wunfellaff Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 I thought the fans paid the debt to Dunfermline but refused to pay United's for some reason or other. In which case the only debt the club have repaid is the one to United. The 'club' haven't repaid anything, its the company dontchaknow 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Saw a link to this earlier. I don't think it's written by CNN staff, but interesting read. http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-827222 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Araminta Moonbeam QC Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Saw a link to this earlier. I don't think it's written by CNN staff, but interesting read. http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-827222 Apparently written by Giovanni Di Stefano... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Apparently written by Giovanni Di Stefano... :lol: :lol: You open the link to where it came from and are greeted with Gio trying to get Oscar Wilde off a 120 year old charge 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Both Alison Robbie and Mark Benstead tweeted simultaneously that they were off to see Fran Sandaza and that it was busy outside Ibrox with people buying season tickets. Seemed odd, both tweets almost identical. I think Green will manage to con 35k odd into his branded product. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 That's the agreement Hearts made when Wallace was transferred. Who was that agreement between? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calum_gers Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Who was that agreement between? Rangers and Hearts, so by your logic Hearts are lucky to be getting anything. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stag Nation Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 This isn't the first time they've tried this trick. OldCo once played Raith in a game way back (might well have been in the 1960s) at Stark's Park where they conveniently left their away kit in Glasgow and brought their home kit. They were forced to play in the Rovers away tops as our manager at the time refused to let them play in their home tops. Raith Rovers FC: Forever getting the cheating blue bigots telt! I think your memory may be at fault. In the 60s and 70s in Scotland the HOME team had to change in the event of a colour clash, or in cup-ties both teams. The rules were only changed to the "English" system some time (I think) about 1980. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Rangers and Hearts, so by your logic Hearts are lucky to be getting anything. Five words, just five words and you have worked out my logical argument! Why is this? Have you heard it all before? Time and time again? Have you actually analyzed the situation time and time again but are still forcing your disbelief of your own reasoning? Are you actually beginning to get the picture? Can you see it? SEVCO ARE NOT RANGERS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stag Nation Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Would that rule not only apply if the 'strip' clashed with their opponents officially registered 'away strip'. If they turned up with their home strip ... surely the rule does not apply ? In the days before clubs made money from selling replica tops to gullible people, teams only tended to change when there was a real and significant colour clash. I don't remember ever seeing an away team wearing anything except their 'normal' strip. Anyway, the advantage of the old rule was that the onus to change was on the home team, who had (presumably) cupboards full of kit, rather than forcing the visiting team think ahead and carry alternative kit to away games. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Elgin's trip to Ibrox switched again By Craig Christie http://www.northern-...n-14082012.htm? ELGIN City's first-ever live televised game against Rangers has been switched for the third time. City's trip to Ibrox will now be played on Sunday, September 2 at 4.30pm and will be screened live on ESPN. Initially the fixture had been moved back 24 hours from the Saturday to a noon kick off on Sunday. But with over 22,500 runners taking part in the Great Scottish Run near Ibrox that afternoon, plans were made to switch the match to Monday night. Now the Scottish League, Strathclyde Police and ESPN have agreed on a later Sunday afternoon kick off. City's game is set screened on the digital channel at the same time as Manchester United's English Premier League clash at Southampton features on Sky Sports. It will be the first time Elgin have faced Rangers on league business, a situation brought by the Ibrox giants going into liquidation earlier this year and their newco being voted into Division 3 by member clubs. The 'Gers began life in Scottish football's bottom tier on Saturday, drawing 2-2 at Peterhead while Elgin fought out a goal-less stalemate at Berwick. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 (edited) In the days before clubs made money from selling replica tops to gullible people, teams only tended to change when there was a real and significant colour clash. I don't remember ever seeing an away team wearing anything except their 'normal' strip. Anyway, the advantage of the old rule was that the onus to change was on the home team, who had (presumably) cupboards full of kit, rather than forcing the visiting team think ahead and carry alternative kit to away games. Seems a very silly old rule. With senior (professional) football clubs, the onus should always be (and have been) on the Away team to know what the Home kit of their opposition is and ensure that they (as the Away team) do not take a strip that clashes with the strip of the Home team. I don't believe that the onus ever was on the Home team if such an incident occurred (without you providing proof to back up such a claim). Edited August 14, 2012 by Itwiznaeme 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLip69 Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Seems a very silly old rule. With senior (professional) football clubs, the onus should always be (and have been) on the Away team to know what the Home kit of their opposition is and ensure that they (as the Away team) do not take a strip that clashes with the strip of the Home team. I don't believe that the onus ever was on the Home team if such an incident occurred (without you providing proof to back up such a claim). I think you're right the onus was always on the away team that's why the change strip was always known as the "Away strip" Motherwell originally changed from blue to claret and amber with the express purpose of avoiding clashing with other teams, yet at this moment in time we have three strips on the go. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Seems a very silly old rule. With senior (professional) football clubs, the onus should always be (and have been) on the Away team to know what the Home kit of their opposition is and ensure that they (as the Away team) do not take a strip that clashes with the strip of the Home team. I don't believe that the onus ever was on the Home team if such an incident occurred (without you providing proof to back up such a claim). In Scotland, it was certainly the done thing for the Home team to change in the 70s. I kind of liked it - a sort of old-fashioned idea of hospitality whereby it was the hosts who were expected to accommodate their guests. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 (edited) In Scotland, it was certainly the done thing for the Home team to change in the 70s. I kind of liked it - a sort of old-fashioned idea of hospitality whereby it was the hosts who were expected to accommodate their guests. What you say there makes some sense, the "hospitality" and "hosts" reason behind it (if it 'was' indeed the done thing back then). However i believe that such a custom would have been wide open to abuse by any Away club placing them in a position in which they could easily take advantage of such a rule. With professional football up until the 1970's being much less consumer driven and less commercialised such a rule would probably have been respected by most clubs. Today such a rule would have shysters on many club boards looking upon it as an opportunity to advertise the latest strip that they wanted to sell to the easily scammed proles. Edited August 14, 2012 by Itwiznaeme 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeTeeJag Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Just watched The Men Who Sold the Jerseys again, and it got me thinking there are still so many unanswered questions. Probably even more questions than answers now since Green took over. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 (edited) In Scotland, it was certainly the done thing for the Home team to change in the 70s. I kind of liked it - a sort of old-fashioned idea of hospitality whereby it was the hosts who were expected to accommodate their guests. Agreed. I certainly am of the belief that the home club used to change in days gone by. I presume the rule was originally made in football's formative years when an away team could turn up, not in the colours expected (for whatever reason) and it would have been easier for the home team to change. Also, being a gentleman's game, it was polite, as has been stated. Who has a copy of the rules under the bed from, say, 1960? I think you're right the onus was always on the away team that's why the change strip was always known as the "Away strip" That's the point. It didn't used to be called the away strip. Just the change strip. IIRC. Edited August 14, 2012 by cyderspaceman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Just watched "The Men Who Sold the Jerseys Again," and it got me thinking there are still so many unanswered questions. Probably even more questions than answers now since Green took over. Is that the sequel? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeTeeJag Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Is it just me or does Charles Green look like a slightly older version of Mark Knopfler, even though he is younger? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Today such a rule would have shysters on many club boards looking upon it as an opportunity to advertise the latest strip that they wanted to sell to the easily scammed proles. For SFL clubs, I think the old rule would actually make more sense. Bear in mind that SFL games aren't usually televised. A more effective way of flogging 'away' strips probably would be to wear them in a number of home games, ensuring a larger number of your club's supporters got to see both strips in action. 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.