Hildy

It's not something I'm wishing for but if Rangers and Celtic play to poorer crowds, fail repeatedly in Europe as the Scottish League becomes like the one just over the Irish Sea, and if they struggle to compete with CL glamour, any commercial suggestion that a merger could have them playing as one in the EPL will be seriously looked at. Did you ever imagine that the Irish Republic would one day vote for the legalisation of men marrying other men? The future is a very strange place and it almost never turns out the way we expect it to.

Firstly, another attempt at reconstruction is likely to diminish the standing of the game even more. The more we mess about with the system, the less credible it is. Secondly, a new system which is as complex as this one is not a good idea. It has certain good points, but whatever system is used should be simple and easily understood. Thirdly, whatever system that is used will have little effect on Rangers and Celtic, assuming of course Rangers can get back to being a major player. The Old Firm need a continental option - an Atlantic League of sorts - because their future if exclusively in Scotland will drag them down and remove them from the glamorous side of the game altogether. Fourthly, mergers of smaller clubs can't be forced on smaller clubs, but they can sometimes work. Inverness and Aberdeen came about due to clubs merging. Fifthly, here's one for the future. Rangers and Celtic to merge into a superclub which will be welcomed into the top league in England. Sleep on that.

I really hope that Walter Smith is kept at arm's length by the board. We should not be seeking his advice about who the next manager of Rangers will be. This is the man who trained up Ally for the role and still doesn't seem to grasp that his apprentice was abysmal in the job, but we also need a manager who will have the team playing a style of football that is worth paying good money to see. I still think McCall will get the gig if we go up, but if there is an opening, the board should endeavour to seek out new faces who will rejuvenate the whole playing side.

This isn't a revolution. It's more like the beginning of a recovery. The disease that infected the club has been beaten - for now - and we're hopefully on the path to return to good health. The illness that knocked us for six was so bad though that no-one can be sure that we will recover to become what we used to be. Think of that tackle on Ian Durrant. Was he the same player afterwards that he was before? This is what the club has been through, a damaging trauma, and full fitness may be beyond us. Rangers has been damaged as a football club and as an institution. The extent of the damage may only be known in a few years when hindsight provides a clearer view.

Lots of people sending the exact same letter/email will detract from any points raised. Anyone wishing to complain formally should do so in their own words.

I'm pleased to hear it. The new board appears to be listening so praise where it is due.

'New Pioneers'? What utter nonsense. This is farcical. Even with a new and improved board in place, the club still knows how to make a fool of itself. How can adults take the club seriously when it promotes junk like this?

This is about right. We have lost thousands of supporters. They will continue to count themselves as fans but rarely or never go. The article highlights the fact that our attendance numbers are significantly less than was anticipated. I have no problem with that because they are.

A older relative of mine was a good tennis player. She had a natural feel for the game and used a doubled-handed backhand to get extra power. This was frowned on by coaches who told her that one hand should be used to play both forehand and backhand shots. She was also instructed - yes, instructed - not to play a baseline game. The idea was to serve and volley: always. No other way was coached. Then a younger generation came through, possibly from the USA, and they threw away the coaching manuals They doubled up on backhand and played hard and powerfully from the baseline. Coaches and purists frowned on this, but they were wrong: completely and utterly wrong. We all went to see our players well coached but it's possible to set a player's career path back if coaching or management is flawed. When Charlie Adam left Rangers, he was widely expected to vanish without a trace by the Rangers support and yet it was perfectly clear that he possessed an abundance of talent. And that talent was allowed to flourish at Blackpool. He has gone on to make a great career for himself at the top of the English game and probably has more money in the bank than Rangers. Occasionally players slip through the net, but Charlie Adam wasn't one of them. His talent was glaring but our coaching staff didn't know how to get the best out of him. As a result, the Rangers support wrote him off. Few believed that he'd shine the way he has in the English Premiership. He was even voted one of the top five players in the division by fellow professionals, and yet we thought he was useless. Just now, we have a young player who has a good instinct and a nice touch: Tom Walsh. He's been played out wide but apparently this is not his favoured position. Let's hope that his career develops in a good way - with Rangers.

It's been grim alright . . . But we can still get out of here.

I'm quite looking forward to the play-offs. I have no doubt that we have the capability to get thought this, although I fully understand that we could still blow the opportunity. Until the manager brought McCulloch on today, we were doing quite well. The manager should make a point of leaving McCulloch out of the squad for these games.Getting it wrong is bad enough but getting it wrong when a player unsuited to being there is included is inexcusable.

Victims? The play-offs are a godsend to Rangers. We have the opportunity to participate, make money and get promoted. Where would we have been if there had been no play-offs?

How is the gate money split by teams in the English play-offs? Do they keep it for themselves or is it shared out between all member clubs?

The prize for clubs in the play-offs is promotion. The prize for every other club is some extra cash - generated by the play-offs. If we were to come up with a system for the play-offs ourselves, we would probably want it to benefit everyone and not just those clubs who weren't good enough to be promoted automatically. Because it is us being directly affected, and this wasn't on the agenda a year ago, we are up in arms about it, but we really shouldn't be. This is a losers' tournament to create a winner. The prize is promotion but there should not be riches to go with it. Does anyone know what the share is in the English play-offs?

There are two wrongs in play here. The SPFL, having set a precedent last season with Hibs, should allow Rangers to admit ST holders free. By refusing to allow Rangers to do this, the SPFL is being inconsistent and wrong. The SPFL however is not being entirely unreasonable taking half the gate to share between other member clubs. The playoffs exist to give clubs not good enough to win promotion automatically an extra chance to go up. Should incompetence be rewarded by allowing, for example, Rangers, the opportunity to have three extra home games where they pocket the entire gate? Are we saying that the club that was vastly superior to all the rest - Hearts - should earn nothing from these bonus games. Are we saying that divisional runners-up should make far more money than the champions? It is because Rangers have been so shockingly poor this season that we have potentially three more home games to get out of this place. This is a bonus. Would we rather finish third and miss out on promotion altogether in a system where there were no playoffs - and no opportunity to earn extra income? The SPFL is behaving abysmally and none of us should be surprised at that, but Rangers has painted itself quite needlessly into a corner. The SPFL is wrong - and Rangers are too.