pete

To put it straight it was a potentially leg breaking challenge and worthy of red. Your interpretation may be otherwise but the fact is he has a two match ban.

Eyes are great but you are now arguing semantics. I suppose the SFA will have a memo out that it is okay to break someone's legs as long as they hit the shin guards.

A FORMER Rangers chief has told club chairman Dave King ‘I want out’ as he and his brother agreed to sell their stakes in the club for £1.3 million. Sandy Easdale, the former football board chairman, his brother James and other family members have said they want to sell their 6,450,000 shares in Mr King’s court-ordered offer to buy out the majority of club shareholders for 20p a share. Sandy Easdale, once the fourth biggest individual shareholder in the club, is to accept the offer for his 5,256,100 shares, which would end his association as an investor that began seven years ago when Rangers went into financial meltdown under then owner Craig Whyte. Read more: Rangers call for SFA disciplinary review as a matter of 'extreme urgency' Mr King’s mandatory offer for the majority of the shares in Rangers has come after a court ruled the South Africa-based businessman had acted “in concert” with fellow investors in the Three Bears group when they took control of the club from a board of directors, including Mr Easdale, said to be allied to Sports Direct founder Mike Ashley in 2015. A spokesman for the Easdales said: “I know definitely that the Easdales will sell.” It is believed that another major shareholder, Blue Pitch Holdings, which holds 4m shares, have intimated an intention to sell. But it is also understood that the Easdales question whether there will be enough shareholders who will accept the offer to make it valid. Mr King’s takeover group, which currently holds a 34% stake, would have to control more than 50% of the club at the end of the offer, or it would be declared null and void. Under Takeover Code rules Mr King should have made a written offer to buy the shares of other shareholders at the time of the takeover, having overtaken a 30% threshold. The 63-year-old businessman, who had been defending claims of contempt of court over his failure so far to make the bid, agreed to meet a series of deadlines in December before fulfilling his pledge to make the offer, which would be expected to cost him £8m. Read more: Sports Direct boss Mike Ashley and Rangers ready for another battle in merchandise deal fight It comes as Dave King and Rangers are preparing for another High Court battle with Sports Direct and Newcastle boss Mike Ashley over the rights to sell the club’s merchandise. Claire Wallace, the Rangers Supporters Association general secretary, said there was an appetite from fans to see an end to the off-the-field court proceedings and to put the troubles of the recent past behind the club. “Given what we have been through in recent years, we would be quite happy to move on and progress,” she said. “We would all like to see an end to the court cases and cut ties with everything that has happened in the past and just try to move forward. Just now it just seems to be one thing after another.” Mr King has gone through a lengthy battle through the courts, pursued by the Takeover Panel financial watchdog, to stave off pressure to buy the shares fearing the heavy financial toll it would place on him. The shares offer came after a Court of Session contempt case in front of Lady Wolffe was paused after the Rangers chief said he was now “100%” committed to making the multi-million pound offer which is required under takeover rules. Sandy Easdale, who with brother James own McGill’s Buses, left the boardroom after Mr King’s Blue Knights took control but remained the fourth biggest shareholder. As he took no part in August’s £12.6m fund-raising shares issue, his stake in the club became diluted. He is now the tenth biggest individual shareholder in the club, after his slice of the Rangers International Football Club plc pie went down from 6.45% before the share issue to 3.6%. Read more of today's top Glasgow stories However, there are major question marks over whether the bid will become successful, while shareholders have until 1pm on Friday to take part in the offer. According to Takeover Panel rules the offer would fail, without Mr King having to pay a penny for shares, if fewer than 61 per cent accept the offer of those who have not already declared they will not take part. Offer documents show that 11 shareholders, including Ally McCoist and the fans group Club 1872 who hold 38% of the club shares, have made undertakings not to take up the offer. Mr King has previously argued that a judge went “too far” in ordering him to make a mandatory offer at a price of 20p a share. Mr King’s South African-based Laird Investments (Proprietary) Limited firm said in a March 29 announcement that the bid would be funded “using the receipt of dividends” amounting to £13,074,842.90, which was originally to be declared on April 4. The King-led takeover group – which included Park’s Motor Group founder Douglas Park, Rangers Supporters Trust and Rangers First member George Taylor and Rangers fan George Letham – had always denied that they had acted ‘in concert’ to purchase shares in Rangers on December 31, 2014, and January 2, 2015. Lord Carloway at the Court of Session dismissed an appeal in March forcing a bid for 66% of the shares to be made. Taken from FF source unknown.

What happens between 17 and 21 that takes all that skill away and puts us way down the points table?

I doubt UEFA or FIFA will get involved in local decisions.

Just watched it again. As straight as a die and at knee height. If we want everyone to be honest we have to be honest ourselves. This was a red all the way.

I personally still don't think it should be a red card and will admit I don't read the rule book every day. The biggest problem is that the referee then doesn't know a basic rule. Lets face it if the refs know what they are doing then we don't need a CO. Role on VAR!

Yes but that doesn't make your argument right.

Then the ref did get it wrong.

If that is the new rule and it isn't open to interpretation then the Ref and me are wrong. Simple!

-You see that is where I differ from you, I don't think he knew jack was there, Don't forget he was sprinting forward trying to judge where the ball was coming and lifted his leg to try and control the ball. We see people controlling or trying to control balls like that regularly. Just as a matter of interest. Is head height judged by Tommy McLean's height or Joe Worrels.

I think they stopped using the three referees when Steve Conroy complained that they were rangers supporters.

Craig look at the position\height of the ball and the way he is facing. It has come over his head from the back there is no way he could have headed that. If there is a new rule now about feet at head height is red then that is one thing but imo this was totally unintentional and dangerous play so a yellow card. I know that taking the player after the ball is now an offence but is almost always met with a yellow card.

Yes I agree but as I say that is a different argument. Gordon was red all day long.I am not saying that Rangers aren't being treated differently. Take the Scott Brown flick. Morelos had less of a movement towards McKenna but was found guilty so the system stinks. For me that does not mean that McGregor should not be punished for what he did the problem is with the Gordon decision. As I said before I cannot say with 100% certainty that Brown did try to kick the guy in the face. I might as a Rangers supporter think it but that is not proven. By the same money I also cannot say that Morelos tried to kick McKenna so that should have been not proven as well.

Totally agree with you that is the big thing that is missing.

I have no problem with that Ian. I don't think I have said people are not allowed another opinion than mine and I did state it was only my opinion.

Sorry I find that the correct decision. Morelos was a wrong decision but this was correct. McGregor knew what he was doing. I don't like that we will be missing McGregor for 2 games but keepers can't be free to make tackles like that. What I do find a talking point is why did Morelos get an extra game for appealing and McGregor doesn't.

I would expect it to be Roma and that will be a very difficult game as they are a really strong team.

I think the Brown incident was looked at by the CO but was given not proven it was intentional which I must say I don't think it is 100% certain. I agree Morelos should also be not proven but as I say that is a different argument.

The ball was coming over his head and that was the only option to play it.

I agree but that is another argument.

You can paint it as black as you like but he was going for the ball imo. Maybe we should try and get him charged with attempted murder.

So we can rule out all overhead kicks from the game then. The guy was following the ball and tried to bring it down out the air. I don't believe he even knew Jack was there. Funny how people think it is okay for McGregor to come in with a straight leg and studs showing under the name of protecting himself. Sorry to upset the apple cart but I think the referee and SFA have got this spot on.

Yellow card for dangerous play the referee got it spot on. Totally no intent by Power. I would be mad if a Rangers player got sent off for that.

Was she not working for the Celtic Lawyers?