placidcasual Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 I'm not sure if there is a policy about linking to other similiar sites, but I would quite like to share a blog post I wrote elsewhere. In short, it's my own personal take on the Rangers situation. Anyway, as you were. I got as far as the spelling mistake in the third sentence. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 On the back of today's SFA report stating the offences were second only to match fixing in terms of seriousness, what does this mean for the double contracts report? If it is (as we've been led to believe) going to be explosive, presumably it would be deemed an even more serious offence than tax dodging alone by the footballing authorities at least? I forget now if it's the SPL or SFA working on it (it's been so long). If the latter, I assume it will be another belter. If the former, surely even they can't sweep it under the carpet? It's an SPL enquiry...........hence not at all independant or impartial.............the usual suspects will let the matter slide lightly I'd wager. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Brian Kennedy pulled out as well now, who else is left? Yes, another one suffering from bidder interruptus. Duff & Duffer shout now, now, now but it doesn't seem to work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadSaint Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 @GrahamSpiers: These SFA 'notes' on Rangers FC under Craig Whyte are a kind of 'Carry On' script of bungling, buffoonery, incompetence and cheating. I can see Craig Whtye doing the line "Infamy Infamy...they've ll got it in for me!" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrugalNory Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 I got as far as the spelling mistake in the third sentence. The spell check never picked it up. However, my heartfelt apologies for not being a proffesional journalist. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
)typically Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Brian Kennedy's 3pm Press Conference now to be held at 4pm. No surprise there then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jussy Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 It's an SPL enquiry...........hence not at all independant or impartial.............the usual suspects will let the matter slide lightly I'd wager. Could we be heading for an SPL/SFA showdown then? If the SFA thought the offences under Whyte were serious enough to consider revoking membership, I'd imagine they'd have something to say if the SPL find rangers guilty of double contracts and opt to do hee haw about it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 It's an SPL enquiry...........hence not at all independant or impartial.............the usual suspects will let the matter slide lightly I'd wager. As a slight aside, the SFA's (perhaps surprisingly) scathing report against the SPL's (utterly predictable) corrupt mewling suggests that there is merit in not having everything governed from under the one banner as has often been promoted. Checks and balances, checks and balances... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) Apologies if this has already been posted, but keeping up with this thread is getting to be a full time job. It's an old story, but pretty much takes everything the likes of McCoist, Jardine and all their nodding dog disciples have been saying, and rams it right back down their smug throats: THE Old Firm last night insisted they must be allowed to quit Scottish football — because the SPL is better off without them. I've mentioned this before (probably 100 pages back by now!) So it's either changing their minds based on their best interests or they've been lying through their teeth, not caring a bit if they ruin the Scottish game as long as they benefit. Either way, f**k them, time to twist the knife a bit more. Edited May 11, 2012 by Hedgecutter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nutz_the_Squirrel Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 The spell check never picked it up. However, my heartfelt apologies for not being a proffesional journalist. I use Google Chrome. Good for pointing out wee errors. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Where do Queen of the South and all the other clubs who lost out to Rangers in cup finals apply for the lost sponsorship revenue and prize monies? SFA, SPL, D&P, MIH Aberdeen FC Revised Honours Champions: 1955, 1980, 1984, 1985, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994 Scottish Cup Winners: 1947, 1970, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1990,1993, 2000 League Cup Winners: 1955–56; 1976–77; 1985–86; 1987-88; 1988-89; 1989–90; 1995–96, ECWC: 1983 Super Cup: 1983 I like the look of that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 On the back of today's SFA report stating the offences were second only to match fixing in terms of seriousness, I find this an especially interesting comparison. Was this just an example pulled out of a hat, or are they trying to flush out something that is more significant? This question was asked on P&B some weeks back (by me!). And it wasn't a fishing expedition. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pele1922 Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 The spell check never picked it up. However, my heartfelt apologies for not being a proffesional journalist. professional 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuckinho Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Sooooo, HMRC meet today - could be a bombshell Rangers play on the weekend - could be jsut after this another bombshell Appeal to SFA heard on Wednesday - another bombshell perhaps 3 opportunities to sink Rangers - this is getting fun. BTW, I'd like to see that when something tanigble does happen that we keep ths thread going with the result and not start another one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forest_Fifer Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 With heartfelt apologies to Neil Peart (and cos Rush got mentioned about 250 pages ago... - to the tune of The Trees) There is unrest down at Ibrox, There is trouble with EBTs, For the taxmen want their money And the orcs ignore their pleas. The trouble with the diddies, (And they're quite convinced they're right) They say the orcs have just been cheating And it wasn't just Craig Whyte But the orcs can't help their feelings If they like the cash they've made. And they wonder why the diddies Can't be happy in their shade. There is trouble down at Ibrox, And the bidders all have fled, As the taxmen scream "evasion!" And the orcs just shake their heads So the diddies formed a union And demanded equal rights. "The orcs are just too greedy; And Sandy Jardine's talking shite." Now there's no more orc oppression, For they passed another deadline And the orcs got liquidated By Hectors, big, tax fine..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray_of_licht Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) Well of course he is. He can get the unruly mob mobilised before the meeting this time. He seems very easily encouraged. oh and from @BBCAlLamont McCoist saw the irony in keeping person's identity secret. Talking of which, he maintains he didn't know panel I.d when he demanded names Aye, ok. Edited May 11, 2012 by ray_of_licht 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jussy Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 I find this an especially interesting comparison. Was this just an example pulled out of a hat, or are they trying to flush out something that is more significant? This question was asked on P&B some weeks back (by me!). And it wasn't a fishing expedition. Yes, that's how I'm reading it. Not necessarily match fixing (though nothing would surprise me), but by emphasising the seriousness of this incident, it's almost like they're paving the way to come out with something even more shocking and absolutely hammer rangers for it, having previously allowed themselves to been seen to go somewhat leniently on an extremely serious matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrugalNory Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 professional Christ, I'll give up whilst I'm behind. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sting777 Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Pages are flashing by at an alarming rate but has this been posted...lol http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxdJ3VdxNBY&feature=share 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 @BBCAlLamont: McCoist saw the irony in keeping person's identity secret. Talking of which, he maintains he didn't know panel I.d when he demanded names 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.