calscot

You don't see the difference between verbal taunting and provocation by a physical attack? So you think the Rangers fans would not have reacted had the Motherwell fans come up and shoved them?

Surprised at some of those and the omission of Flo. People went on about the pressure to justify his fee but for us he wasn't worth even a tenth of it. It was strange to see him come on for the MK Dons in a game a few years ago and it seems he stole a wage from them also - didn't get into the game at all and missed the viatal penalty in a shoot out that blew their promotion.

Thing is Rangers are giving 1 in 5 Motherwell regulars a chance to go to the game. For Motherwell to reciprocate they would need to give us over 6000 tickets. Instead they'd rather have an empty stand for some kind of childish and disproporionate tit for tat. Sums up our game.

You seem to contradict yourself here - either games are meaningless or not. However, if you think about it the format suggested has a lot less "meaningless" games than say a 20 team league. Imagine you're 8th in the last 14 games of a 20 team league. You may only have one OF game left out of four, two max. More than half your games will be against teams who can't be related or qualify for Europe or win the league like yourselves. How "meaningful" are those games? Contrast with the proposed format and you have a guaranteed 4 games against the OF, with two at home, and another say 6 games against teams fighting for Europe leaving 4 less meaningful games - but at least they are against the 6th and 7th best teams rather than say 15th and 16th. We talking games against say Dundee Utd or Hibs rather than Livingstone or Falkirk. Then you have your 9th to 12th place teams who again have four OF a season and so one or two to look forward to and mostly games with nothing at stake. In the new format they have no OF games to look forward to but have already had 4 which makes the first half of their season more meaningful, but now instead of more than half dead rubbers, they have to play EVERY game competitively to stay up - at least until they are safe. That's a lot more "meaningful" games. Then there are the 1st to 4th of the Championship who in a 20 game league would be like before although they would get 4 OF games. But they are again always competitive as they have to fight to get into the top 4 for promotion and then fight again to try and stay up. If we kept things as they are they would still have no OF games but be playing Cowdenbeath and Alloa instead of Motherwell and St Mirren. In the current system they could be pretty safe without being able to win the title but now they have to play for every game. In a 20 team league, they could be safe and have a load of games without much outcome. The bottom 8 wouldn't be much different from now and probably would have a some meaningless games at the top without some kind of incentive. I'm not advocating this at all and I know many will not like it, but you need to understand that there WILL be less "meaningless" games - at least for the top 16, before slating it. It also gives a combination of more top games than a 20 team league and more variety than a 12 team league. It's not perfect but the stated or maybe not even desirable but the stated benefits are definitely there.

I know this is supposed to elicit some kind of sympathy for Gordy but it doesn't half epitomise first world problems... Doesn't mean Ally shouldn't stop taking a wage but PS4 etc, come on...

Your basing your whole opinion on what someone said about someone else - basically hearsay? Maybe it's good for a lot of people that not everyone does that... the judge was so sure, what did he convict DK of in this case? Was he put in prison for contempt of court? What actual gravitas did this accusation have? I read that a lot of that kind of stuff was quashed when some of the disingenuous work of SARS was revealed. It's easy to look like a liar when people are constantly making up evidence about you. It all just depends on who you believe rather than actual facts. He should be judged on his actions and convictions, not stuff someone said about him.

I think one point of perspective that people keep forgetting is that no matter how bad the stuff DK did in SA, he did not do it to intentionally harm his own company, quite the opposite. He also didn't walk away or capitulate, but fought long and hard to protect his investment, and eventually pretty much won, and his company prospered. I can't see how that can be bad for Rangers. In fact if he was the owner instead of DM then I doubt he would have sold to Whyte. Instead he'd he'd have fought HMRC hard - and won. We would NOT have had an insolvency event. He is the one guy in the world we know we can be reasonably confident about saying that. His form in SA would have been a massive asset to Rangers in the past - so what is the problem with the future? Maybe as a tax payer you should be worried but not as a Rangers fan.

Does this mean he'll be moving to the UK or will he be chairing the board via video conferencing from SA with the odd trip back for important meetings? I hope for the former while expecting the latter. He does need a bit of time now to put things into action - but not too much. As a layman, I expect a lot to be done and dusted by the start of next season. As a priority I think we need a new CEO, FD and investment committee, and charge them with appointing a nomad, registering us on a stock exchange and organising the first of at least two rights issues. The first would be only open to current shareholders due to the resolution failure at the AGM and the second open to all after a resolution pass at the next AGM. Then there's the football side of things with a fair few appointments needed, and then the rebuilding of the squad - which could massively depend on which division we're in. I think the timing of all those contracts running out is advantageous for us if we are promoted as we just don't get value for money in the lower divisions - we have to pay way over the odds for mediocre talent who are basically just in it for the money and don't give the passion we need. But it's in the football side that we have to do something different to distinguish ourselves from the run of the mill. Something less than obvious, and not just spending more than the rest - the best that will get us is around the top of a very poor standard of league and nowhere in Europe. If it manages to make us win half the honours in Scotland, or slightly more, then I'm sure we'll keep a substantial following for a while, but it is sure to steadily decline over a generation while people drift to watching a higher standard of football on the telly from England and elsewhere. We need to win game after game to even keep those we have, but we also need to add some style and a sense of adventure - giving the some kind of feeling that we're going somewhere rather than just doing the dreary annual rounds of a footballing nation in decline. The answer as to how to do that is not an easy one, as if it was, everyone would be doing it. As the world zigs, it's time to zag.

If it's within the rules, why would the SPFL have anything to say on the matter? Haven't both Hibs and Hearts cut our allocation at their stadium this season? We've been repeated arsed about by all and sundry recently, and as soon as we decide enough is enough and we should look after our own using the exact same rules, sporting integrity is brought into question...

Conflict between which two states again? I didn't know we were at war with Ireland. However, there has been a thing made of the war against terrorism...

Only thing about the Europa thing is that we only have 4 places so you're punishing the club that finishes an honourable 3rd (probably the best team after the OF) to give the place to the 7th club. Belgium have 5 places so while not so bad, they are still robbing 4th. If they moved up just one place from 10th to 9th in the rankings, they'd actually get another place, but that must be harder to do with your 7th best team playing instead of your 4th.

To be fair to ND, the questions were obnoxious shit stirring, but the answers showed his odious politician type tendencies.

Due to TV, I think we need the 4 OF games. For a 16 team league you'd need to add something like the top four playing each other home and away once again to decide the title - 30 games plus 6 more giving a 36 game season. Or you could do the top 6 giving 40 games. It could keep a more exciting end to the season in place. You could do something similar at the bottom for relegation - but then what do you do for the middle except meaningless games or a lack of games losing income? The 10 team league is probably the best option for our top heavy league, if boring and stifling. Teams are guaranteed 4 OF home games and for TV there are 4 OF games, 4 Edinburgh derby games and possibly 4 Dundee derbies with the latter two also bringing in big gates for those clubs. TV would also appreciate the all the OF games against the next best challenging teams. However, who in the top tier would vote to remove 2 of them? None of them are totally safe from that, so it would be Turkeys voting for Christmas. Would they also vote for the play-off for second bottom to stay up, or would that be how the bottom club faces relegation? They say that the fear factor of relation makes for crap football, but then so does meaningless games. I think if they did do a 10 team league, it would be best to use the seeding to produce a fixture list where the top seeded teams all play each other for the run in at the end of the season. Something that does work in the current system (with Rangers in the league) is the top six playing each other at the end. I think the EPL really doesn't work where one team who can win the title having an easy run-in against the bottom teams and another having a very difficult one against the top teams. Weirdly, I actually do think the 12 team system kind of works to some extent, but only with Rangers in the league. With just one big club, it's a complete joke and is not very fair or beneficial where you get some teams with only one big home game a season compared to others with 2 on a random basis, and the anomaly of the odd team getting. But due to two Edinburgh teams and two from Dundee, our league will always be a bit crap with only two potential challengers with the real joke of the last few years of only being one and made even worse by the relegation of both Edinburgh sides. With TV money massively dwarfing gate money elsewhere, the whole thing in Scotland is doomed to obscurity without the top clubs joining a Euro league or the English league. It all looks to be rearranging the chairs in some low rent, back street, greasy spoon, which is only mildly interesting to local regulars.

50k at £5 a ticket is less than for 25k at an average of say £18 a ticket... That would mean about £100k less to the SPFL for each Ibrox game should they have been sold out either way.

I expect they've had a lawyer carefully check over the rule-book. Looks like we're trying to pretty much break even, while the rest of the league teams could potentially have a 300k windfall to share from the pockets of our fans.

Surely after being removed from the "ruinous" Rangers coaching and management, and obviously being allowed to flourish in his natural position, the guy must be a world class player by now?

You would think one thing Rangers fans would have learned by now: there is far more to football than just money - and thank goodness for that. How boring would it be if the highest paid team always won? But it's also been good in the long term for Rangers that that is true, otherwise the old board may still have been in place. Rangers have shown that when you mess with the soul of a club for your own gain, it will not be an easy ride to success and perpetual lining of your pockets. I think it's a bit mean to Rangers fans to say they don't deserve promotion even if the team achieve it legitimately. What have they done to be so undeserving - boycotting for the good of the club? Where is the empathy for what the club has been through this season? Is it not obvious that if it wasn't for the off-field issues, better than 3rd place would have been achieved? The Edinburgh clubs have been working in an atmosphere of a bright, new dawn while Rangers have been fighting to cope under a severe thunderstorm in comparison. McCall has basically taken over after the storm clouds have just cleared somewhat but he's still struggling to rebuild with the aftermath. Loyal Rangers fans are the survivors in this, and they are trying to rebuild hope for the future, so "undeserving" is a label I think is undeserved. If the modern Rangers fan expects us to win all the time just because we have more money, then maybe that makes us undeserving.

I'll say again, I see as much if not more anit-Scottish racism in England than the other way round in Scotland. A lot of the English have a pretty superior attitude and don't give a crap about the other home nations. Many of them think they have English passports, that's how British they are. The Tories are currently showing a lot of anit-Scottish feeling, and being incredibly insulting to us. Why would a Scotsman vote for them? Luckily, most Scots are wise enough not to. I imagine those that do must generally be high earners who want to avoid more tax and public spending on those less well off. They put their money before their country. I can't imagine the SNP could even consider being the slightest anti-protestant. It's the default "religion" of the country they want to become independent. That just doesn't make sense. However, I suppose polls have shown that most Scots are not really religious at all, and so protestants could possibly now be a small minority.

The amount we would make and stand to lose is exactly half the ticket price times 25k. Our costs are still there even if the event is free. At £20 a ticket, full uptake and three games, we could be £750k worse of than we would have been - it just so happens that the SPFL lose the same. The gesture is not completely empty.

Maybe normally, but the board have yet to properly win the fans over and so need some kind of show of solidarity. It an easier gesture to make though, when the club loses only half the money and it also targets a common enemy. It's also rewarding those who bought partial season tickets after the board took over and might get them warm and fuzzy enough to buy a full one when their available after the play-offs.

If God wills it, he did.

Seems like a circular argument. The families who aren't as fortunate are more likely to be working for companies such as this. It's easy to say we can all pay a bit more when you're reasonably well off, but the point is that paying a bit more to benefit those worse off is a golden circle. Nobody is going to suffer for want of an overly cheap, Slazenger top and shorts, if they go up a couple of pounds.

Just thinking that there may be another vote on this next season which I can see overturning this and halving the play-off "tax". Who cares so much about how much it is when it's already buttons once it's shared out...?

The majority of clubs voted to fleece the play-off clubs so that's the rules, and so that needs to be followed, even if it is ludicrous. But technically, the clubs should charge as little as they like - it's not as if they will be profiteering in any way and it could lead to a loss after the 50% gross cut - it's actually altruistic towards their fans. I can't see the moral justification for forcing other clubs fans to pay a big entry fee just because you've bullied you're way into claiming half of it for doing nowt. I would say this applies to all play off clubs - not just Rangers, who will hopefully never be involved in them again. It's the yo-yo clubs that will suffer time and again, but most of them will likely have voted for it, just for the one off, Hibs and Rangers pay day. Blind, short-termism money grabbing as usual.

Looks an design-wise except it does look a bit too light a blue. Socks should be black and red which stands us apart from many a generic looking strip. Doesn't look very premium in manufacture although we've had a lot of crap quality over the last 10 years - and ironically for playing football I much preferred wearing a much cheaper training top due to it's better stretchable and breathable materials than a few of the proper tops which seemed like a non-stretch, nylon sauna, where I would pull a muscle trying to get it off due to it sticking to my back. Also looks like it won't be too flattering for those of a more portly figure despite the "new tapered silhouette". All in all, could be a lot worse - like last year's.