Bluedell

You voted for Lundstram 😂

0-3 to the Gers Dessers

Yeah, I think it'll be Ridvan that's moved for the points you've highlighted, we'd get more cash for him than Barisic and he seems to want a guaranteed game to get him in the Turkey Euro squad.

Best hospitality boxes in the stadium.

Tav is better playing wide and not as a defensive midfielder in a 4-2-3-1 formation. Playing on the right of midfield on a 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 formation is intriguing. He did play there once or twice in friendlies (v Real Madrid?) but it didn't really seem to work. However he is (was) athletic enough where it could work, but it probably wouldn't be utilising his strengths as much as right back does.

We share more wealth then we weaken the team and perform poorer in Europe, which in turn lessens the cash that we earn and have to spread around. It may make the league more competitive but the league would be financially much worse off as a whole.

The time to do it would have been around 1994 when Sky's influence could have perhaps swayed the Premier League. Everything is too established now.

Broonaldo? 🤢🤮

Hibernian 0 - 1 Rangers FGS Tavernier

Dumbarton 0 - 4 Rangers FGS Silva

Whatever his strengths and weaknesses were, he'll not be back here.

I'm sure he'll be able to regain the motivation at the right club and in the right environment, neither of which he had in Turkey. I'm sure he'd do a great job for a championship club in England.

I really believe that this "Kent didn't try" is a myth perpetuated by the internet. I posted the following in regards last year: "!Just had a look back at the MOTM threads from Jan-March Motherwell March - 1 MOTM vote Hibs March – 2 MOTM votes Celtic Feb – 1 MOTM vote Thistle Feb – “Kent deserves a mention” Hearts Feb – “Davies superb as were lundstrum sakala and kent.” St Johnstone Jan - 2 MOTM votes Killie Jan – 6 MOTM votes Aberdeen Jan – MOTM with 12 votes Dundee Utd Jan - 2 MOTM votes Celtic Jan – 6 MOTM votes “MOTM by some distance” Yes, he had some fitness issues in April-May but to suggest that he didn't seem interested for the whole of this season is really unfair, and just seems to be perpetuating this twitter myth that he had an attitude problem for the whole of this season. During Feb, many fans were hoping he'd sign a new contract and while some questioned his scoring record, I don't recall anyone criticising his effort or attitude. Whether his performances and lack of appearances in April and May were due to fitness issues or the fact that he had decided to move, we'll never know but it certainly appeared to me to be fitness related." He was poor in the Celtic game ay Hampden, but as I said, I really believe that he wasn't fit and shouldn't have been playing. He was thrown on by a desperate manager. You'll always find some fans who have an irrational dislike for a player and some of the hyperbole is unbecoming of a player who gave us a lot over the years.

There was always the chance that Helander would recover and start playing again, but renewing his contract was a risk we couldn't take for numerous reasons. There were no guarantees. I don't recall anyone arguing that we should have renewed the contract.

I'm not sure whether we can take the "profit" at face value. Wages are £179K which seems incredibly light given the staff that work there during the week and the staff that work on matchdays and at events (security. bar staff etc). I guess Rangers must incur much of these costs but I have to wonder whether they are being fully recharged. The accounts already state that the audit fees are met by Rangers and I wonder how much else isn't being recharged. It had to make a profit politically for the directors. This project seemed ego driven and the directors wanted it in place for the 150 anniversary (it was late) and were willing to sell the Albion to fund it. I'm glad we've got NEH but not at the cost of losing the Albion, and perhaps a but more time should have been taken if we wouldn't afford it. It does seem a long way away from generating £1m profit that was mentioned.

It's a forum. Most posts are subjective opinion. Surely you're aware of that?

Just watching games from the 70s and comparing them with current day games.

Players nowadays are faster, stronger and generally fitter than they were in the days of Gullane. The advancements in the science of it all are significant. You only have to watch games from back then to realise how players have changed and how much more intense the game is now. Perhaps there's an argument about the relative fitness given the time but in absolute terms there's no question that players now are far fitter.

There's a few from QSTB who have travelled across to Spain and staying in La Manga, and are hoping to get access to the closed door game. Good luck to them for that dedication!

He's going nowhere. Nobody else is going to pick up his salary at that level till the end of the season, so we're stuck with him. I wouldn't be surprised if he then retired.

Apparently there isn't. Edit - we're apparently looking for 2.5m for him and not sure that they can afford that, but we'll take it from anyone.

It's well publicised that Butland took a wage cut to join us rather than be 3rd choice at Man Utd.

Sterling hasn't been playing that much football. We brought him in primarily as cover for the right back position and has never looked that great there. He had one great game at left back coming on as a sub, but he has done well as a defensive midfielder, but still isn't first choice in that position. Let's hope As for Jack, I p[resume that you mean Butland? There's an element of risk bringing in a 30-something player who has hardly played over the last few years. Goalie is probably the easiest position to do that. We've won a watch with him, but we've been burnt in the past with bringing in similar players. I'm not sure using him as a basis of a trading model will lead to long term success.

That is the current model, but it's also the model of many other clubs around Europe. We have had some limited success with it, but it's not that easy to do AND be successful on the park. We've also still not had a profitable year over the last 15 years. We need to aim to consistently break-even over a period of time before we can build up a reserve of cash to look at stadium expansion.

We were previously told that we couldn't get rid of the screens for structural reasons, I think. When we're not generating enough cash to cover our annual costs each year. a significant redevelopment of the stadium appears a pipedream.