Bluedell

Did it when you first put it up.

Certain notice periods have to be given to allow public marches. I believe that it is 28 days. There has to be all sorts of guarantees given as to stewarding and a whole load of other conditions. I'm guessing that they didn't comply with any of that therefore their request was correctly rejected. Why should the Green Brigade be allowed to ignore the rules that are in place for all other organisations? I don't see why the law is an ass in this case. The rules appear to be reasonable and ar there for everyone's safety. I don't see any reason to side with the Green Brigade. The UBs correctly cancelled their march when permission wasn't given and why should the GB not be subject to the proper rules of the city? The police response was appropriate. I don't see why the public should be terrorised by a bunch of terrorist loving scum who are ignoring the law and doing whatever they want. We should be able to walk to football games without having to worry about that.

The booing is however still in the minority.

Generally you are correct and the views expressed on here (or FF, RM and VB) don't necessarily reflect the voice of the support. However going to games and speaking to people, I do believe that the general view is that Ally doesn't have what it takes and think that it would be better for the club if he was replaced before the start of next season, although not yet calling for him to resign.

Hmm. You have to wonder what Leggat's agenda is in attacking Andy Kerr....

But for some teams, that few hundred may be a lot less than the few thousand that they would otherwise get next season. It's not something that will totally work but it's good that it's been floated and it allows us to at least discuss the possibility of it. It doesn't have to be a 100% success to hit these clubs in their pockets and we don't need all the SFL clubs to vote against it. It my just be the incentive that a few need if they are unsure which way to go.

Disagree. The fans should be raising the threat now rather than waiting until it's too late. The SFL teams should realise that there are a number of Rangers supporters who will not visit their grounds next season if they vote for reconstruction in this ridiculous timescale. Thye should factor in the financial implications of a yes vote before they make up their minds. We should have more fans' organisations shouting about this, rather than sitting back and doing nothing constructive.

Fixed that for you.

I don't think that the article is one-sided. It's looking at the weaknesses of our scouting system and I don't think that the criticism is unwarranted. There's no need to get defensive just because we are correctly criticised. We should be taking on board what was said and taking steps to deal with it, rather than coming out with meaningless soundbites which is what we've been getting from the club over the past couple of weeks.

15 years? Wow. Is that what it is at the moment? How long's the waiting list? Yeah, you can't really say no to a season if that's the wait.

Yes, I'll renew. Better than spending time with the wife on a Saturday.......

We have managed to get turnover of £60m twice in our history: In 2008 we had £64.5m when we were in the CL and the 5 rounds of the UEFA Cup and had approx £4.5m of income from JJB included in the turnover and, in 2006 we had £61.2m including £17.9m of retail sales, which was when we manufacrtured our own strips so we got turnover on every strip sold. Between 2003-2006 Rangers manufactured our own strips. This lead to turnover increasing from the standard retail of £9m-£11m to £17.9m-£20.6m. 2003 Turnover £19.2m 2004 Turnover £18.7m Profit £3.7m 2005 Turnover £20.6m Unknown but unlikely to be over £4.5 based on the prior year and standard industry margins. 2006 Turnover £17.9m Profit £2m after taking out part of the lump sum that was included to offset the closure costs As already said, the turnover was inflated because we manufactured our own strips. We are not going to be doing that thereforeoir turnover is extremely unlikely to be anywhere near that level. Turnover with reaching the CL group stages and excluding merchandising is £52m and even including a generous £15m for it, we aren't even at £70m so we are way short of his figures. If Stockbridge believes what he is saying then he is showing a worrying lack of understanding of our business and the historic numbers.

Agreed but the short term view of some extra cash may take over, but for their own medium and long term goals, they should hold out.

Rangers are a creditor because it was Rangers that entered into the agreement with Ticketus. If Rangers then ask for Ticketus to pay the cash directly to LTSB it doesn't invalidate the agreement between the 2 parties and it doesn't mean that the cash wasn't for Rangers. I guess technically Whyte bought the club for £1. There were various conditions attached to the purchase, one of which was clearing the loan. It will take greater minds than you andmeI to decide whether that is just a sub-agreement or actually part of the purchase price but my guess is that it is not technically part of it. There were a number of conditions detailed, some of them some period after finalisation and if one of them wasn't fulfilled then it wouldn't invalidate the sale transaction so you would need to conclude that whether the loan was or was not cleared also would not and as such, the Ticketus cash wasn't part of the purchase.

Ronaldo has been playing brilliantly for Real over a period of years. Bales did it for a couple of months last season and this season. Bale at his best is a great player but still has a bit to go to be classed along side Ronaldo.

You're wrong. The deal was between Rangers and Ticketus. Why else would Ticketus appear on Oldco's list of creditors?

I don't believe anyone has been found guilty of any crime in court.

Plenty of commercial reasons why he shouldn't tell us. It could compromise the ability to negotiate in the future, and also I don't want to hear Celtic crowing about how much more they make than us.

Not what he was saying last Saturday. Davis was lumped in with the rest and he made it clear that Davis wouldn't be back any time soon.

The Ticketus deal was between them and Rangers. Ticketus appear as a creditor in the list of creditors. Whether they then had the balance secured elsewhere doesn't change the fact that we owed the cash.

They aren't considering selling Firhill. This was a story from 20 years ago.

The more I look at the Nani incident, the more I think that the ref had a good reason to send him off. Nani flicks out his boot towards the Real player at the last moment, and it could have been for that action tht he got sent off.a

Good to see Wabash is still going strong.....

It's difficult for me to comment specfically as I've not read many of Jackson's articles. He wrote a fairly decent one on the LNS decision which was replicated on here a few days ago, but otherwise I've not read anything of his for a while that I can remember. Perhaps Leggat is talking a bit of sense but he could do it constructively without referring to him as Wacko. He needs to remember that he may well have still been praising Whyte if it wasn't for Jackson (and Traynor's) journalism. Perhaps his criticisms are warranted but Jackson's still one of the less bad ones out there from the little I see of him.

There's a difference between referring to what is on the park (you would refer to the manager) and what is off the park. Someone may state that Marlborough's Rangers didn't tend to sign RCs whereas Murray's Rangers did, for example. You obviously disagree with me. Fair enough. It's something I can't get too upset about. There's far more important issues raised by the article than how our CEO refers to the club.