BrahimHemdani

You can let them know that they have my support, I am sure that will make them feel better about it .

Yes I think you are correct about that but it might suit us to get instalments.

I'll bear that in mind, last time I just set my MP on them; soon got sorted.

Do you know who Rangers bankers are now, could it still be LBG, just with no long term debt?

Not sure if that is directed at me or Forlan but for example: Club is renamed Rangers (2012) Ltd. Ground is owned by new owner not the Club. Any player on a half decent contract is sold because barring selling Jelavic and somehow getting away with stashing the cash, there is no income other than modest match day ticket sales, to pay wages unless session ticket holders are asked to pay again. Suppliers demand cash up front for goods and services and since we wouldn't have the money for that....... 10 point SPL penalty. Up to 3 years out of Europe. However, maybe the youth team would do better than we are doing now.

Time for them to be doing double sessions so they can actually practice free kicks and the like in the afternoon.

I think his body language tells you everything you need to know; the world or at least Rangers' world is on his shoulders and he is not bearing the burden very well. I would be tempted to make Papac or Bocanegra the captain and see if that released Davis to play with a bit more freedom.

Ortiz is a RB; so if he isn't going to get a game now, I would try to punt him back to Spain. He did his best playing so far out of position that it wasn't true in LMF especially in Malmo but he couldn't tackle with his left foot, I felt very sorry for him. I think he's a good honest player but not good enough (nearly said Rangers quality but not sure what that is any more) and neither is Bedoya. I would give Mckay a chance now alongside Davis.

This is the bit that really gets me going. Aluko (to the greatest extent) and Wylde (100%) are all left foot, so we play them on the right, just like Walter did with Rothen. I understand about cutting in and having a shot which is fine if you can get a shot away, as Novo did when played on the left; but surely the point of a winger/wide MF player is to get to the bye line and cross for others to score and neither Aluko nor Wylde can do that on the right. What this seems to be about is Wallace getting a game in LMF because Ally has realised at last the Papac is his best LB. So this means that it is a case of either playing Wallace in LMF and forcing either Aluko or Wylde to the right where they are totally out of place or leaving out Wallace to play one or other on the left. I would leave out Wallace and give Aluko a shot in LMF where he scored goals for Aberdeen. If he can't do it there, let him go at the end of the season. I still don't really understand why we bought Wallace unless it was as a future replacement for Papac or to put pressure on him to sign the one year deal. I would have given Papac two years no danger; easily our most consistent defender for 5/6 years and proved it again last night. Agree about Bocanegra, has looked outstanding but needlessly booked last two games; perhaps frustration showing through. Still as good as we can hope to have in that position IMO.

When was the last time you saw Rangers try anything other than a shot from a free kick? Contrast with Valencia, switch to the right, cross into six yard box, ball's in the pokey.

That has always been my gut feeling too but the gap between them may be too wide and the taxman wants to make a point or more correctly establish a precedent.

I am told that if Whyte being secured on Ibrox and/or other assets was seen as part of a scheme to evade tax then, they could ask a court to set it aside. But that seems unlikely as it is a perfectly normal arrangement. Just like a bank, Whyte would get the property and in theory sell it to recoup his money; as you say it would then all depend on what he could get for it. Good question.

OK most of this is not new but the headline info about Jelavic came to me today second hand from a source inside the Director's Box at Ibrox and the interpretaion is partly my own and partly from two accountancy sources one of whom has insolvency experience. Jelavic will be sold in January for £7.5M most likely to QPR. Reason for sale is that in the event of losing the tax case there is no money to pay the wages for the rest of the season (Whyte certainly doesn't have any more money). In the event of losing the tax case, Whyte gets the ground (possibly Murray park as well) as he is the only secured creditor, which assets would have been pledged as security for his company's loan to the Club. HMRC get nothing because they are behind the secured creditor unless they can prove that it was an arrangement to evade tax (difficult). They will nonetheless continue the case because it is seen as a test case on the whole issue. This scenario is much better for Whyte since he doesn't have to turn his £18M into equity as per the purchase agreement. Whyte sells the Club free of all debt for much more than his £18M. Bond holders are next in line but they also get nothing i.e. lose the value of their bond(s)/ seats. Season ticket holders are unsecured creditors and also get nothing i.e. lose the remaining value of this season's tickets unless the new owner offers free seats for the rest of the season. Not a nice scenario.

That wouldn't have been a possibility it would have been a recipe for anarchy.

They must have got my text or at least the second one! So Ajax get the entire blame, still think that is very unfair but so be it; are they accepting the verdict or any chance of an appeal?

The statement that "police officers will be present with hand held camera equipment, (but) will not be deployed unless there is an incident which necessitates their deployment and only on the instruction of the Match Commander. " is clearly a response to comments from fan groups. Be assured of one thing, every police officer on duty will have been fully briefed on the OBB. The first arrest, prosecution and conviction will be landmark decisions and judgements. I know one policeman who is very glad he is not working at the game tonight.

Based on what you have reported up to now, you are probably correct about no action against the manager or the AZ club and you won't be surprised to know that I would think that a terrible decision. So you are saying start at 1-0 with the remaining time left, the goalie on the park and no spectators? I can see the last two but I think they would have to start afresh at 0-0 for 90 mins but you obvioulsy know the Dutch psyche and so you may well be correct.

Yes, GA, I've acknowledged that I am looking at this more from the point of view of a former ref (see #96) and equally I understand the point you and others are making. The problem that I see is where do you draw the line in terms of what might be considered an acceptable response by the keeper to such an attack. Clearly the Dutch FA considered that referee acted correctly within the Laws but equally that the goalkeeper's response was acceptable. I don't agree but that's just my personal opinion, most people on here are with you on this one. Fair does, it's all about opinion. As I said to Pete, what will be really interesting now is what action, if any, the KNVB take against AZ and their coach and how they deal with the match itself. My feeling for what it is worth, is that whatever the coach said about his players feeling unsafe, the real reason he took them off was because he didn't agree with the referee's actions. (On that, there is no way the ref could have left the goalkeeper on the park.) Also AZ cannot be seen to benefit from their illegal action (in a footballing sense) in taking their team of the park. It was the referee's call as to whether the players' safety was compromised or whether it was an isolated attack. If the ref felt that the safety of the players was at risk then the correct course was for him to abandon the match. So here's my view: The coach is heavily fined (possibly suspended for a number of matches), severely reprimanded and warned to his future conduct. The Club are very heavily fined. The match is awarded to Ajax 3-0. Do I expect the above to happen, no I don't! Lastly (for now, because I think this is going to run for a while yet!) if you were an Ajax fan, how would you feel about the result of the match, would you accept that your fan caused the issue so you have to start again from the KO or would you think that regardless of the action of one mindless hooligan, AZ caused the problem by walking off, so should lose the points; and would you be happy to pay to see the same match again?

That's a very good idea in my opinion although I'm sure they'll be driven by feasability more than anything else. They might have a bit of a logistical problem if they get thousands of responses so an online survey might be better but let me see what I can do, I know the right people to ask.

Far be it from me to go against the Dutch media, Pete, but you can be found guilty of an offence i.e. the ref was right to send the goalie off for violent conduct, but the powers that be consider that under the circumstances no further "punishment" (or if you like no punishment at all) is deemed necessary because of the circumstnaces of the case. That's not the same as the red card being rescinded. The red card would still be on the player's record and so theoretically could be taken into account if he was sent off again. If for example he banjoed a player next time, they might say this guy really is a loony and throw the book at him. It's like being "admonished" in court which means that it is a finding of guilt, even though there may be no sentence or fine imposed. It is an official court disposal and would be disclosed in future. If they've said it will not be on his record at all, then I would agree that it has been rescinded, but no punishment doesn't necessarily mean that, well not IMHO. I will be very interested to see what happens to AZ and their coach for walking off and what happens to the match itself.

Zappa, I am going to ask you to remove this one; I am not comfortable with anything to do with the Nazi's being on this site and I certainly don't think that anything to with Hitler is funny.

Nice to know that the KNVB agree with me but I think something must have been lost in the translation if the goalkeepers actions were considered compassionate. Lastly I don't see how the red card can be rescinded by the KNVB on the basis of the prosecutor's decision (is that a judicial prosecutor or a football one, like Mr Lunny?) if it is considered that it was correctly administered; I can understand that no action be taken (although I don't agree with that either) but not the card rescinded.

Administration will not be a Godsend under ANY circumstances.

They'd beter be!

That IS paranoia, Craig.