club is getting the best deal. I would prefer it not to be SD obviously, but I’d rather that and the club didn’t have to pay penalties of £1m (or possibly much more + legal costs). I think they need to engage the fans on this. If SD is the best deal on the table (or equal best) the fans would not boycott them...and perhaps the club think we would....or am I wide of the mark?

Sadly my personal experience over the decades just backs that up. I've been the Chairman of the Rangers Disabled Supporters Club for more years than I care to remember, sat as the disabled representative on the Rangers Fans Board, been on the Disability Matter Group since its inception. This scheme was apparently 18 months in the making and yet the first I heard about it was when I saw it on twitter.

Rangers have made a statement. It's trumpesq

I think a major income stream is likely to be damaged but we haven't exactly been raking it in, on that front especially, for years. I'm generally sceptical about posts, regarding King and Ashley, on RangersMedia. Posters on there are entitled to their opinion but they seem to hate FollowFollow more than Mike Ashley, which is just bonkers.

It is a shame he didn't wait one more year. Then he would have one really valuable memory to add to the collection. If we make it to the group stage in Europe then I think we will miss him in those matches.

And at the heart of all our troubles is James Blair, the lawyer with the bad memory who doesn't know the ,meaning of conflicts of interest , once again hes been handed his arse by a judge , I make that 4 times now and he's still our legal counsel jesus wept .

And this from The Lawman on RM who is usually spot on and pretty fair when it comes to these matters . Report post Posted 1 hour ago For anyone interested, i have now read through the entire agreement and just posted my thoughts on Twitter. https://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqv59s THAT contract. What were they thinking ? Finally sat down and been right through the findings. I don’t think anyone will be surprised when I say its yet another shit show from a Rangers Boardroom. Until I read the findings, I had played my cards close to my chest on who was giving the legal advice throughout but Lionel Persey QC makes it clear that James Blair is at the heart of it all. In fact, he even goes one step further and calls out something I have called out for years, the conflict of interest between Blair, the club and Club1872. Even an independent neutral with no skin in the game can see right through it all. Anyway, there really actually is nothing surprising in the judgement and nothing that wasn’t mentioned on Rangersmedia a year ago when it all first came out and a 120 page thread was created. In “getting rid of SD” the Rangers Board paid them £3 million to rip up the old contract, drop PERSONAL, CIVIL cases against Dave King and Paul Murray and then signed a new contract that basically said that SD can stay with us at renewal as long as they match what offer we got elsewhere. Just to go off on a little tangent here, NORMALLY, those terms would be perfectly fine. I would love to have lots of contractors and suppliers on terms that if I go and find a better deal elsewhere, then they step up to the plate and pay my businesses more. There is ZERO wrong with that. But only if: a) You are happy working with them. b) You are not trying to get rid of them. c) You are not telling all your paying customers you have got rid of them. d) You plan to not tell them about getting a better deal elsewhere then get sued. What the actual Feck were they thinking ? How can a qualified and experienced lawyer allow such a contract be signed. And even more incredible, how can he believe or convince us to spend millions defending what was absolute black and white. If this was an independent legal firm, we would be going after them for “wrong advice” I don’t think we can do that in the current set up. So, putting aside the absolute mess King, Murray and Blair have put us in(im giving the rest the benefit of doubt as they would take the word of Blair before approving) where does the findings actually leave us ? Its not always easy to interpret everything without the full context and other agreements made and despite my nom de plume on Rangersmedia, im not actually a man of the Law so this is only my interpretation of Paras 87 onwards. SD have said they will “allow” us to continue to wear the Hummel Kit as official kit for season 2019/20. In return, we have to stop “working with Elite/Hummel” in the background by not supporting new product launches or working with them for season 20/21 as SD will be back in contract for next season. SD have a claim for damages and loss of income for the seasons 2018/19 and 2019/20 which will likely involve some sort of disclosure of our profit streams for last season. Persey believes this will run to “millions of pounds” but I still don’t think we make as much money on retail as my fellow fans believe we do, so that one is a wait and see job. Although there is a clause limiting damages to £1m, the judgement suggests this is “not damages” but simply the matching right provisions due and therefore in this case, he sides with SD in that the £1m limit does not apply. So in summary. We will pay SD court costs. We will pay SD loss of revenue for 2 seasons. We will stay as we are with kits etc until next season. We will be back in contract with SD again from next season. We potentially face further court cases and contract breaches from Hummel and Elite. Our Board are abysmal.

What we need is the type of player who can put our players in with a goalscoring chance with good old fashioned passing, the little simple pass that leaves defenders for dead

Has this been posted ? Alnwick to Blackpool, 1 year loan.

We will be learning if anyone is coming or going to the two top leagues in England in the not too distant future.

No @Gaffer I was referring to the Anyone Everyone campaign which the thread is about, a total waste of time if the club is not going to look after our match-going fans or comply with recommended guidelines for number of disabled/wheelchair seats/spaces. Its just a grubby PR exercise from the club.

By the time you add the saving from wages etc , it works out about £1 million . Would have preferred to let him run his contract down and kept him

In an attempt to get back on topic, Gerrard did say he'd probably look to replace Candeias. I'm still hopeful we can get Kent and if we did I'm not sure we need anyone else. If we don't get Kent, I'd be concerned unless we can replace Candeias with someone else.

Lets not judge the contribution Candieas made by his goal and assist stats on there own but look at the right side stats as a whole by including Tavs. I suppose time will tell whether Candys contribution is missing.

1 goal in every 7 games and 1 assist every 4 games for a winger is a really poor return, hence SG has felt the need to buy wingers and allow DC to leave. Not sure the wingers we have brought in are going to be any better, but DC is unlikely to improve at his age, so a change is the correct option.

I did watch them on RTV but maybe wasn’t paying attention to shape. I do think adaptability is a strength but the 4-3-2-1 has served us so well it’s seems madness not to use it when we start our league campaign. It makes better use of the abilities of Defoe, Arfield and Tavernier in particular. In fact it transforms the first two. Arfield is wasted in centre midfield and we don’t know how to use Defoe in a 4-3-3 he just looks isolated.

The position does exist and we've been playing 4-3-3 frequently during this season so far, as well as the 4-3-2-1.

I agree with almost all of this, but I think Ojo is more effective in the narrower formation. I'm yet to be convinced by Hastie (but it's very early for such a young player), but I actually think Jones will adapt very we'll. I like the fact he has a fierce shot on him and I'm hopeful we can benefit from that more if operates more centrally. You can see that he's been coached by us to cut inside more.

Loved Candeias and would have preferred to keep him. Cracking back heel in Europe and an even better one on broonie at the Arfield bounce up.

Genuinely hope SG knows what he’s doing by letting Candeias leave because I’m not convinced Stewart, Hastie & Jones are better options in the wide areas

Linkwood, Longmorn, Mortlach. I’m no expert but my old father was. Never without a dram in the evening. Never the worse for it. He took it the correct way - alternate sips from a glass of water.

Be good to have a loanee watch thread.

As I said, we don't disagree on the importance of the commercial handcuffs or the need to remove them. Where we disagree is that you're still repeatedly describing the problem while I think you should be describing the solution - and you can only speculate on that because only the board and their professional advisors can formulate any meaningful strategy.