compo

What about the fans who kept turning up back in the days when we had some dire attendances they deserve a special mention

Usually got the blame when anything went wrong but in my eyes a good dependable full back

I don’t think the present board are trying to dodge their responsibilities like Murray

I see Jurgen Klopp’s retirement is coming to an end he’s going to be Red Bulls face of soccer

There’s always someone somewhere who fancies themselves as a club owner it’s up to our board to appoint someone to find a buyer other clubs have done it this way .

If ever a club needed to be taken over it’s Rangers

It would be a good job for someone who wants to learn the ropes about working within a football club someone with ambition who can do a good job then he or she will be ready to step up to a big club .

Must be a few vacancies at Ibrox these days

Sadly passed away at 73 now there was a bloke who could play football

BREAKING NEWSManchester City DEFEAT the Premier League in legal challenge over rules about 'inflated' sponsor deals from companies linked to their owners - which threatens to blow up football's financial regulations Mike Keegan Manchester City have scored a seismic victory in their war with the Premier League after new rules on sponsorship deals were branded 'unlawful'. In a significant, landmark verdict that will send shockwaves through the top flight, a heavyweight panel of retired judges has ruled that regulations aimed at preventing clubs from inflating deals with companies linked to their owners breach the Competition Act - and that the top flight was wrong to stop two recent City deals. The Abu Dhabi-owned four-in-a-row champions, currently facing 115 charges of breaking Premier League financial rules in a separate case, took the league to court earlier this year. They claimed the rules, brought in after the Saudi-led takeover of Newcastle United and amended in February, were unfair. And in a ruling that could spell trouble for others – not least rivals Arsenal – the system on Associated Party Transactions (APTs) was deemed unlawful. The panel gave a number of reasons, including the fact that the rules do not extend to loans from owners and shareholders. Of £4billion borrowed across the league £1.5bn comes from shareholder loans - including all of the Gunners estimated £250m borrowings and almost all of Brighton's. Man City have won their legal challenge against the Premier League's sponsorship rules Pep Guardiola's side took legal action against these sanctions that they deemed as a form of 'discrimination' in February Others in a similar position could also now be impacted should the rules subsequently change. In a statement on Monday, City said: 'Manchester City Football Club thanks the distinguished members of the Arbitral Tribunal for their work and considerations and welcomes their findings.' In a statement of no fewer than 1,248 words, the Premier League said it ‘welcomed’ the panel’s findings ‘which endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system’. It added: ‘The tribunal did, however, identify a small number of discrete elements of the rules which do not, in their current form, comply with competition and public law requirements. These elements can quickly and effectively be remedied by the league and clubs.’ The statement added that the APT system would continue to operate ‘taking into account the findings made by the tribunal’. City had argued that such payments were unfair and not at market value as they were often at zero or no interest or did not have to be repaid at all. If commercial rates are now applied – and those loans included in club's profit and sustainability accounts - many could find themselves in breach of financial regulation in what could be a nightmare scenario that would heap pressure on Premier League bosses. The verdict could also open the door for City and others to pen significantly higher deals with related parties. The bombshell findings, seen by Mail Sport, were delivered in a 175-page report to clubs this afternoon. It remains to be seen what happens next. City are expected to seek costs and damages while the Premier League are expected to have to amend or dump the system entirely. Other clubs could also seek damages should they believe they have been impacted. The panel ruled the league was wrong to reject, under ATP rules, a wide-ranging new sponsorship deal City had lined up with Etihad late last year. City's previous 10-year deal with the Abu Dhabi-based airline features heavily in the separate case on the 115 charges. The stopping of another deal with an Abu Dhabi-based bank was also branded procedurally unfair. City's expensively-assembled legal team led by Lord Pannick, the KC spearheading City's defence against the 115, launched a series of claims against APT rules, many of which centred on the element that deals had to represent what the league deemed Fair Market Value (FMV). They claimed rules were designed to end their reign of success and were the result of a 'tyranny of the majority'. While many of their claims were rejected, they scored victories in no fewer than seven key arguments. City had only needed to show the rules were unlawful for one reason.

Three points that's the only good thing from last night's game

Souttar he’s a good player

Pity Sunday night at the London Palladium wasn’t still on the Telly would have been better entertainment than served up at Ibrox last night another poor performance but at least we got the points.

Tavernier and Cerny in the starting eleven I think big Phil's looking for the sack.

No goals at Villa park but I’d say united are ahead on points at the moment

Imagine being a fan of St Johnstone making the journey to Glasgow for tonight’s game and using public transport football should be for the fans could be midnight before they get back to Perth.

Will watch the Aston villa talon United later doesn't matter if United eventually sack the manger he's probably going to get some nice compensation.

I can't ever remember Rangers kicking off at 20.00 0n the Sabbath day before anyway Mon the Gers.

A draw at Goodison Everton deserved a point

What a silly penalty to concede but Pickford saved it Mon the toffees

Our build up play is far to slow in body anf in thought takes them long enough then it's either a square pass or a pass back.

Nice goal from the toffees but offside

Manager has to end Tavs Rangers career it's like playing with ten men when he's playing takes a run up the pitch can't get back Soutar or so other fall guy then has to cover his mistakes and then he ends up out of position the man's done and unless the manager sees that then he's done as well.

Palace could have got a draw if their front players could finish

Premier League chief claims the outcome of Lassana Diarra's case has 'EVERYBODY worried'.. and admits it could cause 'complete anarchy and chaos' to the transfer market as we know it Alex Conrad West Ham United vice-chairman Karren Brady insists the landmark ruling regarding the Lassana Diarra case 'has got everybody worried'. The European Court of Justice ruled on Friday some of FIFA's rules on player transfers are contrary to European Union legislation relating to competition and freedom of movement. The ruling is seen as crucial because it could make it easier for players to terminate their contracts and join another team. As a result, it could bring an end to big money transfers as players would hold all the cards, allowing them to pick and choose their next move. It has Brady fearing what it could mean for the market moving forward. The European Court of Justice handed down a historic ruling regarding FIFA player transfer rules on Friday The case was brought forward by Diarra over a decade-long dispute with a Russian club West Ham United vice-chairman Karren Brady holds grave fears over what the ruling will mean 'The outcome of the Lassana Diarra case has got everybody worried,' Brady wrote in a column for The Sun. 'But one thing is for certain: if a player has the right to terminate their contracts because they want to go elsewhere, then so would their club. 'And the result of that would be complete chaos and anarchy.' Brady added: 'If players can simply break their contracts and move around the world the entire system will collapse.' The Hammers vice-chairman also protested what the ruling would mean for clubs lower down in the English football pyramid. Several Premier League stars began their careers in the lower reaches of the English Football League (EFL), with some also breaking through at non-league clubs. Those teams often insert sell-on clauses in case the player goes on to even bigger and better after securing a move. Diarra argued he couldn't join a new club after Lokomotiv Moscow terminated his deal in 2014 Brady believes the ruling handed down will cause the entire transfer system to crash The ECJ's ruling is seen as crucial because it could make it easier for players to terminate their contracts Exeter City is one club who has benefitted from sell-on clauses as they were entitled to 15 per cent of Ollie Watkins' £28million move from Brentford to Aston Villa in 2020. The club also received a tidy windfall from Jay Stansfield's record-breaking £10m move from Fulham to Birmingham City in the summer. In her column, Brady used the example of non-league side Maidenhead United receiving £4m as part of West Ham's £40m deal to sign Max Kilman from Wolves. 'That's life-changing money for a non-league club but if there are no fees anymore that won't happen and the impact will be incredible.' Diarra's case was prompted when he signed a four-year contract with Lokomotiv Moscow in 2013 but the deal was terminated a year later after the former French international was unhappy with alleged pay cuts. Brady voiced her concerns for how lower league and non-league clubs would be impacted Ollie Watkins' move from Brentford to Aston Villa generated substantial income for Exeter City West Ham's move for Max Kilman helped non-league Maidenhead United earn £4million Lokomotiv Moscow applied to the FIFA dispute resolution chamber for compensation and the player countered seeking compensation for unpaid wages. The Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled in favor of the Russian club and the player was ordered to pay 10.5 million euros ($11.2 million). Diarra claimed his search for a new club was hampered by FIFA's rules stipulating any new side would be jointly responsible with him for paying Lokomotiv. The former Real Madrid player also argued that a potential deal with Belgian club Charleroi fell through because of the FIFA rules, and sued FIFA and the Belgian federation at a Belgian court for damages and loss of earnings of six million euros ($7 million). With the lawsuit still going through Belgian courts, the case was referred to the ECJ for guidance.