T-1000

I had hoped with the acquisition of Alves and Cardoso the defence especially centrally would be much improved. Unfortunately, Cardoso does not seem that much an improvement on Danny Wilson though the former is young and has time to improve. Alves is a more skilful player than Clint Hill but last season I felt he always gave a hardworking solid performance. As such, the introduction of Alves has not led to a substantive improvement in central defence. Furthermore, our full backs remain the same and in both cases their strength lies in going forward rather than defensively. Finding a replacement for either, if we see an Andrew Robertson type as the benchmark, is not going to be cheap. Perhaps Declan John with some game time under his belt might turn out to be a better option option at full back. There does not seem to be a preponderance of other potential candidates presently at the club and if Beerman is considered the best bet currently at the club then then this might signal that a priority for Pedro in the next transfer round will be signing a full-back. On a side note John McC in an e-mail above refuting the accusation he was trolling stated that he has supported past managers such as PLG, Ally and Warburton. Given the outcome with these managers perhaps we should be glad he doesn't support Pedro.

Partick 1 Rangers 3 FGS Herrera

Partick 1 Rangers 3 FGS Herrera

Whilst I think it unfortunate that CS used the term Well done Hibs and Lennon in his title I think the main message of his post was that Hibs are a decent side who are likely to be in the top half of the table at the end of the season and may even challenge Aberdeen for third place. They are also manged by someone who as a person may not be a pleasant individual but nevertheless is likely to ensure his team is fired up and plays with a certain level of passion. Acknowledgement of this does not in any way condone the behaviour of either the Hibs fans or Neil Lennon but this a separate issue from what Hibs are like as a footballing side.

No competition for Goram; what about Klos, Niven or Ritchie? I also thought Bobby Russell was an underrated player.

It might also be that other teams allowed us to play well by giving time and space to our players. Teams have now learnt that the best way to play us is to press us and be physical. Our players are no longer finding they have the time to play passes or the space to run into to receive the ball. How much of our problem in coping with this is down to the management team promoting a fairly slow tempo and emphasising possession rather than what you do with the possession is open to question.

This game shows as we have seen in some other games that when teams press us hard we lose our fluency and shape and find it difficult to obtain control of the game. This was also not helped by the state of the pitch tonight. Another issue apparent from tonight is that when McKay is off the pace or, as tonight, tightly marked we lack creativity. We also did not see anything tonight from our forwards, with the nature of the game not suiting Kenny and Martyn Waghorn being so one footed he is easy to mark and does not have the skill to make an impact on the game.

I think today Rodgers had done his homework and saw that if they could stop us from building from the back then they were likely to be on the offensive. They were quick in closing us down and we therefore had to rush our passes and lost possession too many times. In previous games teams have generally allowed us time and space and when this was denied we struggled. I would hope MW would look at how we can deal with the situation when we have teams harrying us and chasing us down as quickly as they did. We normally dominate the possession stats but this was the not the case in this game and that is why we were on the back foot. I think it is a matter of learning from this experience and moving on. If MW can be blaimed for anything it was starting Niko; in these types of games he is not able to exert the influence he does where he has more time.

A copy of the Bluffers Guide to Football Management

Judging by the comments on the article there is certain level of rage. As a more general point I am sure the article was designed to antagonize Celtic supporters. Perhaps next week there will be a counter about Rangers.

Forrest looked promising a couple of years ago but doesn't seem to have kicked on in his development. Liam Miller was another Celtic youngster who it was thought would be a big star; which I guess he is at Cork City. More generally, it is difficult to think of any recent players developed by either Rangers or Celtic who have gone on to be a success in the English Premiership.

Be careful there because you are talking about a Rangers fan.

Although last year the team was very poor he was voted player of the year for the club and in that sense to say he was rank might be considered an exaggeration as we still have Bell, Templeton, Shiels, Law (and Aird?) playing for us.

Surprised he wasn't kept for cover in the case of injuries or loss of form by Wilson or Kiernan but presume Warburton thinks Ball will be sufficient backup. In addition, he did not meet the managers profile of young ball player and therefore where is his added value.

I agree with what you say but would only add that flair is something beyond the mundane, predictable or ordinary, it is to have a special skill, imagination, an ability do things and see opportunities that ordinary players do not.

I am less certain that the matter is as clear cut as you suggest. The prospective NOMAD had determined that the new board members were fit and proper. The Board is responsible for the running of the company and its corporate governance. Therefore, one might have expected the NOMAD to have some confidence that the new board would act properly notwithstanding what might have happened in the past with the previous board. The NOMAD also indicated that the decision was taken after discussions with the exchange. It is possible the exchange indicated that they had concerns about the listing of Rangers and this might be because of the history of the listing. But there could be additional factors such as the going concern issue relating to Rangers, the exchange not having as much confidence in the new board as the NOMAD and so on. Therefore, Murray may be correct that the history of the listing was the major factor in the decision that has been taken but it is also possible that there were other factors.

I agree that Easdale may be in a weaker position than some other investors because of his direct involvement in the Board. What is less clear is the extent to which Dave King and the others had been involved in talks with a NOMAD prior to them being elected to the board and the advice given by that NOMAD with respect to the probability the company would continue to be acceptable to AIM. We also do not know what discussions took place between Rangers, the NOMAD who was willing to take on the role and the regulators themselves. I am unaware of documentary evidence from AIM indicating that the previous regime was so unacceptable to them that it had been intimated to them that delisting was a possibility or was it simply the resigning of the NOMAD was the last straw. We are also not privy to the precise reasons why AIM has determined that Rangers cannot continue to be listed; we have been told by the present Board that it was due to previous Board regimes and this sounds plausible but it might not be the only reason. One might argue that if it was because of the previous regime would AIM not be receptive to the change and welcome a 'clean' board. We also do not know if AIM indicated that if certain criteria were met it might be possible for the listing to be regained. If we knew more about all the discussions that have taken place then we might be in a stronger position to come to the conclusion you seek.

Possibly,but what would you do if you had a significant investment in a company,had no say in its running and you wanted to sell your shares but found no ready market but instead are dependent on some wealthy individual wanting to purchase them at a certain price. You might be a bit concerned about the likelihood of such a person coming forward and if so you would probably want to seek legal advice about any rights you might have against the company and its directors. The fact that Easdale is reportedly following this line should not come as a surprise. I suspect Easdale will not be the only investor who is a bit concerned about this move by Rangers. We may have to wait and see how this situation plays out.

The delisting probably does not matter to the ordinary Rangers supporter who has bought 500 shares mainly because I would suggest this fan buys the shares not as a traditional investment but for support and sentimental reasons. If, however, you own a substantial bundles of shares, say for argument sake 9% of the share capital you might be a little concerned about who has sufficient resources to purchase your shares and at what price. To this extent your investment in this case is locked in to Rangers. I would have thought such an investor might then look for an exit strategy or compensation. On this we will have to wait and see. The other issue that is now clearer is that funds for taking Rangers forward will have to come from individuals or organisations such as Rangers First. It is to be hoped that such supporters have sufficiently deep pockets

As once determined by the House of Lords in the Brown case though this was not concerned with punching but committing homosexual sado-masochistic acts.

It is not really a matter of whether we like or dislike Ashley more what legal remedy may be available to him should Rangers be delisted and the possibility of this being detrimental Rangers.

I also rather suspect delisting would not be welcomed by institutions, or for that matter Ashley, who presently hold shares in Rangers because there would no longer be a ready market for the sale of their shares and who therefore might find themselves locked in to an investment they no longer want. Whether these shareholders would have available to them some form of legal remedy is a question for a corporate lawyer.

No statement has so far been lodged at Companies House. From the wording of the statement issued by Rangers it may be that Deloittes did not actually resign but instead did not seek re-appointment. However, this would have been evident at the agm where it would be stated that were not seeking re-appointment. Were they in attendance at the agm? Whatever the reasons as Barca has indicated a statement should have been lodged; so it is all a bit odd.

That can't be the reason because we are not playing Partick this year.

Particularly the amount paid to advisors for setting up the meeting, voting arrangement and so on.