MelvinBragg

I don't disagree we need cover but for me central midfield would be the priority...

Unless he's head and shoulders above the likes of Page and Cummins, it does seem a strange decision to bring someone in on loan in that position particularly if we sign Ramsden. We'd then have Saunders, Hutchison, Page, Ramsden and Cummins. Although part of me suspects we're selling Hutchinson and that's why we haven't used him this pre-season. I'd imagine there are midfielders in a similar situation that we could get that would offer us cover in an area we're short. We only really have Lasley, Law and Carswell there...

Heard a strong rumour we've agreed to sell Jamie Murphy. To whom, I don't know but person who told me seemed quite sure it was a done deal..

Corrigan is a prime example of a player winning fans over. There was a period when he first arrived when he was part of an Unholy Trinity. Any time anything went wrong, it was the fault of either Woods, Adams or Corrigan according to much of the East Stand. Only debate seemed to surround which one of three was at fault that particular week..

At £30 a pop, we won't match the Nancy crowd..

I have been a season ticket holder on and off for twenty years and at the moment I can't see myself shelling out £30 for what I see as a glorified friendly. It's all very well saying that we should all dig deep as our clubs faces tough financial times. But what this ignores is that many families are facing equally tough times. Having said that, I don't mind the idea of buying an extra programme/pie/drink when I have the cash. What I do object to is the fact that the club are taking advantage of the fact that many supporters would pay anything because "it's the champions league". Well, I hate the champions league. To get excited about it, would be hypocrisy. The prospect of us qualifying at the expense of others was amusing but I'm not that excited. I'd compare it to The Smiths first manager who said he got ridiculously excited when they got on Top Of The Pops, then remembered he thought it was crap... That's just me. But I'm pretty sure there will be others who feel the same. So it might not be only floating hunters they put off with this..

At £30, I reckon I'll be giving this a miss. Bit too expensive, in my opinion...

Stranded in England this morning. What is there in the papers this morning?

I think the original post is fantastic. But am I the only one who can hear the strains of Jerusalem when I read it...?

Looking at it the other day, I figure we could muster a decent 4231 Randolph Hateley Saunders Hutchinson Hammell Lasley Carswell Humphrey Law Murphy Higdon Only issue is Higdon getting isolated as he did in the first half of last season...

Spoke to my mate who has seen RAmsden play nearly 100 times for Rochdale. "Not the tallest and not the quickest but you could do a whole lot worse" was the assessment. Sounds a bit like Tim Clancy to me. A guy that can play full back and centre back, McCall knows what he's capable of and won't cost the earth in wages. Doesn't seem like the worst idea in the world to me. And to those slating Daley. I know fr mlong periods of last season his form wasn'r great. But he was instrumental in away wins at Pittodrie and McDiarmid park. Hardly as if he contributed nothing. And once again he won't he won't be on a king's ransom wages wise. He's a good option to have on the bench if only for nhis pace late in games...

I would sign it but it goes against another of my core principles to have nothing to do with Facebook..

The only flaw I can see in that argument on Rangers Media is the fact that the case has been heard. I'm pretty certain that it was discussed at the last meeting and it was only the vote that was postponed...

What about the bearded Brazilian midfielder..?

That kind of sensible approach, I'm afraid, won't prevail. Not saying that voting "No" is the wrong answer but too many people already have their mind made up...

We're all assuming that, maybe the Well Society members will vote yes when they see the facts and figures...

I reckon they'll vote yes if they think the yes vote can win. They have a waiting list of people wanting a season ticket if others hand their back. And if a yes vote wins, they'll get taken if only becuase it's a guaranteed ticket for an Old Firm game. If thy reckon the no vote will win, then they might vote no to appease their supporters. Like you say, tough to call but I reckon that they want Rangers back in if only because they can see that other clus are warming to the task of getting rid of the 11-1 vote with Rangers ouyt of the way...

Not so sure on those two. Stephen Thomson made noises at the outset which made it sound like United were minded to vote no, but heard very little lately. And the boardroom shenanigans at Aberdeen might have something to do with this vote...

As I see it, it's 3-3 just now. Definite yes votes: Rangers, Celtic and Kilmarnock Definite no Votes: Hibernian, Hearts and Motherwell How the rest vill vote is anyone's guess...

A guy I used to work with was a Celtic season ticket holder and he told me about the first Old Firm game at Parkhead that Mark Walters played in. He said he was stadning in the queue outside the jungle and was listening to two guys talking behinh him. It was all chat about working in a bank, taking the kids to karate lessons, having to get the grass cut and wash the car the following day. He turned round and both guys were dressed as monkeys. It shouldn't, and frankly I don't know why it does, but it makes me laugh when I think about it. I think it's the fact that two clearly middle class guys thought there was nothin wrong with going to an Old Firm game dressed as monkeys because Rangers had signed a black player...

This wouldn't be a punishment. This would be an offer. Yes, with these conditions in place. Or no.

Aye, and while being in liquidation means tha the taxman won't get that back, what I'm advocating is saying to them is "Yes, you can come back. But the sum published as total owing to all creditors will be deducted from all prize money and TV money until that sum has been paid." Future financial punishment will impact on future onfield perfrmances. If they still want to come back with those conditions, they'll be welcome. If they say that they can't manage to run a business in the black like that, then they shouldn't be in the business of running a football team... EDIT Cash to go to SFA Youth Development. Something good might come out of this mess...

I would say "match fixing" is an on field indiscretion. I'm more referring to non payment of bills. And I'm well aware that their off the field crimes allowed them to perform on the field. And any proportionate financial punishment would have a similar impact on their future on field performances...

And as I said in my first post today, this is where our anger should be focussed. Not as to the legal status of any company that owns Rangers. If fans want to see justice done, this is the issue they should be focussing on. This is more a breach of the sainted "sporting integrity" than forming as a newco...

I wouldn't say so, but frankly I don't know enough about the situation...