Darthter

I think Hodson HAS shown that he is better defensively - looks decent against Wigan....but he is pretty awful going forward, which weakens the overall attacking threat. Flanagan appears to have a much better balance all round.

Hodson is better defensively than Tav, but not even close going forward.

One (quite) important point is that we haven't see Flanagan playing RB yet.....

With the signing of LB Barisic looking likely, it would mean that Flanagan could move to his more comfortable right back position. but who would be the preferred starter @ RB??

We have plenty of LB bodies...but how many are of the standard the SG is looking for??? Is Flannigan actually a LB?? If Barisic comes in we'll also have Tav, Flannigan, Wallace, John & Hodson. Hodson isn't registered for Europe (I believe), and I'd assume neither is Wallace. I also can't see Wallace playing for us again. I think Wallace & Hodson will be moved on in some manner. That would leave Tav or Flannigan on the right and Barisic or John on the left.

better than a 7.....not as good as a 9....;)

The key is to be sensible. So far the team have managed games pretty well - especially away from home. They need to continue that here. We dont NEED to push for another goal, we're already winning the tie. However, we need to make sure that we don't lose a goal. Keep things solid in MF & try a couple of quick bursts at them to kinda test them a bit & let them know that they're in a game. Osijek are the ones that need to really push for a goal, otherwise they're oot. Basically, be sensible & take chances when the appear.

4 results out of 38 are irrelevant. All that matters is that Aberdeen finished in 2nd place, us in 3rd. It's all well & good say "If this hadn't happened", or "if only we'd beaten xyz" etc, but at the end of the season, Aberdeen had more points than us, and that has been the case for the past 2 seasons. Until we can move past Aberdeen, we have no chance of winning the league.

The revised deal last year was on considerably better terms, and allowed fans to start buying strips again - even though SD were still involved. I don't think the "1st refusal" part is going to present any worse of a deal - they have to match any proposed new deal after all. I would also assume that SD would have to match any cut that JD (or any other retailer) have proposed.

I would assume that the "1st refusal" part of the 2017 contract could have been a complete deal breaker - Accept the clause & sign the new deal on better terms for RFC, or reject the clause & see out the 7yr notice period on the originally agreed term. Remember, SD were the ones with the power in the negotiations - they had a signed, "water-tight" contract (in their favour)...they get to dictate terms. Recent activity appears similar, though not quite as bad. I get the impression that RFC have tried to fulfill the contractual stipulation by supplying the absolute bare minimum of information about the proposed JD deal (assuming that specific details were not set out in the original contract). The court have effectively upheld SD's claim that there wasn't enough info in order for them produce a matching deal. Therefore, it doesn't necessarily point straight to Board incompetence, but more towards legal wrangling over a "grey" area of a contract.

He was a scream...Had obviously studied our team & tactics in detail....then started getting rather worked up when Shug & Alex Rae didn't agree with him.... Priceless....

So radio Clyde Super Scoreboard started back for the new season last night. 1st call on, a Ceptic fan....calling about, Rangers!!!! (there's a surprise for you). Going into detail about how he's not been impressed with the team so far (after watching a few of the games), and doesn't think there's been any improvement from last season.

The clubs biggest asset in all of this is the fans. IF SD want to actually make money out any possible deal - the fans are the key....and RFC is the only party that can enable fan sales. All Rangers need to do is point out that if SD push through some kind of exclusive deal, that doesn't benefit the club, then no-one will buy the strips. If SD hold the club to a stupid long contract, no-one will buy the strips. Unless, the club publicly backs SD selling merch, no-one will buy anything. SD have already seen this in action & it clearly works. IF they work with the Club and want INCLUDED in a deal, then a few words from the club encouraging fans to purchase from ALL available outlets inc. SD would see revenue notable rise. The result being a win for both parties.

Ok...from reading info here.... Is it the case that the the Court actions have not actually resulted in SD being awarded a new contract, but instead it has supported their case to have the ability to match the JD deal. I get the impression that RFC were trying to side-step the who SD/matching side of things & just plowing ahead with JD. However, SD have won there point & will have the opportunity (based on specific details supplied by RFC) to decide IF they want to match & ultimately renew to term contract. Also, there is no noted time frame for this to happen, so SD could string this out for a while, which will ultimately delay the retail release of merchandise. There is also something that occurred to me - Puma & SD are closely tied with regard retail. Could Puma have a say in whether SD are able to sell Hummel merchandise. (note: This will have no bearing on the Hummel/Gers deal). The deal between Puma & SD may have some exclusivity clauses which restrict the sale of other brands. (note: absolutely no evidence or proof of this). As a result, Puma may actually have a say in whether SD ultimately submit a deal.

VERY clever wording on SD's part - essentially means that they can keep the contract running as long as THEY want. They also don't need to do any work with regard to contract renewal - they just let someone else do it, then match it.

Technically, there is no FIXED commitment to provide retail services - Looks like the original press release has been VERY cleverly worded. SD appear to have the right to scrutinize any potential deal & match it if they see fit. If they chose NOT to match the deal, then both parties walk away. However if they DO chose to match it, the train keeps on rolling.

True, but we don't know the actual details of their objection.....it may well be something that can be resolved very easily and we have another case of the media making a mountain out of a molehill.

It's not about getting into a tit-for-tat situation, that doesn't help anyone....it's about working with the Community Council in order to resolve their issues with the Fan zone proposal.

On the plus side....it will be on the same terms that JD had offered, therefore the club should not be losing out financially due to a bad deal. If the deal mean exclusive sale through SD, then there will be a financial impact.

So why play hard-ball and push for an unrealistic fee??? Not hearing of any other clubs submitting offers.....If we pull out, they are left with the potentially unwanted/excess wage. £300k profit on a player after 1 year ain't too bad for a club like Hearts.....

That's my whole point....the club opens up dialogue with the Community Council & they reach agreement the suits both parties. Resubmit revised plans with no objections.