bigy

I agree. He shows constant loyalty to the likes of McCulloch and Black, but the boys who have been making the difference are The young ones. What did Hutton do to be out the squad? Or Naismith?

Sadly I agree. The consistently lacklustre approach to away games, both last season and this, has gone on too long.!you look at the Motherwell game and the pace at which we played, why aren't we doing that week in week out? Ally is a legend, but he's an absolutely shocking manager, and it's time for him to step down. Billy Davies, Jimmy Calderwood, Stuart McCall, any Rangers man with a decent track record.

The sad fact is, these are the words Celtic should have been saying 6 months ago. I have no doubt that if the situation was reversed we would have been saying the same, but would have said it when Celtic needed the support. Fans will always be fans and try and wind each other up, but you expect a touch of class, dignity and respect from the club itself. Rangers have always had this and would have shown it in the reverse situation, unfortunately Celtic haven't and its now too late. I only wonder if this represents a large rift between Desmond and Liewell.

As I understand it the transfer 'embargo' ends on 31 August next year, but this doesn't stop us signing anyone, just from registering them during this period. Hypothetically, if we sign someone next summer, what would happen to their registration on 1 September 2013? Any club can register an out of contract player at any point, so would a player signed to us but not registered count as out of contract and be able to register after 31 August 2013. I don't see what would stop us from doing the above, and signings would only miss the first month of the season.

If Celtic can put a foreign flag on their strip without question we shouldn't worry about any strip colour. What other business would have a potential money spinner and not use it? If it makes money who cares, and given the corruption we've been subjected to we shouldn't give two hoots what anyone else in Scottish football thinks.

4 October at Dumbarton (13.30).

What was the nature of the Off the Ball discussion? I've seen the description on the website, but given it's a tongue in cheek show what did it do to overstep the mark?

I'd just have thought Duff & Phelps would have been all over this given it adds over 50% to the creditors pool.

Does anyone know how this works? If the money is deemed not owed to the new company that owns Rangers FC, then surely it should be handed to the old company that owned us? Given the old company is still in administration, should it not be seeking the compensation Rangers are due from both the SFA and SPL as remuneration to creditors?

They'll just start making up figures.

Doncaster has been quoted by Al Lamont of BBC as refusing an interview today and saying it would be inappropriate to comment given ongoing investigation. One can only assume that this means he thinks Nimmo -Smiths comments were inappropriate over the weekend.

Under the scheme being discussed with supporters direct, fans invest and get one vote each. It would be for those who invest to decide the ownership model, not any group or individual in advance. A scheme is launched to raise enough money to buy the club, once bought its for the each investor to vote on a model, and the model with the most votes gets implemented. The RST, RSA, you, me or anyone can propose a model, but fan ownership is a democracy and not for any individual to manipulate or dictate.

The process is being worked on though, and I think the RST are aware of these issues and are looking at how the issues can be overcome. I'm sure an announcement will be made soon, it should have the backing of a number of groups, and people have to judge it on its own merits and not some preconceived bias. Fan ownership would be a democratic process, so for some to suggest any individual is trying to hijack the process is simply false. Under any scheme it will be the fans who decide the model, not the RST, and people really need to be clear on that.

I seen Nimmo-Smith defending his role In the investigation at the weekend, and since his comments a number of outlets and journalists have defended his position. While I wouldn't question the independence and objectivity of a high court judge, this process now, more than anything, needs to be seen as independent and objective, and Nimmo-Smith can't deliver that for 3 main reasons: 1 - His involvement in the signing ban sentence which was ruled by a fellow high court judge to be illegal. This means any ruling against Rangers will be viewed by some as vindictive. 2 - His past links to the SFA/SPL when these organisations now stand accused of corruption throughout the process. Given these organisations have pre-judged our guilt, a panel with previous links to them won't be seen as independent. 3 - His recent comments comparing EBT use to match fixing. If a juror discussed a case in public they'd be thrown out, so how is this situation ny different? Again, this will lead to accusations by some of bias. As a judge we do need to assume NImmo-Smith's objectivity, but given the three issues outlined above it will be called into question. If he rules for us he'll be accused of feeling pressurised, and if he rules against us he's open to various accusations - some of his own making and some not. So for those reasons, he clearly needs to stand down and allow a truly independent panel to be appointed. Unfortunately, I feel his ego might get in the way of him doing the right thing.

Rangers Unite are coming across as a bunch of petty kids intent on dividing the support. I think it's time They just shut up and supported the many other groups looking for ways forward.

I genuinely don't get your logic. The SFL are saying we're innocent until proven guilty, so the SFA/SPL assumption of guilt makes a mockery of their process and is tantamount to a witch hunt. Also, the HMRC process isn't to prove innocence or guilt, it's to identify whether a legal scheme which we (and others) operated is taxable. If it is we'd be liable to pay back the tax. It's not about guilty or not guilty. That's why the SFA/SFA process is a sham, as the EBT debate is between us and HMRC, and nobody else needs be involved. The SFA/SPL have known we used EBTs since we started using them, so why wait the best part of 15 years to decide they're 'illegal' for Scottish teams?

There now has to be resignations from the SFA and SPL. Totally and utterly corrupt!!

Because this is a major story, and the media would need to get their facts 100% or be open to litigation themselves. The notion that the entire media are anti Rangers / pro SPL / pro Celtic and are complicit in a conspiracy to strip us of titles Is ludicrous. There are Rangers fans and independent journalists out there and they wouldnt just sit on this.

I don't believe the suggestions that the entire media are ignoring this and hence complicit in a cover up. There are reporters who would run with this, and hopefully they'll do so soon.

I'm not doubting the source, but if this is to be taken on by the wider media and pressure exerted, they'll need to know 100% that the sources are legit. When it comes from a fans group with no sources it won't be taken seriously out with our support.

Have they said what their source is?

The big question is therefore what we do about. Do we take them to court, report it ot the police, etc? Something needs to be done.

I genuinely think the big issue here is the SFA's role as the independent appeal body. If Rangers are found guilty, and we appeal, then part of that appeal is clearly going to be the lack of independence of the SPL, the fact that Iain Blair ruled independently on Celtic's EBT, and the corruptness of the process. With these charges, the SFA have taken the view that the SPL process is not 'corrupt' without hearing our evidence. So how can the SFA now act as the independent appeal body having taken this stance? The proper stance of the SPL would be to keep quiet until after any appeal, or otherwise, and then make the charges once all the facts are in.

There goes any notion of the SFA forming an independent appeal board.

Swift action and a good response. Now this should be forgotten about. Again, however, this really puts the BBC and others to shame for continually allowing and promoting the use of the term.