Make our Mind Up Time

ByTrisidium

Make our Mind Up Time

I have been receiving quite a bit of  unflattering mail about the “agenda” being pursued on this blog. Depending on the correspondent, that is defined as  either denying people their civil right to gloat, hiding the “truth” that people of the RC faith are welcomed and encouraged to come to Ibrox, or indulging in Chamberlain-style appeasement with the banning of the “H” word and other incontrovertible rights-to-insult.

The objection to moderation of any sort appears to be at the root of these diatribes. Our position here in terms of moderation is clear. There is no “agenda” other than a desire not to be chasing up posts containing the rantings and ravings of partisan types who “demand” their right to be heard no matter how objectionable it might be to those hear it. We are not here to service a conduit for conspiracy theories based in Masonic Lodges or the Vatican. There are plenty of places where people can indulge in that kind of stuff, but the moderators here are just not interested. The administration of the site takes around four hours per day. That’s a long time trawling through posts which often set out deliberately to insult, abuse or otherwise cause offence – mildly or otherwise.

Our view is that the blog will only have cross-club support if we stick to what we can substantiate by fact or reasonably infer from the way things proceed. Further, we feel that if we are to gain credibility as an alternative source of news and comment to the MSM, that we need to cut down on the fansite type comments. There is no dignity (a word often used here) in calling the Rangers manager or their fans names. We need to maintain higher standards of impartiality than football fansites, because we know that a united fan base can actually make a difference as RTC did when the SPL chairmen were gearing up for a parachute for the new Rangers. OT discussions are fine, and often amusing, but they shouldn’t become the main reason to come here.

The requirement to have a WordPress account before posting here is not in any way draconian. It is designed to make people accountable for what they post whilst still maintaining anonymity, and therefore being exempt from moderation. Those who don’t like it are not being compelled to carry out any instruction – they only need go to a place where they don’t feel so constrained.

If the main issue of this blog becomes how the blog is being administered – or how the moderation policy is affecting the human rights of posters, we may as well just pack up now.

There have never been any objections to the suggested posting rules on here. We assume that people who post are reasonably intelligent. Therefore it seems fair to assume that those who have ignored the suggested posting rules did so deliberately. If that doesn’t happen, moderation is just not required.

If what we are trying to do fails because of our posting framework, then we will be blamed. We are certain though, that we can have no credibility if we indulge ourselves in conspiracy theories and constant references to anachronistic organisations, the Scottish school system, and the leanings of referees.

There is real corruption in Scottish football. It is based not on religious rivalries but on greed and acquisitiveness. The only thing that matters is that we identify that corruption and help put an end to it.

Our job is to ask questions and not jump to our own conclusions about the answers. That will divide us as surely as the realisation of the depth of the corruption united us. To be totally united as fans, we need to have more Rangers fans on here. Therefore we need to create an atmosphere that they can be comfortable with. Is that the case right now? The anger for RFC’s mismanagement and abuse of the game in Scotland is real, but we need to look forward if we are truly committed to ensuring that what happened to Rangers can’t happen again.

We’re not gonna throw the toys out of the pram here. If anyone else would like to run the blog under those circumstances of zero moderation, we will be happy to hand over the domain. There is no “agenda” – we will be happy to hand the work over to others.

The initial posting which proposed the change to WordPress logins received over 130 TUs and only three TDs. Subsequently the post advising of the changes got around 100 TUs and 100 TDs. It seems that minds are not entirely made up.

To get some closure on this once and for all, we have added a poll below to end on Saturday at 1700 where you can decide whether you want to go along with our original plan in terms of login and moderation. We obviously recommend that you vote “Yes”

About the author

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

2,133 Comments so far

stevensanphPosted on10:12 am - Sep 20, 2012


1. We have never told a lie

– except for the following 40 lies I am about to tell?

21. Chairman of Bursaspor read the list of what has happened to us last week in Geneva and said ”I can’t believe what’s been done to you”

– talk about calling the kettle black. This is the same Bursaspor who were banned by UEFA from Europe on the grounds of not paying football debts! By the way Charles, did you happen to mention that ‘Rangers’ is bankrupt and your just an imitation?
http://www.newera.com.na/articles/45931/Uefa–disappointed–after-Bursaspor-ban-lifted

20. CEO of Juve was bribing officials for years and only got demoted one division

– No. They were found to bribe them for one season only, so were effectively banned from that season relegating them one division. They also had a points penalty the following season and paid a 31,000,000 Euro fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Italian_football_scandal

35. We believe we can get £30-40M in sales of merchandise

– This would outstrip the total commercial revenue of Spurs and would be on par with Arsenal. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-x3sH-bDYzlk/UEcD8O5CfdI/AAAAAAAAGPQ/wJ1GHIsBo1A/s1600/5+FFP+Profit+&+Loss.jpg Dream on!

Just to be clear, those numbers in the link are the TOTAL commercial revenue for these clubs, which includes shirt and stadium sponsorships, trackside advertising, branding rights and merchandise sales. Rangers think they can get more merchandise revenue than Arsenal make in total from all commercial activities…. wow.

36. We are speaking to ESPN/Disney next week

– I can’t wait for the cartoon series. Seriously – it will be hilarious.

View Comment

Galling fiverPosted on10:13 am - Sep 20, 2012


Translated, he spoke to and mentioned some other ropey dudes, adds Canada to the list of countries he thinks is stupid. Big boy done it………. I’m not in it for the money but can you give us some. Blah blah, Belfast, Disney, Cowboys, £500. Who paid for that jolly?

View Comment

celt4lifePosted on10:17 am - Sep 20, 2012


guys, you’ve missed a trick sending any complaint in MGs utterances, or not, last night to Radio Clyde!

Sent mine, with offending comment, to Genevieve Potter, Head of Communications for Bauer Radio

keep you posted

btw Guidi definitely DID say ‘hope’

View Comment

forweonlyknowPosted on10:20 am - Sep 20, 2012


To clarify. That ‘transcript’ as he called it actually comes from the Rangers Podcast twitter timeline. It’s an overview of the main points ‘discussed’.

I can already see that folk with a more photographic memory than mine, have managed to pick a few holes already! ;D

View Comment

stevensanphPosted on10:21 am - Sep 20, 2012


Re: the 40m in merchandise revenue, this graphic is also very interesting.

Now, lets say that Rangers can produce their shirts a ZERO cost, and sell them at ZERO cost. They sell at say 40quid a shirt?

How many do they need to sell to get 40m? – about 1m right?

Click here and see how Liverpool sell 700 – 900k a year.

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Best-selling-shirts31.8.10.jpg

View Comment

smallteaserPosted on10:22 am - Sep 20, 2012


J Maclure says:
September 20, 2012 at 10:11

Then ask yourself why is one of them charged by the Scottish Football Association of bringing the game into disrepute and one not?

I honestly would like to know.
==================================================================
Could I have your view on this first, then I will respond to that?

View Comment

J MaclurePosted on10:27 am - Sep 20, 2012


smallteaser says:

September 20, 2012 at 10:22

J Maclure says:
September 20, 2012 at 10:11

Then ask yourself why is one of them charged by the Scottish Football Association of bringing the game into disrepute and one not?

I honestly would like to know.
==================================================================

Could I have your view on this first, then I will respond to that?
————————————————————————————————

Both of them or neither one of them should have been charged.

They both should have been asked for their comments on their remarks firstly..

View Comment

ExiledCeltPosted on10:31 am - Sep 20, 2012


38. Preseason friendlies in America in conjunction with Adidas using Reyna and Boca as Rangers ambassadors

So I was right – to go out on loan to another international body, the players registration according to the SFA regs (yeah I know!) gets cancelled in order to be registered with the other international body and has to be redone when they return – I asked last Sunday how this could work when Boco and Goain returned when they cannot register anyone for 12 months.

Or was the plan to sell him in Jan anway! Despite their attributed commens that they woudl return

Guess Boca is indeed walking away!

View Comment

ExiledCeltPosted on10:35 am - Sep 20, 2012


Will Disney help with the Hover pitch?

Seriously – that list is unreal and demands questions

For example – who called him on Feb 16th and asked him to be CEO? CG? SDM? Someone knew him and knew he may well be interested……………

View Comment

tic6709Posted on10:43 am - Sep 20, 2012


J Maclure says:

September 20, 2012 at 10:27

smallteaser says:

September 20, 2012 at 10:22

J Maclure says:
September 20, 2012 at 10:11

Then ask yourself why is one of them charged by the Scottish Football Association of bringing the game into disrepute and one not?

I honestly would like to know.
==================================================================

Could I have your view on this first, then I will respond to that?
————————————————————————————————

Both of them or neither one of them should have been charged.

They both should have been asked for their comments on their remarks firstly.
=======================================================.
I’ll keep it simple. Yorkie was lying, Hutton was not.

View Comment

iceman63Posted on10:44 am - Sep 20, 2012


J Maclure says:
September 20, 2012 at 10:11
3 8 i
Rate This
Charles Green said he wouldn’t turn up at “supposedly independent hearings where the SPL appoint the jury, set the outcome, and set the punishment before the trial.”

Turnbull Hutton said “[We are being] bullied, railroaded and lied to. We are being lied to by the Scottish FA and the SPL. We are being threatened and bullied. It is not football as I know it.’

Have a look at those two statements, I am not asking you in the context of whether you agree with them or not, or who said them. I know it is difficult but try.

Then ask yourself why is one of them charged by the Scottish Football Association of bringing the game into disrepute and one not?

I honestly would like to know.

_________________________

A fair question and I think the reason is the following

Hutton is not being charged because to do so would mean his defence would directly force the covert activities of the SPL and SFA and their nullying of clubs into the open. Hutton was not bringing the game into disrepute – he was revealing the disrepute at the core of the game. To charge Hutton ( I am sure they would like to) would force into the open what they want to stay secret!

View Comment

smallteaserPosted on10:47 am - Sep 20, 2012


J Maclure says:
September 20, 2012 at 10:11

Charles Green said he wouldn’t turn up at “supposedly independent hearings where the SPL appoint the jury, set the outcome, and set the punishment before the trial.”

Turnbull Hutton said “[We are being] bullied, railroaded and lied to. We are being lied to by the Scottish FA and the SPL. We are being threatened and bullied. It is not football as I know it.’
———————————————————————————————————–
Ok I’ll play.

Turnbull Huttons statement is based on fact and can be backed up by 41 other clubs who were presented with the same options as Raith. They were being given options which were against the rules in the book and at the same time were being told, that the money available would dinminish if The Rangers were not granted permission to play if SFL1.

Charles Green has stated that the ruling body has set the outcome & the punishment before a hearing and questioned the integrity of an inependent body. Neither the outcome or the punishment are known at this time and every team agreed to the setup of any independent body and how it is was formed. He has no proof to back up his statement.

View Comment

AngusPosted on10:47 am - Sep 20, 2012


J Maclure says:
September 20, 2012 at 10:11

1. Mr X said he wouldn’t turn up at “supposedly independent hearings where ZZ appoint the jury, set the outcome, and set the punishment before the trial.”

2. Mr Y said “[We are being] bullied, railroaded and lied to. We are being lied to by XX and YY. We are being threatened and bullied. It is not football as I know it.’
——–

Let’s remove the emotive names.

1. Mr X states that an apparently independent hearing is “fixed” before it gets under way – so that the result and punishment is already known. He insinuates that the “jury” are not independent because they are chosen by ZZ.

2. Mr Y states that lies are being told to him by XX and YY, and that the latter pair are bullies.

In my opinion, Mr X is making a far more serious allegation. He alleges fundamental corruption in the procedures of organisation ZZ.

The other possibility, of course, is that organisations XX and YY made no complaint against Mr Y because they knew that they were threatening, bullying and lying to Mr Y and did not want the issue exposed further.

View Comment

J MaclurePosted on10:49 am - Sep 20, 2012


The Iceman says:

September 20, 2012 at 10:44

I agree, that is what I take out of it?

Tic 6709 says:

September 20, 2012 at 10:43:

‘Have a look at those two statements, I am not asking you in the context of whether you agree with them or not, or who said them. I know it is difficult but try.’

You did,nt try, did you?

View Comment

BigrabbitPosted on10:54 am - Sep 20, 2012


RayCharles says:
September 20, 2012 at 02:31
So apart from what I said I was right?
Yes and Know?

View Comment

smallteaserPosted on10:54 am - Sep 20, 2012


J Maclure says:
September 20, 2012 at 10:49

You did,nt try, did you?
———————————————————

Everyone knew what you were doing, but we were civil enough to reply.
That post from you represents the difference between some sites and this one.
TD any of your posts from now on with no replies, its the least I can do.
You don’t deserve any better, you bring nothing to the table and try and divert on a daily basis.

View Comment

dunloytimPosted on10:55 am - Sep 20, 2012


test

View Comment

incredibleadamsparkPosted on10:55 am - Sep 20, 2012


33. We’re going with Adidas next year. Adidas have said they lost RM and Liverpool so Rangers will be the biggest club they have

___________________________________________________________________________

Adidas never mentioned Losing any other teams to Imran? I assume then that they’ll still be supplying kits and training gear to AC Milan, Chelsea, Marseille and Benfica? Think the sports manufacturer might have been stroking their ego a wee bit with the ‘biggest club’ thing.

As books about Rangers seem to be quit popular at the moment thought I’d share with you a event from the other night and a discovery I made in a box in my parents loft. A long forgotten Christmas present from my youth.

Rebirth of the Blues: Story of the Rangers Revolution, authored by everyone’s favourite celebrity St Mirren fan…. Chick Young. I wouldn’t recommend reading it, I can’t get the two hours and thirty seven minutes of my life back. Its basically a love letter to Souness’s first season at Ibrox and at one stage Chick doesn’t rule out Rangers breaking the world transfer record at the time (Ruud Guillit £6m, if memory serves me right) and concludes that from now on, regarding Rangers, anything was possible.

Chico, you got that one right.

View Comment

FIFAPosted on10:55 am - Sep 20, 2012


CG would make a fortune for Sevco if he sells his North American tour to ITV as the new Minder series ,know what I mean Arfur

View Comment

tic6709Posted on10:58 am - Sep 20, 2012


J Maclure says:

September 20, 2012 at 10:49

The Iceman says:

September 20, 2012 at 10:44

I agree, that is what I take out of it?

Tic 6709 says:

September 20, 2012 at 10:43:

‘Have a look at those two statements, I am not asking you in the context of whether you agree with them or not, or who said them. I know it is difficult but try.’

You did,nt try, did you?
========================
Your pedantry knows no bounds,I did read the statements,twice even,what you seem to be looking for is some sort of argument. I’ll repeat, Hutton was not lying ,Yorkie was.

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on11:02 am - Sep 20, 2012


I have taken considerable time to consider the evidence presented to me by the prosecution regarding the utterances of Mr Mark Guidi.

I believe there is a prima facie case to conclude that the accused is indeed guilty of being a thick idiot with IMBECILIC tendencies. No doubt his appeal against this judgement will include his stock in trade debating rouse of “that’s garbage”.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on11:07 am - Sep 20, 2012


Hi, right, lets see if this wordpress thing works – you all like my avatar? that’s my daughters bedroom wall – cool eh?

Now, to business

the “Draft” 5 way agreement

Chuckie was very specific is saying “release the 1st draft agreement”

he asserts that there was a pre determined agenda to strip titles over the EBT/Dual contract issue – that they are judge, jury and executioner (by the way – THEY ARE!)

Anyway, could it simply be a poorly worded draft that states

“Rangers will lose 5 titles over the EBT affair”

however, the FINAL, signed agreement could just say

“the SPL will investigate the use of EBT’s and payments outwith contracts to players, IF FOUND GUILTY, Rangers will lose 5 titles over the EBT affair”

the difference? the 1st draft says they will lose them – innocent or guilty

the final agreement says they will be investigated and punished IF GUILTY

ALTERNATIVELY, Chuckie knows they are guilty, you , me, the press, the dogs in the street know they are guilty, hell, i bet even a few sevconians know they are guilty. The SFA and SPL certainly know they are guilty.

Could the “DRAFT” agreement have been offering Rangers an easy way out? OK, put your hands up, take the hit, no investigation, no further punishment (fines, suspensions, expulsions – it’s a free punishment really) matters die down and Campbell Ogilvie keeps his job and we sweep it away

However, that might have suited Rangers and the SFA/SPL/SFL/UEFA, but it didn’t suit Chuckie – because Chuckie wants to stir it up to get the sevconians to hand over cash. this “victim” card winds the fans up and they’ll be writing cheques to him right now waiting for the chance to put it to the Scottish Footballing regime.

Chuckie is stoking the flames not in the long term interests of Rangers and certainly not Scottish Football, but in his (and his paymasters) own interests – turn a quid.

there, that’s my thoughts

Cool avatar eh?

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on11:17 am - Sep 20, 2012


this may have been asked, and apologies if it has been.

What are the implications of a wordpress account for confidentiality and security. The majority of posters use a nom de plume. There is a good reason for that. The reaction to perfectly reasonable positions has sometimes gone from the reactionary to the criminal.

We are all aware of the problems faced by the wholly innocent members of the panel, which included a Raith Rovers director. There is a not insignificant number of deranged individuals who believe that threats , and worse, of violence is an appropriate response to criticism and exposure.

I was a very regular and early contributor on RTC, however much less so on here. Mostly because i’m just not Thats not to impugn the integrity of the moderators on here, however I would like to know what is involved in having a wordpress account, before I can reasonably comment on the question being asked

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on11:31 am - Sep 20, 2012


I have taken no time at all to review the evidence presented to me by the prosecution regarding the utterances of Mr Charles Wilberforce Green. There was no need to look at the evidence as my mind was already made up.

I believe there is a cast iron case to conclude that the accused is indeed guilty of being a thick idiot with IMBECILIC tendencies who is on the make. No doubt his appeal against this judgement will include his stock in trade debating rouse of “youse are all’t t’big0ts”.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on11:45 am - Sep 20, 2012


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
September 20, 2012 at 11:07
 5 0 Rate This

Cool avatar eh?
——–

That avatar is yet another example of this blog’s anti-Rangers agenda. It’s based on the film, Madagascar, a film which deliberately and with malice aforethought included no bears! A disgrace. And don’t think that the subliminal reference to the jungle has gone unnoticed. Aye, believe me, Walter Disnae think this is the least bit funny. Is Turnbull Hutton behind this?

🙂

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on12:12 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Don John says:

September 20, 2012 at 09:03

I empathise with you last statement entirely

View Comment

Doon the slopePosted on12:13 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Forweonlyknow

The address to the Toronto Rangers supporters.
1. We have never told a lie.
——————————————

Well that’s a whopper for a start.

As regards the rest of the points made: In the words of a famous football writer, “They started off badly, at a very poor pace – and failed to maintain it for the rest of the game.”

View Comment

agropelicanPosted on12:16 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Some have suggested that we get away from the current structure of the blog and move to a more forum type of design were we have several threads all going at the same time.

I like the way the blog is just now, a main post to start us off and like a good old conversation in the pub we meander through related topics as new ideas and thoughts spring to mind and everything going on in the one place.

Don’t change the format, Its fine as it is.

View Comment

douglas BrownPosted on12:20 pm - Sep 20, 2012


it is not fine at it is, posts from people who have alternative views are deleted and the ability to post removed, this is really Stalin like moderation!

View Comment

douglas BrownPosted on12:26 pm - Sep 20, 2012


I sent a similar post to the moderators explaining my grievances I guarantee you it will not appear, not because of bad language or sectarianism but because it does not fit their agenda. Rangers fans welcome, ha ha, yeah right!

View Comment

agropelicanPosted on12:26 pm - Sep 20, 2012


That’s right name and shame the moderator. Stalin will obviously have to go into hiding now.

View Comment

twopanda bearsPosted on12:32 pm - Sep 20, 2012


the taxman cometh says: at 17:19 – re: Gratuitous Alienation’s – by PmC 18 September

Read this with interest. Many of the comments raised what BDO could or could not do in such a context of complexity. My rough take is that by constructing legal obstacles via company transfers – it possibly lessens the appetite for BDO to undertake expensive legal action to reverse D+D actions? At the moment my overall impression of BDO addressing potential alienation’s is that D+D may be content if it ever gets that far. BDO liquidation is on hold by LH – since LH asked for a Report from the Admins. That was three months ago. Some thoughts to ponder – Try this, last month;

D+P-24 August 2012 – 4.6. “……………….Accordingly a going concern sale to Newco completed shortly after the meetings, which has resulted in the Joint Administrators achieving the second objective identified on the previous page, as a better result for creditors has been achieved than if the Company had been wound up without having first being in Administration. “

Could this be an even sorrier mess than we thought? Publicly, with LH reservation, Administration status includes a potential COI but I believe there could be more to this. The three precepts of administration under law are fairly clear. By defining a `sale` to CG under the second precept of administration D+D have potentially created a hot potato and placed that in LHs lap so to speak. D+D seem to be relying on “business + assets” interpretation sold on at a value level as a definition to satisfy the second hierarchical precept of insolvency administration. Possibly what D+D have developed – and hope to submit formally in due course to the CoS and LH – is a fait accompli – even a double dare on TRFC status. LHs little problem is that he could set a precedent for case law [in easy terms] by sanctioning D+Ds resultant interpretation of the hierarchical precepts for Insolvency law in Scotland, possibly the UK. [As I see it on available information] I suspect [but don’t know I stress] that LH may have to bat what they’ve developed so far back to D+D to reformulate their interpretation of the second administration precept. How they manage that is difficult to assess without changing the benefits to creditors, including secured creditors [possibly including CW who yet to exercise a claim so far] and / or unwinding parts if not all of the CG sale – but however it was done it should need to satisfy insolvency law as stands. It cannot be, under the first precept that they’ve rescued a going concern as the oldco is to be liquidated – that is certain – and the sale as stands for the published value cannot satisfy the second precept – under any interpretation in my amateur view. An orderly managed sale of the players plus cash in bank alone would overwhelmingly better the residual value [2.3m] to all creditors even putting aside property and land values and all the rest of it. LH may consider how any negation of creditor’s interests under the second precept satisfies insolvency law. It’s possible a legal Ping-Pong could develop between LH & D+D [if it hasn`t already started after 3 months] to work this one out if so. I just can’t see how D+D can hold their position [4.6] intact on this. Is there a way out of this that satisfies legal interpretation? – And importantly robust to a challenge from D+D who may have hung their hats on this. I don’t know except that the longer this goes on the more complex it could become and indeed the residual sums should decrease. What I understand is that if the first precept is not attained the onus switches preference to the creditor’s interests, including the secured creditors; [RFC Group, Kelvinside, The SS Council, Premier Property and Close Leasing] – the majority appears to be RFC Group who hasn’t exercised his security in administration as yet. But I believe secured creditors [incl majority Group aka Liberty] have additional rights under a `liquidation / receivership` scenario. If that is so [comments welcome] could this be the reason why they have not allowed the RFC Group Company to be struck off?

Speculating now – Is it possible it could it all have to be given back to the creditors with CG possibly involved as a secured creditor for a D+P controlled re-sale [liquidation] under the second precept? If that is a possibility RFC Group / Liberty could be back in the game in some form as secured creditor if they choose I believe – is /or was that the grand plan? – [Remember, at the time the place was crawling with “turnaround” buddies]

Lord Hodge may not be appreciative of this whole scene he`s been left with – We`ll see.

View Comment

douglas BrownPosted on12:33 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Here is another one before they ban me.

The Moderators say there must be no conspiracy theories!
So what exactly was the RTC blog? Was that not a collection of conspiracies theories backed up by leaked documents from Rangers and HMRC, so where did these documents come from, is that moral, legal? Sorry have to go now befoe Mods ban me

Good Night

View Comment

douglas BrownPosted on12:40 pm - Sep 20, 2012


One last thought, I promise it is the last post if you want Rangers fans on here so that you can claim to be an inclusive site, and not just a few uncle_tims from other clubs stop calling anyone who disagrees with you a troll, we normally call them tarriers!

View Comment

tomtomPosted on12:45 pm - Sep 20, 2012


forweonlyknow says:
September 20, 2012 at 09:37

Here’s a transcript from what Charles Green and Imran have told the Toronto Rangers supporters club:

1. We have never told a lie

————————————————-

What he said was “we never told Ally” That Yorkshire accent is sometimes difficult to follow 😀

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on12:51 pm - Sep 20, 2012


The meltdown over the last few years has seen Ireland , Iceland and Greece enter the State equivalent of administration, and has seen other countries such as Portugal, Spain and Italy teeter on the brink.

Why do I mention this on a Football blog ?

Well lest we forget there is an enquiry due to start in a few weeks, which will bring closure on the scandal that is David Murray’s Rangers. We saw a flurry of excuses from participants such as Alastair Johnston , along with comical bombast from Chuckles Green and ridicule and posturing from Traynor in the thoroughly discredited Daily Record

Traynor and Green are motivated by economics. Neither has a hope of survival without the Rangers support spending with their respective organizations. Johnston seems to have a rather different agenda. He clearly is on a mission to deflect any blame away from himself. Not really necessary Al, as everyone knows you were only a puppet chairman anyway. Murray called the shots and you just went along with it.

You may be weak, vacillating and lacking in a backbone, but nobody is saying you are a crook. You have however opened the door and shone a light onto the mindset of the defence that Rangers will employ IF the SPL enquiry strip Rangers of titles.

As an aside, stripping titles is only the first of a range of sanctions and punishments which should be delivered. Cheating over a 10 year period, combined with the lengths that Murray’s Rangers went to deceive the authorities, should result in financial penalties and a ban from the game as well as the stripping of titles

It should go without saying that everyone concerned in this fraud should receive a life ban from the game in Scotland. If Whyte can get a life ban for 10 months of being a financial incompetent and walter mitty character, then Murray can certainly get a life ban for his years of cheating the sport and defrauding every other SPL club

Back to the euro crisis. The relevance to Johnston’s and Rangers defence is that Johnston claimed that he always believed that Murray would just have written a cheque to pay the tax bill, if it came to that. therefore in the eyes of “the people” this wasn’t cheating, merely at worst taking a cash flow advantage.

This totally ignores the lengths that Murray’s Rangers went to to deceive the authorities over the illegal registrations and also totally ignores the fact that Murray has not got, and has never had the financial wealth to write this check in the first place

Which takes us to the Eurozone

The Gross debt of Greece, which is the worst of the Eurozone basket cases, is 165% of GDP . The equivalent figure at MIH was 220%. In other words Murray had a business which was a bigger basket case in debt terms than Greece by a factor of nearly 50%

The biggest budget deficit in the Eurozone is Ireland at 13.1% of GDP. MIH since 2008 have run at an average of 26%. In other words twice as bad as the worst in the Eurozone

However according to Al, it wasn’t cheating because the basket case that was David Murray would have written a cheque for £60 million to square it all away………really !!

Now it’s bad enough that these crooks cheated their way to multiple titles and cups, however the false statements of denial are so shameless and confrontational, with much of the media willing accomplices, that only a fully detailed report from the SPL panel, available to all will suffice in exposing this charade

View Comment

Ordinary FanPosted on12:53 pm - Sep 20, 2012


J Maclure: Because one is telling the truth and can prove it easily by calling up a thousand witnesses, and the other is a proven liar who cannot substantiate a single word he says, if he could he would. I would LOVE to see Hutton called up to answer a disciplinary charge, he would expose the lot of them, that is why he will not face disciplinary action, because he has done nothing but speak honestly.

View Comment

grimdon01Posted on12:54 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Couldn’t agree more with the thrust of your post. 4 hours a day is just mad.

View Comment

bluPosted on12:56 pm - Sep 20, 2012


douglas Brown says:
September 20, 2012 at 12:40
0 1 i
Rate This

One last thought, I promise it is the last post if you want Rangers fans on here so that you can claim to be an inclusive site, and not just a few uncle_tims from other clubs stop calling anyone who disagrees with you a troll, we normally call them tarriers!

================================================================
Very good – Blog ban suicide through the medium of abusive language. You could’ve just stopped posting. A parting thought for you though – was RTC right or wrong about Craig Whyte?

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on12:58 pm - Sep 20, 2012


My eldest teenage son’s best mate is a Rangers fan and I picked him up every morning and drop the two at school. He became a Rangers fan he say because all his mates in the street were and it was during their successful period in noughties. Every morning I like to update him on things and rib him slighty, he was at the cup game earlier in the week so you can imagine. This morning I said to him can you explain to me how you could have had shares in teh Old Rangers, however those shares are not in anyway connected to Rangers the football Club that played in the SPL. So if you own shares what in affect do you own shares in and oddly one cannot exist without the other. He says ” I dont get it what do you mean”. I said let me me put it another way because it is quite difficult to comprehend. Charles Green has said that he bought the Titles, cups etc that belonged or had been won by Rangers, so the new company owns these. He retorts “how can you buy them”? This is the great mystery because Rangers supporters are being led to believe that Rangers in which supporters held shares in, were in fact seperate from the organisation that played in the SPL, so I’m repeating myself in a way, but what Mr Green is suggesting is that one is seperate from the other. That being the case if he is selling shares in a new company what in actual fact are you buying if the football club is still a seperate entity. His reply ” I dont get that, that’s crazy”

You know what explaining The Blessed Trinity would be easier that trying to explain the Rangers set up . We should refer to it as The Rangers Duplicity Syndrome, One body but two seperate entities and if both should die one shall be be raised again in a few days.

View Comment

tic6709Posted on12:59 pm - Sep 20, 2012


douglas Brown says:

September 20, 2012 at 12:40

One last thought, I promise it is the last post if you want Rangers fans on here so that you can claim to be an inclusive site, and not just a few uncle_tims from other clubs stop calling anyone who disagrees with you a troll, we normally call them tarriers!
==============================================

Dont go dougie,please,your unbiased opinions have opened my eyes to all the wrongdoings of this blog.I’m on your side,let’s tell them the real truth about what happened to Rangers (IA).The facts dougie,only the facts. You go first.

View Comment

AngusPosted on1:03 pm - Sep 20, 2012


From Aberdeen forum:
—–
Positive Discrimination in Favour of Sevco!

Jim McInally has had it confirmed by the SFA Referees Supervisor that Sevco will not have a trainee/developer/learner referee for any of their matches. Whilst other 3rd Div Clubs have to endure the mistakes made by those inexperienced and developer referees – much to the detriment of all those other Clubs.

e.g. Peterhead had 3 players sent off in the derby game against Elgin City, at the weekend.
The sending offs may have been correct, but the learning loon fairly lost control of the game.
——–

To my learned friend Mr Brown – a conspiracy “theory” remains a theory only until it is backed up by evidence (e.g. “leaked documents from Rangers and HMRC). If such documentation sufficiently supports a “theory”, it then becomes a fact – and is investigated appropriately.

Your input is welcome, as long as you don’t behave like an arse – going on about tarriers and the like.

View Comment

Ordinary FanPosted on1:08 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Regarding Guidi: I was more concerned that the panel were making reference to “Civil War” and being up in arms if RFC were stripped of Titles and Trophies, seems as if their argument was that punishment would HAVE to be lenient because otherwise we will have hordes of thugs wrecking Scotland. Pretty disgraceful that in 2012 in a democratic, European country we are being told that a section of society must get their own way and be pandered to because the rest of us should be too scared to treat them the same way as everyone else. Scottish society is being intimidated and and the MSM are doing what they always have done, writing up and delivering the threats and demands.

View Comment

AngusPosted on1:10 pm - Sep 20, 2012


briggsbhoy says:
September 20, 2012 at 12:58

My eldest teenage son’s best mate is a Rangers fan and I picked him up every morning and drop the two at school. … …

… His reply ” I dont get that, that’s crazy”
——–
In a similar situation, I had my 6 year old down to football training last night.

One of his Primary 2 classmates turned up in a Rangers strip (actually quite unusual here).

Following close interrogation by me, I have to report that he was unable to explain the current situation at Ibrox.

What do they teach the kids at school nowadays?

View Comment

rabPosted on1:15 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Dumbass brown.

You dont question the validity of the documents, only the origin. Who is to say it wasn’t rfc personell who released supposedly secret documents.

How come the supposedly secret 5 way agreement is in the papers. Who sanctioned their release, and whats the agenda behind it.

You finally resort to religious antagonising to seek a reaction and highlight the kind of language that makes debating with like minded rangers supporters impossible. Why is anything untrustworthy to your ilk perceived as typical RC behaviour, it shows you up as intolerant and narrow minded.

Do you want to support an inclusive club that is transparent, or would you rather be lied to by its owners as long its the right type of support that is being lied to, and shout down any tarriers who try to point out the inevitable collapse.

View Comment

DelbhoyPosted on1:16 pm - Sep 20, 2012


On the subject SuperScoreBoard radio recordings of Tuesday night:

To my ears, in the original broadcast I heard :

” We haven’t a clue what we’re talking about, so we’ll waffle on and continue to treat the
new rangers in the same fawning, obsequious manner as their predecessors “.

However, in the remastered digital version, I hear :

” We are experts in Scottish Foofball and contract law, have contacts in the upper and lower echelons of all relevant parties, and take pride in our professional punditry. So you
just have to trust us on this: Nothing to see hear “.

I think it may have been doctored. Or my ears are biased.

View Comment

BrendaPosted on1:20 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Re Guidigate!! SSB are being highlighted as being a bit naughty ?? As well as complete pants (I really only listen for the entertainment value) at the end of aug they allegedly cut the ‘replay’ short because the were ridiculing NL about the signing of Lassad and a couple of FB posters asked why and were promptly barred from commenting ???? Wee dawwell’s on tonight I wonder what ‘FACTS’ he’ll inform us of regarding his beloved sevco 🙂

View Comment

smallteaserPosted on1:46 pm - Sep 20, 2012


No word from the SPL meeting at Hampden?
Wonder how Hearts are getting on with their non payment of some player salaries?
Wonder how the SPL are getting on with their non payment of some payments to ALL clubs?

View Comment

BrendaPosted on1:54 pm - Sep 20, 2012


smallteaser @ 13:46
Hypocrisy is alive and well in Scottish football 🙂

View Comment

abigboydiditandranawayabigboydiditandranawayPosted on1:54 pm - Sep 20, 2012


douglas Brown will now go through the doors at the back of the stage…

and will re-enter wreathed in smoke to announce…

Tonight Matthew I’m going to be…(fill in made up trolling name)

View Comment

bluPosted on1:56 pm - Sep 20, 2012


smallteaser says:
September 20, 2012 at 13:46
0 0 i
Rate This

………Wonder how the SPL are getting on with their non payment of some payments to ALL clubs?

=============================================================

smallteaser – any thoughts on this? It would seem unreasonable if the SPL were to sanction a member club for non-payment of salaries when the League is in debt to that club. Has the SPL been left short because sponsors are reluctant to partner with it following the bad publicity generated by RFC not paying any of its bills and going belly-up owing £134m? Douglas Brown might conclude that it’s a Rangers-inspired conspiracy to both dodge the debt and ruin Scottish football but without seeing any evidence I couldn’t possibly subscribe to such a view. You?

View Comment

smallteaserPosted on2:03 pm - Sep 20, 2012


blu says:
September 20, 2012 at 13:56

I find it strange that none of the clubs, have openly complained about it, I presume SFL money was also cut..
I can only presume therefore that it was probably part of a 5 way agreement that they shut it and take what they are given without complaint!!
On a more serious side it would look again like all clubs are acting in this together without notifying the paying customer of what is actually happening.
The SPL, the SFA and now the clubs are all still treating the paying customer as mushrooms, (kept in the dark and fed shit), not one has actually questioned what the new tv deal means or explained the cut in revenue.

View Comment

triskelionPosted on2:04 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Re the SSB audio clip – I think this is just an auditory version of that visual illusion where a picture can be seen as an old crone or as a young woman depending on how you look at it.

I, for one, can hear both versions of what MG is meant to have said in whichever clip I listen to. Go on, try it yourself. Just listen to the clip “expecting” to hear “hope” and you’ll hear it. Then try it again “expecting” to hear “it’ll it’ll” and that’s what you’ll hear.

However, I can’t really tell from the audio clip what he actually said.

View Comment

Night TerrorPosted on2:04 pm - Sep 20, 2012


smallteaser says:
September 20, 2012 at 10:54

J Maclure says:
September 20, 2012 at 10:49

You did,nt try, did you?
———————————————————

Everyone knew what you were doing, but we were civil enough to reply.
That post from you represents the difference between some sites and this one.
TD any of your posts from now on with no replies, its the least I can do.
You don’t deserve any better, you bring nothing to the table and try and divert on a daily basis.

Think you may have misfired there, Hugh.

Interesting question from Maclure that provoked some interesting responses, from you as well. A snippy response to one of the weakest responses, along with an appreciation of one of the better, shouldn’t mean you block someone in future. Not unless you’ve been waiting for any excuse.

View Comment

Night TerrorPosted on2:08 pm - Sep 20, 2012


douglas Brown says:
September 20, 2012 at 12:40

One last thought, I promise it is the last post if you want Rangers fans on here … tarriers!

Had some sympathy with your points until that.

View Comment

stephenod72Posted on2:10 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Doesn’t anyone use their own coupon in their avatar? Why the need for anyone to remain anonymous at all?

I’m happy to stand by anything I write, not that I write that much.

View Comment

Blindsummit63Posted on2:10 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Three things:
Firstly, I’d like to thank TSFM and the administrators of this site for their efforts to get this forum up and running and in keeping it going. This involves a substantial input of personal time on their part, and I would like them to know that I appreciate it. This site is vital if we are ever to stand any hope of reforming the mess that is Scottish Football. If we had a fully functioning independant media of course we wouldn’t be here, but here we very much are, until no longer needed.

Secondly, to those who don’t like the rules and conditions imposed to be a contributor to this site, I would suggest you find somewhere else to post where the rules suit you. No one is forced to take part and the moderators have every right to apply such conditions as they see fit. It’s their effort that makes the site possible in the first place. So either live by the rules or apply your right to personal freedom or choice and go elsewhere. Perhaps start your own blog? Let’s all remember as well that this is a relatively new site, and as such is still finding its way and there are bound to be teething problems till the right balance is found.

Thirdly:When Turnbull Hutton made his comments on the steps of Hampden, i fervently hoped he’d be charged by the SFA. Why? Not because I believe he was actually guilty, but because he spoke the truth. Because the lickspittles in the SFA would have been forced to defend their actions in the Rangers debacle in a judicial environment. In effect they and the SPL would have been on trial and not the redoubtable Mr Hutton. The fact they didn’t charge him speaks volumes. He would have torn them to shreds.

View Comment

AngusPosted on2:10 pm - Sep 20, 2012


miki67 says:
September 20, 2012 at 13:56

Remember, he thinks we’re stupid.
——–

I don’t think he does. He’s not relying on the stupidity of the man in the street**, the management of other clubs, or that of the SFA/SPL.

What he’s relying on is the inertia of the organisational systems, against which he has set himself.

Whilst the SFA and SPL set dates months in the future, then ignore the immediate problems under their noses (“ah yes, but we’re going to have a meeting about that”), Mr Charles is beavering away getting everything in place so that he’ll be long gone before any music has to be faced.

He will have planned his exit to coincide with the event of his choice. That event will be magnified by him to cover the real reasons for his hurried departure (along with the cash). Only after he is gone will people start to twig what his plan was all along.

In that respect, Mr Charles reminds me of Kevin Spacey in The Usual Suspects. I can see Mr Charles now, getting quietly into a taxi and departing the scene moments before The Peepil realise they’ve been had yet again.

“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing The Peepil he didn’t exist.”

(** except the stupidity of TRFC fans in funding his retirement.)

View Comment

smallteaserPosted on2:14 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Night Terror says:
September 20, 2012 at 14:04

Everyone knew what you were doing, but we were civil enough to reply.
That post from you represents the difference between some sites and this one.
TD any of your posts from now on with no replies, its the least I can do.
You don’t deserve any better, you bring nothing to the table and try and divert on a daily basis.

Think you may have misfired there, Hugh.

Interesting question from Maclure that provoked some interesting responses, from you as well. A snippy response to one of the weakest responses, along with an appreciation of one of the better, shouldn’t mean you block someone in future. Not unless you’ve been waiting for any excuse.
===================================================================
Talking about misfiring……. I aint Hugh, Hugh would have fired first then asked questions.
I also have no means of blocking anyone, I imagined he stopped posting as it would have been met with a TU only response, I presume you know better ( friend, or alias perhaps?)
Apart from interference what exactly are you bringing to the table to discuss?

View Comment

J MaclurePosted on2:16 pm - Sep 20, 2012


smallteaser says:

September 20, 2012 at 10:54
J Maclure says:
———————————————————

Everyone knew what you were doing, but we were civil enough to reply.
That post from you represents the difference between some sites and this one.
TD any of your posts from now on with no replies, its the least I can do.
You don’t deserve any better, you bring nothing to the table and try and divert on a daily basis.
———————————————————————————————————

Jeez, I ask a question , and I don’t bring anything to the table and try and divert on a daily basis?

I asked a pefectly fair question which I wanted peoples view on. I was definitely not wanting to say that Charles Green was right.

I was pointing out that the SFA are being a tad hypocritical when two statements are made questioning the SFA methods and only one is deemed fit for charges.

Is this what is to happen when a Rangers viewpoint is offered?

If it is I think TSFM has a job to convince that this site is all inclusive.

View Comment

smallteaserPosted on2:20 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Blindsummit63 says:
September 20, 2012 at 14:10

Thirdly:When Turnbull Hutton made his comments on the steps of Hampden, i fervently hoped he’d be charged by the SFA. Why? Not because I believe he was actually guilty, but because he spoke the truth. Because the lickspittles in the SFA would have been forced to defend their actions in the Rangers debacle in a judicial environment. In effect they and the SPL would have been on trial and not the redoubtable Mr Hutton. The fact they didn’t charge him speaks volumes. He would have torn them to shreds.
—————————————————————————————————————–
I think your thoughts are misplaced here.
Any charge on Turnbull Hutton would be behind closed doors, both the trubunal and all evidence and rebuttal would never see the light of day, only the verdict would be published.
Therefore complete waste of time, there would be no defence required by the SFA or the SPL.
The last tribunal of Rangers & Craig Whyte had a specific remit, never published, it went to a tribunal, who never saw any of the evidence, cover up after cover up for the last 8 months.

View Comment

abigboydiditandranawayPosted on2:21 pm - Sep 20, 2012


so good they named me twice!

View Comment

smallteaserPosted on2:24 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Night Terror says:
September 20, 2012 at 14:04

Interesting question from Maclure that provoked some interesting responses, from you as well. A snippy response to one of the weakest responses, along with an appreciation of one of the better, shouldn’t mean you block someone in future. Not unless you’ve been waiting for any excuse.
——————————–
J Maclure says:
September 20, 2012 at 14:16
——————————————-
Doesn’t appear blocked to me, unfortunately.

View Comment

celt4lifePosted on2:25 pm - Sep 20, 2012


HoC at Bauer replied to me about MGs utterances.

“appalled” she was and has passed on my complaint to Radio Clyde MD Graham Bryce.

in discussions now, keep you posted

View Comment

AngusPosted on2:27 pm - Sep 20, 2012


#Rangers’ Charles Green says #Motherwell welcome at Ibrox next week for League Cup tie despite voting against his club getting into the SPL
@BBCLiamMcLeod
——

Of course he says that. I imagine there’ll be an especially warm welcome for Stuart McCall.

Bread and circuses.

View Comment

bluPosted on2:28 pm - Sep 20, 2012


J Maclure says:
September 20, 2012 at 14:16
===============================
JMac, I don’t know what you’re getting at because you’re not saying anything. How and why do you believe that Charles Green and Turnbull Hutton were treated differently in respect of the quotes you posted? Can you provide some context to the comments you’ve attributed to each of the club officials?

View Comment

Ordinary FanPosted on2:32 pm - Sep 20, 2012


J Maclure: Can I ask what your opinion is? Why do you think the SFA didn’t call Turnbull Hutton up for a disciplinary charge? My opinion is they couldn’t, because he was simply stating facts. The SFA would have to ask him to explain his comments, once Hutton reeled off a list of provable reasons for his comments the SFA would look like the weak, pathetic, corrupt organisation they are. Then they might find themselves being asked some questions. I would think most people on this site would relish the thought of Hutton giving his usual brutally honest reasoning, facts and I suspect he would have supportive evidence as well as witnesses.

View Comment

abigboydiditandranawayPosted on2:35 pm - Sep 20, 2012


re:my last post

It only works if you know that i made a previous post under the name

abigboydiditandranawayabigboydiditandranaway.

That post is in moderation, presumably for having a stupid name!!!

Anyway, what i said was that douglas Brown will now exit through the door at the back of the

stage.

And will re-appear wreathed in smoke to announce…

“Tonight Matthew I’m going to be…(insert made up troll name)…

I will now add…

Obviously some people think it better that they remain anonymous and don’t register with

wordpress. They would have to give real personal details then and with the use of such

intemperate language giving a clue as to your true nature I’m sure you wouldn’t want to risk

putting yourself “out there” without the cloak of anonymity.

I’m all for a bit of banter…but in your case Mr.Brown, or whatever your name is…

Good Riddance!

View Comment

AngusPosted on2:35 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Guys – I’d drop the Radio Clyde thing if I were you.

Alternatively, be prepared to offer up your collective face for application of egg, and accept that the words “witch” and “hunt” are not irrelevant.

Claiming that MG said “I hope” is – at the very least – highly debatable. At the very least.

Now. Can I have some TDs, please? 🙂

View Comment

Blindsummit63Posted on2:40 pm - Sep 20, 2012


smallteaser says:

I think your thoughts are misplaced here.
Any charge on Turnbull Hutton would be behind closed doors, both the trubunal and all evidence and rebuttal would never see the light of day, only the verdict would be published.
Therefore complete waste of time, there would be no defence required by the SFA or the SPL.
The last tribunal of Rangers & Craig Whyte had a specific remit, never published, it went to a tribunal, who never saw any of the evidence, cover up after cover up for the last 8 months.
___________________________________________________________

Hmmm. Good point st, which I didn’t think of. And difficult to complain about, as that confidentiality, particularly for the panel identity, was supposed to be a key element of the process.
It begs the question of course, what if he was charged and found not gulity?
All a moot-point now as it seems unlikely that he will be charged. For his sake I’m glad, as I have had some personal contact with him and he’s a fine gentleman. It saddens me that spivs such as Charles Green can have such influence in the game, rather than people like Mr Hutton.

View Comment

iceman63Posted on2:41 pm - Sep 20, 2012


blu says:
September 20, 2012 at 13:56
0 0 i
Rate This
smallteaser says:
September 20, 2012 at 13:46
0 0 i
Rate This

………Wonder how the SPL are getting on with their non payment of some payments to ALL clubs?

=============================================================

smallteaser – any thoughts on this? It would seem unreasonable if the SPL were to sanction a member club for non-payment of salaries when the League is in debt to that club. Has the SPL been left short because sponsors are reluctant to partner with it following the bad publicity generated by RFC not paying any of its bills and going belly-up owing £134m? Douglas Brown might conclude that it’s a Rangers-inspired conspiracy to both dodge the debt and ruin Scottish football but without seeing any evidence I couldn’t possibly subscribe to such a view.

______________________________________________________________________

The problem for the SPL and SFA is that given their conduct re: RFC and SEVCO they are the straw men when it comes to enforcing any sort of financial compliance from any club. They have zero credibility and dare not charge any other club in case they cite their previous conduct as precedent. To all intents we have anarchy when it comes to enforcement of any financial regulations and rules.

They are there and can be enforced – but any enforcement can be challenged over their singular and deliberate failure to enforce these regulations with regards to Rangers.

Expect no charges to be forthcoming on any financial problems, payment delays or breaches of any sort in the next couple of years. They really really really don’t want anyone looking to closely at those areas at all.

View Comment

Ordinary FanPosted on2:49 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Angus: I agree, the Guidi thing may or may not have been said. I’d be intrigued to know one way or the other but I won’t be bombarding Clyde, Politicians or Newspapers with emails, that is not the way REASONABLE PEOPLE should respond to something like that. The pundits made plenty of other comments that I would like to see them explain, the reference to “Civil War” being the most interesting. The agenda set by Clyde and the MSM as a whole needs looking at, not an individual comment that might not have been said and will be denied or distorted even if it was said.

View Comment

J MaclurePosted on2:49 pm - Sep 20, 2012


blu says:

September 20, 2012 at 14:28s

J Maclure says:
September 20, 2012 at 14:16
===============================
JMac, I don’t know what you’re getting at because you’re not saying anything. How and why do you believe that Charles Green and Turnbull Hutton were treated differently in respect of the quotes you posted? Can you provide some context to the comments you’ve attributed to each of the club officials?
——————————————————————————————————————————-

There appears to be some a agreement that Turnbull Hutton was not called up by the SFA because basically the words he used would mean the SFA would have to have made public just what went on behind closed doors to public scrutiny.
.
Not because he should not have been on the strength of his comments, which were severe in the extreme.

Green, with his continuous bluster makes it rather easier for them.

If so, I think that proves they are not fit for purpose and the issuing of charges by the Compliance Officer and the reasons behind it are at least open for ridicule.

View Comment

AlthetimPosted on2:51 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Charlie G’s entertaining us with more babbling I see.

http://tinyurl.com/bul9rr8

You have to hand it to the man, he knows his customers and how to motivate them to spend.

I’m pleased to learn that he’ll be welcoming Motherwell to Ibrox as he believes they are not “anti Rangers”. In the interests of clarity, I’d like him to inform us exactly which teams will not be made so welcome. I’d hate to turn up at his (??) stadium and be declared persona non grata………unfortunately for me I was not at the meeting in question and therefore did not witness the eye glinting that Charlie refers to.

Green said: “Ally and I sat there and we know what happened. We know that only half of those clubs wanted Rangers out of that league.”

Right there – that’s my problem with this. I have no issues with what the bold Charles says, he amuses me. I have issues with the way his words are published verbatim without challenge or editiorial comment by the MSM. Once again he’s allowed to comment, unchallenged, that clubs wanted Rangers “out of that league”. Would it be too difficult for the churnalist to remind him that Rangers lost their place in the league as a consequence of impending insolvency and the the SPL clubs voted against entry of a BRAND NEW CLUB/COMPANY into the league? Or asking him who is less welcome at Ibrox and why he made that comment?

For many, repeating this kind of stuff is tiresome. I’m well fed up with it. However if we cease highlighting and discussing this lazy presstitutist bollox, the MSM will have won.

Finally, I’m claiming “presstitutist” as a new adjective. (cue the English teachers)

View Comment

AlthetimPosted on2:54 pm - Sep 20, 2012


I meant impending liquidation, not impending insolvency. Rangers were already insolvent.

View Comment

Comments are closed.