der Berliner

Is there a body above the SFA in this country ... or shall I say Europe? You cannot reasonably explain the way the SFA has handled cases against Rangers, as opposed to cases against other teams. The evidence is out there, in tv and photographic evidence alike. If this goes against Aluko, you'd have to call the impartiality of the SFA into doubt, not least that of their new chief inquisitor.

Can't really see anything wrong with the above. The more information the shareholders will be told at an AGM the better, the more advanced all talks with HMRC and our lawyers are, the better. I'm sure some mean-ills will find something sinister in this news too and bring out flak of the biggest calibre.

If there's an option, please do it with Letters, no smiley required. It's not a board for the 13-year old.

Dorrans? We'd need to shed Edu and/or McCulloch ... and sign a decent replacement for Jelavic. It looks like Pizarro (Bremen?) and Olic (Bayern) will be loaned out in January, as they don't get as much football as they like ... and there's Jordan Rhodes, who is apparently valued at 3m.

IMHO, this is a BBC-instigated FARCE. And what makes it worse is that nothing happened with O'Connor, nor anything with Samaras. They bend the rules and laws as they see fit.

In any case, Britons who have heard or seen the programme above may still complain to the BBC online and if nothing comes of it, contact the BBC Trust on that matter. Should the latter fail to react, one may call in Ofcom nonetheless and present our case as one where the BBC and their BBC Trust fails to keep their own promises on impartiality et al.

Sounds like UEFA trying to get their case with Sion being handled by a COA they set up on their own, but claiming it is independent of them and their decision.

You see, IMHO there is a difference here. There's been a dispute between the BBC and our chairman over that programme. He or the club can stop them from interviewing our players, which is his right. It is not the BBC's right - still being an impartial and public institution, not a private company - to start a witch hunt on their own against the club and its players, like e.g. presenting as fact that "Aluko dived", that he "is a diver" and publicly calling that the SFA chap has to make an inquiry into this, no matter what. After, as I said, already passing the verdict. Ain't there a body watching over TV and radio stations to which one we might appeal?

Haven't seen a clear video of the incident, but the stop'n go one was showing a penalty given all over the country, some are being debated, other's not. As the Pars' players hardly protested and contact was there ... so be it. Soft as it might have been. That the Pars' boss - being what, 50 yards away? - presents the usual blood-and-thunder talk is nothing new either. IMHO, if the SFA starts to make a fuss about this, they open a can of worms.

Unless I am mistaken, the BBC leads the chase with a headline saying: SFA to review Aluko penalty award (NewsNow, Timecode: BBC 13:45 Sun, 04 Dec 2011) In their report they started with: .. which is now the new headline of the article. It wasn't on Sunday. They were the only ones to report on it, after their reporters babbled about this during the game at Tannadice. Today (!!), the Daily Record followed suit: Rangers winger Sone Aluko facing two-game ban over controversial Ibrox penalty in another misleading headline, as it should be "could be facing" -> which they write in the article. IMHO headline grabbing at its finest and we clearly see the aim and the agenda. Not least with the nice follow-up in the Record: .. which make it reading that he's doing it like Traitor O'Gheady or Petrov. Who, AFAIK, never faced any such scrutiny outside the Rangers boards. (And the replies on the DR' side are comical central again ... not least from the HHs)

Yes ... and I was massively annoyed by them being around for years doing nothing, letting the club linger towards the abyss and suddenly, when "their club" was about to be sold, they whipped up plan by themselves. If they were or are concerned about the club, who this side of the Saturn rings stops them from becoming involved again? Well ... Whyte might be, after they came out with various undignified statements during the takeover ... instead of joining forces to save the club. IMHO, the way he and other come out now is not the Rangers way either, so if I were Whyte, I wouldn't let them in now. But maybe I am one of the old school of thinking that there is a certain aura about our club, an aura that sets us apart from the rest out there. Most managers and indeed players we had adhere to that "being different" feeling. That these money men and directors now twist the knives make their former status even more disappointing.

As I inquired somewhere else ... could it just be that these apparent unaudited "advance results" were just being made ahead of the upcoming (?) AGM and are actually being tuned in a fashion to thwart HMRC's case, should they win it? Like ... keeping the damage to Rangers and Whyte at a minimum?

Dunno, this 5 year thing of the SFA would be unreasonable only in Whyte's case. I do assume though that you can be disqualified as a company director for much less time, or maybe even for life. By common sense, it seems that the SFA ruling starts after the disqualification is served. That though would be a double penalty on the person for the same case (handed out by an organisation who is qualified to judge on these non-football matters in what way exactly?) and I would assume any judge or lawmaker would concur.

On a sidenote, is there a slight chance that these "results" are "tuned" with respect to the upcoming HMRC case and a worst-case scenario? That is, not being willfully twisted or something, but all is geared so that in case of the worst case scenario, the damage dealt to Rangers and Whyte are minimal?

Aha ... so within hours of our first financial results are being published UEFA's new lawmaker is starting a close interest? When he should keep his noses firmly in the books of the Italian, Spanish and not least English clubs ... who carry debts beyond belief? Yes, we must be an interesting bunch. Under Murray we carried 70odd million in debt, last years we carried "50odd million" plus the Lloyds debt and no-one (important) was interested. Now that we've been taken over and getting our house in order, there' a firm interest? Well, well ...

Just a few simple questions here: - Has the SFA ever looked into Vlad the Mad's history before he bought Hearts? - Can Whyte not simply cease to be a director of The Rangers Football Club plc. and still be Rangers chairman/boss/No. 1? - Has there been a previous, or will the SFA whip up a new ruling to deduct the club ... say 25 points?

On a sidenote, do Atletico Bilbao fans sing songs in praise of ETA? I know that no German supporters sing songs in praise of the RAF (i.e. Rote Armee Fraktion), a German terror group - not even the St. Pauli hordes. That what essentially is what the Hopped Horrors are doing ... and if this is not regarded as religious sectarianism, it is political sectarianism.

Regarding the transfers ... methinks it was recently said (by Whyte, I admit) that due to resigning the key players too, more than 5m were actually spent - the new signings and loanies do cost money too in wages et al. Regarding the buying issue: would the sellers (Murray, Lloyds) and their lot not ask/check for any such things too, I mean, it seemed that Murray did look carefully into any bid presented to him (dismissing Ellis a year earlier)? Apart from the BBC chaps presenting a smug smile and being apparently unafraid of Whyte threats, are there any consequences the stockmarket w-/could impose ... or is it the proverbial storm in the water?

The fact remains that we had bids for Cuellar, Juhasz, Goodwillie and Verhoek running essentially at the same time. Do you expect that had they all/partially come off, Whyte would have said: "Look folks, these bids were something we did to bluff the Rangers support and Scottish public into believing that I have the money to spare, but I actually haven't, so keep your players, please!" As for trying to hide, well, it is easy to say somesuch now. Might have been a genuine error and those who actually did the dealings are just being castigated. The will to see something even remotely vile in Whyte is quite tangible. Which is not to say that one shall join Whyte's cohorts blindly either, BTW.

You wonder who have to be adressed to stop these people from pushing this through. Of course, as a license fee payer, one might be inclined to stop paying it, as the use for the money might be regarded as discimination of 4/5th of the Scottish population. Maybe such extreme viewpoints have to be raised to make the powers at the BBC (beyond Hadrian's Wall) take note.

Every time I see him he looks like a real prospect and I was actually surprised that he was not included in the first team more often after such a good pre-season. But what can you do if the manager sticks to Edu, McCulloch and even a dire Davis at times ...

Wonder what your remark about McGregor's charge out of his penalty area in the Nerby was ...

Just out of interest: To whom has this information to be revealed and who says that it wasn't? That it was not known to the press and world-wide public is one thing, being told to those with real interest another. And, BTW, on a sidenote ... so what? Will someone be utterly dismayed by this and sue/fine him for *you name it*? Unless I am mistaken, he is pursuing the BBC not for revealing this but, but them claiming he was doing something criminal back then? Apart from the fact that they had Rangers written all over that programme, when it was essentially all about Whyte ten years ago ...

Younger, faster, better ... we've heard it all before. Cheers.

The ref got himself off the hook when he awarded The Hooped Horrors a second half penalty ... only for Ki to miss it, after some audacious Dunfermline supporter dared to yell at him from the away end. The latter incident is to be reviewed by a independent panel of experts soon, who may decide whether away support is actually allowed to say, sing, and shout anything at the Scumhut - or being banned altogether. The latter would then give The Hooped Horrors the chance to let in more of the victimized, sick and poor people of their own ilk into the ground on reduced prices*. *Subject to schooling, political mindset, and religion of said people.