Gaffer

I felt were were comfortable until that sending off. The first yellow card was a joke. The second was never a yellow either but he shouldn't have put himself in that position. The referee wouldn't have given him that second yellow if he'd realised he'd already been booked.

Isn't it strange that our chairman's affairs receive more coverage than our team's performances do.

I think he's set us up to be tough to beat. I think he's right to play Flanagan in there because Tav will get forward and we will need the central cover when Goldson goes to defend Tav's side. I don't think we've seen LC, SA, and RJ in the midfield yet have we? They could,get in each other's way, but I really hope Arfield can get forward to support Alfie. What a night we have ahead!!! With regards to the Villareal team, it just shows their big name players DID travel. Anyone who knows them recognises that Bacca, Caseres, and Munoz are their main threats. If Caseres is playing down the right as a wingback, Flanagan is going to have to play out of his skin to stop him.

According to the manager, he was late, and then apologised, so it's case closed. He wasn't punished for being late, and his omission from the team was purely tactical.

There's a big problem for Collum and the SFA on this one. It revolves around the key difference between what Rangers said and what Brendan (and others) has. Rangers has at least implied that Collum lied about his reason. Is this not the real justification for their action here? If that's the case, Rangers may have to cough up because it is a valid reason for disciplining the club. However, even though I believe the club is probably in breach of the league's regulations, this one is well worth taking further. The problem for the SFA and Collum is that it is true what Rangers have said, and that cannot (if proved beyond reasonable doubt) be punished. Collum DID lie about his reason for sending off Candeias. Collum knows it, the SFA know it, Rangers knows it, and we all know it. Therefore this entire case should be about providing proof that the referee lied. If this becomes the narrative (which it should be), Rangers may still be punished for a misdemeanour, but what charges then await the governing body and this referee? As others have said, all of this could have been avoided if the referee just apologised. As I said previously, he could have timed his apology just after the 7-1 win over Motherwell because it would therefore have blown over quickly, since that was the game Candeias missed as a result of the red card, and everyone would have moved on. It's the cover up that's caused the problem here, and this is what will work in our favour. I'm so surprised (ok, I'm not) that the press hasn't had a field day with this. There's blatant proof (all tv evidence) that the ref couldn't have seen Candeias blow the kiss (I'm actually laughing as I write this at how ridiculous it is), and therefore must have made it up. Why wouldn't you want such a sensational story on your back pages? The story almost writes itself. Is the media so anti Rangers, or so corrupt that it would rather turn a blind eye to overwhelming evidence, just to have another small dig at our club? It would appear so, and maybe that's a different sensational story for the media outside of our country.

Great job again. Once again I really enjoyed listening to that. Hopefully there'll be no more technical issues because I miss it when you don't do the podcast. p.s. I loved the sevco of the week. ?

But I'd rather give back a loan player who has played well, than keep a bought player who hasn't. We just can't take the same risks now so the loan market will continue to be an important part of our rebuild over the next few years.

Those that know what happened are entitled to post too. And yet despite that, no one is slating him here. We are just saying it's a shame the way it's ended. I wish him luck, and I'd welcome him back for the 55 party. On a side note, it'll be a real shame for the boys at Kelty Hearts too because I've heard he's been great for them and they'll miss him if he goes down south.

When DK was giving his speech to the AGM, he mentioned that "out of 15 player should acquired in the summer, only one has failed to deliver". I'm assuming that was Sadiq. Was that what you guys took from that too? The lad only has himself to blame (because apparently it's all about his attitude towards training), by I still feel for him that he's been called out so publicly by the chairman. I can't imagine Roma will be happy about that, no matter how true it is.

I'm quite sure Rangers has dealt with him this way as payback for his previous loyalty. If it had been many other people they'd have outed his (and Miller's) antics long ago. At least this way he goes with fond memories and his name isn't spoiled with the fans. Fair enough I suppose.

Do you think Lafferty is really an option though Craig? I just can't see what he offers and tan the moment it's Morelos and then no one.

I've obviously missed something here. What happened? For what it's worth, I agree with players being able to do a lap of honour, but I don't remember there being a big splash about this at the time. Once again, Celtic seem to be managing the narrative and putting pressure on police and Rangers for this upcoming fixture. If this blows over by the time the game comes, then fine, but if not we've just allowed them to take control.

I was going to ask why he's even consulted on anything these days and then I realised he is one of the coaches in the national football team. ? McFadden is an idiot. He is utterly brainless and will just reiterate things he's heard somewhere else without giving it any thought. Maybe he just needed to earn a bit of extra cash to help his financial situation. He was a decent player, but I wouldn't have him anywhere near a team of mine. Thankfully he's only helping the national team so he's nothing to do with anything I care about.

You should check the comments against that tweet. Most of my the senior members of the BBC Scotland team have no shame, but some of the comments must have their better members of staff at least a little bit uncomfortable.

In which case, that's statistically relevant enough to warrant some focus. How can it be such an outlier? Poor St. Mirren seem to be punished severely in comparison.

It's normally 26th that posts the BBC's nonsense or petty behaviour on here, but I just saw this tweet and had to share it. This is just disgraceful and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that our "national" broadcaster is shamefully biased. It's quite sickening. https://mobile.twitter.com/bbcsportsound/status/1066393861554098183

Does the "For" column mean those that went in their favour, or does it mean for their players? The reason I ask is because most of the figures are statistically fairly even, it there is an outlier that requires some scrutiny and that is the "Fouls per card" in the "For" column. That is statistically very relevant, and peculiar.

Me too, but I can't watch the game because the video isn't working on my browser, so no Rangers TV for me. ?

I'm really surprised too. I suppose we need to give other players some game time but I just don't rate Lafferty at all. I never see much Rangers quality in him, but obviously hope he can do well for us today.

You could be right, but in many ways I think this guy can put more of the right type of pressure on Morelos. There's no one in our team that can come close to Morelos. He's our talisman and best player. He knows he's likely to start most games, and if he was inclined to, he could relax because of that. Fortunately he's a focussed and determined guy, but some strong competition won't do any harm. Solanke is going to be an excellent player and we all recognise that, so I'm delighted at the prospect of him joining us. I wonder if the January window will be only be about potentially players coming in. Let's face it, the way Morelos is performing (with his all round play, and not just his goals), I won't be surprised if the management team receives a bid or two for him. I'd be gutted if we sold him, but at the right price we can't afford not to.

Is there any other manager out there that just seems to say it as it is, and consistently? I can't think of many (if any). When our gaffer speaks, I listen. No matter how successful he is as our manager, future managers should learn a lot from the way he conducts himself. I'm so proud that he is there to represent Rangers. Class act!!!

Two great reads for the same game!!! Cheers Pete ??

I wonder if this Celtic fan has been on the gin, or something stronger. You couldn't make this up ? Doesn't he realise this is 8orna 8arosic ?. They always manage to surprise me.

I fully understand that, but is there a reason why the accused should be named? I'm advocating that neither (which is what I said) should be named. Also, your language infers a bias. At this stage, there is an accuser and a defendant. We won't know who the 'victim' is until it's been tried in court. There have been too many instances where the defendant turns out to be the victim. Under those circumstances, the accuser should be severely punished because that's a disgrace when you consider what real victims of these crimes have had to endure. And note that I am making no judgement whatsoever on this case because I don't know any facts about it.

Both sides should be given the same courtesy. In my opinion, neither side should be named. This would protect the victims (whether that be the accuser or defendant) and prevent so much speculation around motives, as this just isn't helpful.