Thinker

I think Charlie's problem is that he likes to see himself as a straight talking guy (even if some of us don't!) so he doesn't ever like to give evasive Sepp Blatter style answers. The trouble is, there are some questions that require a bit of analysis before you go ahead and put your answer on record. The question of sectarian singing is too complex to give an off-the-cuff response to. What he should have said on the matter is something along the lines of, "It's a problem that we (Charles Green's Rangers) are going to look into and tackle." Sounds horribly like a politician's answer, but they speak like that for a reason.

It's astonishing how so many people have read the report but certain words just didn't sink in for them. Bleat 1: "How can LNS possibly say Rangers didn't gain an advantage by using EBTS?" - Well, he didn't say that. He said the advantage gained was not unfair. i.e. The use of EBTs is legal and our board decided to implement them based on expert financial advice. Bleat 2: "Rangers deliberately didn't disclose the details of the EBTs! That's cheating!" - Actually, LNS said the non-disclosure was deliberate but not dishonest. i.e. Our board didn't submit the paperwork relating to the EBTs because they genuinely, and with good reason, didn't believe they were required to. Not unfair and not dishonest. Or, to cancel out the double negatives: FAIR and HONEST.

That would be a sensible sized premises for a city centre Rangers shop. Down side is, I'm sure it would be pricey becuase of the prime location.

I actually think that if the fine from yesterday was legally contested it would probably be overturned. The insinuation was, like you say, that the payments weren't declared in order to avoid drawing unwanted attention to the EBT scheme. Whether that's true or not, I don't see how it can be proven. SDM has already responded by saying that the reason they weren't declared was simply that, since they were loans, the rule didn't apply to them. That's a cast-iron defence as far as I can see.

At least now we won't be forced by the SFA to play in our pants as punishment for not having our kit with us.

You may well be right there.

I don't know who Tom's listening to, but I've not heard any such claims. We're declaring it a failed kangaroo court.

The bottom line is, throughout this whole affair, Rangers have never deliberately broken any rules or laws. SDM's hubris led him to sail us a bit closer to the wind than he should have with the tax minimisation, but that's all.

I think the point is that, even though the paperwork wasn't submitted, the payments were by the club, to the players, for normal reasons, so no competitive advantage was gained. The whole disclosure of payments thing is to avoid situations were external parties offer financial incentives to the players (e.g. club A paying club B's players a bonus to win a match against club A's rivals). Obviously, nothing like that was going on. Point 5 is just restating that. Still seems like a hefty fine for not filing paperwork though.

Is it not saying that there was nothing wrong with what the transactions were payment for, but the paperwork for them should really have been submitted according to the rules?

Maybe looking for a new job...?

Or maybe it shows that you can't predict anything when you are in possession of only a very selectively leaked portion of the facts...

It's such a bad idea. With no relegation from the league, any team in the bottom half will have nothing to play for before January's over. If there's one thing you want to avoid in a football league it's meaningless matches. I can see short-termism (i.e. greed) motivating Div3 teams to vote for this, but it's not in the best interests of Div2 clubs either short or long term. And if the SPL clubs think closely about it (as Ross County reportedly have done) they must see that this 12-12 (8-8-8) caper is a poor idea - so the restructure might not pass a vote. As for the merger of SPL and SFL: It benefits Div1 teams financially, but doesn't do much for anyone else long-term. Some SPL teams might have to vote for it to get through the next couple of years (by leeching off us via a TV deal) but once we're back in the top flight they'll be marginally worse off than they would otherwise have been through having the TV/sponsorship income divided amongst more teams. I'm pretty certain it'll happen, whether or not it's for the best.

It would be so easy for them to rejig the play-offs to make placing in the 3rd division worth something this year. They just can't bring themselves to consider anything that might possibly benefit us though,

It really isn't! Like I say, they might cynically overplay the discrimination card at every opportunity, but the idea that anti-discrimination laws exist only to protect Catholics in Scotland is just not true.

Now you're asking a tough question. It's tough to pin down. Some comedians don't get away with it (e.g. the late Beranrd Manning). Again - it's not just Catholicism that this is about. Father Ted's a comedy classic yet it mocks the social backwardness of the Catholic preisthood. I suppose when it comes down to writing an actual law that the police can apply, you've got to do it in pretty broad terms without complicated criteria or exceptions. You don't get to vote on the law, you just have to abide by it or take the rap.

Unfortunately I don't think it's correct to say we're the second best team in Scotland. We're the only club that stands a chance of taking the title off them in the next few years though.

What's personal about that!? People who strategically play the PC card draw attention away from those who are genuinely on the receiving end of abuse. They're as bad as the perpetrators and contribute to the probalem just as much.

Yeah, whiners are annoying.

It's not just a Catholic/Protestant thing though. Whether you like it or not, these days we live in a far more "politically correct" society. For example, there are jokes that you used to be able to get away with saying at work that would get you fired nowadays. That's just how it is.

Timmy highlights and exaggerates the problem at every opportunity, but it's not them that's decided it's no longer acceptable.

You're right. Once it was out in the "twittersphere" (or whatever) that some were intending to give it the full songbook, an orchestrated campaign of complaints was inevitable. That would happened regardless of Hamilton's presence. Even so - I'd still like to hear an explanation of why he was there...

I'm honestly not trying to be a smart-arse here, but it's incredibly simple: "Rosary beads are a fashion accessory" - Not offensive. "Rosary beads are embarassing mumbo-jumbo from the middle ages" - Not offensive: There's a coherent argument there. "Fuck your roasary beads" - Offensive: It's gone from being a criticism to being abusive. It's the same as writing "You're wrong" wouldn't be deemed offensive, but writing "Fuck you" would by the mods on this forum.

This seems to follow the general rules: You can swear at the football, as long as it's in reaction to the game. You can demonstrate\protest about a political\social\religious issue, (even if it's completely unrelated to the game) as long as you do it in a non-abusive or derogatory way. If you swear (or use "bigotted language" like the F word) whilst trying to make a point then it shifts from being a protest to being abusive and you're going to get into trouble.

I 100% admire what the OP is trying to get across, but if you think about it closely, it's a more complex matter. Singing the National Anthem, supporting our troops, honouring Remembrance Day even flying the Union Jack: These things are essentially political - but I, for one, don't want them to stop. Some might say it's blindly patriotic and jingoistic and I don't really have a counter-argument to that. But I still want it to continue - they're all positive things in my eyes and they make me proud of my club.