flyingrodent

I'm not sure. Maybe it's the part where your declared hope for this legal suit is that it will dish some kind of dirt on both the fraudsters and the BBC, rather than just hoping that the fraudsters lose their legal suit against a broadcaster that exposed their criminality. What is investigative journalism for, if not to expose crime and corruption in public life to scrutiny?

Just to be clear - you can't bring yourself to pick sides between a) some journalists who reported that Rangers FC had been taken over by fraudsters and b) the men who were charged with deliberately defrauding your club to death? Is that right?

As I said earlier, the bans on Keevins and Jackson were also petty and ridiculous. Interesting - Clark, Whitehouse and Grier were arrested and charged with fraud alongside Craig Whyte. Which side do you hope wins this legal spat, Benny? Clark, Whitehouse and Grier or the BBC, i.e. the men who drove the final nail into your club's coffin, or the people who warned you that the hole was being dug?

An equally ridiculous incident, every bit as petty and daft IMO.

A reminder here that Rangers keep banning BBC journalists and the BBC more widely because a) the BBC is prevented by its charter from indulging in the kind of protracted, poisonous vendettas that e.g. the Sun or the Record can. The BBC won't respond to a ban by running three weeks of daily headlines about the chairman's dodgy past or the team's parlous finances, but the Sun will. This is why it's usually the BBC that gets banned, while the Sun doesn't, despite the fact that the Sun has attacked various Rangers figures far more viciously than the BBC ever could in the past. This is the same reason why, whenever a politician gets on his high-horse about "media bias" or suchlike, it's almost always the BBC rather than the Sun that they target. And b) because banning journalists greatly impresses the stupider parts of the Rangers support, much as politicians attacking the BBC impresses the stupider politics fan. It's abject cowardice dressed up as courage, and it should be treated with derision.

Ask people "hands up who's an idiot and a fanny" and they'll just sit there, but ask them "who wants to go on an orange walk" and loads of people will go for it. It's the same question, though.

I think they just took the name, although they already have the strips and the stadium. I don't have any problem with them doing so to be honest, and I have no real problem with New Rangers doing the same. It's obvious to everyone that New Rangers are a new club, just as New Airdrieonians are, and I think it's polite to pretend that they're not new clubs. Every Rangers fan I've met recently, I've pretended that they're not a new club. Obviously, we all know that they are new clubs, and we can snigger about it, but it's the nice thing to do to pretend that they're not, so that they don't get upset.

Thanks HB. They were rhetorical questions, but thanks anyway.

I said this before and will say it again - one of the most revealing recent events about the death of Rangers was when the chairman of Airdrie United decided to rename his club Airdrieonians. There was no pretence in the announcement - Airdrie United might have played in the same strips and at the same stadium as Airdrieonians, but they didn't kid on that they were the same club. They openly acknowledged that the old club was dead, and that the new one was an imitation. When asked about it though, the chairman was brutally honest in explaining the decision: Chairman Jim Ballantyne, who has been in charge since the new club was formed, explained on the club website how reverting back to the original name was possible. "When the old company went into liquidation, it was in a different football environment and the use of the name was not possible at that time," he said. "With all the recent changes, however, and subsequent rulings, it paved the way for us to make the move and therefore we set the wheels in motion". http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/22762457 So how come it used to be impossible to use the name of a dead club, but it's now possible? Jimbo says it was "a different football environment" - in what way was it different? What "recent changes" do we think he's referring to? If something "changed", how and why did it do so?

Worrying signs there that Rangers supporters may finally have learned something from their experiences. Let's hope it doesn't catch on as an outbreak of common sense like this could spell the end of the hilarity, and surely nobody wants to see that.

Because "Pretending not to understand something that you do in fact understand very well" is the first instinct of the fud.

The way that the new bosses are dealing with the old bosses' malfeasance is fairly interesting, I'd say. There are at least two ways that King & Co can deal with the previous regime's looting, and these are: 1) Comprehensive review of the books; make everything public then try to move on or 2) Comprehensive review of the books, then drip-feed horror stories into the press as and when they're helpful in mitigating ongoing bad news stories. In that context, I notice that this week's hilarious financials were accompanied by a lot of screeching and handbag-clutching about the terms of the Newcastle loan players deal. Who knows, maybe King et al will stop this and just release all the bad news in one go, then get on with it. If they're still drip-dripping tales of woe to the press by this time next month though, you'll know that they're all at it.

I remember at the height of the Whyte era, Chick Young being absolutely flabbergasted by the very idea that Rangers should just end all the years of stonewalling and let HMRC take a look at their books and get the investigation over with, so that the club could just bite the EBT bullet and then focus on getting back on an even keel. The very idea that Rangers - Rangers! - might co-operate with an agency of Her Majesty's Government, even if it might be in its own long-term interest to do so, left him speechless with horror and IIRC he point-blank refused to even consider the suggestion, so ridiculous did he find it.

Trying and failing to think of another set of football fans in Britain who would welcome the news that their club is now paying not not one, not two but three managers at the same time.

At this point, we should just all admit that the most hilarious Rangers/Sevco moment is almost always the next one.

World Record-Breaking Attendance for a cold midweek fixture after arguably the worst performance of the season imminent IMO

Quite. Now that you've got rid of that bunch of proven crooks with their track record of failure and financial jiggery-pokery both inside and outside of Ibrox, the future must look very bright under the new crooks, what with their very similar track record.

I'm sure this was exactly the position back before a ball was kicked in the old Third Division, a few years ago. Back to square one it is.

Looks like it's back to square one in the Circle of Life at Ibrox: 1) New owners 2) Just you wait, all you diddies will soon be getting pumped 3) Owners loot everything that isn't nailed down 4) Team playing shyte 5) Blame the owners/"Sack the board"/Walking away 6) Boardroom meltdown 7) See 1) Still, good work by Dave King & his buddies - they've done exactly what they said they'd do in a fine display of non-glib unshamelessness, when it looked like it was impossible.

To be fair, none of this is a problem if King & his buddies have enough disposable cash to cash to tide the club over. It'll take a lot of money - in the millions - and it'll be needed so quickly that there won't be time to raise it from another share issue, but it should be enough to smooth over any potential difficulties. I assume King has that kind of cash readily available, right?

No.8 Orals Murray's Arse Dribbling Saliva

Why, it's almost as if Lambias doesn't have any faith that Scottish journalists will ask Dave King whether he actually has the money to back up all his big talk. How cynical. Surely we all remember the forensic financial examination that Sir Dave, Craigy Whyte and Charlie Green were subjected to back when the Bears were busy blowing each and every one in succession.

Sir David Murray is a virtual bankrupt who bought years of success with borrowed millions, ran their club as a borderline criminal enterprise and sold it for a pound to a fraudster. Craig Whyte was an obvious fraudster and is due up in court on fraud charges this year. Charlie Green swiped their money, bought a castle with it and is currently under investigation for fraud. One of the Easdales, I forget which, went to prison over a bag of larcenous money found in his house, and both are considered to be a bit dodgy vis a vis involvement with organised crime. And you're seriously asking why Rangers fans would celebrate having a convicted tax fraudster take charge? Because, as the above examples show, he's a Rangers man through-and-through - just one who's a bit more professional than the parade of convicts and suspects who have been running the place in recent years.

Not On Mike Ashley's Dollar Sunshine Numpties Overestimated Murray And Dave No.8 Online Masturbating About Daily Sleeps Never Oppose Mr Ashley Dumbass Sevconians And Now, the end is near, and s O I face the final curtain My friend, I'll say it clear, I'll state my case, of which I'm certain, I've lived a life that's full, I traveled each and ev'ry highway And more, much more than this, I Did it my way

True, although I'd note this, from the BBC website - The club's board announced last month that it had been "informed" that WH Ireland would quit if King took power at Ibrox after noting the Johannesburg-based businessman's convictions for 41 charges relating to South African income tax laws. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31735778 That is, the current NOMAD has no interest in dealing with a company run by King due to his convictions, although I note they were apparently fine with the Easdales and their previous placky-bags full of cash behind the sofa antics. Going by what I've read on the topic in e.g. the FT, this kind of event - resignations over the criminal convictions of the new owner, suspension of trading - is seen as fairly extraordinary by the City, although I doubt the folk at LSE are surprised by much that goes on at Ibrox these days. And, of course, the fact that Rangers were dealing with a company called "WH Ireland" so soon after their fun 'n' games with Green and Whyte is just another cheeky chuckle in a long line of laughs.