[TheWorthinGer]

The Bosman ruling was all about the free trade of players who were out of contact, and it achieved this aim.  These two players are not out of contract until the summer, my point is a player under contract should not be approached by another club without the permission of their existing club.  I am not convinced that this is what the Bosman case was about.

Your McLeish example is exactly what Bosman fought to change and that has been achieved with out of contract players being free to go anywhere.  As I said, this transfer is different to that.

It's not different at all - their contracts are coming to an end and they have the right to secure their future without having to wait until the last minute or the club they are currently contracted to being able to block negotiations.

Which many would.

Their contract at Rangers begins when their current one ends.  "Freedom" is the key word.

On a personal note, a phone call to the manager expressing our intent might have been "nice" but certainly not necessary.

Thats not right though, the one thing the Bosman rule brought in was freedom of movement once your contract had ended and these two are still under contract to a club.  If they do not sign a new contract then they become free agents when their contract expires and the club can do nothing about that!  At that point they are free to find a new club without any hindrance.

You have suggested that players should not be allowed to discuss contracts with other clubs  without the consent of the club they are currently contracted to until their contract expires - that removes their freedom to secure their future.  Which is the point of bosman. 

So it is right, as many clubs would indeed block a player from discussing a contract with another club in the last 6 months of their current contract if they had the power to do so.

You might note that they have not moved - they have merely secured another contract at the end of their current one.