Squonk

Your interpretation of 'obviously onside' and mine are purely subjective. Even showing one brief snippet along the 18 yard line as Jota played the telling pass would have taken a tiny fraction of the time spent analysing the Simms incident. I'm not even claiming that Maeda was offside - he may well indeed have been well onside - only, we were denied the opportunity to judge. The point being, as I'm sure you're well aware, so long as the audience provided by the big two isn't challenged or inconvenienced, then nothing else matters.

Did this best/worst website not mention liquidated and regurgitated clubs?

Can anyone explain why Sky chose to closely analyse Ellis Simms' goal for Hearts, right down to Starfeldt's heel versus Simms' t-shirt line, then failed abysmally to even once clarify whether Jota's borderline offside cross for Maeda's goal was onside? Not once did I see a replay of Maeda putting the ball home from an obviously onside position, but it was automatically assumed to be okay. I mean, we could be forgiven for thinking that so long as the bigger supported club isn't inconvenienced , then it doesn't matter whether decisions are accurate. We even had a number of seasoned ex-professionals in the studio admitting that Toby Sibbald was definitely fouled in the build up to Celtic's second goal, but they went on to ignore that fact to postulate that Hearts should've reacted better to a subsequent counter attack, ffs! To be clear, Celtic, with five or six times the player budget of Hearts, deserved to win, as they almost inevitably should have. Hearts were well beaten by a better team, though without being embarrassed, and Celtic will win the title, with Hearts contesting a winnable cup final. I just wonder what compels fans to accept such blatant hypocrisy, even if I fully understand why broadcasters pander to their biggest subscriber demographic.

.....except you didn't prove any point, since those of us who inhabit the real world know that Rangers died in 2012, just as Third Lanark died in 1967.

Imperious: adjective; arrogant and domineering. Funny that, because arrogant isn't a word you'd normally associate with a club that had recently gone into liquidation, even if you suspend reality and pretend that <cough> only the club's operating company had undergone such insolvency.

What should be questioned is which of the two protagonists is the biggest simulator.

Perhaps the reality has finally hit them that 56 can't be achieved until the year 2077 at the earliest, and they'll be on Rangers* Version 5 by then.

Cocu's arrival would herald an away strip featuring Oranje Taps. He might bring in Dykes as well.

I think you'll find that all players including the five goalkeepers were imperfectly registered but eligible to play in the play-offs as established by one Sandy Bryson Esq of the SFA, until such time as their ineligibility came to light of course, at which point they could be totally exonerated. The need to ready Claggan Park for a match has obviously been kicked into the long grass.

Excuse me if my memory is playing tricks, but didn't the learned chap in your avatar contend (for the price of a pension top-up) that money had no influence on results on the field of play?

OK, so Fergie's maybe not the best example in view of his previous success, but he lost the first two games then only won one away game in the entire season. It is well documented that Man United's hierarchy was concerned about his early days at the club, but, fortunately for him and them, the board stuck with him and he was able to implement changes for the long term good of the club. Regardless, my point stands that managers are given insufficient time to implement their plans. More often than not, boards simply replace one manager who is perceived to have failed with another familiar face from the carousel of managerial failures. Innovative clubs who take a chance on managers such as Glass, Maloney and Cathro should be applauded for their bravery, but there's little point in such appointments if the clubs are not going to afford their manager sufficient time.

I reckon all clubs should base such a calculation on the length of time Manchester United's board took to realise Fergie was worth keeping after a pretty mediocre start at Old Trafford. I'm not saying that Maloney (or Ross) is the new messiah, just that clubs rarely wait long enough to allow managers to show their capabilities because instant success is demanded of them. How many potential Fergies have been binned without having a chance to instil their way of playing, often without the opportunity to bring in players to suit their system? Also, if the board keeps making error after error in their choice of manager, how come they don't pay the penalty for it?

The sheer audacity of a supporter of a club that died a self-inflicted death through insolvency giving lectures on where we're all failing is quite breath-taking in its arrogance and lack of awareness.

On the other hand, neither St Johnstone or Hearts went into liquidation after a decade of cheating all of their competitors. To be fair to you though, the current Rangers has survived almost a decade without dying yet. Every cloud...

AB1872 must still be researching data and crunching numbers after his claim that Rangers was the most successful club in Europe was debunked by a number of posters yesterday. I'm sure a retraction and full apology are imminent.

Maybe for starters you could canvas your club's board to have them publicly acknowledge the 10-year anniversary of the death of their Old Firm partners; a relationship and financial interdependence they pretend doesn't exist, while they surreptitiously keep it alive at all costs. Remember the variety of clubs that won silverware during 'The Journey' (from the cemetery/liquidators)?

That's a belter on so many levels. Do you use the Beano to fact check what you type? Rangers more successful in Europe than Real Madrid, Barcelona, Ajax, Milan, Bayern Munich, Man Utd etc? Then there's the small matter of Celtic's European Cup win dwarfing the original Rangers' ECWC win by a considerable margin. Even Aberdeen have won more trophies in European competition than your old club. The current club playing out of Ibrox has won precisely the same number of European trophies as Albion Rovers.

Collective responsibility already exists in Scottish football via punishments administered in UEFA's various competitions, so the principle of strict liability is already well established in Scotland. Where it all falls down however, is in UEFA's derisory sanctions, such as the paltry fines regularly dished out to both Rangers and Celtic over the decades in respect of their fans' behaviour. It is difficult to reconcile, on the one hand, the boldness of UEFA in holding the clubs responsible for their fans' behaviour, with the utter futility of issuing meaningless fines that have no impact whatsoever on those fans' behaviour. To be fair to UEFA, Rangers in particular have had sections of their ground closed in the past as a result of the singing of prohibited songs and other misbehaviour. Unfortunately, even stiffer punishments, such as stadium closures and/or points deductions, are going to be required before the moronic element who ruined yesterday's match have a word with themselves. Last year, the Scottish Government warned that it would act if the clubs didn't put their house in order. If it becomes clear that the clubs and the SFA/SPFL are only paying lip service to addressing the issue, they might find the issue is taken out of their hands.

While I appreciate your argument, I will never for the life of me understand why Celtic's away support should feel compelled to mimic freedom fighters/terrorists firing bullets at the home fans in my club's stadium during a sporting event involving 22 people chasing a bag of air round a field. Back on topic, The Rangers* fans in sectarian bigotry denial shocker!

You're evidently too young to remember the mass rioting of Rangers fans in Manchester in 2008, or earlier when they won the ECWC back in 1972. I doubt the good people of Manchester and Barcelona have forgiven or forgotten. I daresay you'll explain in your own inimitable way that these were fans of the holding company, and cannot in any way be linked to the club. As others have rightly pointed out, you can only be at the wind-up, because even the dimmest of the dim wouldn't seriously try and pass off as fact the hilarious and cringeworthy drivel you've concocted on here.

Wee AbsentBrain1872 has been waxing lyrical about how high a regard his fellow fans are held in but he seems to have forgotten that he posted a lengthy scathing diatribe highlighting their scummy behaviour just a few pages back. Make your feckin mind up!

You're in the exempt group, apart from which, it's not compulsory reading.

My last words on the subject (for now). Rightly or wrongly, personal experience has led me to pigeon-hole Rangers* fans into one of two broad groups. The first group consists of the knuckle-dragging neanderthals who are genuinely too thick to understand the reality of what happened to their old club. To my mind, they are exempt from criticism and there's little point in engaging in debate with this group because they can barely stand upright, far less understand the legal intricacies of an incorporated football club. The second group comprises of everyone else in the support, and this group fully understands exactly what happened to their club, including the lengths the football authorities went to prop upright a corpse lying on the liquidator's mortuary slab, drape it in a blue 'born in 1872' t-shirt before concocting a fairy tale that would have had Hans Christian Andersen cringing with embarrassment. I have a very good bluenose mate who is intelligent, honest and articulate. When I asked him whether he would consider that Celtic had died if every single thing that happened to Rangers back in 2012 had instead happened to Celtic, right down the finest minutiae, he candidly admitted that he and all right-thinking Rangers fans would have viewed Celtic as dead if they'd undergone the same liquidation process suffered by Rangers. He even acknowledged that there would have been rioting on the streets if the football authorities had tried to dupe people into believing that Celtic had survived liquidation or that any subsequent newco would be entitled to the titles and trophies of a defunct predecessor. When I pressed him on his massive and glaringly obvious inconsistency, this normally eloquent and erudite individual changed into a bumbling shambles of a man, incapable of explaining why he thought it reasonable that there should be one rule and treatment for his club and different rules and treatment for everyone else. He is well aware that everyone who claims that Rangers survived liquidation as the same club (football authorities, media, new Rangers, their fans) all have a vested interest in that being the case, but chooses to ignore the facts by simply sticking his fingers in his ears while chanting la-la-la-la-la. One final point; Rangers' death is often portrayed as simply hatred/jealousy by rival Celtic fans. Celtic fans obviously outnumber fans of other clubs by some distance, but in my experience, fans of all senior clubs are appalled by the special treatment afforded to whichever entity is playing out of Ibrox at any given moment, which is why those fans ensured that the new Rangers club started out in the fourth tier of Scottish football back in 2012, as all brand new clubs had to.

I sleep sound at night in the knowledge that my diddy club is in rude financial health and has never gone into liquidation, nor is it ever likely to. You, on the other hand, will live the rest of your life in the sure and certain knowledge that, not only did you let your club die, but everybody, including yourself, knows you let it die. As if that's not bad enough, you'll have to pretend until your dying breath that it really doesn't bother you in the slightest. I'll leave you in peace from now on as I'm sure you've got primary school in the morning.

#54 destroyed a club and all of 'Ra Peepul.'