RabiDuck

Bruno, I certainly hope so. But we'd be naive to think that if he propels us back to the top of Scottish football and gives us a level of success in Europe, if a top 4 team from the EPL, or a big European club cam sniffing around, he'd not be interested. I certainly hope he'll be here for many years, but eventually we'll need someone else to come in and carry on. If he doesn't start attracting interest from top European teams, I'd be a little disappointed in all honesty! (And I'm sure he would too!)

It's a given that he'll move on eventually, that's the nature of football. The day's of a Fergie or Wenger spending decades at a club seems long gone in the modern climate and it's inevitable that if Warbs achieves a good level of success with us, he'll be poached to a bigger team and I don't think anybody would resent him for that if they're entirely honest. The hope is, that in building his reputation to get the big offer, he makes Rangers a credible opportunity for another up and coming manager looking to make a name for themselves and carry on the work. Warbs' job is to get us back to where we belong and to lay the foundations for the next man to follow him.

Couldn't agree more. Fulham would be a really backwards move, even in terms of progression. If Warbs can get Rangers back to the top and competing in Europe (something a little better than recent Scottish efforts would be a start!) then it will do wonders for his reputation and potential. We will inevitably lose him eventually, but I hope it's to one of the big English clubs. Losing him to a Fulham or equivalent would hurt, but I could understand a move to the likes of Liverpool (for example).

Would take Ashley above the permitted threshold, so not a likely outcome. Unless Ashley is really petty and decides that doing so would hurt Rangers more than him...

Assuming both those blocks voted, we've accounted there for the majority of the dissenting votes. Seems likely!

Assuming my maths is correct, that makes 17.5% of the shareholding that voted against. I think it's safe to assume this includes the MASH 10%...

Actually, I think calscot has it. I agree, giving 100% of what you have left should always be the target. But if you can give 90% one week against Dumbarton, but then you're only left with 80% in the tank the next week against Hibs, it might be better to put in a below par 70% against Dumbarton and have 100% to give against Hibs. Every game is important, but some do require more than others.

Was it Aluko that paid out his contract so he could sign for us? Or something similar? It would be nice to have that kind of desire from players to come and join us again!

Obviously my interest is in the first part, not the second!

Mike Ashley pursues SFA over Rangers fine and Dave King appointment 24 November 2015 From the section Glasgow & West Scotland Mike AshleyImage copyrightGetty Images Image caption Mike Ashley is seeking judicial reviews of two SFA decisions relating to his involvement with Rangers Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley is challenging decisions by the Scottish Football Association (SFA) which relate to his involvement with Rangers. The first relates to a £7,500 SFA fine in March over a breach of their rules on dual interest in football clubs. He is also challenging an SFA decision to pass Dave King as "fit and proper" to become Rangers chairman despite his tax convictions in South Africa. Both judicial review cases will be heard at the Court of Session in 2016. Mr Ashley's £7,500 fine was for contravening the SFA's dual-ownership regulations. Company ownership The Sports Direct billionaire fell foul of the SFA's disciplinary rule number 19 which states that no person who has a formal interest in one club can have a similar role in another side. Lawyers acting for Mr Ashley claim the SFA acted incorrectly and are seeking a judicial review into the SFA's decision. The second case is brought by Mr Ashley's company, MASH Holdings Limited, who wish the SFA's decision to declare Mr King a "fit and proper" person to be judicially reviewed. The company is the ownership mechanism in which Mike Ashley holds his shares in Rangers. Mr King had to be ratified by the SFA due to his tax convictions in South Africa. The businessman admitted to 41 breaches of the South African Income Tax Act and agreed to pay a £43.7m settlement in 2013 following a legal battle. Lawyers for MASH claim the SFA's decision was wrong and that Mr King is not a fit and proper person to be involved with a football club. -- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34910374 Interesting development. Is it right that I want him to win this one as it would likely have a positive repercussion for the club as we were hit by the same SFA ruling? Or is that a simplistic view?

Thanks Frankie.

I've got a little bit lost in all this. Currently we're 2-1 but having lost the most recent case we're losing, seems odd but I get that, I think. Am I right that this is the last appeal that's available? Or does it make it's way into Europe? Where does it go after this one? Given the strength of many comments in the wake of the one court defeat over this, if we win this appeal and it goes no further, surely we're due a number of apologies for what has been said?

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong anyone, but the third case was heard by non tax-specialist judges (unlike the first 2) who chose to rule based on "common sense" rather than points of law that were considered in the first two?

I just looked it up, it was an U21's game, at the time of the goal, Arsenal were winning 1-0. Showboating like that when 1-0 down is a little irresponsible in my opinion. Kanu did similar for Arsenal against Boro in '99 (I think) but they were 3-0 up at that point. No issue with that, the game was comfortably won.

That wonder goal concerns me somewhat in all honesty. A showboat trick like that has the potential to go very wrong. It should be a simple, easy finish. No need to go for the spectacular in that fashion.

Probably "fairer" than you'd see from many rangers fans as well. A touch of independence to the view point makes it carry a little more weight. Not suggesting for a moment that any of the Rangers viewpoints put forward are wrong, but it's hard to try and claim that they're not biased in their observation. It's this consideration that makes the view of people like Jo Maugham so interesting and informative.

I suspect we've got a few with a shout for that particular accolade. Tav has to be an option for it too, surely?

So, let me get this right. 9 judges in total have now sat on the case. The score is currently 5 judges to 4 in our favour, the 4 against are non-specialist in tax law. So we lose?

Unfair advantage to Celtic perhaps?

Can we just take our ball and leave? Go play somewhere else? English conference perhaps?

So pretty much what we already knew. The board have already noted this previously and confirmed the availability of funds I believe? There's also some talk of a future conversion to equity rather than paying these back. All seems healthy I think!

Here's a thought... If somehow Ashley wins this one and King is found guilty of breaching the gagging order (taking nothing for granted here despite how stupid it all seems to me!) what affect does that have on the order. Once it's breached is it breached or can further breaches also be punished? In other words, is there a chance that if "sent down for this", King exchanges 30 days in the cells for the freedom to speak openly? Might be an interesting twist, though I suspect it wont work that way!

I assume there's some appearance limit to the average strike rate table, otherwise I'd have expected to see Marco Negri up at the top? EDIT Oh, yeah, players who scroed 100 goals. Just ignore me!

What wouldn't I give for a player like Lovenkrands right now (played the right way not stuck out on the wing!)

Nothing wrong with bringing in an experienced head, even if he doesn't feature much in the way of pitch time. I seem to recall a couple of years back when Becks rolled up to train with Spurs on a short term loan during the off season in MLS. There was something about contracts not allowing him to actually play, but it was deemed that the benefits he brought to the training pitch were considerable enough to bring him in. The hope was, if I recall, that his presence might have a positive effect on a young Aaron Lennon. Didn't quite work that way in the end I think but there's no reason a similar approach might not work at Rangers. **Disclaimer** I'm simply drawing a parallel here, I do not mean to imply either explicitly or implicitly that Eustace is in any way comparable to Beckham as a player!