amms

Traditionally in this country that's not how football works. The club is punished for past misdeeds even if those responsible are long gone from the club and should never have been there in the first place. Both Portsmouth and particularly Luton have been unfairly punished in recent times for this type of thing. So if we are provan to have lied to the SFA or SFL to get a licence or breached some other rules we can expect punishment, I don't think there is any doubt about that. What might be interesting is if supporters sued the SFA for not doing due diligence or some sort of dereliction of duty. Might be expensive and futile but who knows.

What's wrong with what he's written, I thought it was a fair and measured piece? He's a journalist on the Scotsman/SoS.

We've had this conversation before where I ask you to name all the well run successful clubs who pay their shareholders dividends and you aren't able to. It's not mutually beneficial, the club doesn't have to be healthy for people with influence and power to take money out of it, there just has to be money coming from somewhere. This is hardly a sudden panic, you've been posting on here all season and having the same conversation with me and other posters. Plenty of people have been questioning the motives of some and warning people to watch them, that you disagreed with them then and seem to still do so doesn't invalidate it or make it sudden. This has been going on for months now. Season tickets didn't used to be about giving individuals cash, but now it seems it might be. That should worry you, I don't understand why it doesn't.

Dividends aren't an acceptable way to take money out of Rangers, where the hell do you get that from? Rangers aren't a multinational bank or a petroleum conglomerate, we shouldn't be a pension fund managers wet dream, we're a club that should be run to benefit its supporters, we should have no other purpose but the pursuit of glory for our team. The corporate structure of Rangers is irrelevant to me, how the club is run matters a lot though. If you're happy with the people who currently control us, if you trust them to do what's best for us then good luck to you, but how you can't see the warning signals here astonishes me. Don't give me strawmen, this has nothing to do with SDM or Whyte of bloody Jack Gillespie, what's gone before has gone we can only deal with what we have today. What we have today stinks.

What's you point STB? With hindsight would you have given Whyte your money? We're not talking about working capital, taking money out I the club that concerns me.

No, definitely not. I never thought Murray was stealing money from the club or likely to take it from the club to enrich himself. Same with Whyte and look how that worked out. It was only McCoist's intervention in the summer that gave me any confidence in the new structure, that's being slowly eroded as the season has gone on. My issue here is I don't trust them with my money.

How would someone go about that though? The fact this is so opaque is the issue, the fact the board have 'ousted' Green and Ahmed has lost his role too tells me something is wrong. I guess it then comes down to who you trust and as I've misgivings about those two I'm inclined not to give them my money. I suppose I could see a scenario where someone like McCoist gave an interview where he said he couldn't be sure season ticket money would remain in the club (or the opposite). But I don't see a press conference being held about it.

There are clearly people who not only rely on the 'unconditional' supporter, but prey on them too. There is a world of difference from being reticent to give someone you mistrust your money and remaining a supporter of the club. Frankly the former is neglecting personal responsibility. Pretending everything is okay or doesn't concern 'me' damages the club too.

You shouldn't do anything in life unconditionally.

I don't now if this proves or disproves my argument, but I'm really happy about it - http://blog.thegallantpioneers.co.uk/wp/

See, it's not bias, they are just not very good and sometimes corrupt - http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/7385-exclusive-boothman-facing-questions-as-bbc-scotland-found-guilty-of-distorting-news-programme

Double post.

See, I don't accept that 'Timmy' dominates the 'mediascape'. If any group is over represented in BBC Scotland it's Gaelic speaking Scots most of who have a Presbyterian background. There are countless people in the media in Scotland who aren't Tims, but they aren't bluenoses either, and I think that's where the sense of bias comes from. I accept your point about a 'conspiracy' it's an emotive word and to be fair I don't think 'D'Art actually used it in the first place. I don't think the Gibson Street thing is nefarious I think it is symptomatic of what I mean. They only received one complaint. The problem was there was nobody on their panel who knows Rangers like we do, who think of the club like we do, who could stand up and say 'hang on that person is the bigot, not the Gallant Pioneers' and so they decide it might be easier just to ban them next time. My problem is why aren't their Rangers fans involved with events like that? I don't believe we're deliberately excluded, I think we are becoming hugely unrepresented in certain circles, particularly the Arts, for other reasons. That will be a problem for us in the future.

I'm probably one of the people D'art was referring too. I've always struggled to accept there is a conspiracy against Rangers or a built in anti-Rangers bias at BBC Scotland and have said so in the past. What I think there is though is a lack Rangers 'people' at BBC Scotland currently. I don't believe that's a deliberate policy though, I think it's more complicated than that. Rangers aren't 'fashionable' among a section of our society that perhaps we might have expected to be broadly Rangers minded. There is an association in their minds with Rangers which isn't seen as progressive or positive. The recent banning of the Gallant Pioneers by the Gibson Street Gala is a perfect example of this. That 'section' work in places like the BBC. I personally think it is something we need to address but I've been criticised for voicing that opinion in the past. This requires more time to explain than I've currently got.

Why would they do that? They have their own website and commercial concerns to worry about, knowing some of the people in their sports department I just can't see that scenario.

Is that true? I always think of his Dad as being a target man, good in the air and so tall although not exceptionally so. I remember being quite excited when we signed his Dad, that was misplaced excitement as it turned out. When was the last time we signed the son of someone we also once signed, anyone know? We had Gordon Durie's son with us for a spell but he was only at youth level I think.

This is great news, pre-ordered it too. Obviously if it's rotten I'll be penning a stinking review for Gersnet...

I was in the East Enclosure that day (and every week back then) and was far from convinced about Hateley when he arrived. I was wrong. My Dad still brings this up when we're disagreeing about a players ability (Hateley was shite when he first arrived though!). That match feels like a lifetime ago.

Our record for spotting goalkeepers and then improving them is as good as anyones. It's one area we've genuinely excelled in over the years.

Private taxis and independent bus routes tend to be cash businesses. This often makes them attractive to people to whom working with cash is desirable. There can be a number of reasons why working primarily in cash might be desirable, perhaps just a simple mistrust of banks, immediate payment and enhanced liquidity. Or there might be other reasons why barely regulated customer number unaccountable businesses might be attractive.

Computers should be fitted with breathalysers so people can't post when they're pissed because that's a fuckin shocking post.

You know the more I think about this the more it can only be seen as a defeat for Celtic, Aberdeen, Dundee Utd and Doncaster. Celtic in particular have had to give up a decent amount of money and get nothing in return, Aberdeen and Dundee Utd will need to be careful of play-offs, both are well capable of finishing 2nd bottom, they've also given up a chunk of money. The smaller well run SPL clubs and 1st division clubs are the winners in this. One body gives them a say in things, more money in the 1st division gives them a chance to build a squad to compete in the the SPL if promoted and a play-off gives them double the chance of promotion. The SPL have caved in, the league size didn't change like they wanted, their voice will be diluted now and for me further change to a bigger league is now inevitable. I'm not sure this shouldn't be viewed as a victory for the SFL clubs who have pretty much got what all they wanted.

How do you know who is and isn't friends with Green and Ahmed, and just how long does it take to make 'friends' with the media? I watched Peter Smith of STV and Charles Green have a very friendly chat in the reception of STV about 5 months ago. They looked to be on very good terms at the time. Quite why Smith or McCoist would leak information to the BBC that undermines McCoist is a scenario that's beyond my understanding. It's not a matter of whether people are 'Rangers men' or not, it's who is doing what's right for the club. I'm not naive, leaking is a fact of life, clearly various factions have been involved. However I've no doubt that the leak to the BBC was done to undermine McCoist, Smith and Murray and done in the knowledge that the BBC would run it without checking its veracity with Traynor first. BBC Scotland will wear a ban from Rangers like a badge of honour, they've no commercial interests to concern themselves with.

Why do you say that? It's surely obvious it is Ahmed/Green that are feeding the BBC, I don't see how anyone can suggest anything different.

I don't think he's telling the players, I think he's telling the support. Whatever anyone thinks of McCoist's managerial ability he's not daft, he understands the support's expectations and I think he's trying to temper them. Cammy Bell hasn't joined Rangers because he isn't good enough for Kilmarnock or the SPL, likewise this lad Clark, he's not leaving because nobody wants him.