BrahimHemdani

Yes indeed he did extend or more correctly did not activate the break clause in Zelelem's deal. That surprised me because leaving recent injury aside, Zelalem had very little game time in the league since the beginning of the year and none at all in the three matches (prior to injury) since being subbed in the home cup tie v Kilmarnock. I read that Templeton was still out but that Zelalem had returned from injury, I'll try to find the link.

Another excellent match anlaysis with which I can agree for the most part especially the role played by Miller which in old money I'd call a deep lying centre forward. He may not be Alfredo di Stefano but he is a lot fitter and whatever pills he is taking I'd like to get some. However, I don't fully understand your phrase "inverted wingers". Both are right footed players but it seems to me that Forrester is better able to play on the left (witness his link up play with Wallace as you say) than McKay. I agree that McKay was "constantly thwarted on the outside during the first-half" because on the left he continually cuts inside, often linking up well and sometimes putting in shots and scoring occasionally but rarely gets a cross or cut back from the bye line. However, in the second half he was able to get past defenders on the outside and was twice involved in the build up to the second goal (and Forrster made the cross right footed). So rather than "inverted" is the right not his more natural position? That said I think Forrester is best suited to the RMF role he had v Raith. I couldn't figure out replacing McKay (who seemed to me to be giving Dundee constant problems on the right) with Shiels who appeared to be under instructions to play in a wide right role for which he is not obviously well suited and then drifted inside to his more natural midfield position. I also thought it was noticeable that MW waited well beyond his customary 60th minute double substitution as we were well in control of the match and it was really questionable whether any subs were necessary. The only one I might have made would have been to take off Forrester perhaps on the grounds that he is a"luxury" player in order to bottle up the MF with Law or Shiels, though it was hardly necessary as Dundee were a well beaten team by that stage. Perhaps one of the young lads might have got the last 5 or 10 minutes.

It was on Rangers web site on Friday night and my point was that if three Academy players are preferred to him (I trust that choice of word is acceptable) then surely that tells its own story. I don't "hate" Zelalem at all; I just don't think we need him and Rousseau's whose tactical opinions are well respected around here "concede(s) that Zelalem is not needed,".

You have taken that quote out of context. It was in relation to Mr Gilligan's reported comments about Celtic possibly not getting the full Broomloan Stand. What I meant was that the police can limit the number of fans in any particular area and insist on segregation, I think you know I didn't mean they can force Rangers to sell more tickets than they want to sell for any given area. If Rangers only want to sell say the top tier of the Broomloan to Celtic fans that's Rangers decision; but the police might then say that they can't sell the bottom tier to Rangers fans or vice versa; or if they allowed it then there would have to be such a big gap (to avoid missile throwing etc) that it would not be cost effective. That's my point.

He had made little more than three half hour sub appearances since August and hadn't even been in the squad (with one exception) since end October so it's not a big surprise that he wasn't match fit.

Perhaps so but he can go by players on the outside because he is right footed something he rarely does on the left.

Easily done

......who was reported to be fit again but couldn't find a place on the bench behind three Academy players.

Without a doubt that is a major consideration. I am equally in no doubt that the police will "advise" Rangers that from an operational point of view it would be easier for them to deal with the Broomloan full of Celtic fans rather than enforcing any kind of segregation in that stand.

I don't believe I said they had that power. Obviously they can't tell Rangers to sell any tickets to away fans only the SPFL can do that nor can they tell Rangers to sell more tickets than Rangers wan to sell; but they can limit the number of tickets sold for any particular area and they can enforce whatever they want in terms of segregation.

Quite right got a bit carried away with the performance! Second goal in the second half

I must admit that I was one of the doubters and in all honesty thought that Dundee would score one or two and that we might lose 2-1 although I entered a 1-1 in the Prediction League. However, we came out with the same intent as v Hibs only even better. We put on a superb passing display and only allowed Dundee to come into the game for a brief spell before half time. After the break the quick goal settled us into some outstanding inter-passing play to which Dundee had no answer other than to give away free kicks and they were rightly punished from one by Halliday. Wallace capped off a MOTM performance for me with a fine goal. Our defence, ably shielded by Ball, coped admirably with Dundee's highly rated strike force, allowing Halliday and Holt to play high tempo attacking football linked by Miller to our fast raiding wingers. Forrester improves with every game, McKay was a constant thorn in Dundee's sides, but showed that he is much more effective on the right and I was surprised that he was subbed, but not as surprised as Shiels being asked to take his place. Law fitted in well late on. We completely overwhelmed Dundee in the second half to the extent that there was nothing they could do to change the game and they meekly surrendered in the end. It could and should have been at least 5-0. Given that Dundee apparently held Celtic comfortably without their best forwards and we were without arguably at least two of our best, this performance augurs very well indeed.

Where did that one go, the players look skywards after another Rangers free kick.

Spot the ball! Halliday's free kick on its way to the net for the third goal.

I think that broadly speaking you're correct although he doesn't actually have to cross the hoardings to be cautioned. This is the FIFA Guidance; Celebration of a goal While it is permissible for a player to demonstrate his joy when a goal has been scored, the celebration must not be excessive. Reasonable celebrations are allowed, but the practice of choreographed celebrations is not to be encouraged when it results in excessive time-wasting and referees are instructed to intervene in such cases. A player must be cautioned if: • in the opinion of the referee, he makes gestures which are provocative, derisory or inflammatory • he climbs on to a perimeter fence to celebrate a goal being scored • he removes his shirt or covers his head with his shirt • he covers his head or face with a mask or other similar item Leaving the field of play to celebrate a goal is not a cautionable offence in itself but it is essential that players return to the field of play as soon as possible.Referees are expected to act in a preventative manner and to exercise common sense in dealing with the celebration of a goal. You could argue that a lot of the celebration had to do with his momentum but he is open to a caution in terms of the phrases that I have emboldened above and I think the referee may have felt obliged to caution as the stewards had to intervene. A bit harsh perhaps as he was overwhelmed by Rangers players and got free as soon as he could.

He ran all the way behind the goal and to the crowd in front of the UB's and the stewards had to hold some fans back.

You and me both dB

That's only partly true see last post.

That might well be true but if Rangers sell tickets to any group of away fans which I believe is an SPFL requirement then the police will determine the seating arrangements or at least they will have to agree the Club's seating and segregation plan.

The more fool him then because the police will determine who sits where and how many of them there are inside the ground. The match commander has the ultimate authority in these matters.

Team as predicted by dB/BH. Only issue is will Forrester be on one side of a front 3 or will we go to Plan B with a 4-4-1-1

TEAM NEWS - Mark Warburton has made three changes to the Rangers side that will take on Dundee at Ibrox Stadium in the William Hill Scottish Cup this afternoon. Read more: http://rng.rs/1L8308B RANGERS: Foderingham; Tavernier, Kiernan, Wilson, Wallace; Ball, Halliday, Holt; McKay, Miller, Forrester. SUBS: Bell, Law, Clark, Shiels, Burt, Thomson, Roberts.

Sorry I don't know how to interject my comments with yours so I've numbered them instead. I had to read the above a couple of times before your point sank in but I still don't see where you get the 20,000 unique non-season ticket holders. Essentially you are making this an issue between allowing the 7,000 Rangers fans who don't normally go to a game (whether they are unique or not doesn't really matter, they are not Mr Average Home Fan) versus allowing Celtic to populate the Broomloan and I'm sorry but that's an easy decision for me. I think Celtic fans are just as entitled to come and watch their team at Ibrox as we are entitled to support ours at Parkhead. If Ibrox was full every week, even with 14,500 "walk up" fans, never mind a Green Bay packers type generational season ticket lock, I think you might have a better case, but it isn't, so you don't IMO. Also I don't see that you can just ban Celtic fans because there are more of them than other teams and more Rangers fans might be able to see the game, you would have to be consistent and ban all away fans which would be a bit parochial would it not. I'm not sure if minors should be at old firm games (might depend on how minor they are) but if they are then I think it should be to savour the full atmosphere not a sanitised version devoid of visiting supporters. See (1) above. I don't think this is a valid point. I have been to Parkhead on a fair number of occasions and don't recall having a restricted view and I got soaked at Kilmarnock the other night with rain water dripping off the roof of the covered terracing; it can happen anywhere if you have the misfortune to be sitting in the front rows of a stand and the wind is blowing the "wrong" way. I agree that the atmosphere at old firm games has changed but I don't think its comparable with a European night at Ibrox except in a very minor way when Man Utd came calling because few European teams bring a significant number of fans. I don't think you can compare Rangers v Celtic (no fans) with Rangers v Unirea (more journalists than fans) when we should have had a better than 50/50 chance of winning, for example. But if you consider Valencia v Rangers (when the singing just got louder and louder even AFTER we got well beaten 3-0 at the Mestalla, to the extent that their Directors stood in awe after all their fans had left, it still sends shivers down my spine just thinking about it. And then there was 7 minutes into the second half in Lyon, when at 0-3 we all who were privileged to be there, thought we had died and gone to heaven; or when Jean-Claude Darcheville put us in front with 15 minutes to go in the Quarter Final in Lisbon, I'm sure we made a din. Away fans help create atmosphere at football. How can I put it, you feel like you're the infantry supporting the cavalry on the park. Agreed. You win some and you lose some; but win with humility and lose with dignity and you won't go far wrong in my opinion. And yes all the above is my own subjective opinion.

It's not quite as badly worded but "They might be given lifetime or limited bans so please, let us all support Rangers in the correct way." I think " They might receive limited or (even) lifetime bans" would be better.

IIRC the original intention was a review after 5 years but the SG gave into pressure for an earlier timetable. I disagree with your last point. One of the main driving forces behind the Act was that the authorities were unable successfully to prosecute offences charged with Breach of the Peace inside a football stadium that were successfully prosecuted outside a stadium because of the defence that it wasn't' causing any harm or was just banter or such like. The Act, whether you like the way it was drafted or not, took away that type of defence for offensive behaviour.