Leaderboard

Apparently he's got a YouTube channel and visits clubs in their rivals strips. Good on him!

He's fantastic. He's worth two players to us on the pitch. I hope we keep him as long as possible.

I see Craig Levein's let himself go.

Scoring in both games against Porto and now for Columbia show continued progression. A hat-trick in the League Cup Final would put the icing on the cake. You tend to think that seriously interested clubs will be looking to beat off other suitors and I'd be surprised if bids didn't come for him in January. As for numbers, this season has taken him into new territory, a more rarefied atmosphere.

It's frustrating when our ex-players underestimate the value of our players! ?

I already know one person who never goes who has a ticket. That means someone who does go all the time, will be without a ticket. There will be many like that, and it’s irritating to say the least.

I've liked the look of Barjonas whenever he has played for the first team. In my opinion, lads like him should get more chances in the first team squad and get game time when we go 2 or 3-0 up.

I think I will have a great day out. I'm hoping for lots of Union Jacks, pyrotechnics and a trophy.

Is it not time to shut this thread down?? Its going round in circles and pretty pointless to be brutally honest

Nice of the yahoos to help keep us afloat. ?

No, radio commentary only from the Wrexham website.

Lots of these clubs are kept in business by kind hearted business people

His goal against Peru, roundabout the 8 min mark

I expect we all do or at the very least a lot of us do. it goes against the grain for me to want them to win but currently we find ourselves in a situation where either us or them losing is detrimental to not just the Scottish game overall but to Rangers as well. If I were English and a Liverpool fan I expect I wouldn't give the proverbial flying if Man Utd were beaten in Europe and may even be cheering a defeat. But if Man Utd say never won a single game in Europe this season it's going to have little to no bearing on the English placing in the co-efficient table and certainly wouldn't affect England's automatic entries to the CL groups. As we all know that's not the case for Scotland and further if we and the yahoos can continue the form of the past two seasons into next season we could actually rise to 10th which not only would give the country 2 CL places it would give the Scottish champions automatic entry to the group stages while the runner up enters at QR2. That has to be desirable. Just win the league and you automatically earn maybe up to £50 million.

I’ve got a streak of that in me myself, tbh.

Still no word about pay at the gate, so it seems just turning up and buying them from the ticket office. May have to go early.

As well as the BTC , doesn’t the £94m include the wee tax case & Whyte’s non-payment of income tax /NI?

His value just went up a few million more ... Internationals at Hard Rock Stadium 16-11-2019 KO:01:30 REF: J Marrufo Colombia Alfredo Morelos 90+3' 1 - 0 FT HT: 0-0 Peru

Football forums aren't real life, thankfully. Most Hearts fans I speak to think Jambos Kickback is full of lunatics. And Hibs fans don't foam at the mouth at the mere mention of Rangers.

My latest FOI. Basically BBC says they do not collect information on whether or not they report incidents to CO therefore not obliged to create data therefore their assumption is there were no referrals. Their response to my original request was quite bizarre. I have edited for brevity. No Relevant detail excluded. These do get reviewed in London and eventually they will realise all is not well at the subsidiary branch. It’s not a complex process and always appeal to get coverage in London even if it is usual dismissal. 30 September 2019 On 13 August 2019, you requested that the BBC provide the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’): “Scottish football operates a disciplinary system whereby controversial incidents not seen by an referee or assistants and relating to player discipline, can be retrospectively referred to the Scottish Football Association’s Compliance Officer. Referrals to this disciplinary process can be initiated by a variety of people and organisations. During season 2018-2019 how many times did BBC Scotland refer incidents occurring in the SPFL or SFA competitions to the SFA Compliance Officer? Which incidents involving which players from which clubs were referred by BBC employees or BBC staff whether in interim, permanent or consultative roles such as ‘football pundits.” On 11 September 2019, the BBC responded that: “We can confirm that neither BBC Scotland nor BBC staff submit disciplinary reports to the Scottish Football Association’s Compliance Officer.” On 11 September 2019, you sought internal review of the BBC’s decision. In particular, you said that: “I note that you have not responded to the actual question I asked, which was simply which “incidents” have been referred to the SFA Compliance Officer by the BBC staff or those employed in an official BBC capacity (interim or permanent). The answer you gave me was that no “Disciplinary Reports” were submitted. That response does not make contextual sense in terms of the question I asked. I did not imagine the BBC submitted “Disciplinary Reports” (whatever they may be). I am asking whether or not “incidents occurring” in football matches are referred by the BBC or its employees (permanent or interim) to the Compliance Officer and if so in what context have those referrals been made and which players and teams were the subject of those referrals in season 2018/19. I am appealing against your initial rebuttal of my request as it appears your response is out of context with the actual question I asked and does not allay my concerns that BBC staff in Scotland are interfering or involving themselves with the disciplinary process in Scottish football. In fact the response looks misleading and designed to confuse due to the alteration of context..” The issue for review The issue for review is whether the BBC handled your request in accordance with its obligations and duties under the FOI Act. In particular, as required by sections 1(1)(a) and (b), did the BBC confirm or deny that it holds the requested information and, if held, have that information communicated to you. Decision I am satisfied that the BBC complied with its obligations under the FOI Act in handling your request. The reasons for my decision are set out below. Reasons for decision The FOI Act provides a general right of access to recorded information that is held by a public authority at the time that a request is received. A public authority is not required to create new information to respond to a request. I have reviewed the file for the BBC’s initial response. I can confirm that neither the BBC nor BBC personnel have referred any incidents to the Scottish Football Association’s Compliance Officer. I am satisfied that the information you have requested is not held by the BBC. I am therefore satisfied that the BBC complied with its obligations under section 1(1)(a) of the FOI Act.

Let me be as clear as I possibly can. I'm not an accountant, I don't have any of the exact figures in front of me nor the links to articles/details of those figures either, I am merely basing my assumptions on what I have memory of and my own knowledge of certain tax vehicles. We know that there were 72 EBT's that held a total estimated to be £48mil. We believe that HMRC levied a bill of £24mil that MIH/RFC disputed and as a result HMRC then imposed fines and penalties to the sum of £94mil. The reasons and legality of these penalties were and indeed still are under dispute. We've also been told that Rangers, by all and sundry, were a test case and were being used to set a precedent. First of all working backwards Rangers were NOT a test case as there had been a prior case also involving Arsenal, whom also crop up again after the fact, which would be considered THE precedent. MIH/RFC Murray were correct to dispute the £24mil bill as in situations where Trusts are established there are rules to govern this. Of course this has been updated since these events and also now include possible income tax rules. The rules at the time which haven't changed and from experience; Trust containing dividend < £1k are taxed at 7.5% on the first £1k and thereafter taxed at 28%. Trust containing dividend > £1k are taxed at 38.1% on the first £1k and thereafter taxed at 45%. At no point in any of the subsequent calculations does the tax due ever reach 50% or above. Therefore the 50% figure as you can see is incorrect in ALL cases of dividend in trust even after the change. If we can accept that these Employment Benefit Trust vehicles were, at the time of operation, not subject to income tax then it follows that up until April 2011 they could be recovered/transferred at their previous tax rates although there was a degree of uncertainty, with regards to that, at that time. This degree of uncertainty is what I believe Murray was partly disputing remember that what I am saying is valid with regards to the date where the HMRC claim is established circa 2009-11. The uncertainly aspect, as I remember, was whether or not these new rules would be retrospectively applied. Now Murray could never be accused of altruism but he is right to dispute the HMRC claim a) to allow trustees and employees to make arrangements for transfer, and b) at the time EBTs weren't subject to income tax, not until the SC ruling 2017, and even under these new rules income tax/company tax is only due when funds are 'earmarked' i.e set for withdrawal/transfer*. Now I stick to my previous assertion that Murray had some idea that income tax rules might be retrospectively applied and that he was attempting to clear the debit, at the lower rate, circumventing these probable new tax rules quickly before legislation had been put in place. He NEVER refused to pay HMRC, in fact he offered £9mil plus £10mil over a number of years which IMO is much closer to the correct liability than HMRC's £24mil claim, therefore their step of applying fines and penalties was NOT only inaccurate but was also UNPRECEDENTED! The argument, we [rangers supporters] have always maintained skulduggery, playing out before our very eyes is, not that the HMRC assertion that income tax was due re: the SC case, but that the outlandish figure of £94mil was a gross misrepresentation of the debit Oldco owed on the part of HMRC and that claim effectively hamstrung Oldco as toxic is not only correct but it is also an absolutely unprecedented tragedy of an overarching government body that requires nothing less than a full public enquiry. * I'm not sure if transferring 'earmarked' funds is subject to income tax/company tax as I haven't looked at them since the rules were amended.

Keep up the good work

One from Dundee is quite enough. Best Scottish team apart from Rangers I ever saw came from Dundee and they didn’t play at Tannadice.

Kamara still gives the ball away far too often, for my liking. We'd be mad to turn down a hefty offer for him.

Lad is definitely enjoying himself today...

I hope every Rangers fan who gets a ticket has a terrific day out. ??