Rangers banter 10

28 Feb 2026 12:27:12
Quite a few boys have suggested Bajrami to start the match do we think he will even make the bench. Let's face it him and Antman seem to be war down the pecking order. Imo goals win games and I'd like us to go with as many attacking options on the bench as possible so if Sterling is back fit I'd drop Aasgaard arrons even Meghoma to keep Bajrami and Antman in the picture.

28 Feb 2026 14:55:54
Jzer, I had a look at the club site, and with injuries we have a squad of 18 to play. That includes Bajrami and Antman (who may be injured), so I am not sure we have the luxury of leaving him out. I was including Aarons, Sterling and Cornelius as injured.

28 Feb 2026 16:23:47
Bajrami got some minutes last week. I think he's a decent player, just needs a run of games, plus he's always done well v 'them'. A good option to have on the bench, and offers more than Aasgaard imo.
Antman? Not convinced. One good game, he gets injured, and so the cycle continues.

28 Feb 2026 17:02:45
Bajrami has "just needed a run of games" for the past 18 months.

Good player. Inconsistent. Will be away in the summer.

28 Feb 2026 17:37:14
Marco, he hasn't had a run of games, so he's a good player and can't be consistent because he doesn't get a run of games.

28 Feb 2026 17:52:56
He's had a run alright, but he's inconsistent and no one knows which Bajrami will turn up. He has talent, but blows too hot or cold to be relied upon.

Watch him set up two goals tomorrow now I've said that. 😆

28 Feb 2026 20:25:48
Is there anyone in our team who is consistent?

28 Feb 2026 10:02:15
Im reading the KMI panel all agreed the Livi player should have been sent off. The ref should have been sent to the moniter for a review as the palyer denied MM a goal scoring opertunity.

It was as clear as day at the time and anyone who say different doesn't understand the rules/very incompetant or biased can't be any other reason. I will go for all of the above.

28 Feb 2026 10:51:12
Some fans said it was inside the box when it was clearly outside. Does that mean they don't know the rules of the game?

28 Feb 2026 11:08:33
No, these fans know the rules. Inside the box is a pen; however, it was clearly outside the box. Once the correct camera angles were seen, everyone who thought it was a pen changed their mind. That had nothing to do with the rules; that was just the initial thought before all camera angles were seen. That's all.

28 Feb 2026 11:08:44
Knew this would happen.

Surprises me the number of fans who come on and deny what is blatantly obvious at the time.

Almost like they're so worried about being labeled 'tin foil hat wearers', they'll side with the on field decision no matter how ridiculous (Shankland hand ball, Cerny pen in cup against Celtic etc.).

Not the first time that's happened. Far from it. Rohl knew it was a clear foul then as well.

28 Feb 2026 11:24:48
Clearly, outside is a stretch. I think it was outside, and I wouldn't push for the penalty, but it wasn't clear-cut in my opinion.

28 Feb 2026 11:33:01
We are the foul was obvious to all, just the place was debatable.

28 Feb 2026 11:37:19
The goal-scoring opportunity was nailed on. He was pulling his right leg back to let fly.

28 Feb 2026 11:43:04
It's a bit of both. The ref should have seen the initial foul but didn't. The cameras showed the first contact was just outside the box, and it looks like the people doing VAR were wrapped up around this, then not looking, or not wanting to look, at the last-man thing, as they would have been down to 9, and this could have influenced the decision to move on with play without further action.


Past incidents, at not just us, have shown that the VAR people are totally inept, so no change there. We get more wrong than right up here, so on that basis I would like the clubs to vote to get rid of it if they can.

28 Feb 2026 11:43:37
There were people on here a day later saying it was a penalty, so nothing to do with camera angles.

28 Feb 2026 11:58:36
Dado, it was 100% clear-cut, it was outside the box, mate.

28 Feb 2026 12:38:23
A fraction of an inch from Moore's boot on the line was a stretch outside, cool.

28 Feb 2026 12:48:46
But the decision is subjective. Could a Livingstone defender, in close proximity, have covered the yard to get a block on it? The shot was from the edge of the box, where only 3-4% of shots end up as goals. The referee has to decide if it was a 'clear' opportunity, i.e.

almost certain. So the ref on the day thought that wasn't the case.
KMI of ex players and manager, who don't know the rules, think differently. Too late now anyway, but to question competence over a difference of view is a bit much, imo.

28 Feb 2026 13:02:17
Decision is not subjective in this case, though; all parameters are fulfilled for MM according to IFAB rules below. This is the reason the panel agreed there was a mistake. Nothing is subjective in this case, and camera angles were available to the officials. Outside the box 100%, clear foul 100%, denying a goal-scoring opportunity 100%. VAR review 100%, foul and red card 100%.

Mistake 100%.

IFAB criteria for goal-scoring opportunity:
Distance: The offence is close to the goal. CHECK.
Direction: The general path of play is toward the goal. CHECK.
Control: The attacker has control of the ball or is highly likely to gain or keep control. CHECK.
Defenders: There are no, or only one, defender (other than the goalkeeper) between the attacker and the goal. CHECK.

28 Feb 2026 13:17:20
Whether fans know the rules or do not is irrelevant, it's whether the officials know the rules that is important. I've seen some angles where it looks in, and some where it looks outside the box, so it wasn't clear either way. But if they decide it's outside, then what is clear is that Moore was in the act of shooting, so it's a goal-scoring opportunity and a direct free kick and a red card.

It's also damning that the ref didn't even give a foul, which casts major doubts on his competence to referee top-level matches.

28 Feb 2026 13:18:03
My take on it was it wasn't a pen, but I didn't think it was a red card, although the ref should've given a free kick at the time.

28 Feb 2026 13:32:46
The facts you cite that only 3-4% end as goals are irrelevant; it was a goal-scoring opportunity. The fact players don't score is not for the ref to judge.

28 Feb 2026 13:40:51
Tjb, of course, it is subjective because it requires the referee to interpret the "probability" of a future event rather than just the "fact" of a past action. While laws exist to guide this decision, the interpretation of what makes an opportunity "obvious" depends on a referee's judgment of several criteria in real time; those 4 Ds you mention.
The tackle occurred at the very edge of the penalty area. While close to the goal, officials must decide if the player has already reached a point where a goal is "obvious," or if there is still significant work to do.


Defenders (Number and Location): This is often the most contested "D." Officials may have considered the positioning of other Livingston defenders as potentially capable of intervening before a shot could be taken. That is all a matter of opinion, i.e. subjective.

Not saying it wasn't an obvious DOGSO; just saying there were potentially reasons why the match day officials thought it wasn't, and why that may differ from the KMI panel.

28 Feb 2026 14:11:05
VAR ruled a foul was committed.
VAR then ruled the foul was committed outside the box, so no penalty.
The referee had, in real time, made a mistake not awarding what was a clear and obvious foul.
On the re-run, it looks like the last-ditch foul had stopped Moore getting his shot away, which is reasonable within the rules (a clear and obvious opportunity).
Surely, at that point, after 3 minutes of deliberation from VAR, they should ask the referee to go to his monitor and decide if his on-field decision was correct regarding a red card offence and a direct free kick.


My argument is that when a goal is scored, VAR is happy to re-referee the phase of play leading up to the goal in order to find a way to disallow the goal.
It may be a change in the rules required, but for me, as soon as VAR gets involved, they should award the correct decision in their view regarding that phase of play.
Clearly, that did not happen on this occasion.

28 Feb 2026 14:37:40
It was subjective, though, so Angus is right. 🤣 How hard is it to understand? I don't think people know the difference between a factual decision and a subjective one, but, hey, there you go.


It also wasn't a fraction of an inch, as long as you have eyes. 👀

28 Feb 2026 14:39:01
They should have CO2, and that's why I said it was a bit of both: not getting calls right, ref and VAR.
Get your point in a way, Angus, about being subjective, but how many decisions is that now over a season that the committee is saying mistakes have been made? In most, if not all, occasions it isn't due to the ref being subjective, but more the people controlling VAR not following all the protocols, and that's why it's there to assist when it's not picked up in real time.

The ref can be subjective, sure, but not the VAR panel, and if there is doubt in the panel following protocols, then they shouldn't be there, or there is a strong argument to get rid.

28 Feb 2026 14:39:17
Go to sightings page, and you will see it wasn't a fraction of an inch. It was at least a yard and a half where initial contact happened, which is the foul. 👍

28 Feb 2026 14:40:48
I hear you, Storm, but honestly 100% clear cut is at the halfway line. I'm not pushing for the penalty, and I agree, I don't think it was, but I'm sure we'll have clearer examples this season.

28 Feb 2026 15:06:10
Storm, you are right. It was outside, and I am glad at least someone gets the subjectivity.

Rosevale, it is the subjectivity of it which means it happens all the time. Also the fact it is a group of ex-players and coaches who don't understand the current laws, perhaps. But I can see why letting a separate group of 3 people look at it again and give their opinion on it can reach potentially different opinions in that group.

That is all the KMI is giving - a set of different opinions on it.

This is not about whether we think it is a red card or not, btw; just a rationale on why the referee reached a different one.

28 Feb 2026 15:15:02
Will throw another one in. The foul continued into the penalty box. In today's rules, is that not a penalty?

28 Feb 2026 15:31:57
Angus,
Correct me if you think I'm wrong.
The subjective element is whether a clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity had been stopped by the foul outside the box.
The referee didn't award a foul; therefore, given the information, the decision was reached after 3 minutes' deliberation.


My view is that having the opportunity to watch it again on the monitor would have been the better option, and most likely would have led to a more satisfactory outcome.
My view is a red card and a direct free kick, which very likely wouldn't have changed the final result given the little time remaining.

28 Feb 2026 16:27:29
Yes, Bar72, and why we should have had pen for foul on Cerny in cup.

28 Feb 2026 16:29:37
Here is hoping that VAR is not called upon in tomorrow's game.

28 Feb 2026 16:57:40
It's open to opinion, and I do get your point, Angus.
Would like to add in response to you saying there are three in the VAR studio, that was correct, but I'm sure there is a main person with two assisting, so ultimately that person has the call.
The thing that I keep picking up from the committee is that protocol has not been carried out by VAR, and that's concerning.


Overall, and without scrutinising separate decisions, I would say the standard of VAR up here is pretty poor, and I don't know how other posters think, but for me we would be better going back to the way it was.

28 Feb 2026 17:26:17
Bar, no, you are wrong to throw it, because with the tackle its initial contact is the foul. That is the rule.

Mvg, the rules for a tackle and a pull are different, the same way a push and a pull are different.



The only one that continues inside the box is Cerny. It's not hard to find out the rules, and it has already been explained on many forums and many phone-ins.

28 Feb 2026 17:27:32
Rosevale, bar isn't the problem, it's the idiots that are using it that's the problem.

28 Feb 2026 17:42:57
Correct again, Storm, according to IFAB - if the initial contact by the "first leg" occurs outside the penalty area, that is where the foul is officially committed, even if the player falls inside the box. A trailing leg hitting the player inside the box is often deemed "incidental" or "anticipated" contact resulting from the initial foul outside, rather than a new, separate foul.

28 Feb 2026 17:52:44
Great should be scrapped. The six or seven new rules shown today are a joke.

28 Feb 2026 18:17:44
CO2, yes, if he had decided it was a DOGSO the red card and free kick would have been the decision.

VAR would have looked at inside/outside box initially, and let's say that wasn't clear, or they saw it wasn't inside, so they wouldn't give a penalty. And they can't give a free kick at that point, as that isn't part of the procedure. That is all factual and doesn't require the ref to go to the monitor.

The subjective bit - let's say where defenders are - normally would require the ref to go to the monitor, imo. However, it isn't necessary if VAR gives the referee factual information about position of defenders, etc., and says they were close enough to not make it a clear opportunity or any other element of the 4 Ds, which would have a factual part of it rather than opinion, e.g.

he was 30 metres from goal and the defender was 3 metres away and would have reached the attacker (I know that wasn't what happened, but as an example).

So, the 'not following procedure' someone mentioned could be that the ref didn't go to the monitor when that is the agreed procedure.

28 Feb 2026 19:18:21
Angus, also the ref could have told the boy in VAR what he saw, and he thinks a player is getting there also. We don't hear what the ref and VAR ref say. People are just clutching at straws.

28 Feb 2026 20:03:11
I'm assuming nobody's arguing that Moore wasn't fouled outside the box at the very minimum.
VAR didn't feel, under the current rules, they could overturn the on-field decision and award a free kick.
For me, if VAR get involved for a specific incident, they should attempt to award the correct decision regardless of the on-field decision.
Maybe rules need tweaking.


I'd rather tweak the rules than scrap VAR.
I'd also like to find a way for VAR decisions to be explained at the time by the referee as in rugby, or published directly after the match at an absolute minimum.
After 3 minutes of deliberation for any incident, the rules should be in place to at least change the on-field decision to the correct decision.

28 Feb 2026 22:15:07
CO2, as soon as it was outside the box, they can't get involved further with that decision.

I like VAR; it gets most decisions right. Without it, there are more wrong, historically. The problem is, as you say, that they are never explained. Then we get a panel of pundits and ex players to disagree with the decisions. I don't know what Collum was thinking of there, as it creates more fuss after the event.

Just come out and tell us why it was disallowed, including in this case why it wasn't a DOGSO. We will still disagree, but at least it is open and transparent.

Storm, I agree. I was going on long enough 😉 and didn't want to go into every scenario. I think between us we have managed to get it all out there. 👍

28 Feb 2026 09:21:54
Hi everyone, Listen this is not the time to show nerves ok, we need everyone on board sing your Hearts out cheer every tackle, noise the place up and let's do them. Then the same again next week.

28 Feb 2026 10:52:04
The team needs to create an environment from the start that removes the nerves early on.

28 Feb 2026 11:39:23
Ibrox will be bouncing from the start. If Rangers keep them pinned in and create chances, it will continue for the full game. Would love to be doing the bouncy after half n hour with game bye.

28 Feb 2026 11:57:42
As usual, I think the officials will decide the outcome tomorrow.

28 Feb 2026 12:49:57
Whatsmyname, It doesn't matter if they did or not, the losing team will claim they did anyway. 🤷

27 Feb 2026 23:08:00
All the best for the weekend guys hope we hav a good one
Always fearing the worse in these games I'm a glass haf empty guy but love all the posts of uz predicting a win hopefully uz are spot on.
Anyway enjoy your weekend and hopefully a win on Sunday

28 Feb 2026 08:15:34
I'm the same, usually quite pessimistic going into these games, but I'm confident we will get the win. For me, only a win will do; anything else, I can't see us winning the league. I'm more concerned about the others we still have to face, especially our away games.

28 Feb 2026 09:32:05
That makes three of us. Even at 3-0 up, with two minutes to go, I'm screaming, just blow the whistle!
Let's hope the players are more confident and get stuck right in from the first kick until the last.
WATP!

27 Feb 2026 20:37:01
It's clear a lot of us want Danny Rohl to go 2 up top against them on sunday, myself included 🤔 But here's my question, if Ryan Naderi isn't fit enough to start beside Chermiti, do the supporters who want us to play the 2 up top still think we should and play Chermiti and Miovski together i most certainly do 🤔I honestly think Miovski would perform much better with a striking partner and for me is a more natural finisher 🤔 Miovski for me has struggled at Rangers in a lot of games because it's different for him against the way most opposition teams play against us in Scotland where there's hardly any space as opposed to the space he got the way teams played against Aberdeen when he was superb for them 🤔I still rate bojan Miovski as a good striker and probably the most natural finisher we currently have at Ibrox 🤔 Thoughts on this fellow bears 🤔

27 Feb 2026 21:27:15
I don't want two up top. I want a 4-3-3, need a flat midfield 3 imo.

27 Feb 2026 21:33:22
Don't agree, Storm. We need to go at them from the off. As for me, their defence is there for the taking, and let's play 2 up top and give them something to think about. 🥊 🇬🇧

27 Feb 2026 21:53:10
I agree, Storm. Go with Dio, Nico & Chukwuani and dominate the midfield. Do that and we win the game.

27 Feb 2026 22:08:13
Why not go:

Dio. Chuck. Raskin

Moore

Naderi. Chermiti

True, there's not a massive amount of width here, but we could push Rommens and Tav up if we are dominating the midfield. Dio and Raskin can support in the attack, with Chermiti and Moore pulling wide if they need to.

It's a central battering ram. Get the balls into the box. 💪

27 Feb 2026 22:12:21
And yes, Walter, I still rate Miovski, but more as a squad player. He was unlucky v Livi. I think Naderi is more physical and could wear down their poor defence.

27 Feb 2026 22:23:54
Formations don't really matter. Look at most average position maps and see if the starting positions are the same. I think we need to make sure we are solid across the park, and then be inventive in attack when we have won that battle.

27 Feb 2026 23:02:55
I agree, Storm.

I'd be going.

Sterling, Souttar, Manny, Rommens.

Dio, Raskin, Chucky.

Skov, Naderi, Moore.

27 Feb 2026 23:28:33
I'd start Chermiti and Naderi. Both big lads would give Celtic defenders a nightmare. Best form of defence is attack. 🇬🇧

28 Feb 2026 01:16:25
Can play three midfielders, even four in a 4-2-2-2. I'd play Dio beside Moore, with Raskin and Chucky behind, high back line, compressed four in the middle, etc. It's all down to players doing their job in and out of possession.

28 Feb 2026 01:19:13
Could always start Chermiti wide left to pin back the right fullback as he's a major threat for them.

28 Feb 2026 06:54:20
Madness not starting a big game player, Chermiti starts for me all day long.

28 Feb 2026 07:14:33
Maybe Stevie thinks he's bang average. 👀🤪 Sorry bud, couldn't help it. 😇 I'd go with him n Naderi, tbh. 👍

28 Feb 2026 07:23:29
Proven he does it in big games, Fork. Madness not playing him, mate, but we all know he starts in Rohl's team.

28 Feb 2026 07:26:32
Fork, but if he only uses one center forward that will be Chermiti, mate.

28 Feb 2026 07:37:59
High intensity, and don't let them settle on the ball from minute 1, and no tippy tappy across our back four - no matter what team starts. 👍

28 Feb 2026 07:59:44
For sure, O Neil will have them up for this. Danny does not want to be drawn into mind games. We win.
It's because they had a midweek game, some poor ref mistakes, injuries. All we can do is let's go. We can do this.

28 Feb 2026 08:04:24
These games are won and lost in midfield. Chuk, Dio, and Nico will control it for us. Let Moore, Skov, and Chermiti do the damage up top.

28 Feb 2026 09:39:37
Stevie, I hope you don't mean Ralston as that fb. 🙈

28 Feb 2026 09:42:17
I agree with Stormtrooper, we need to win the midfield first.

28 Feb 2026 09:47:53
I would prefer if we go with Sterling at right back, if he is fit enough, and the fact that he's been training might give him the nod. There will be times when we are under pressure defensively, and he is more aggressive and quicker to deal with it.

I'm not saying he's a world beater, but he gives us better stability there.
We won't concede silly goals and will be secure at the back, which we haven't been recently.
Do this, and I'm confident we will score at the other end and win the game.

28 Feb 2026 10:53:42
I'd be happy with any team that doesn't have Tav, Gassama and Aasgaard started. I'd also like Djiga in for Souttar and Dio in for Raskin, but I know that's not going to happen.

28 Feb 2026 11:14:27
Bunster, can we not win the midfield battle with still 2 up front? 🤔 Absolutely, of course we can, and look what we did to Hearts playing the 2 up top. There's nobody telling me Hearts haven't got a better defence than Celtic will have against us the morra.

🤔 Let's get out there, take the game to them from the off, and lay down a marker. 🥊🇬🇧

28 Feb 2026 12:00:50
Big game player? He has played one good half against Celtic, scored 2, and played well against Hearts. Where is the big game crap coming from? Where was he in the big games in Europe?

28 Feb 2026 12:55:02
Same place as all the others who played; on the pitch, not doing much from memory. No-one having a go at the darlings of the support for being trash then, are they? So do we not play anyone for not performing in those big games?

He has scored goals vs them last time out, so showed he can handle that occasion.

Naderi untried and Miovski hasn't started firing this season, so he is at least in the mix to start, surely.

28 Feb 2026 13:20:35
The only reason to play two up front is if Naderi is fit, because his movement and work rate, when dropping a wee bit deeper, create space and danger. If he's not fit, we certainly don't play Miovski in that role, as he can't do it. I suspect we will revert to 4-3-3 if that's the case, giving a start to Diomande.

28 Feb 2026 13:25:29
I'm thinking if Rohl only goes with one, it will be Chermiti.
He scored a treble against the team at the top of the league in his last game against them, and scored a double against the team in third place the last time he played them, which shows he is a big player in these games.

28 Feb 2026 14:25:24
My star, you're correct, imo. 👍 There's no doubt Danny Rohl will start Chermiti tomorrow, whether he plays up top himself or with a striker partner. 🤔

28 Feb 2026 21:28:16
Angus, no mate, I thought that Araijo would be starting rb for them, mate. He's a good player, btw.

27 Feb 2026 20:05:58
Kyle Glasgow has signed a professional contract with us get him on the bench for Sunday

27 Feb 2026 21:00:22
Why??

27 Feb 2026 23:03:37
That be some introduction, man. I'd throw him on the bench too. Well said.

27 Feb 2026 23:06:59
OrangeT, why not?

27 Feb 2026 23:46:22
Coz he's good, that's why.

28 Feb 2026 08:39:29
True u don't get superstars if you don't play them. Sorry, Ronaldo, you're too greedy. Sorry, Messi, you're too small. Sorry, Mbappe, no room for u. That's what would happen if they were at Rangers. We send players that are ready to other clubs for development and lose them.

28 Feb 2026 09:12:28
Wilkinsscreamer, how much have u seen Glasgow play? And had you heard much about him until very recently.

28 Feb 2026 09:42:16
I am not sure that playing him in the heat of the Old Firm as his first game is a sensible decision, though. He just turned 16, and whilst I always vote to give youth a chance, I think you need to gradually introduce it in a planned way.

Throwing them in too early can be as bad as not giving them a chance, imo.

However, having said that, I haven't actually seen the lad, so he may already be at a level where he can hold his own in a first team environment.

28 Feb 2026 10:43:45
Orange, you're 100% correct. An academy kid who's hardly played at under-19 level.

28 Feb 2026 10:55:10
As much as I would be surprised Glasgow was on the bench, how does he ever gain experience? Was Barry Ferguson not an academy player?

28 Feb 2026 12:57:45
Ferguson got picked sparingly for the first 2 seasons. He wasn't even in the squad for 4 Of games in 97/98. So, plan in place to get him game time and experience, but not against Celtic.

28 Feb 2026 13:24:58
I'm not sure Barry Ferguson ever played a competitive first team game at 16. In fact, Walter was reluctant to play him at all in a Rangers team going for the double. It was DA that started playing him.

There is no way Glasgow features in this game, though he may get involved on the bench as the season goes on, especially if injuries strike in his position.

28 Feb 2026 13:25:41
Without seeing the boy play, and even if he's highly regarded by the club, I would assume he would need to be involved with the first team squad in training, and in and around things, before he would be considered.
And it sounds far too early for that.

27 Feb 2026 19:20:30
UEFA regulations (specifically Article 5 of the Champions League and Europa League regulations) strictly prohibit any individual or legal entity from having control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition. This regulation is designed to protect the integrity of the competition by ensuring that no single entity can influence the sporting performance of multiple clubs.

Definition of Control/Influence: This includes holding a majority of voting rights, appointing the majority of directors, or having "decisive influence" in decision-making.

Scope: No individual or entity may hold a management or sporting role in more than one UEFA-participating club.

Consequences of Breach: If multiple clubs under the same control qualify, only the highest-ranked one is admitted; others may be demoted to lower competitions or excluded.

Recent Application: With the compliance deadline advanced to March 1 for the 2025/26 season, many executives are resigning from one of their positions to avoid conflicts of interest.

27 Feb 2026 19:47:35
So not Leeds then.

27 Feb 2026 19:54:25
Don't get what u mean, Paul. 🤔

27 Feb 2026 19:58:02
I wonder if any investigation will be conducted by UEFA into SPFL wage structure, and the strange wage increase of Chief Executive Neil Doncaster, who pays himself an increase of 20, 000 pounds every year for little to no improvement whatsoever of anything related to Scottish football or development.

In 2018, he was getting 297, 000 pounds a year, but now pays himself almost 450, 000 yearly. Hmm.

27 Feb 2026 21:28:48
Why would UEFA do that whine? It had absolutely nothing to do with them.

27 Feb 2026 22:25:37
Good research, Fork. I think they have moved ahead of any issues just in case Leeds won the FA Cup.

27 Feb 2026 23:11:14
After listening to much of the debates and after the Crystal Palace decision, it was very unclear and vague as to what UEFA determined was "influence". It's best the club has taken action ahead of the March deadline to avoid any potential issues, especially if this was the long-term plan anyway. Wish Marathe all the best as he seems a genuinely good owner/chairman whatever.

28 Feb 2026 08:17:28
I thought it came down to final league positions?
That's why the French mob were placed in a higher comp than Crystal Palace.
In that case, Leeds have absolutely no chance of finishing higher in the EPL than Rangers have in the SPFL.
Though, assuming there must be parameters for smaller leagues, etc.

28 Feb 2026 08:49:45
Why didn't one of them resign from the Leeds end?

28 Feb 2026 10:14:31
It's irrelevant now that they're leaving; it removes the conflict altogether, Bar. No idea, bud.

28 Feb 2026 10:25:01
Bar, I guess because they both needed to resign from one end. I get the impression that Cavenagh is the main man with us, whereas Parathe is it with Leeds. So best to retreat back to your main club responsibilities.

27 Feb 2026 16:55:28
Rangers vice-chairman Paraag Marathe is stepping down from his role on the Rangers board.

Understood to be a precautionary measure due to UEFA regulations/Leeds role. No change to ownership structure.

Chris jack

27 Feb 2026 17:27:42
Reading into it, and yes, no change. Paarag was only short term supposedly. UEFA review dual ownership on the 1st of March, so it's very smart of Rangers to have this meeting with UEFA now for future possible disruption. Correct me if I'm wrong, but was there not a dual ownership issue a few years ago? I can't remember the teams or if 1 team had to be kicked out of Europe or drop down a competition.

I think, if I remember correctly, they decided the club with the highest league position stayed in. Anyone itk?

27 Feb 2026 17:35:16
Two Rangers directors are stepping down, both were also on the Leeds board. The plan was always short term re these appointments.

Mb Alphe will comment.

27 Feb 2026 17:36:40
Davie, Crystal Palace were this season 'relegated' to the Conference. There was another because of Man City, I think.

Not sure we had an issue, as it requires Leeds to get into Europe, but better this than risking it.

27 Feb 2026 17:49:43
Doesn't seem like very good timing.

27 Feb 2026 18:41:35
Always in the pipeline, Rfc55loyal, absolutely nothing to worry about regarding who owns and runs us, mate. 👍 🇬🇧

27 Feb 2026 18:42:30
I'm confused by this. Angus, you're good on this stuff. UEFA's regulations don't allow directors to hold significant roles at two clubs if there's a plausible scenario where both clubs could qualify for the same European competition. With Leeds, there is no chance of this happening. What am I missing?

27 Feb 2026 18:52:19
Rangers do not have any official affiliation to Leeds. The move is designed to comply with UEFA regulations about senior figures who can influence more than one club. It's about Marathe holding senior posts in both.

Posted also on the discussions page.

27 Feb 2026 18:57:08
It's more to do with him and the other guy holding senior posts within 49ers Enterprises and senior posts at both clubs, I believe.

27 Feb 2026 19:06:21
Rfc55, I think it's brilliant timing. UEFA is supposedly ruling on dual ownership on the 1st of March. I think it's very smart for the board to have a meeting now for advice, etc., so there are no future problems regarding European competitions.

27 Feb 2026 19:12:27
Allyg72, Leeds are still in the FA Cup, and while it may be unlikely that they will win it, it is possible, and we cannot wait to find out if they do or don't, or we could get caught out like Crystal Palace did.

27 Feb 2026 19:35:33
Ally, as others have said, there is a chance both teams will make Europe (forgot about the FA Cup), however the FA Cup winner ends up in the Europa League. Then consideration is where we finish - 2nd gets us Champions League, but there is a chance to be relegated to the EL if we lose. 3rd gets us EL straight away.

So, it is about the influence of both clubs within the boardroom, as Fork says. We won't know the final standings until after 1st March.

It's complicated who would be relegated and who wouldn't, I think; where does the FA Cup rank in comparison to Scottish 2nd/3rd place?

Palace waited too late last year and were relegated. They could at a later date prove the owner had sold enough shares, but the date is 1st March. So it's best to sort it now and not have that dilemma.
Hope that makes some sort of sense.

27 Feb 2026 21:07:50
Amazing how no one gets inside info about that stuff, eh.

27 Feb 2026 21:16:30
Davie, maybe so, could be perfect timing in a business sense. Just hope it's not unsettling the squad or staff with importance of Sunday and the run in.

27 Feb 2026 22:27:56
Squad will have been told if it is relevant to them, but not sure how it would affect them really.

27 Feb 2026 23:53:25
Thank you, Angus.

28 Feb 2026 09:46:19
Welcome, Ally. Trying to take some of the legwork from Fork so he can build himself up for next season and the questions on Europa League squad numbers and pathways. 😉😂 I know he really likes those.

28 Feb 2026 10:04:31
Orange this sort of thing is not for disclosure anonymous or otherwise

28 Feb 2026 10:17:12
I see 👀 what you're up to, Angus. It's not happening. All yours this time. Not buying the buttering up. 😉 🙄 🤣 👍

28 Feb 2026 10:18:41
Correct, Aphelion. Senior management positions leaving and uncertainty cause market fluctuations.

28 Feb 2026 10:49:40
Rangers, perfect timing. Had to be done prior to March 1.

28 Feb 2026 13:13:41
Orange t, what is your point. U don't need inside info on something in the papers for last year.

Brighton, Usg, Hearts.
Lyon, Palace.
Como and
Man United and Nice.
Rangers, Leeds.

28 Feb 2026 13:27:10
Is the obvious move now that Fraser Thornton moves to V.C. after Jim Gillespie takes over as CEO?

27 Feb 2026 15:39:08
Looking ath run of fixtures we have up to the split. I think we have the easier run in compared to Hearts and celtic. We have Celtic @ h. St miien a
Aberdeen h. Dundee United h. Falkirk a.
If we win on Sunday I don't see why we can't take max 15 points going into the split

27 Feb 2026 16:46:04
We've got the hardest fixtures after it, though.

27 Feb 2026 16:52:09
Works both ways, Davie. Hearts and Celtic away, plus potentially Motherwell post split. One game at a time, and all that.

27 Feb 2026 17:17:02
Jzer, we all have the same fixtures after split. Each team plays the same teams. 😂

27 Feb 2026 17:38:22
Paul, I thought exactly the same, but possibly he may mean that home or away makes them more difficult or easier.

If we want to win the league, we need to beat what is in front of us and wherever it is.

27 Feb 2026 18:43:18
Cullin, we will have Motherwell at home post split and Hibs at home, we'll be away to Hearts, Celtic and Falkirk.

27 Feb 2026 19:09:07
I'm looking at fixtures up to the split and not beyond. If we can achieve the full 15 points, then we will be in great shape going into the split, maybe even top, which I'm sure would give the players a confidence boost.

27 Feb 2026 19:12:45
Think we need 15 points as well, to be fair. Going to be tough winning all games after the split (yeah, same for all teams), so would like to have a few points above Celtic and at least level with Hearts, but as I thought, every weekend will throw up a story of some kind.

27 Feb 2026 20:21:33
Paul, which is the easier fixture: Celtic at home or Celtic away? Hearts at home or Hearts away? Pretty obvious what Jzer was meaning. He's spot on. We have got the hardest split fixtures by far.

27 Feb 2026 20:43:56
Are you sure it will be Falkirk?

27 Feb 2026 20:55:33
Sir Walter, you're right about Motherwell. We'd have only played Hibs and Falkirk once at home. What makes you so sure it'd be Hibs? Think it will be toss up.

27 Feb 2026 21:33:24
We haven't beaten Falkirk this season, and our away form is terrible, so I don't think we will get 15 points before the split.

27 Feb 2026 22:35:16
Since Danny arrived, in away form we have won 5, drawn 5, and lost 1 away. Not great, but Hearts have won 4, drawn 2, and lost 4; Celtic have won 5, drawn 1, and lost 3.


So, in the grand scheme of things, against the other 2 we are doing better. No reflection on what is to come, but let's not paint it completely in black.