The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies !

By

Gaz says: July 15, 2013 at 10:47 am 3 0 Rate …

Comment on The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies ! by tomtom.

Gaz says:
July 15, 2013 at 10:47 am
3 0 Rate This

tomtomaswell says:
July 15, 2013 at 10:42 am

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

I think she was having a go at the “fresh approach” comment and didn’t really think it through properly.

—————————————-

Doesn’t say much for the journalistic standards on the FT then, and there was me thinking of subscribing 😳

tomtom Also Commented

The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies !
From the FT article, I don’t get the reference to “staler fish”. If it’s meant to be a dig at RIFC then how is comparing them to a product that is worse than them relevant (working on the premise that supermarket fish are pretty fresh) or is she trying to be smart and suggesting that something fishy is going on.

Confused.


The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies !
If brain cells were explosive Burley would struggle to blow his nose.


The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies !
Castofthousands says:
July 9, 2013 at 8:52 pm
0 0 Rate This

neepheid says:
July 9, 2013 at 5:23 pm

“I wonder what the cash in hand figure in the audited accounts was, by the way?”
———————–
McGills buses are only part of their business empire. They may have other revenue streams that we are all unaware of.
================================

And some the police would like to know a bit more about 👿


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