stewarty

Rumours that JD Sports are going to get a delivery of kits to go on sale shortly too...

Add to that the fact that there is just not enough time for reporters to do anything other than regurgitate press releases to create copy, or to trawl social media for click bait nonsense... actual journalism or reporting, regardless of whether its in a sporting context or otherwise, becomes a 'nice to have'

We need more information but I take your point. My take based on the information to hand is that King is trying to do some groundwork to take to the Cos/ TOP in order to proceed with a lesser amount of funds than originally required. And if that is the case, it would be down to the CoS to sanction There's a lot of assumptions on my part though.

I know you understand the C1872 rules. They have received a request from the club/King to sign a formal undertaking. Do they respond to this unilaterally without consulting with members? I would have a problem with that if they did. And I suspect you would too, and rightly so.

Also taking a step back, I also look at how this came about. A rat (Somers), aggrieved and trying to salvage his reputation, attempts to create as much shit as possible for us because he didn't like the way he was exposed. I am forever grateful to the current board for getting rid of him. And given the circumstances and quite bizarre situation we find ourselves in, I don't care whether they have fought it or tactically delayed or whatever. So yes, whilst it is clearly their issue to deal with, I can also see why they have eventually and reluctantly agreed to comply, but also make this a difficult situation for the TOP because of how stupid the whole thing is.

Well its certainly how I read your post, apologies if thats not the case. However, the question on whether King should be Chairman is a separate matter at this point. Same goes for Blair.

At this point, that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that King is required to stump up cash and its not a quick process. He is being put under pressure by the TOP and the Court to get this done, so a solution is clearly being worked on whereby King can reduce the quantum of funds needed to progress the mandatory offer by getting formal undertakings from significant shareholders that they would not participate at this time. If this speeds up the whole thing then great. You are right this is a personal matter, but I'm sure we would all see a benefit of clearing this up as quickly as possible.

I think you are missing the point here Bruce. The issue is not whether C1872 would ever sell the shares, but whether they would be prepared to sign a formal undertaking that this would be the case. This would then be taken to the TPO/ Court of Session as evidence of the level of funding required in order to support a mandatory offer. We can only assume that this is due to the difficulties of getting monies out of South Africa. So anything that might help speed things along seems perfectly sensible from my point of view. I would struggle to believe that the club would approach C1872 alone in terms of signing similar undertakings, so I really don't see an issue here.

Coullibally's energy and dig will be vital tonight. I fancy us to get a goal, but it will need to be a really disciplined defensive performance for us to get any sort of result.

Although McCoist has since said that he intends for the shares to remain in his family and something he wants to pass on. And I believe him on that.

Nothing from my SNP MSP so far. I do wonder whether they think this will all blow over.

Agree it will be interesting to see the reaction of the team to spending a few days on the training field and whether more of the management team's ideas start to come to fruition. Also looking forward to seeing Grezda get some minutes and Coullibally will hopefully start as I think he needs a solid 65-70 to put him into contention for Thursday.

Promising signs, but we've been here before with Rossiter in particular. We can see the boy has ability, I just hope his biscuit bones firm up a bit.

Classic hot take. ?

I am in total agreement. When someone is put on the spot and they double down on the bluster and indignation, its a red flag for me.

I hope your confidence isn't misplaced. I can understand the nervousness given the number of issues we've had on the injury front over the years.

Good luck to JJ. Wouldn't be surprised to see a few younger players head down to him on loan.

Its a worry that he is clearly not fit but surely if the club were not satisfied that he was ready to play a part in their squad we would have held him back? I know there is a process in terms of international team medics evaluating an injury, but I'm not sure how relevant that is when its just a couple of friendlies they are playing.

To refer back to my previous question about why a politician might withhold his footballing allegiance in order to further his career, I would draw parallels to my own support of Rangers. I grew up in the Scottish Borders and much of the realities of West of Scotland life in terms of any religious divide passed me by as its largely irrelevant down in Rugger country. My Dad is a Rangers fan and grew up in the west coast and I got my love of our team from him, pestering for tops and being football daft from as young as I can remember. However, despite being baptised, neither I nor my family are in any way religious. It was the done thing at the time I guess but we never went voluntarily, only on the odd occasion did we set foot in a church when invited to a wedding or attending a funeral. We were not a political family either, although I did take a keen interest through my teens and still do to varying degrees depending on how engaged I am on specific topics, or how jaded I might be with all the referendums and elections we've had in recent years. I never really knew who my parents voted for - they are working class so would typically view things in terms of "how much is that going to cost me" when looking at the budget and how much a packet of fags or a pint of beer would cost from midnight. Fast forward to today, I find myself in the space that is being vocally criticised by some. I identify as a Rangers fan first. I have voted SNP in the past but also for Labour, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats. My politics is largely left of centre but I consider myself pretty moderate. However the only fixed view I have on politics is that I will change my view to suit the circumstances as they relate to me. Hence, my vote is never guaranteed to anyone and I would never join a political party for that reason, despite being reasonably well engaged. Not having grown up in a family or social setting that was Loyalist or influenced by NI politics, I don't identify with those elements of Rangers fan. I voted yes in 2014 but not for any reasons based on identity, but from (in my view), a pragmatic sense that Scotland would do a better job of running our affairs long term than an increasingly remote Westminster. [NB - I'm not attempting to re-hash any arguments on this, just giving some context] So from my perspective, I'm not against the union or people who identify as unionists, but I do struggle with aspects of the way support for it is expressed. I'm not pro- Royalist. But similarly, I'm not anti-Royalist either. So when you roll up the various tenets of the stereotypical Rangers fan, i don't sit naturally with many of them, despite a shared love for a football team. Yet I attempt to fit in, to not make an issue of any differences I have with those who have alternative views, to enjoy the cut and thrust of discussion whilst not attempting to be divisive. I often do this carefully. I seek to look at both sides of a debate and give a moderate view. So, to bring back to the question - I think political culture is such that it is very personality and issue driven. Debates are polarised and the effect is a tribal "them and us" scenario whereby the only way to get ahead is to side with one extreme view or another. To express a moderate and balance view is seen as weak - "you're either with us or against us" springs to mind. I think we've seen plenty of that in this thread and its disappointing to say the least.

Hahahahaha

Ally was quoted in an article I just read about how his health was affected by being our Manager, when he said something about St Midden offering him a one month contract to be their boss?!! I think it was before they appointed Stubbs. Utterly mental short term thinking if thats true.

We will not find any political party expousing a position on what football team to support so thats a dead-end argument. What is more interesting is the pervasive culture whereby a fledgling politician might deem it prudent to their career to keep their Rangers allegiance to themselves.

That might be the more nuanced position you took, but initially you accused SNP voting Bears to be collaborators. You've deliberately fanned the flames on that point so lets not try and be cute now.

True. But I'm not arguing against you on that point. I'm merely stating that my sense is that something is wrong here and there are agendas at play beyond valid community objections. The process ultimately is flawed here. If there are objections then its right that they are discussed in a transparent manner before any decision is made. And none of the bluster-filled retorts from the politicians under scrutiny have properly addressed the questions raised about their involvement.

They live near Ibrox stadium. For the sake of argument you could just call the stadium footprint an extended fan zone for every home game. To object to having a specific family friendly entertainment zone would suggest to me that they have another agenda at play.