AJF

I did try and avoid it to be fair, I specifically said I felt it was a debate for another time and place.

I mentioned that. They were related to The Big Tax Case.

I’m not sure fans discussing their rivals on a Scottish football Internet forum is akin to fans discussing their rivals at their own clubs AGM

I feel I need to point out though that the situations between Hearts and Rangers were in no way comparable though. It simply was not possible for any Rangers Supporters Group to do anything. As far as I can recall and see from researching, the FoH offered to pay £2.5m towards debts of £30m. They were reliant on a wealthy fan putting this up with an agreement to pay them back over X amount of years. As the majority of Hearts’ debt sat with the Lithuanian Banks, their CVA was entirely at their mercy. Thankfully they agreed to the CVA (or rather abstained) and eventually agreed to take a fraction of what they were owed. Rangers on the other hand, owed millions to HMRC. The wee tax case involving Craig Whyte’s refusal to hand over PAYE liability as well as The Big Tax Case looming over the club meant there was never any prospect of a CVA being agreed and a tax case running into tens of millions of pounds on the horizon meant the ability to attract a wealthy fan to front up the funds was severely hamstrung. And that’s fair enough. I never knew the donations were earmarked for those purposes.

That’s fair. I’m of the opinion that debate is for another time and place, however I’m not sure why the previous financial peril (and recovery) of Hearts would materially change anyone’s opinion on whether relying on benefactor donations should be viewed entirely different from relying on investor cash injections? It’s also been said that the money provided to Rangers will need to be repaid, but, as far as I am led to believe, the majority of the shortfall is made up from share issues or loans from investors that have little intention of calling them in - they’ll be converted to shares.

Aye, I meant the question is similar, not necessarily the methods of funding. It's not an area I am au fait with, but Rangers are accused of "financial doping" by living outwith our means, sustained only by investment from shareholders. I suppose, I'm getting at why this would be viewed differently?

So a Celtic director was forced to apologise to fans today at their AGM after they took exception to his wording in an obituary to Walter Smith… wow.

They have a point. The majority of the time, the religion of our players or staff is brought up by fans of other clubs. This is not to deny that some of our fans have warped views on religion, but our own players are not targeted by them for displaying their faith.

Am I reading this right in that Hearts received £4.7M in donations from benefactors that is separate from FoH pledges? If so, who are the benefactors and is there a concern that this will dry up? I only ask, as it's similar to the questions we get every year haha.

Did I want SC gone after the Euros? No, but I don't think it was entirely unreasonable that the suggestion was being made from some. Our results from the period that we beat Serbia until as late as June this year were poor to average at best. I had major doubts about our chances of salvaging this WC group after the start we made and questioned his new contract being so lengthy (I appreciate that it seems this is the norm for the SFA - I was unaware of this at the time) but our results and then performances have drastically improved since then which has helped me change my opinion. Football is a results driven business so I don't know why people are surprised that there were questions being asked when results weren't good and now people have changed their opinion after an upturn in results.

Hard to say, really. What Clarke is doing with Scotland is undoubtedly impressive. I think there would still be some concerns there around how suitable his style of play would translate to a Rangers side that would face different challenges than his Kilmarnock or Scotland sides. That being said, a large part (probably the main part, actually) of our success last last was down to our incredible defensive record so it could work. Do I think he'd be amongst the favourites for the job in a parallel universe? Maybe not, but he'd be a decent outside bet.

Indeed, looked so assured from the moment he collected the ball from Armstrong’s pass. Got absolutely everything right: cut across the defender so he couldn’t tackle, perfect touch to get the ball out of his feet and then an expert finish that left one of the best keepers around no chance at all.

It’s amazing what a bit of organisation and confidence can do for us. Clarke has instilled a sense of belief in these players that hasn’t really been seen since maybe the Smith/McLeish tenure?

Give us Wales. I’d love to pap them out and get back at Bale for his diving shenanigans against us years ago. c**t.

What a fucking performance. Best I can remember off the top of my head.

Didn’t he cut open Callum McGregor’s shin a couple of weeks after the Aribo tackle? Edit: never noticed it’s already been mentioned

As much as it has been said, I doubt the fact that Denmark have already qualified will make our task significantly easier. Nowadays, teams don't tend to view competitive matches as meaningless, particularly at international level when you are continually looking to maintain or improve your seeding.

This is a very valid point. A couple of times I've noticed it with Patterson that he can run out of steam pretty drastically. One of our games I noticed they had to get one of those wee energy gel pouches to him to see him through. Likely due to the lack of consecutive games but I hope it's not a natural issue he has. Albeit I've never heard of anyone make that observation of him when playing for our youth groups.

Doesn't seem like a very popular tweet

If it distracts P&B posters from the main purpose of this thread, then I'm all for it continuing!

Had to research what Godwin's law was - not disappointed and I can see it going that way haha.

What are they called in Dundee?

I respect your right to have a wrong opinion.

In fairness to gudge, anyone that orders a chippy and gets salt and vinegar rather than salt and sauce is one for the watching. In fact, f**k it, I agree, they're all a bunch of weirdos that are best avoided.

In fairness to the poster, I don't think they were suggesting there was any issue with Sky covering woman's football - they even said as much in their first line. I think they were more using it as a comparison to our TV deal. We often compare our TV deal to leagues that we consider to be weaker or in or around our level (people are often voicing their concerns that the Scandinavian, Belgian, Dutch leagues etc. get a lot more than us) - I don't see why woman's football should be excluded from that comparison. For context though, from limited research I found that the SPFL signed a TV deal in 2018 for £125M covering 5 seasons = £25M per season. The Women's Super League has just signed a deal in March worth £24M over the next 3 seasons = £8M a season. So, we do actually have a much larger broadcasting deal than The Women's Super League. I suppose it is then subjective whether you think our value should be greater than a 200% increase on their broadcasting deal...