Leaderboard

Am I the only one who's sick of hearing about D&P, BDO, the Crown office and the rest of them scrabbling after ridiculous sums of money on the back of the rape of Rangers?

No, you're not.

No Rangers shirt should ever have the colour gold anywhere near it. The collar is nice though.

Clearly it must have

did it work for you?

Bill, I have never questioned the integrity of our current board, nor have I smeared anyone nor consider myself a victim of anything. Notwithstanding that, I know share prices are variable, I only question why they are 20p to 1 group of fans last month, 25p to another this month and again 20p to group 1 next month. Now that surely is a reasonable question? Maybe not so much for a £500 investor but remember the top limit on this issue was £100,000 and if I were considering going in at that level I'd be asking for a degree of clarification Again you are spot on "buy or don't buy" I didn't.

Wales have some magnificent players, said Hartson. I wonder why they weren’t selected.

Tuppence worth I get all the reasoning in respect of the directors and others investing large sums and the associated risks, that's fine and a good argument in the 20 v 25 debate. What I cannot come to terms with is the recent and ongoing sale of tranches to C1872 at 20p v the 25% increase to the rest of us. I also think the issue price aught to have been published at the point of asking for registration.

How could they spoil a game like this by inflicting that arse Hartson on us? Should be a red button option - wanker or no wanker

The only "gaffe" will be if the issue is over-subscribed and the board could have got 30p per share. Share values are set by how much people will pay for them today, not by how much someone paid in the past. Otherwise no one would ever have lost money on the stockmarket. Where did this ridiculous notion come from that directors who effectively saved the club by risking their own money shouldn't have enjoyed the same 20p price as everyone else? The same directors who like everyone else will have to pay 25p for new shares today. I think what we're seeing is an attempt to find grievance on the basis that someone might have been smarter of more successful than someone else. It seems to the the hallmark of Scotland today.

Alfredo and Porto ... the latter usually buy low and sell high, rarely paid more than 15+m for anyone. If anything, we might sell him for 15m and place a hefty sell-on clause on his name. Meanwhile, Osayi-Samuel is being valued at Euro 4-5m by Fenerbahce, quite natural, given that he`s got a contract till 2025.

Wonder what happens when BDO actually gets that amount. Probably filling theirs and the QC`s pockets first, but likewise paying quite a bit of the debts too.

It's really interesting what Germany have done. They had no outstanding CBs, no Full-backs and no striker from which to choose. They've thought, 'fuck it-- three at the back, push Kimmich (who's a central midfielder now) to wing-back, and play with three false 9s'.

Crusaders, as in the old Daily Express masthead. Some illustrations of St George anachronistically show him kitted out like that as he gets wired i to the dragon.

We're still waiting on predictions from @stewarty @26th of foot and @Ted McMinnime @compo - you need to complete your score for Slovakia-Spain.

Actually my wife had a DNA test and she is of from a very rare Viking group - so she confirms what you said. As for the St. George - I think I meant some dressed up as mediaeval knights (there was one at the Scotland match). What IS the national dress of England? My Italian mate thought they all wore bowler hats and carried brollies!

Standings, after Matchday 2:

Crap a school child could design better

I don't mind it if it's for a one-off celebration of a landmark year.

Never write off the Germans. Game / performance of the tournament thus far.

I was no fan of D&P but how could they have sold players after the transfer window closed on jan31( admin began on feb14). ?

Celebrating a 0-0 draw is something I'd expect from people with low standards.

There are similarities in BBC Scotland reporting of Rangers supporters celebrating a Premiership title and the Tartan Army's visit to London. Twenty thousand appears to be the accepted figure for both instances. Initially, BBC Scotland reported 28 arrests at George Square. Since regular mugshots have appeared in national newspapers courtesy of Police Scotland, I believe another 14 have been arrested? Last night, the Met' Police have reported 30 arrests in central London directly involving the Tartan Army. I don't know if the Met' plan further release of mugshots? Both instances have similar characteristics in large scale drunkeness, release of pyrotechnics, large scale litter, destruction of public property, ........... etc. The difference is there are no politicians lining up to make political capital out of the second event. The First Minister has made no comment, the Deputy First Minister has made no comment, the Justice Minister has made no comment and, Police Scotland has made no comment. Interestingly, the usual suspects have made no comment on their social media feeds and, are not demanding the FM, ..... etc make any comment. As Stuart Cosgrove is forever telling us, "this is new, modern Scotland".

Aye, refs have let the games flow as well. As much as I canny stand O'Donnell he had a pretty good game to be fair. Give Tierney his dues as well, since he went to the arse, he's turned into some player. Young Billy should never be out of that side again.

The professional negligence cavalcade continues, and it is 'negligence' that BDO pursues here. The assertion is that BDO did not maximise the return to creditors, and that it should have raised much more than the £5.5M which, if memory serves, was the final selling price. Yet, when we consider that D&P were Whyte's Administrators of choice, Green's boast that he knew he would get to buy the Company and assets, etc, out of administration, Green's other boast that he had 'shafted' Whyte (via the Sevco (Scotland) manoevre, i i r c), and that £5.5M was by all measures, and accounts, 'light', then we might, naively, and without prejudice, come to think that there was more than mere negligence involved. We are all reasonably conversant with 'Constructive Dismissal'; is there such a thing, in the world of Insolvency, as 'Constructive Negligence'? Whitehouse and Clark made Rangers ‘nearly unbuyable’, court told James Mulholland Saturday June 19 2021, 12.01am, The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/whitehouse-and-clark-made-rangers-nearly-unbuyable-court-told-n6r7ph967 A pair of financial experts made Rangers “nearly unbuyable” during their attempts to save the club from ruin, a judge has been told. Kenny McBrearty QC claimed at the Court of Session that “negligence” was a common theme of attempts made by David Whitehouse and Paul Clark to rescue the football club. He told Lord Tyre that the two men were incompetent after their appointment as administrators at Ibrox in 2012 and asked for a ruling in favour of his client, BDO, the club liquidators. The financial services company is seeking £56.8 million in compensation from Whitehouse and Clark. The two men, who worked for the financial consultants Duff & Phelps, were given the responsibility of saving the club after it landed in financial trouble. McBrearty said that they had failed to give proper consideration to making players redundant, selling stars to other clubs, and ensuring that the club’s wage bill was reduced. He referenced evidence given to the court by Simon Shipperlee, a colleague of Whitehouse and Clark, and emails presented to the court, which he said showed that the two men did not follow correct procedures. He added: “What we have said is that a common hallmark of negligence is a failure to take specialist advice from people experienced in the business of the company.” He said that there was a “failure to take advice about selling players outside of the transfer window, we have an alleged failure to take advice in relation to brand, we have an alleged failure to take advice in relation to take advice in relation to the disposal of the heritable property. So it is a theme that runs through in the case as a whole.” McBrearty said that the back-and-forth decision to reduce wages or make redundancies was a “chaotic process”. BDO believes that Whitehouse and Clark did not cut costs sufficiently well enough after they were drafted into the then ailing club. Lawyers for the company claim that the pair could have raised more money for the club by selling on players and selling club assets such as Ibrox and Murray Park. Whitehouse and Clark, who deny allegations of negligence and are contesting the claim, were appointed as administrators after HM Revenue & Customs took Rangers to court for £18 million of unpaid tax in February 2012. They sold the business and assets to a consortium led by the businessman Charles Green for £5.5 million before BDO were appointed to liquidate the company. The three men were among seven indicted over fraud allegations relating to Rangers; the case against them was dropped in June 2016. Whitehouse and Clark raised a multimillion-pound action against the police and prosecutors last year. Prosecutors admitted the case against the duo was “malicious” and conducted “without probable cause”. They both received multimillion-pound settlements. Prosecutors admitted that Green, who was arrested during the investigation and eventually acquitted, was wrongfully taken to court and that the prosecution against him was malicious. Yesterday McBrearty said that Whitehouse and Clark should have sold players but refrained because it would have made the club less attractive to prospective buyers. He added: “The irony of it is this — the day to day is that they are retaining the fabric of the club to make it more attractive for bidders, and we have had direct evidence from one of the bidders that it made it more unattractive.” The hearing continues.

Immense in terms of desire and effort. Still lack quality to put the ball in the net. Hate to say it but that wee w*nker Griffiths was fit he would put away these chances. Hopefully we can beat Croatia but looking at the group's I fear that will not be enough to get through as ne of the best 4rd place teams

Decent enough game for a 0-0 and a draw about the correct result.

Scotland were immense tonight and O'Donnell really turned it around after Monday. Gilmour is a superstar in the making. We made England look very average and as Graeme Souness said, "footballs not coming home with that team"

The Scotland RB will get torn a new arsehole

https://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/news-category/current-affairs/1383-ftq-rangers-independence-and-the-culture-wars In recent weeks, we’ve seen the demonisation of Rangers supporters - barely caveated with ‘a small sections of’ - by prominent politicians. Anti-Catholic and Anti-Irish bigotry. It seems like a fool’s errand to try and bring logic to a situation like this, because we live in an era of culture wars across the Western world where rationality is no longer the common ground. It is entirely about power. I won’t waste your time giving you a history of the academic roots of this - it stems from claims that don’t have zero merit, but do not stand up to scrutiny. The point for us is that Scotland is not immensely diverse. The intersectional activism that we see here happens at the juncture of Catholicism and Palestine. The analogies drawn between anti-Catholicism and racism by our prominent leaders are prima facie ridiculous. You don’t die in the culture you were born. Sometimes your culture is something you have to overcome. Religion is a choice, not an arbitrary characteristic like skin pigment. Every choice a person makes is one for which they can be realistically held responsible, and it’s acceptable in any free democratic society to disagree with the choices people make. And let’s be honest here - as people more eloquent than me argued, like Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens in the IQ Squared debate - that Catholicism is not a nice religion. No gay people. No condoms in Africa. Not to mention historical crimes, and ongoing ones to do with children. Now what I’m expressly not saying is that it is okay to hate or discriminate against Catholics - fresh and blood human beings - but it is perfectly okay to object to an objectionable religion, and judge people - morally - who choose to follow it in knowledge of all that it stands for. Catholics are free to do the same - an indeed, theologically, do so, as they are the only real mediation between God and man. So let me quickly say: F**k the Queen. A basic political statement, yes? Not illegal. Though wait. Symbolic head of state. Head of a church. However, is the same not also true for the Pope? Who holds sway over billions? I’m not saying you should be saying these things - not by any means. I’m just saying, the analogy is perfect. However, I hear you say: Catholics are in a minority in this country, so it deeply hurts their feelings. So what? I was once called a wee proddy bastart and kicked in the head for having a Rangers scarf in my pocket - fly kicked, so it left a footprint, which was funny - and did I go into a fit of self-pity because I’d been persecuted by a sectarian attack? No, I got kicked in the head by a ned. Life’s hard. Also, the idea that Catholics are a persecuted minority is bordering on laughable: they are represented strongly across media, academia, in the judiciary, and in our illustrious politicians, as Tom Devine pointed out in a recent article for The Herald - not that I’m implying he’d endorse anything said here. They are a success story of immigration. They endured many horrors that should not have happened - history is brutal, you may have noticed as history still happening - but the worst they are subject to now is hearing words their precious ears can’t handle hearing. That’s just not grown up. It is, however, strategically placed in a broader context. It’s what Nietzsche would call slave morality. If you consider the etymology of words like ‘good’ and ‘evil’, you find out that good meant, at least for the ancient Greeks, things like noble, desirous of what is excellent, high minded. ‘Bad’ meant common, plebeian, simple. However, he noted that there was a route for the common and simple to win power by holding on tightly to their weakness and not letting go. Forming a herd that was more vocal and overwhelming, and inverting the values such that to be weak and commonplace and easily hurt became the means by which even a minority could dominate the majority. Ironically, Christianity.- both Protestantism and Catholicism - is what gives it its modern force, despite its roots in more modern conceptual thinking. It’s why it works, it’s why they use it - and that’s all it is. A strategy, to gain more power / votes / whatever, by making your weakness a virtue. It’s why you can dominate the SFA and still feel like there’s a conspiracy against you while you dump your opponents - on which you rely - to the bottom tier of the leagues. So what about all the nasty songs then? I realise I’m in a minority, as it’s just prudent to modernise, but we’re talking logically here, not tactically: the bad songs that are now illegal to sing should not be illegal in any country that values free speech. Anything that is more than words should be punished to the utmost letter of the law - whether it’s denying a job, or being assaulted. I want to know a bigot when I hear one. To do that, they need to be able to say bigoted things. Then I can form my judgement. Do I think the Bad Songs are bigoted? Sure. They’re also historical, and have a context, and a culture. Still, bigoted. Should they be illegal? No. Quite obviously not. Words should never be illegal. And to remind you: bigoted is not racism. Catholicism is not an immutable characteristic, it’s a choice. You have the choice to say: “Proud to be a fen!an, come try and get this blood, see how far you get.” And this is coming from someone who left an Old Firm at half time because I was near the Celtic fans and just hated the bigoted back and forth. We should be aiming to transcend bigotry. However, let’s be honest here - we don’t have Protestants chasing down Catholics and giving them beatings on the finer points of the Catechism. We’re dealing with working class people, who want to sing the songs that sound the most intimidating, with some dislike of a particular religion thrown in. Sure. It’s a religion that - according to most statistics - many Catholics are finding it hard to love themselves. Will we be better off when it’s gone? Yes. Is the right way to go about it by bans on speech and demonisation? Of course, prohibition has always worked. You’re willing to sacrifice something more precious - freedom of expression, freedom to dislike people’s choices - to protect the ears of those who use being offended to gain power? Not a worthwhile strategy, not good for the country, not good for even Catholics. Now, I’m not going to go to the other side of the city and their anti-Protestant anti-British sins, or their under-reported un-wailed-about group actions. Whataboutery will get us nowhere. Because they can say what they like. I’m adult enough to hear words and not burst out crying. The bigger question is always: Cui Bonos? Who benefits from the demonisation of Rangers supporters. Who benefits from stoking up tensions? Nationalists. Now, everyone can have their own opinion on whether Scotland should be independent, many Rangers fans want independence. All good. However, the core difference between Protestantism and Catholicism - theologically - is that one invented the idea of the individual, and the other is collectivised. It’s why you can guess what a die-hard Celtic fan thinks about almost any issue before they’ve opened their mouth. They are a similar range of fans, don’t get me wrong, we’re the same cross section of society. But a genuine supporter to die-hard, with 99% predictive power: Palestine? Pro its liberation. Constitutional monarchy? Not a fan. U2? Just kidding. Independence? Therein lies the rub. On average - though, like I said, we’re not grouped by much more than love of a club - Rangers fans are unionists. All this demonisation isn’t to harden the Celtic support’s backing of independence. That’s locked in. It’s for the swing vote. The perpetual wee-man syndrome of Nationalism annoys me personally - also the idea that there could be a cuddly nice nationalism that isn’t principally based on an irrational hate of someone or something. Story for a different site and article. However, the dog and pony show of pretence offence was for the swing vote. Look what happens when people with union flags start getting on top again? Violence, horror, taking Scotland backwards. Have they forgot this is Scotland? Like neds fighting on a Saturday night after hours of boozing is crazily out of the ordinary? Taking Scotland backwards? We’ve had years of one party rule - anyone who has any read the Scotland Act knows that the Scottish government has the power to do almost anything it wants except start a war or any other aspect of foreign policy - and the country is a shIthole, from the NHS to education, to anything to which your mind can wander. It’s because they don’t care about those things - not really, they care about stoking up enough persecution complex that we vote to leave Evil England so we can be ruled by someone further away. Also for people who’ve not studied law: EU, not super democratic. All we have is prohibitions on free speech and a divided country, because ideology matters more to these people. You might be saying: anti-Irish, you mentioned that at the start. That’s immutable. Sure, but it’s a valid point of view to want Ireland to be one country. It’s also a valid point of view to want to maintain the union. That’s by the by - Rangers fans don’t hate Ireland, it’s a lovely place to visit. They dislike Irish nationalism, and that foreign flags are being flown in this country - in which their living is made, and that has brought them such success, with historical persecution acknowledged - to spite those who actually patriotically believe in it. Our feelings weren’t hurt though. But it’s not about that - it’s about the fact that hating Irish nationalism is a valid political opinion. It’s a f*ck-you to the hypocrisy of the thing. And they can point our contradictions and so on. Not all Irish people are nationalists. Also, Irish isn’t a race. Take it at its worst: if you can’t say: “Oh, that’s weird”, to someone who shouts “F Ireland”, you just need to work your way back up through nursery and try again at being an adult in the real world. This isn’t an apology for bigotry. I look forward to the time when we’ve transcended all this nonsense, but in the interim we’re creating cures worse than that which we’re fighting.

the real issue here is how did we end up here when the parties were so clearly guilty. green freely admitted he always knew he would win the bidding to buy the club. Whyte freely admitted he had put in D&P to give him control back post admin. We have tapes of the collusion between green and whyte. We have BDO suing D&P for mishandling the admin and there evidence consists of stating the bleeding obvious. How do you get from that to paying out tens of millions. The incompetence of the prosecutors is hard to fathom such is it's scale.