bluebear54

iven the Court of session ruling - and obviously post-CVA - does this mean that we can sue the SFA. Only a passing thought .............

Not stupidity, Andy. Hatred, vitriol and bile.

Given the Court of Session ruling today, this is becoming an issue of epic proportions. SFA will have to "judge" within their existing rules. Bring them on, I say. My personal take is that FIFA/UEFA will be dealing with the SFA behind closed doors, or under the table, if you like. We now really need an informative and balanced representation to both FIFA and UEFA of ALL the events leading up to this. And it should be by someone who is at the top of the tree regarding sports law, and particularly the EU elements of it. However, the Scots law element shouldn't be discounted. The SFA would be wise to consider all the implications - both under Scottish law and EU law - before they make a move. And if UEFA and FIFA should flex their flaccid muscles, I would hope we have enough balls and nous to take them all the way. Enough is enough. When that's over, let's go for the BBC.

There should be a third way Andy. The governing bodies should be paying heed to their raison raison d'être. They should be trying to pour oil over troubled waters. As should the BBC. They should all be looking at the big picture. A viable Scottish game, and one where we have the talent and the capital to be able to at least hold our own in the second division of world football, instead of being gubbed by every Tom, Dick and Harry. Tragically, I don't see it happening, and this will end in tears. For that, we can only lay the blame at someone else's door. Not our own. The BBC is on just now, and it's quite scandalous that their agenda is still trying to bring about a destruction of the Scottish game.

Guilt doesn't apply for some. Do what you want, create what havoc you want or injure whoever you want. Just say sorry, say three HMs and Bob's your uncle! You didn't really do it, you didn't really mean it, and Jeez, you're still such a great guy. Given that philosophy, I can't get my head around this one rule for us, one rule for others mentality that exists. Surely such a wonderfully liberating - albeit flawed - philosophy should be catholic. And, by the way, I use "catholic" in the non-religious all-embracing and enlightening sense of the word.

I mentioned a couple of days ago that Aiden O'Neill has been known to lose cases as well as win them. He is a highly competent and well respected QC. Fact. But he gets things wrong sometimes. And he backed the wrong horse this time too. Now, explain to me how - or more importantly why - Chick Young, Delahunt, most of the assembled sports journalistic masses (or even unemployed sports journalists) believe that they have a greater knowledge of the law, and that they are right. And explain to me why we or anyone else should pay heed to them. We need to retain a sense of reality.

Totally agree Metlika. Neither FIFA, UEFA or the SFA are - or should be - above the laws of Scotland or the EU. In my opinion, they should have been pulled in long ago. They've been chancing their mitt about tax and legality for too many years. Sooner or later, there will be a Bosman-type moment for them, and it will cost them dear. And by the way - I hear that a lot of people think that these organisations are grotesquely corrupt. Let's bring football back to the people.

The thing is, I don't see a ban from the SC as being likely. William Hill's CEO has resigned from the SFA if I recall. I presume the sponsorship is still in place. Are they entitled to renegotiate if RFC aren't involved? What about other sponsors - TV rights? Would the Scottish Government be prepared to support a competition that is not fully inclusive? The SFA may very well decide to suspend us from now until the start of the season. Not as devastating as a transfer ban, mind you, and we could live with that. However, not sure if they can stop us playing friendies abroad, and I'm convinced they can't stop us playing training games at Auchenhowie. I don't think they can fine us more, unless they introduce a new breach of rules. They fined us the maximum. And if they raise a new breach of rules, it could be seen as pettiness, and being out to get us. Let's just see what they can come up with that exists within their rules. Because if it's not in their rules, they know where it will end up.

Interesting times, but for once, someone has stuck up for us. And it's also backed up by the law of the land. That's for the first time since Regan walked into the room. The SFA will have to be very very careful here. This will show if they (ie Regan) are determined to screw us or work for the future benefit of Scottish football. A definitive moment. On that train of thought, the bile on other - non-RFC - sites is wild. It has cemented my realisation that this atmosphere will probably never disappear. We have a situation where the wannabe lawyers and judges, and the crazies, have taken over from the football fans. It's a media frenzy like I've never seen before. IMO, the SFA should be seeing this - nay - they should have seen this, and the danger it represents for the future of Scottish football. They should be addressing it, and they should be realising that this bile and polarisation is threatening to rip our whole game apart. They have the forum to attempt to address it, but they have chosen to be petty and behave in a little England manner. Someone should tell Regan we got rid of the tawse years ago.

You can bet your house that there are zillions of emails to FIFA being drafted as we speak - if you know what I mean. Not for the reasons given, but it may be a very worthwhile exercise getting Keen to draft a letter to FIFA outlining the history of the case and the background. Just before the revisionistas get there. One trustworthy letter is all it takes.

Have they decided on the punishment as well? Whatever happened to impartial journalism? All we have these days is ill informed and ill meant opinion.

Aiden O'Neill is a good QC. No doubt. His main bag is human rights and he knows the ECHR backwards. Also a bit of a kite flyer. Bit of a strange choice I think.

There's a brave new world out there. Gone are the days of men talking about football in pubs, and the occasional demo outside the Club. Enter the day of the internet forum. There are rabids out there, and the media and the Clubs pay heed to them. I'm not sure that they are all "solid" fans, and wouldn't be surprised if most have less than 10 years of going to the occasional game under their belt, and find it more economic to watch matches on Mum and Dad's SKY. Yet they can threaten to refuse to renew their season ticket. Latest from KDS: "So, more than 24 hours after a damning report on the utter corruption of Rangers, Rangers' employees past and present, Rangers' administrators and indeed prominent figures in the administration of Scottish football, feck all has been done except a press release from the incompetents at the SPL. Harry Brady on the CU podcast got it right - everyone of them is sitting around waiting for HMRC, cause HMRC can take the blame and they won't have to. About time someone grew a set, or borrowed just an ounce of our manager's courage and buried the bastards." Where the hell is the football logic in that?

Wind back to last night's documentary. There was a clear and convenient blurring between RFC, Murray Group, D&P and a porn star (amongst others). Essentially let's paint "the big picture" and let's call that picture RFC. Doesn't matter, it's the same thing. Bollocks, and shameful. This report is much the same. SPL have reportedly made a request to RFC's administrators, but BBC are reporting it as "setting a deadline" for RFC, and go on to report that the SPL will consider sanctions against the Club. Once again, and particularly in this case, where there is a court appointed authority effectively running the Club, how the hell can the SPL justify sanctions against the Club when they have an issue with the administrators? It's like getting done for shoplifting half a pound of mince. The police release you without charge, but Tesco decide to fine you £500, and the packaging company want you hung drawn and quartered then packaged into half pound packages just to teach you a lesson. Rough justice of course. Andof course it doesn't happen in the real world, so why should this happen with RFC? We (as in RFC) desperately need some serious legal advice, some informed PR/Comms output, and some spokespersons to step in and help us in the medium term. The pitch is important, but Jeez, we won't need it if a stand isn't made soon. No better case for the RFFF.

Ticketus, DM, Duff and Phelps, Liberty, David Grier, CW, Saffery Champness, Wavetower, Lloyds, Murray Group - it's like a grotesque game of pass the parcel, or musical bog-seats. It would take years, but some of these fucks should be held to account. Not the Club. Just the guilty.

I trust we're not paying for it?

Frankie, as others have found out, it's not the best idea to lie to courts.

Nothing there we didn't know months ago. First thoughts are to direct an FOI to the BBC to provide the "hundreds of secret documents" that Daly referred to. Also to FOI their provenance. Publically accountable organisation and all that. Secondly, FOI on the exact timings and details of all personal contacts, including the televised excerpts of "live" telephone conversations that Daly had with all persons involved in the production. I'm not suggesting that this was stage managed, but if it was, they're in deep shit. My opinion - well - where do I start? Stitch up job, and as bad a production as I can remember. Soundtrack wandered from the Clangers, via Love Story to the Apprentice. Blue Peter circa 1970s would have put the special effects to shame. I could have done better with my camera and computer - hey Beeb, you listening? I loved the way they flitted between the Murray Group and Rangers. Like talk about MG's situation, them imply that it this is RFC we're talking about. Don't worry - this will eventually all benefit us. We just need to deal with it slowly and calmly. Glad to see that Spiers has been elevated to the ranks of the employed. Ellis, I wouldn't trust to clean my front step. Nor any of the others. Finally, and most importantly, we should ask for an FOI on why the Beeb spunked so much money on what must be the most amateurish documentary they have ever produced. Rant over.

Interesting. I'm going to watch this. The evidence of a conflict of interests between D+P and the ticketus deal is a ballbreaker. If I recall correctly, D+P were court appointed, and HMRC were represented. So putting two and two together, the Beeb are saying that that Court and/or HMRC were incompetent. Good news for us if true. Should be worth a few bob in compensation. Can't wait to see the SFA or the SPL take on the HMRC or SCS in the same cavalier fashion that they've ridden roughshod over RFC. Wonder what penalties they're going to apply?

The change of strategy might be something to do with the Ticketus money. There's a possibility that DM and Lloyds were both aware of the deal - at the very least - were complicit at the worst, and didn't care how it went through. Reading between the lines, I would read "balls in a vice" for "incentivised." BTW, given that there is an ongoing SPL and SFA investigation into the Club, why has nobody complained about how this is being played out in the media, especially with the BBC actively developing evidence and opinion which is then used by those organisations?

Fair enough Danny. We beg to differ. However, I feel justified in what I've done. In my own way I'd like to bring pressure to bear on what I perceive is wrong. And I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that the kickings we're getting haven't finished yet.

Has anyone else had a call from SKY? I cancelled SKY and ESPN in February, and also wrote in explaining my reasons. After the initial SFA ruling, I wrote in again. Tonight I had a call asking me why I had cancelled, and I explained. "Ah - Rangers, I see." said the guy. Interesting, and shows they're aware of the issue. Anyone else had a call?

Slightly off subject - not dog or fish related. Why is Green wearing a club tie?

Disagree. Effectively SFA are saying that an over 18 from anywhere can't ply his trade with Rangers but can ply it anywhere else.

With regards to who takes over the Gers, does my opinion have any impact? IMO, my opinion would only have impact if it was shared with 50,000 to 60,000 fans. That's impact.