andy steel

I don't know...legal type things are usually written with far more care and attention to language than that letter. Maybe that means nothing, it just raises doubt in my mind. I still think he's whacko, but interesting nevertheless.

BBC Alba showed a Falkirk-Sunderland pre-season game t'other day. By the time I had scrabbled up the remote to get anything Bheeb connected away from my scandalised eyesight, the Gaelic commentary became intelligible. Not that hard... 'Kevin Thomson...something something Rangers....something something Brechin....something something SFA....something something Charles Green....Thomson'

You could level that accusation, and suggestion, at more than a few of us!

Oh joy. The Scottish Joey Barton.

<embarrassed silence>

Well, I did say it might be unpopular.

I go to St James' on occasion - good day out for the girls shopping, quality football, plus they can understand our accent when I go for pizza after. Like Glasgow would be if celtc ceased to exist. Doesn't mean I am a NUFC fan, but you'd have to have the discipline of a yogi master not to fancy a bit of one of Europe's top leagues now and again.

Translation: now Rangers are in Div3, our advertising has taken yet another hit since listener interest will decline. So, here's another generic music show hosted by a dude with that radio accent you never hear anywhere outside a studio/DJ's box at a party.

You should have taken it to Strasbourg, then, or the Supreme Court in London. Unless they, too, are in on it. To sum up: we stand alone, without any recourse to natural justice from the associate body we are trying to belong to, to legal justice from the courts of Scotland or the UK (and maybe Europe), from the court of public opinion, and are cut adrift from the SPFA, the STUC, the CAB, from anyone. We are completely exposed to the whims of those who hate us and have no alternative but to strike deals which explain nothing and leave everything shrouded in mystery and half-truth. This, reluctantly, is the only road open to us and any other will assuredly mean disproportionate punishment. If that is true, I would be obliged to join you in your camp. But it's too paranoid for me, even with the events of the last six months. What about the media engaging reverse gear over yet more sanctions of late? What about the SFL acting with as near to dignity as you can get in Scottish football? Even Alex Thomson has been investigating the actions of 'enemy' parties in this whole affair. Both SFA and SPL leaderships are on their last legs and hammering us further over dual contracts without absolute, cast iron evidence, which Calscot suggests they cannot have, would leave them weaker and us stronger. I don't think we are as isolated as I myself would have thought we were even just a few weeks ago, and I think any disproportionate sanctions from the utterly discredited SPL would be shouted down, either by the football or the legal authorities. But we have to know whether or not there was wrong doing! That is the bottom line for me and if others disagree that's fine; I'm not trying to change your minds. But I'm not going to sit in silence when I think the club is doing something wrong, either.

Not as disappointed as the chap whose testimonial it was. We should announce a game against them, as his testimonial, at the first available date in the calender.

I remember it stopped raining once, as well.

No, I don't get that. But I'm tired of all this and I think part of my bonce has just shut down to these stories. You could be 100% correct for all I know.

Oh get a grip. My opinion makes it even worse? Considering that in this thread alone I stand revealed as both naive and clueless, surely my feeble arguments can't have any effect whatsoever! Calscot's post makes it clear that we gave evidence of all payments for 10 years, so we can't be guilty of secret payments. The one precludes the other. If you are certain of that, what have we got to fear? Any judgement which goes against us in an SFA 'court', despite your evidence, is clearly flawed and would be challenged by at least one Rangers supporter in the courts. So why try to stitch up an agreement? The SPL is up the creek and I see no reason to strike a bargain with them which leaves us open to whispers. I'd rather take my chances even in a kangaroo court and, if necessary, a higher court. But things seem to be moving so quickly that the whole dual contracts farrago will probably fall by the wayside anyway. Looks like the SPL will collapse sooner than they can complete their 'investigation'.

I hadn't thought of the comparison with the arts before, that's a very good point. Probably there would have been an appeal to the nation to save Rangers for Britain or something, like they did with that Canova statue some years back. But then, football has always been the slummy relation, looked down on by rugby/admin types.

Can I borrow your specs, Gunslinger? Nothing is clear to me, absolutely nothing.

It is not facing their music, it is facing our own music. Granted that means being no doubt overly chastised by SPL lunatics but the fundamental point is about not running away from (alleged) wrong doing. However, I answered your point in my last answer so I'll leave it at that.

I don't know if you have seen the movie The Evil Dead 2...at the end of it, the hero, being sucked into the vortex of evil, cries out 'how do you make it stop????'

Going to plenty of grey areas and I doubt, given what has gone before, that we have any chance of an 'innocent' verdict. But SFA/SPL corruption does not make us innocent by default. If we broke the rules it is incumbent upon us to 'face the music'. If we feel persecuted legal recourse must be the option, not striking deals which reek of guilt. I still hope we can prove innocence...the quotes from Murray over this are fairly unambiguous and while his word is more or less worthless I can't help but hope he's telling the truth for once. Far from being naive, not running away from mistakes is part of the morality I was brought up with and I've no reason to find fault in it as yet. I#ll take it over SDM or SPL morality any day.

News over the weekend that the SPL would be seizing Rangers media rights were met with predictable hostility from bluenoses, myself included, who saw it as the most brazen act of hypocrisy during a summer in which that commodity has flooded the market. David Longmuir, the SFL boss, has calmed things a touch by saying that the SPL's bid for tv rights will be considered along with all the others, while suggesting that although Rangers, as a new member, are not due monies, they would probably get some. Not so much seizing rights as paying for them makes quite a difference. What does it matter to us where the money comes from, as long as we get some? As usual, if it seems straightforward it most likely isn't. The SPL's 'bid' seems like one of Craig Whyte's financial merry-go-rounds. If, the story goes, we sell media rights to the SPL, in return they must drop the dual contract investigation. All this achieved, the SPL sell football to Sky (eg), have ready cash to hand and are thus able to pay the SFL their £2m annual payment required by law. This is weird. To pay the SFL the SPL will sell SFL football. Would it not be more sensible for the SFL to sell their football, make money from it, and take their legally owed £2m payment as well? The counter to that is SPL clubs will go to the wall without a TV deal including Rangers, and that the £2m will disappear. Well, so what? From a business point of view, should the SPL implode even more than it has already, the SFL will be in an even stronger position to sell TV rights, considering they would have both Old Firm clubs in their leagues. Their £2m payment, plus whatever the SPL are offering just now, would pale into insignificance. Remember the deal due to be signed next season, for coverage of a rank rotten league during a chronic recession, is in total worth £80m. What possible carrot is there to the SFL to acede to this latest, desperate attempt by the SPL to prop up their rotten edifice - one which we certainly helped to create, which I bitterly regret now! All well and good from a Bluenose point of view. The demise of an SPL team won't keep me awake at night for one second. So where's the beef? There is a link between the selling of TV rights, the dropping of the dual contracts investigation and the granting of a license to play in Scotland. This sucks. As regards the dual contracts, I may be in a minority of one but I want it examined and finished. Regardless of outcome. It shouldn't be shunted off into the crypt, only to be hauled out of its lair anytime someone wants to have a kick at us. As regards the license, it should be granted or not granted on football grounds, not because the SPL want a favour done. It stinks of attempted blackmail and smoke filled rooms, frankly. You'd have thought Craig Whyte, the Inglorious Basterd himself, would have acted as a warning to other people that shoddy business practice was, just maybe, not a great model to follow. Amazing as it is, it seems the SPL and SFA are attempting to out Whyte Whyte in the corruption stakes. Rangers should have nothing to do with it.

Not sure if I agree they control our destiny - if they want to buy our rights then sell them to a TV company, well, let them. It hardly matters to us where the money comes from, though how a body like the SPL, which cannot make its £2m annual payment to the SFL, can find the cash for our media rights is a bit odd. The only control they have over us now is the dual contracts. If we man up to whatever the truth of that situation is, they have no leverage at all. No doubt another witch hunt would be the result, but (a) my memory of humping timmy will not be wiped if we are found to have broken the rules and (b) anything SPL is so devauled in my eyes that I'm getting past caring.

Sounds like an excellent idea.

That'll be great, the Bheeb covering their favourite team. Must remember to set the V+ for that one.

I am against the club asking for the dual contracts investigation to be dropped. If we are in the clear, what's to lose? But if, as seems pretty obvious from our move, we were operating outside the rules, it's hard to argue that some form of punishment (yes, more!) is in order. I thought that Murray could not have been so dumb as to do this, but the weight of guesswork seems to be shifting to the other view, that yes, he could have been so dumb. But I don't have any concrete belief one way or the other and I don't have any proof...I just think it we were doing something outside the rules we ought to take our medicine. Of course, with the SFA/SPL lot, that medicine could kill us...but trying to wriggle out of it through negotiation doesn't sit right with me. Loathe as I am to offer haters more ammo, this doesn't seem like the right way to put this behind us and move on.

Well done and I will fire one off, if you'll pardon the expression, later this evening. But the reply will be, 'Dear Voter, since there's a police investigation I would be unwilling to potentially prejuidice this enquiry (translation: I ain't touching this with a fucking barge pole in case every Tim in my constituency goes on the warpath). Yours, xxxx'

They are hardly likely to cut off their celtc nose to spite their Rangers face.