MelvinBragg

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...

Not in the slightest, If they were admitted to division three as many are asking and we drew them and humped them in the cup, do you think we'd be saying "aye, but it wasn't the real rangers we beat.."? Seriously, it's the same team. And if you value "sporting integrity" then you don't punish on the field for indiscretions off it...

Should it have happened to Airdrie, Gretna and Livingston though? Two wrongs don't make a right. For me, they're still the same team. Legally, maybe not. But in a sporting sense, it's still the same team. To deny it, is just laughable...

KInd of the point I wasmaking, but to call them a new team strikes me as being pedantic for the sake of arguing against a newco Rangers...

Do you really think that because it's a new team on paper, that you should disregard the fact that they're playing in the same stadium wearing the same colours and have some of the same players? In a "sporting" sense rather than a "business" sense, it's still the same team...

I was under the impression that "The Rangers Plc" was just the company nume under which Rangers FC would now be playing. Still doesn't change anything for me. On a footballing basis, I'd have them in there unless they were found to be cheating in a sporting sense. For me that means they retain their SPL status unless they're found guilty of paying players off the books...

I've pretty much kept my own counsel on this for a while, so here goes... Firstly, as I understand it, the SPL has no provisions in place for a club going into liquidation. By voting no, do the other clubs risk finding themselves in a similar situation to the SFA with its transfer embargo by dishing out a punishment that's not in the rule and therefore one that RAngers can appeal? That aside, the transfer of an SPL share to a new comnpany is another thing that puzzles me. It's my understanding that only the company has been liquidated and the team that is owned by the newco will still be Rangers. So in real terms, you're looking at punishing any team that changes hands here. For me, that means by voting no to a newco you're doing exactly what you're accusing "yes" voters of doing, treating football like a business rather than a sport. For me, to punish financial failings such as going into administration or liquidation, the punishments should be financial. I know UEFA bars clubs from European competition but frankly European football seems a money making exercise in general so maybe that is a financial punishment. To use the hot phrase, "sporting integrity" would seem to be preserved by not punishing the team for the sins of the parent company. If you see football as a sport rather than a business, that seems the way to go for me. Any proportionate financial penalties, would have the trickle down effect of punishing the team in a sporting sense anyway. Fact is that Rangers finished second last season. True, by not paying tax or other bills. My solution would be to fine any newco the equivalent of any unpaid bills (with interest), plus punitive damanges, with all money going to SFA youth development. Those should be the minimum punishments put it place. For me, a direct punishment on the field, for indiscretions off the field blurs the lines between sport and business, which is something we'd all like to avoid. So for me, voting "no" to a newco goes against my principles... BUT the investigation into double contracts must continue. If found guilty (something I find pretty likely), then for me this would be the real reason for kicking Rangers out of the SPL. Personally, I think people's focus is on the wrong area right now. A newco and the possibility of it being in or out of the SPL is simply window dressing. Tax dodging and no payment of bills happens off the field. The real issue that people should be focussing on and pushing for answers on is the the blatant cheating that is non-declaration of payments to players and staff. You can say that comes under the bracket of tax dodging but it is a breach of SFA rules and therefore can be dealt with by a football punishment. So as controversial as it sounds, I'd vote yes for a newco with appropriate financial penalties. But if found guilty of paying players "off the books", then they souldbe drummed out of the SPL...

The real question is what happens in terms of punishment and the investigation into double contracts...

What kind of title fight are Rangers going to put up any time soon? Not saying Rangers shouldn't be in the SPL but the argument that they need to stay to stop it being a one horse race is possibly the weakest one for keeping them..

Aye, you can say that but you never know. Rangers get three or four key players injured outwith the transfer window and it becomes less simple. You know that every team raises their game against a big club..

To me, this is the worst solution. A complete fudge. Either SPL or Division Three. Anything else is a compromise because of who Rangers are...