BrahimHemdani

Is he on Twitter, if so send him a message and see what he says; if not send it to the Club one.

And it's utter nonsense as well. "As it stands the Gers have had Ryan Hardie, Fraser Aird, Nathan Oduwa and Jordan Thompson called up for duty that week." How many of them would be start v Dumbarton, answer one at most, quite probably none. A reason to postpone an under-20's game perhaps but a first team fixture, no way. The last time we did it none of the players concerned started the next match v QoS and only Oduwa stared against Livingston. No idea why we we want to do this other than giving the players a weekend off at the expense of the fans. Poor show.

Going back to the OP; I fancy Kiernan will be our first ordering off for persistent fouling, some of his challenges do come into the rash category, or Halliday who is prone to get involved in things that have nothing to do with him as v Livingston. That said, we've been pretty well disciplined up to now and I'm sure it's something that Warburton is strict on. We'll be under pressure at Easter Road on Sunday, Hibs need to stop our run; let's see how we stand up.

I had that thought as well, but in any event I think he would be an outstanding signing, he's a quality EPL player who should have a couple of seasons left in him, Eustace is a quality Championship player who's at the end of the line. Anyway, seems unlikely for the reasons given by a few posters; but he's someone I've seen play for West Ham and I'd want to watch in a Rangers shirt; can anyone truthfully say that about Eustace?

Nolan has played almost his entire career in the Premier League and he's only 33 whereas Eustace has played almost his entire career in the Championship and is almost 36. Nolan has scored a goal nearly every 5 games thoughout his career, Eustace has scored less than 1 in 10 games. Nolan hasn't played since August but Eustace hasn't played since last January. Nolan has played 15 games in Europe, Eustace has no European experience. Some would argue we need a goalscoring attacking midfielder as much or more than a defensive midfielder. Nolan would be great signing, Eustace would be a major gamble. If it's a choice, it's a no brainer.

Quite outrageous, FS

Nothing whatsoever to do with the OP but can I just add since it seems to be silly season that a certain well known poster on this site was refused admission when he tried to use his ticket for the Hibs match next week. Let's see if he owns up

Bovril was fine too; service was pleasant and quick; I feel a Tripadvisor review coming on.

You might well think that but I couldn't possibly confirm

I can confirm that the steak pies were very good.

I agree that the goals and assists stats are only one measure of value but wouldn't you agree that a certain Andy Murdoch "rarely loses the ball, makes intelligent passes and normally finds himself to receive the ball again and recycle" but he can't even get in the squad this season. We need players in midfield who make a difference, Zelalem doesn't make a difference IMHO; Law did last season and Shiels has shown this season that he can do likewise. Zelalem may be more technically gifted than either Law or Shiels but they add more value to the team IMO.

I was quite a topic of discussion outside New St Mirren Park (or whatever it's called) on Sunday.

Tavernier had a nightmare afternoon, quite his worst performance for us; suspect in defence and offering little but misplaced passes going forward. Miller performed the late sub role exceptionally well in the first two games of the season , why expect more?

Dean Shiels only has 1 assist in 14 games this season but he has cored 3 goals; and quite often he hasn't had more than 30 mins on the pitch. http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/dean-shiels/leistungsdaten/spieler/21421 Nicky Law really hasn't had much of a chance this season but if you go back to last season he scored 13 and had 9 assists in 54 outings, albeit against inferior opposition. I think he deserves a run to see if he can score goals in a better team at a higher level.

I think you're reading way too much into this non-statement. It begins "It is widely known that Sports Direct applied to court for an injunction to prevent myself and my fellow directors from disclosing certain details of the agreements between the Club and the Sports Direct group" If it's "widely known" what is the purpose of repeating it? The statement is full of innuendo about SD's "business practices" and "failures" but is short on facts; it's probably as far as the lawyers would allow him to go without getting a writ for libel. How much is this to appease the fans thirst for knowledge about the deal with SD and how much is it to deflect from the mounting criticism of his failure to invest in the Club?

I agree with that. So far he's got no goals, 3 assists in 2 LC games (inc 2 v Airdrie) and 2 assists in 6 league games. He's had two 60 min appearances in the past 4 weeks. http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/gedion-zelalem/leistungsdaten/spieler/228370 Is he worth £6,500 a week to us, I doubt it. Are Arsenal happy to be saving £6,500 of his £18k a week, you bet they are.

Just a reminder here that it's not a case of signing him again, according to my well-connected Arsenal informant "You're to pay £6.5k a week of his wages .............. There is a break clause in January"; so, if that is correct, unless Arsenal enforce it or we let him go back, then he will be staying.

It's utter nonsense postponing a home league game v Dumbarton if players like Aird and Hardie who are not in the team are on international duty. I am quite sure we can do without Zelalem and Oduwa as well. None of the four who were on duty when the Livingston cup tie was postponed on 9 October started the next league match v QoS on 17 October (and only Oduwa started the postponed fixture on 20 October), so if we could do without them v QoS we could have done without them v Livingston. The Manager more or less admitted that the Livi postponement was to give all the players a break; but I can see no excuse this time. It's been a luxury to get 3.00pm Saturday kick offs, we shouldn't be giving them up so easily.

Thanks for posting, I was at that match, in fact I was at the three in a row, Ralph Brand scored in them all. 1961-62, 2-0 v St Mirren (Brand & Wilson) Att 127,940; 1962-63, 1-1 & 3-0 v Celtic (Brand; Brand 2 & Wilson) Atts 129,643, 120,273; 1963-64 3-1 v Dundee (Millar 2 & Brand) Att 120,982. Although the St Mirren game was my first cup final, it is the Dundee match in 1964 that lives more prominently in my memory. Dundee under Bob Shankly had equalised Jimmy Millar's first goal through Kenny Cameron but with 90 secs left Millar put Rangers in front. I was only 14 but taller than the man in front of me, who hearing the roar, but apparently seeing nothing, turned and asked "Is it a goal", to which I replied, "Yes, it's a goal". Then Brand scored Rangers third. "Is it another goal", asks the man, "Yes it's another goal" says I. (British Pathe) 2'19" (the full Arthur Montford) 20'32"

There's also a marked difference between home and away; but no need to make it too easy for everyone

The goal line camera does not call for a human being to make a judgement; video replays do just that and as MW says, no two people seeing the same incident from different angles will ever agree. The referee bottled two incidents on Tuesday, no video replay can fix that attitude of mind.

Does anyone see a contradiction here? And this question for RANGERSRAB: Who would appoint the video replay judge and what credentials would he have, a nightmare scenario. In the rugby "while Joubert can be accused of making the wrong decision, he cannot be criticised for failing to review the decision with the Television Match Official – because he isn’t allowed to. World Rugby stated earlier in the tournament: “The TMO can be used only in the following circumstances: • Determining the grounding of the ball in-goal for a try or touchdown and/or whether players were in touch or touch in goal before grounding. • Determining whether a kick at goal has been successful. • Confirm if an infringement has occurred in the build-up to a try or prevention of a try (infringement must be within two phases of the try or touchdown). • Considering acts of possible foul play.”" http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/craig-joubert-was-right-not-to-review-the-decision-that-knocked-scotland-out-of-the-rugby-world-cup-a6699501.html The history of video replay shows that however you start off (say penalties in or out the box, foul play [what kind of foul play?]) inevitably mission creep will extend the range of decisions to be reviewed. Do we really want to end up with the game being stopped every few minutes? Football is a game of controversy, without which we wouldn't have much to chat about on Gersnet, do we really want to sanitise the decision making process. Goal line technology is one thing and eventually I can see it being brought into the penalty box lines but video replay is a step too far. In 2005, Urs Linsi, general secretary of FIFA, said: "Players, coaches and referees all make mistakes. It's part of the game. It's what I would call the "first match". What you see after the fact on video simply doesn't come into it; that's the "second match", if you like. Video evidence is useful for disciplinary sanctions, but that's all. As we've always emphasised at FIFA, football's human element must be retained. It mirrors life itself and we have to protect it." Not much one can agree with about FIFA but I think most would agree with that; but if not how about a deposit for an appeal: The Professional Bull Riders organization, beginning with the 2006–07 season, has instituted an instant replay system in cooperation with the Versus network. A bull rider, a fellow competitor, or a judge may request a replay review by filing a protest to the replay official within 30 seconds of any decision. Any competitor (it does not have to be the rider who is riding the bull in question, as fellow riders can observe the action and spot fouls by bull or rider) may file the complaint to the replay official by sounding a signal at the arena and pay a fee of $500 to PBR before explaining to the replay official why he is filing the request. The replay official (usually a former bull rider) may request different angles and/or slow motion, as well as freeze particular frames. The replay judge will use all available technology to assess the call in question and supply his ruling. This includes using his own hand-held stopwatch to time bull rides, as the official eight-second clock used in PBR competition starts when the bull usually exits the bucking chute. The replay will be used to evaluate timing issues, fouls against the rider for touching the bull or ground with his free hand or using the fence to stay on the bull, or fouls by the bull, such as dragging the rider across the fence. If an appeal is successful, the $500 is returned to the competitor filing the request. If the appeal is unsuccessful, the $500 is forfeited and sent to PBR charities such as the Resistol Relief Fund to assist injured bull riders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_replay If we went down that route in football, I think the charities would benefit enormously but the game of football would be reduced to a crawl.

One hopes not, having been in the situation recently, I know how devasting and disruptive it can be; but perhaps it's a prelude to his wife/family needs him and regrettably he will have to retire/continue his football career elsewhere.

Probably why he's destined to go far.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf