craig

I believe an Arsenal win means you owe me 25 quid. A Liverpool win means I owe you 25 quid. 50 quid on league - Liverpool likely to win 25 quid on which team goes furthest in cups (CL and FA only) - I win both 25 quid on head to head - level right now but a win for either team tonight means 25 quid to the other person.

GET IN !!!! Come on the gooners ! Jon, an Arsenal win means you owe me money !

Whoever posted it on that Rangers forum got it from http://www.football-rumours.com as it has been C&P'ed - take a look and you will see.

Ian, that website is quite possibly THE WORST transfers rumour website EVER. I have seen transfer rumours on there about players moving who had already signed for someone else days before. All of the above - take with LARGE pinch of salt !!

That 20 million was revenue, the profit wouldn't be anywhere near that figure. Profit yes, large profit ? Who knows. We need more "pay-as-you-play" type contracts. To me it looks like the player contracts are what is costing us a significant amount of money. Look at Hemdani. On what, 25k per week ? And not played at all this season. Plus you get players motivated to do well as only by playing well will they be rewarded to the fullest extent of their perfomances. Downside being that it may be more difficult to attract players to those type of contracts.

How is he two-faced ? Not sure that I had heard he was two-faced.

How strange is it to see this in type.... former Ibrox captain Barry Ferguson....

We may not need to debate Ferguson's inclusion in the team for a few weeks.... hopefully nothing too bad.

Because it is an away fixture ?

One other question, to be fair, is Do they have to play a side 3 times at home ? NO Do Rangers ? - YES Not that I think their argument is fair, just that in order for equity that question is important too. Now, the ONLY way that the SPL can make parity would be to make us play at Tynecastle (so we play home and away twice) and then have Hibs come to Ibrox (so we play home and away twice) but that means that the final Edinburgh derby would have to go to Easter Road for a 3rd time - would that be fair on Hearts ? Lets not forget that Hearts, too, are chasing a European spot. From a neutral perspective I would have to say that I think the SPL have done the ebst job they could with what they had - and I don't often say that !

Didnt say he would Cammy, just that he could. One letter makes a huge difference.

Could the club not freeze the season ticket prices given the vastly increased TV revenue they would receive. Rangers would clear their debt in one fel-swoop with the extra TV Revenue (assuming it all went to debt repayment). The away travel there is nothing that can be done for that. But the fans do get a better standard of football on display, at least from the opposition

Pete, this news is almost a week old now and has already been posted on here I think. Phil Gartside (Bolton chairman) is looking at having an "EPL2" and the possibility of inviting the OF. You sure it is being discussed on Thursday ? Was sure I read that it wouldnt be discussed till the summer at least. Here is what is being reported on Sporting Life..... Premier League chairmen are expected to delay any discussion of controversial proposals to include the Old Firm clubs in a revolutionary two-tier set-up until at least the summer. Bolton chairman Phil Gartside had been expected to put forward the proposal at Thursday's meeting of Premier League clubs but it has not been included on the agenda. Gartside could raise it under 'any other business' but there is little appetite for such major changes among almost all top-flight clubs, and it is especially not viewed the right time at this stage of the season for such discussions. It is also understood that although UEFA are neutral about the proposal, the Football Association and Scottish FA would try to block any attempt for Celtic and Rangers to be involved in the Premier League. Gartside's plan is for a two-tier Premier League with 18 clubs in each division. Only one club would be relegated from Premier League II to the Football League each season. The proposal would need the approval of 14 out of the 20 Premier League chairmen. Gartside has argued it would offer more financial stability to teams in the lower half of the current top-flight. When his plans were revealed in October, the Bolton chairman said: "We have to start considering what the structure of the league is, and it is time to look at two Premier Leagues - Premier League One and Premier League Two - and the way the finance is allocated. "You could have 36 Premier League clubs split into 18 and 18 and that would also solve the problems of the winter break and supporting the England team. "If the FA and the Government are going to start looking at debt structure and financial constraints on clubs then we are going to have to do something." Gartside is one of the longest-serving chairmen in the top flight and a member of the Football Association's board.

Yep, and it isnt that long ago the other SPL teams were telling the OF to leave.... perhaps they are realising that they NEED the OF and their fans' money !

It would have been the SPL paying lip service to the Tims in haste, not realising that it really isn't workable. What the SPL really NEED to do is scrap the split entirely - then there is no moaning about whether one team gets an advantage over another.

I didnt think he did that badly to be honest. He had very little service and any striker will suffer under those circumstances. However, what he did do, was work tirelessly for the cause, or so I felt, and that is one of the things he has taken a slating for this season. Looked to me as if he was putting forth much more effort yesterday. To be fair, the long punt from back to front won't suit many teams against Hibs with Rob Jones and Hogg back there.

Their logic is pretty simple though. We have won twice at Easter Road so will win again. We have lost once at Tynecastle so will lose again. See. They are making their excuses beforehand so that, if we win the league, they can call conspiracy - it is the Celtic way you know.

Don't fancy Papac at CB either to be fair. If Smith had brought Webster in for some of the "easier" games then he could have been ready to slot into the back 4. But as he has remained with the same personnel pretty much the whole season it is difficult to do. Will likely be Dailly. Actually I would prefer Hemdani in there than Papac - and he hasnt played all year !

Posted this elsewhere...... Their reasoning for ebing disadvantages is two-fold and spurious at best. 1. Hearts are 3rd whilst Hibs are 6th - so we are being advantaged by being at home to the "better" capital team. 2. Hearts beat us at Tynecastle so it is only fair that we should go back to Tynecastle to give us a game which, on paper, is more difficult and, thus, more chance of dropping points and gifting them the title. Re #1 - Celtic play : 1. Aberdeen away - this will mean 2 home and 2 away (lost in other away game) 2. Rangers away - this will mean 2 home and 2 away (won other away game) 3. Dundee Utd home -this will mean 2 home and 2 away (drew other home game) 4. Hibs away - this will mean 2 home and 2 away (lost other away game) 5. Hearts home - this will mean 2 home and 2 away (drew other home game) Rangers play : 1. Hearts home - this will mean 3 home and 1 away (won and drew other home games) 2. Celtic home - this will mean 2 home and 2 away (lost other home game) 3. Hibs away - this will mean 1 home and 3 away (won and won other away games) 4. Aberdeen home - this will mean 2 home and 2 away (won other home game) 5. Dundee Utd away - this will mean 2 home and 2 away (drew other away game) Now, if the Tims were to have their way and we had to play Hearts away from home then the situation gets sticky - it means that one of our other away fixtures would also have to be moved so that we get 19 home and 19 away fixtures. The only fixtures this could apply to would be Celtic, Hibs or Dundee Utd. Given there is no way the Celtic game would be changed to an away game leaves only Utd and Hibs. Going by the reports the only way we can play Hearts away and have it work would be for the Edinburgh derby to be switched to Easter Road. So if that game were switched to Easter Road then Hibs need to have a game moved to even their games out. So the Hibs game would need to go to Ibrox. This would leave Dundee Utd without any changes. However, would it really be fair for the Edinburgh derby to be played on one ground 3 times in the one season ? And just to accommodate Celtic's wishes to have us play the hardest game (in their opinion) away from home ? Would they be happy to have the OF game at Ibrox 3 times in one season ? I doubt it. But ask any Hearts or Hibs supporter what the most important game of the season is.... it wil be the derby - so why should they shift the derby and have it inequitably at Easter Road 3 times just to accommodate a PERCEIVED disadvantage from the Tims ? You couldn't make this stuff up. I might be wrong with some of the above, apologies if so.

Their reasoning for ebing disadvantages is two-fold and spurious at best. 1. Hearts are 3rd whilst Hibs are 6th - so we are being advantaged by being at home to the "better" capital team. 2. Hearts beat us at Tynecastle so it is only fair that we should go back to Tynecastle to give us a game which, on paper, is more difficult and, thus, more chance of dropping points and gifting them the title. Re #1 - Celtic play : 1. Aberdeen away - this will mean 2 home and 2 away (lost in other away game) 2. Rangers away - this will mean 2 home and 2 away (won other away game) 3. Dundee Utd home -this will mean 2 home and 2 away (drew other home game) 4. Hibs away - this will mean 2 home and 2 away (lost other away game) 5. Hearts home - this will mean 2 home and 2 away (drew other home game) Rangers play : 1. Hearts home - this will mean 3 home and 1 away (won and drew other home games) 2. Celtic home - this will mean 2 home and 2 away (lost other home game) 3. Hibs away - this will mean 1 home and 3 away (won and won other away games) 4. Aberdeen home - this will mean 2 home and 2 away (won other home game) 5. Dundee Utd away - this will mean 2 home and 2 away (drew other away game) Now, if the Tims were to have their way and we had to play Hearts away from home then the situation gets sticky - it means that one of our other away fixtures would also have to be moved so that we get 19 home and 19 away fixtures. The only fixtures this could apply to would be Celtic, Hibs or Dundee Utd. Given there is no way the Celtic game would be changed to an away game leaves only Utd and Hibs. Going by the reports the only way we can play Hearts away and have it work would be for the Edinburgh derby to be switched to Easter Road. So if that game were switched to Easter Road then Hibs need to have a game moved to even their games out. So the Hibs game would need to go to Ibrox. This would leave Dundee Utd without any changes. However, would it really be fair for the Edinburgh derby to be played on one ground 3 times in the one season ? And just to accommodate Celtic's wishes to have us play the hardest game (in their opinion) away from home ? Would they be happy to have the OF game at Ibrox 3 times in one season ? I doubt it. But ask any Hearts or Hibs supporter what the most important game of the season is.... it wil be the derby - so why should they shift the derby and have it inequitably at Easter Road 3 times just to accommodate a PERCEIVED disadvantage from the Tims ? You couldn't make this stuff up. I might be wrong with some of the above, apologies if so.

So the only way to avoid it would be to have the Edinburgh derby at Easter Road three times..... the Tims will think that would be fair given their mentality. MORONS. They like to throw the "Gordon Strachan and the players will just get on with it". Will they now ? Whilst you try to play the aggrieved at board level. Anyone know how last season's post-split fixtures worked out ? I mean, forgetting us having to play 4 games in 8 days how did the fixtures go ? You can guarantee they suited the Tims because there was no complaint. Short memories they have. I think all this mumping, moaning and whingeing could very well backfire on them in the longer term - fans of other teams are already getting very tired of their petty moaning.

It can't be Hearts as they are at home to Hearts in their last game are they not ? Which means they have had at least two home games against them.

Gav, you missed a few..... Davis - RM, is a CM (if you listen to most folks) Kenny Miller - has played LM this season, never a left midfielder Fleck - apparently is a striker and not a LM. Broadfoot - played RB but is a CB. Papac - playing LB but is CB Don't get me wrong, some of these are to great effect and, in some instances, players actually are better when played "out of position". Papac for instance would NEVER make my team as a CB but as a LB he is the man in possession and doing a very good job of it. Likewise Broadfoot has been very dependable at RB. But if you have to play so many players out of position then, to me at least, it suggests that the signing policy has a large element of a "scatter-gun" approach to it. Just look at ast pre-season. We had a fair number of CM's on the books yet only really had Whittaker on the books who is a natural full back (to give the management some slack lets also say Papac as he seems more comfortable there anyway). So the management team went out and signed a couple of full-backs for cover, right ? No, they went out and bought THREE Central midfielders. Now, I can understand buying a CM as Ferguson was injured at the time, I could even understand buying a 2nd CM as cover - but did we really need THREE CM's when we had Thomson already there and then we would have Ferguson back from injury and we also had Hemdani ? I doubt it. I think WS gambled on being able to shift Hemdani and it backfired.

Which is why I said "as effective going forward" Defensively I have ALWAYS said that Whittaker loses positional sense far too easily - first time I saw him was when I went to a Hibs season opener against Aberdeen - he played RB and going forward looked good, but defensively was very poor.

Ahhhhh, got ya Ian. Sorry Cammy..... too early in the morning !