Bluedell

There was an interesting discussion on the Daily Update on H&H on Friday, discussing the issue. Did Rangers know that they'd done the wrong thing and take the risk as Stevie has suggested, or did they just not know the rules? Did they know in advance what the punishment would be? Chelsea have obviously been given a transfer ban. Did we know for sure what the punishment would be? Was there a risk involved? Were we lucky rather than smart? Should we be taking such risks given we got our fingers burned with taking a risk with EBTs? Morally, should we be deliberately breaking the rules if we did know that we were? If the directors are willing to do this, where else are they willing to break the rules? Interesting questions, and I don't think it's as clear cut to say we were smart.

Staff costs (wages etc) went up £10m. Part of the rest were the costs of playing an additional 9 home games, additional European travel and preseason training.

Given the bigger pitch, Ojo or Barker may be preferable to Arfield due to their greater pace. If it's a choice between Ojo and Barker, I'd go for Ojo every time as I think he's a far better player than Barker.

Try emailing Susan Hannah in the ticket office? She was very helpful in sorting out my section's issues at the start of the season.

The shares are being issued by the club. There was approval for it at the last AGM, I believe. They are new shares and the club is getting an extra £500K that it otherwise wouldn't have. I don't see the downside.

Who are your top 5 favourite Rangers players? I love Alfie. Totally love the wee man. It got me thinking about what my top 5 favourite Rangers players of all time are. It's not who the best are but who you love the most, Here's mine: 1. Michael Mols 2. Jorg Albertz 3. Alfredo Morelos - Please stay! 4. Brian Laudrup 5. Super Ally Who gets into yours?

I think that's the problem. You don't seem to understand what Tav gives us. You can't assess it on assists or goals. Polster hasn't shown the same level of driving forward, taking up the positions that Tav does or attract the attention from the other team. Obviously the management team agree as Polster didn't make it into Sunday's 18.

You may want 4 defenders defending but nobody in the management team does. They want the full backs charging up the park. That's the way that most successful teams do now and we're not going to stop that approach. Against Porto we had our non-central front 2 playing narrow, our full backs bombing up the park and our non-central midfielders covering the full backs. We haven't played with "4 defenders defending" since Ally and we're not going back any time soon.

Good point. I think contributors can choose whether their payments go 100% into shares or a proportion into other projects. The point still stands that we're only given a yes/no option and never a choice between competing projects.

It would have been good if you'd been given the option of the cash being spent on shares OR one of the projects. The board seen determined to deny that vote. It's always just yes or no.

We've seen Polster and Flanagan playing right back. Neither are able to do what Tav does. I think you're failing to understand what Tav provides to the team. They wouldn't be in the same positions, drive at defences, draw people out of position etc etc. You're also ignoring Tav's many assists etc. That's not to say that he should take all the penalties or free kicks, which is a different issue.

Given their anti-facism stance, I'm sure the club and the Green Brigade will give it their full support, as anything else would be hypocritical and suggest that their protests against Lazio were only for show.

Plus Defoe struggled to keep the ball for much of the first half. We had no outs and it affected the whole team.

Tav is integral to the way we play. Neither of our other full backs can offer the same attacking options and his play also drags one or two of the opposition to him which frees up space for other players. That's ignored by many of his critics. We need him in the team.

I thought Defoe offered little apart from the goal. Wasn't up to the physical challenge. Stewart was poor, in my opinion. Davis and Barasic were miles in front of the rest of the team, apart from Morelos when he came on.

Dreadful team selection by Gerrard. He HAS to pick Morelos for these games. He has to take Tav off penalties. Why wait until after 70 minutes to bring on Alfie? He should have been on at half time... although I'd have him on after 20 minutes. Hopefully he'll start learning from his mistakes.

Agree with Ian. Barasic for me.

Well done to C1872 on this. A much better use of their resources.

80%+ will vote for anything that the C1872 board propose, so it's largely a waste of time. You'll notice they never give an either/or choice as that would mean the membership had a real choice. It's just yes/no on the board's pre-selected decisions.

This isn't what C1872 funds should be used for and have voted against them both.

The £6 million in 1988 went to Marlborough and not Rangers. King didn't "loan" us money, he invested it in us. Murray invested in Rangers twice through his company in the same way as many other wealthy people did, including King and Lewis. Murray did bring over £160m into the club. I didn't say it was all his own cash, but he did the deals to get it in.

King owns a fair percentage and controls even more. Guys like King and Park won't invest without control. 3 guys currently own over 50% between them do hardly a community model. As for us still bring where we are, I guess it depends on your starting point, but we really wouldn't. We wouldn't have won the league at their midden in 99, helicopter Sunday or Manchester in 08, all of which was achieved with large debt which funded the team. From memory, Murray brought in something like £160m into the club. That doesn't come in under a community ownership model.

It's difficult to argue against that. I think that the current board seem to have it right though. They've spent money on doing up Ibrox, introducing a fanzone etc, and if they believe that they can make other improvements without it affecting anything on the field then I'm all for it.

If we're owned by the community, where would be now? There wouldn't have been the funding that King at al have provided. There's no way we'd be top of the league. I'm all in favour of fans having a say, but fans having the power to replace directors etc wouldn't work going on the amount of crazy opinions that you see on-line. A great number of people are easily swayed, depending on the forum they're on as well.

Where do you draw the line? We could cut the match day experience down to a minimum but we shouldn't. Should we do away with the fanzone too? It should be part of an overall package. Improving the catering shouldn't cost us (much). The vans outside give far better catering at a cheaper price, so it shouldn't be difficult for the club to improve. I'd welcome a far better Wi-Fi and it'd get me in the stadium earlier and giving the club money if the catering was better.