Bill

Davis is bossing midfield like a 20 year old. What first half he’s had.

Clearly a deliberate miss to show the ganghut we don’t actually need penalties.

That's a joke, right?

Wouldn't that be interesting if it turned out to be true.

I really don’t know why you’re fussing about it like this. If you want to give you’re money to Club1872 then it’s your choice and no one is asking you to do differently. If you’re genuinely committed to it then other people’s opinion shouldn’t be an issue for you. We’re all travelling in the same direction. Some just prefer to drive rather than go by bus.

“Maximum” being a purely subjective measure. An opinion perhaps.

Two season tickets, two MyGers memberships, about £400 so far in merchandise, one gifted annual RTV subscription. And I know exactly where the money went. Your point is what exactly?

Unlikely but, like anyone else contracting Covid, I suppose the question will be ... how many people might have died as a result of virus passed on by a footballer. Given the shambles of track and trace, it's probably unknowable.

It's so typical of the desperation and lack of any dignity underpinning the Parkhead club that if not deliberately planned then the opportunity to use Covid to stop Rangers winning the league will certainly be exploited to the full.

I’ll guarantee Rangers won’t be awarded any title

I've never understood why offside is considered such a sacred cow in football.

£250,000 less than we might have had ?

I think VAR has been useful in only one respect. It has confirmed what many people have long believed - that some of the basic rules of football are effectively unenforceable and should be changed. Bringing in VAR to allow us to continue with inappropriate rules of the game and killing all sponteneity in the process is a act of vandalism. If you need a panel of experts pouring over repeated playbacks to decide whether someone is offside or not, and sometimes still getting it wrong, then the rule needs changing. Offside has been a joke for years and when TV replays became available we could all see how it was actually impossible for someone on the touchline to judge accurately. But we pretended otherwise and what we often got was a linesman's guess. The rules of sport change all the time, nothing is sacrosanct, but let's not sacrifice the joy of the game over some obsession with something like offside.

Is that a strategy that a 25% shareholding Club1872 would endorse?

I’m intimating nothing beyond the questions I posted. What I suggest is that fans who want to help the club should help the club, not finance the exit of a director.

Even if Club1872 could raise the money to buy the DK shares, would that still give them 25% if the club in the meantime decide to issue new shares and dilute everyone's shareholding that doesn't participate in the new issue? And if Club1872 do exercise their pre-emption rights, how will they fund the purchase of both new shares and the DK shares. And the much bigger question for every contributor to Club1872 .... what exactly is it that Club1872 will be blocking with their mighty shareholding. Because it seems to me that the only connection between being able to block club business and actually blocking the right club business is blind trust in an organisation that is prone to changes of both leadership and policy at the whim of an AGM.

It's impossible to watch that without a smile on your face. If Steven Gerrard ever needs someone to give squad morale a boost......

Does anyone have ready access to a league table or player stats that could occasionally be posted here?

Aberdeen 1 Rangers 3 FGS - Hagi

"we"? "control"? "bulk"?

The issue isn't disposal of shares but disposal of supporter donations into the pocket of an individual rather than the club, while being less than truthful (as generous a description as I can muster) about the reasons for doing so. I don't know about you but one of the lessons I took from the Murray debacle was to sit up and take notice when someone makes dishonest statements about acquiring Rangers shares and to question the motivations of those making them. We ended up in administration because of dishonesty. We spent years in the wilderness because of dishonesty. Should we now just ignore dishonesty because we find it uncomfortable to question that which we might have previously endorsed?

That's far too sensible to be seriously considered.

It would be light relief to be back in 1984. Winston never had to endure shit like taking a knee before playing football.

You've just acknowledged the dishonesty over previously rejecting the opportunity to buy shares from the club but you can't see the comparison?

Spot of bother?