Everything Has Changed


In the interests of fairness I think every team should …

Comment on Everything Has Changed by tomtom.

In the interests of fairness I think every team should be allowed one precedent. Stranraer got theirs in the 90’s when the got promoted into the second tier.

Sevco got theirs when they were allowed to join the SFL without fulfilling any of the conditions required for membership.

Any more than one would be greedy and unfair (and possibly without precedent :-D)

tomtom Also Commented

Everything Has Changed
finloch says:

Friday, March 8, 2013 at 18:04
Rate This

Just a wee thought.

If I was Charlie my route to a berth in England would be to buy an ailing club down there, relocate it to Ibrox and then fight any legal issues from there – possession being 9/10ths of the law and all that.

And with Berwick playing in Scotland and some but not all Welsh clubs in England, and Derry in League of Ireland etc there are precedents that playing in another country’s league is accepted by both the British Isles FAs and by UEFA.

Add that to the various European and UK laws which give us unassailable rights that trump the UEFA or FA rules.

A Rangers playing in England would be worth a whole lot more than a Rangers marooned in the SPL so offers lots of upside for Charlie and his pals.

The club he buys would not able to participate as Rangers thoug. You might just get away with the Rangers are still Rangers argument but Wigan (or whoever) would still be Wigan.

Everything Has Changed
“The current Rangers team are the worst Ibrox has ever seen, according to the club’s chief executive Charles Green. (Sun)”

Charles giving Ally lessons in motivational management again 😀

Everything Has Changed
shield2012 says:
Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 16:31
0 0 Rate This
tomtomaswell on Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 16:07
3 0 Rate This
shield2012 says:
Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 15:39
0 2 Rate This
Ok the Ronnie O’Sullivan analogy was a bit tongue in cheek but lets face it, the point of wild cards is for entertainment and revenue purposes – both of which are vital to sports including Scottish Football


Are you seriously suggesting that for “entertainment and revenue purposes” Rangers should be allowed to waltz back into the top tier?
Just trying to bring some perspective to some people’s unrealistic and idealistic views on Scottish football.

A game of football might be a sport but the teams are essentially two businesses competing with a goal to be successful, make money and survive. A bit like every other company!

So, no, I don’t think they should waltz back into the SPL but spare me the accusations about sporting integrity when clubs even remotely suggest moving on from all this

Ok, I understand where you’re coming from. Yes, unfortunately football is now, more than ever, all about who can spend the most money in search of that elusive piece of silverware and the glory that attaches itself to it. I guess that’s what professional football has always been about if we’re honest about it.

Please allow us non Rangers fans to feel raw about the decisions that have been made over the past 12 months. When we’re bleating on about sporting integrity, or whatever term we use, the plain fact is that we all feel cheated and let down by those who are supposed to be looking after our interests. Sporting integrity, financial doping, tax evasion/avoidance, clever accounting call it what you want. The dice was loaded.

Recent Comments by tomtom

SFM – The Next Steps
Esteban says:
Member: (91 comments)
May 22, 2015 at 11:56 am
Finloch at 10:13 am

Very good, amigo.
A question arises, however. Who are the Easedales? Where did they fit in? Where are they now?
Counting the profits from the tenders that they have been awarded since they went “high profile”. Their “investments” in RFC were a small price to pay.

Succulent lamb is not only served to journalists.

Spot the difference?
Paulmac2 says:
February 25, 2015 at 12:03 am
If the club cannot be punished then it stands to reason the SFA has the responsibility to prevent the identified group from attending similar events…either by playing behind closed doors or witholding away tickets…

Within 2 games it will stop…that is how easy it is…unless of course you support racism.
When the offence takes place at an away ground, in addition to a ban on the travelling support, the offending club should be fined an amount equal to or exceeding their ticket allocation for their next away game. This money should then be given to the opposition as they shouldn’t suffer from the drop in revenue due to a ban on the travelling support.

Spot the difference?
Bawsman says:
February 4, 2015 at 12:49 pm
2 2 Rate This

Allyjambo says:
February 4, 2015 at 12:26 pm

The old Celtic Park did indeed have a Rangers end…………That was (like Hampden) the covered end 👿
The Rangers end at CP was covered in 1967. The Celtic end was first covered around 1958 – although it did not extend all the way to the front of the terracing.

Spot the difference?
If I was Kenny Macdowall and I wanted to get the hell out of Dodge with my full entitlement I’d leave the 5 loanee’s out of any future squads. 😈 😈

Spot the difference?
bad capt madman says:
February 3, 2015 at 9:41 am
2 0 Rate This

So no one in the SFA thinks the sectarian singing at the Sunday semi final needs investigating?? Really? It was heard in over 50 countries apparently. Do rules not apply to TRFC?
(Serious question actually, no laughing at the back)
The SFA will, as always, do nothing. Police Scotland have already stated that the VAST majority of fans were well behaved. However, if you break down the numbers, you have 50,000 fans attending. Split 50/50 gives you 25,000 per side. 20,000, or 40%, of one side behave appallingly. That means that 30,000, or 60%, behaved well. Seems like an overwhelming majority to me. Of course an old cynic like me would say that this was abusing the statistics but who cares about me when the truth can be so easily distorted to suit.

About the author