BobWilliamson Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 22 minutes ago, theoriginalhedge said: Have the pie shop and the face painter been paid yet ? Or is that in dispute along with current bills ? No idea about the pie shop but the face painter has been paid. I don't claim to speak for Rangers supporters as a whole but on a personal level it makes me sick to the stomach the way the club acted. You probably don't want to hear this but I wasn't to blame. Sorry but it's true. There were individuals and even club 'legends' who ripped off the support and outside companies. My only fault was blind faith and doing all I could to save the club I have supported all my life. Those b*****ds took advantage of the loyalty of the support. I read on here and have heard the song 'you let your club die' on the other hand you criticise supporters like myself who faithfully bought the season tickets from the shysters. That's a bit of a contradiction Anyway. Every decision has shown Rangers are Rangers but that , as yet, has not changed your mind. Good for you and believe what you want. Rangers will always be Rangers to me no matter what you or the biker say 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWilliamson Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 9 minutes ago, stonedsailor said: I have given up. I have moved on. The game is a bogey. I am glad you laughed out loud. You are not laughing at me, you are laughing at the death of Scottish football. My back is turned on the sport now. I lost most of the passion I had for the game in 1994 to be honest. I never realised then but the "franchise football" taunt aimed at ICT was a rot spreading through the game. Look at the Rangers franchise, the original club ended up consigned to liquidation and their brand, their franchise sold to another company. The game is decayed as much as Ibrox Stadium. I have a team to support every week too but they are as soulless as new Rangers. If this is you moved on I would hate to see what you were like if something still bothered Again I genuinely laughed out loud. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 1 minute ago, BobWilliamson said: If this is you moved on I would hate to see what you were like if something still bothered Again I genuinely laughed out loud. The death of Scottish football, and football's deterioration in general still interests me, the game itself not so much. Just look at the proven corruption from FIFA all the way down. I am glad my views on the matter amuse you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, BobWilliamson said: Anyway. Every decision has shown Rangers are Rangers but that , as yet, has not changed your mind. Good for you and believe what you want. Rangers will always be Rangers to me no matter what you or the biker say Every decision? What about the TUPE rebels and the international clearance issued by FIFA and the SFA or the SFA's decision that Rangers right to arbitration over the TUPE rebels was not transferable to Rangers? Amongst others. Edited January 14, 2017 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoriginalhedge Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, BobWilliamson said: No idea about the pie shop but the face painter has been paid. I don't claim to speak for Rangers supporters as a whole but on a personal level it makes me sick to the stomach the way the club acted. You probably don't want to hear this but I wasn't to blame. Sorry but it's true. There were individuals and even club 'legends' who ripped off the support and outside companies. My only fault was blind faith and doing all I could to save the club I have supported all my life. Those b*****ds took advantage of the loyalty of the support. I read on here and have heard the song 'you let your club die' on the other hand you criticise supporters like myself who faithfully bought the season tickets from the shysters. That's a bit of a contradiction Anyway. Every decision has shown Rangers are Rangers but that , as yet, has not changed your mind. Good for you and believe what you want. Rangers will always be Rangers to me no matter what you or the biker say You are quite correct , Rangers are Rangers in whatever form . They will never change and never learn despite all the shite and shysters of the past. It is only a matter of time before the old spending habits return . 90% of your support will demand it because for that 90%, Rangers only purpose is to be better than Celtic. Edited January 14, 2017 by theoriginalhedge 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWilliamson Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 46 minutes ago, theoriginalhedge said: You are quite correct , Rangers are Rangers in whatever form . They will never change and never learn despite all the shite and shysters of the past. It is only a matter of time before the old spending habits return . 90% of your support will demand it because for that 90%, Rangers only purpose is to be better than Celtic. You know this how? Where did you get the figure of 90%? or did you just pluck that figure out of the air to try and back up your assumption as you have absolutely no proof whatsoever As an Ibrox regular and a long time member of Follow Follow I would say your claim is a complete nonsense. Only this week Walter Smith was slated for his claims we need to spend spend spend. Of course there are some who after five years have still not been able to come to terms with where we are. Rangers are not alone in having a lunatic fringe. We are where we are and , personally , I blame nobody outwith the club. Now that is not a representative view among the Rangers support but it is what it is. We need to work our way out of it and time will tell if we can get back to where we are. If we don't then fair enough I ll still be there and if others can't stomach that then. Well f**k them they are not true supporters imo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoriginalhedge Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 1 minute ago, BobWilliamson said: You know this how? Where did you get the figure of 90%? or did you just pluck that figure out of the air to try and back up your assumption as you have absolutely no proof whatsoever As an Ibrox regular and a long time member of Follow Follow I would say your claim is a complete nonsense. Only this week Walter Smith was slated for his claims we need to spend spend spend. Of course there are some who after five years have still not been able to come to terms with where we are. Rangers are not alone in having a lunatic fringe. We are where we are and , personally , I blame nobody outwith the club. Now that is not a representative view among the Rangers support but it is what it is. We need to work our way out of it and time will tell if we can get back to where we are. If we don't then fair enough I ll still be there and if others can't stomach that then. Well f**k them they are not true supporters imo If "respected Rangers men " like Walter of Cardigan and Stuart McCall can spout pish like they did to the media , it is second nature to assume the masses will be thinking along those lines. Just the same as the majority who welcomed *Whyte and Green * with open arms because they reportedly had the cash to lift the club above Celtic.This is all that matters to the masses. You are probably in the 10 % . You accept where you are but basically the majority of your club's fans have a reputation for continually dragging up the past and trying to stay in the past. You see it as a minority because of your personal views but I think in reality my figure won't be too far off the mark. * Whyte and Green * I deliberately put them in this order as they themselves probably did in the vain attempt that Rangers fans wouldn't notice the irony of their plan. It of course fooled the Rangers fans as all they could see was the "investment " to the club and that was all that mattered . Had the Rangers fans dug as deep as the diddies to uncover the unscrupulous past of these two , then the original club might still be in existence today. Turn the names around and you can see the relevence of the partnership. You can just see the headline had their plan completely come off....... Green and Whyte takeover at Rangers. Ibrox to become a housing development . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 5 hours ago, stonedsailor said: It has also exposed the utter incompetence in those who run our game and the incredible bias that there is towards two clubs, two clubs who have built their business by tapping into hatred. Prior to this clubs were allowed to die, names had to be changed for some semblance of continuation, Airdrieonians; Gretna; Clydebank; etc. even English clubs jumped on the bandwagon, Middlesbrough changed the date on their badge from 1986 back to the original date. Fiorentina, Parma, Timisoara and many others are forced to show recognition of their refoundation. Then there was the lack title stripping, years of cheating and the titles were allowed to stand. The game is a bogey, the champions of Scotland title is worthless it is not won by whomever can afford the best sports team, it is won by whoever can keep their overspending hidden for the longest. The unity shown by fans of other teams was astounding but it achieved nothing other than showing that paying £20+ a ticket is pointless in a fixed sport. Far better off saving that money and watching real sportsmen for two weeks with a trip to the TT on the Isle of Man. Elgin City were stripped of a Highland League title, because of a betting "scandal", although, IIRC, the match they bet on didn't affect their title win/they were betting on themselves to win. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWilliamson Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 57 minutes ago, theoriginalhedge said: If "respected Rangers men " like Walter of Cardigan and Stuart McCall can spout pish like they did to the media , it is second nature to assume the masses will be thinking along those lines. Just the same as the majority who welcomed *Whyte and Green * with open arms because they reportedly had the cash to lift the club above Celtic.This is all that matters to the masses. You are probably in the 10 % . You accept where you are but basically the majority of your club's fans have a reputation for continually dragging up the past and trying to stay in the past. You see it as a minority because of your personal views but I think in reality my figure won't be too far off the mark. * Whyte and Green * I deliberately put them in this order as they themselves probably did in the vain attempt that Rangers fans wouldn't notice the irony of their plan. It of course fooled the Rangers fans as all they could see was the "investment " to the club and that was all that mattered . Had the Rangers fans dug as deep as the diddies to uncover the unscrupulous past of these two , then the original club might still be in existence today. Turn the names around and you can see the relevence of the partnership. You can just see the headline had their plan completely come off....... Green and Whyte takeover at Rangers. Ibrox to become a housing development . I find it staggering you are seriously claiming Green and Whyte sat down and thought 'you go first Craigy. We can't make it too obvious ' On phone but as far as your other claim goes I'd point you to the 'Timely interview with manager' on Follow Follow. Read the first page and EVERY poster agrees with more or less everything I have said above 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoriginalhedge Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) 55 minutes ago, BobWilliamson said: I find it staggering you are seriously claiming Green and Whyte sat down and thought 'you go first Craigy. We can't make it too obvious ' On phone but as far as your other claim goes I'd point you to the 'Timely interview with manager' on Follow Follow. Read the first page and EVERY poster agrees with more or less everything I have said above That is exactly how the outsider sees it. Considering both Whyte and Green were at the initial meetings in the takeover process and with Green's association with Duff and Phelps , I wouldn't be too critical of my assumptions . Whyte was the serial asset stripper who was desperate to liquidate the club . He did his job . Green was the alledged "saviour" who was to work with Duff and Phelps to help run things down completely. ( why do you think big money contracts were handed out to mercenary players and coaching staff when they had no money ? ) It may all seem a bit illogical to you but the fact that Rangers fans fell for them both , well anything was possible. One thing was for sure, they both didn't have the future of the football club in their plans !!! If they did then Green especially would have gone down the route of building through the youths and younger experienced players. After liquidation the first batch of players to go were not the expensive ones but the youths. A strange move for a club with no money. Follow follow represents a very small percentage of the Rangers support . With some of the unpredictable shite that has come out of there I would take everything with a pinch of salt. They change opinion by the day. Edited January 14, 2017 by theoriginalhedge 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWilliamson Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 I would say Follow Follow is representative of the Rangers support. Warts n All. The one major thread right now backs up what I said. Who knows the Rangers support better? A loyal supporter who travels home and away and spends far too much of his time on THE Rangers supporters forum or your good self who I assume has limited contact with Rangers supporters and spends no time reading their forums. Dont get me wrong there are a lunatic fringe who are desperate for the club to close the gap and believe in spend spend spend. Absolutely brain dead thinking. When I get laptop I ll C&P the managers interview which is , thankfully, a refreshingly honest and realistic take on things 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 11 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said: No, but people are interested in the outcome of this case involving them. I'm quite interested myself, although I don't see either possible outcome as hugely significant. Well you know that the options are: 1. Coral is forced to pay out and the uber-diddies declare it's been proven in a court of law that we're a new club. 2. Coral needn't pay out and the uber-diddies declare it's been proven in a court of law that we're a new club. The only surprising thing is that the grey and green dross haven't sought crowdfunding to pay for someone to tweet the court discussion/verdict. Time for that to happen, though. 11 hours ago, theoriginalhedge said: The mistake you have made since 2012 is underestimating the feeling of unity amongst fans of clubs who are relieved that at last someone stood up to the greed and bullying from the former club. A bit like your club's and fans' continual support of the poppy............We will never forget ! We will never let you forget ! Greed, bullying, poppies...all over a minor wrangle between a punter and a bookie. BTW who "stood up"? The bookie or the punter? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: Well you know that the options are: 1. Coral is forced to pay out and the uber-diddies declare it's been proven in a court of law that we're a new club. 2. Coral needn't pay out and the uber-diddies declare it's been proven in a court of law that we're a new club. I don't quite see how you're suggesting that would happen. Anyway, I'm an uber-diddy and I'll not react that way, so as is customary, you're coming out with a lot of rubbish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: Well you know that the options are: 1. Coral is forced to pay out and the uber-diddies declare it's been proven in a court of law that we're a new club. 2. Coral needn't pay out and the uber-diddies declare it's been proven in a court of law that we're a new club. The only surprising thing is that the grey and green dross haven't sought crowdfunding to pay for someone to tweet the court discussion/verdict. Time for that to happen, though. Greed, bullying, poppies...all over a minor wrangle between a punter and a bookie. BTW who "stood up"? The bookie or the punter? This uber Diddy has already declared that if Coral are forced to pay out then it will have been proved in a court of law that Rangers are the same club. If Coral are forced to pay out then it proves the club were relegated. If, on the other hand, Coral win then it proves that the original club were not put into a lower division per the definition, of both Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries, of relegation. Would you like me to repost the definitions or are you happy enough that if a sports team is moved to a lower division of the league it has been relegated? Edited January 14, 2017 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 13 minutes ago, stonedsailor said: Would you like me to repost the definitions or are you happy enough that if a sports team is moved to a lower division of the league it has been relegated? Happy for you to waste your time, china. We were not, of course, "moved to a lower division". @Monkey Tennisthis is why your fellow posters take such a minor spat seriously. They think such trivia says something about 'us'. It doesn't, of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: Happy for you to waste your time, china. We were not, of course, "moved to a lower division". @Monkey Tennisthis is why your fellow posters take such a minor spat seriously. They think such trivia says something about 'us'. It doesn't, of course. So what happened then? Rangers were in the top division and ended up in the bottom division. I can't see how you can deny this. Edited January 14, 2017 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Just now, stonedsailor said: So what happened then? Rangers were in the top division and ended up in the bottom division. I can't see how you can deny this. This is extraordinary posting. You've spent so much time on The Big Thread yet still missed this vital point @bennett Para Handy? I'm truly shocked that you don't know the difference between "moved to" and "admitted to". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Just now, The_Kincardine said: This is extraordinary posting. You've spent so much time on The Big Thread yet still missed this vital point @bennett Para Handy? I'm truly shocked that you don't know the difference between "moved to" and "admitted to". Sorry. Let's go by the definition from Cambridge then "Transfer (a sports team) to a lower division" We're Rangers transferred to a lower division? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 8 minutes ago, stonedsailor said: We're Rangers transferred to a lower division? No. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: No. I am glad we agree. A new club was admitted to the lower division. Or, were they assigned a lower rank or position in the Scottish league set up when admitted to the lower division per chance? Edited January 14, 2017 by stonedsailor 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.