Thinker

The fact that LBG came out of the deal without losing money should be enough to arouse suspicion. Prior to Whyte's takover LBG are owed money by a company with a potentially massive debt to HMRC. They must have been seriously worried that they would end up being paid a fraction of pence in the pound. Then, as if by magic, CW appears and robs Peter (ticketus) to pay Paul (LBG). You don't have to have a spidey-sense to feel there's something dodgy about that.

IMO this is another reason for keeping football and politics separate. When you support a football club it's through thick and thin - it doesn't require rational thought. But supporting a political view isn't the same - you should seriously think about why you believe it's correct. You should try to understand the changing arguments, not just shout along because you get caught up in the song, or because it's traditional. I'm sure plenty of the folk in BF1 could give you a good explanation of why nationalism isn't a great idea, but there will some (mostly the younger lads) who would struggle to back up their songs with a reasoned argument. It's a dangerous way to spread a political message - the flip-side of the pro-nationalists that form a good chunk of the tartan army.

It's £2.80 for a return now! Think it went up last week.

If you think protesting makes no difference when it's done outside Holyrood, why do you think it does work when it's inside Ibrox? If anything, it's less likely to work. Have they torn up the bill based on Saturday's singing? Will the fans be treated any better next match?

I was careful not "have a go" at any fans. I said they didn't cross the line. Maybe the fans who want to make a political point should ask the questions of Holyrood. Maybe they should write letters. Maybe they should go stand outside the Scottish Parliament and demonstrate. They'd be more likely to get an answer if they did.

We're drifiting away from the main topic here (which is similar to the epic Orange Shirt thread). The singing at the weekend didn't come anywhere near to crossing the limits of free speeach. There are two basic opinions being expressed. Some think that politics should be kept out of football, some think it's okay to use football as a platform to voice their political beliefs. Which sounds like a better idea? It seems obvious to me.

I suspect he wants the shit to hit the fan. He'll misrepresent the facts in order to provoke an angry response from our fans - then he'll use the most extreme examples of the anger to claim his initial accusation was true.

I'm strongly opposed to Scottish independence but would I sing about it at Ibrox? No. Why? Because it's not relevant to why I'm there, and because I wouldn't expect everyone in the stadium to share my opinion. To quote Chris Graham's recent post, The Publicity Seeker, the President, the Professor and Phil: "Rangers is a football club. Yes it may represent many things to many people but at its base it is just that. The fans that support the club are not an “underclass”. Many of them support the Monarchy, the Union and are fiercely patriotic to both Scotland and Britain. Some are Republicans and support Scottish independence. Some are white, some are Asian, and some are black. Some are men and some are women. Some are British, some are Irish, some are American, some are Argentinian. Many are Protestant, some are Hindu, some are Catholic and some are Sikh. Rangers have had players of all religions, colours and nationalities. They have been lauded as heroes without any form of discrimination on any of those grounds." There are no political or religious pre-requisites for being a Rangers fan. Just come along and support the team.

What he did was more akin to botched surgery. Maybe, initially, he did see himself coming through the whole affair as saviour - I don't know. But if what BM describes above was really his plan it was a terrible risk to take, and he screwed it up.

I'm sure he was, but he ought to know well enough by now to think twice about what he says - anything that can be taken in the wrong context will be by someone.

I'm no legal or financial wizard but it doesn't seem like Imran's got a particularly good track record... Slightly concerned - it would be good to get some more info on the man.

I don't think Whyte, D&P or anyone predicted things would work out the way they did. Which is why I don't believe the current situation has panned out according to any particular individual's master plan.

Maybe. I don't think £20m is an unrealistic target though. 40,000 at the minimum £500 each would do it. We were told to expect less than 20,000 season tickets sales for the third division remember. A lot of people underestimate the loyalty of our support.

From the official site: RANGERS Chief Executive Charles Green has reacted to news today that Craig Whyte has made certain claims in an interview with the BBC. In the interview to be broadcast later today Craig Whyte has claimed he introduced Charles Green to Duff and Phelps as the administrators searched for a buyer for Rangers. The Rangers Chief Executive said: â??Yet again Craig Whyteâ??s version of events paints a misleading picture of what actually happened and itâ??s regrettable that the BBC is providing him with such a platform. â??The facts are that direct contact was made by our consortium with Craig Whyte in the first instance as it appeared at that time that his shares would have to be secured in order for any purchase of the Club to progress. â??I was not present when contact was initially made but subsequently met Craig Whyte who introduced me to the administrator. â??I had no previous association with Craig Whyte and it is misleading to suggest he â??brought us inâ??. â??I was brought to the transaction by Imran Ahmad following Duff and Phelps contacting Zeus Capital in February, due to their experience in the football sector.â??

Is the original interview avaiable for a listen anywhere - or does anyone have a transcript? And did Thomson definitely have the complaint investigated by the police?

My doubts about it increased with each email. It's hard to believe that a high profile journalist would write in such a way. But I've just checked his twitter page (I'm assuming alextomo is the real deal) and it's the same sort of condescending, scathing stuff. It's pretty sad.

[No Subject] FROM: Thomson, Alex TO: ********** Monday, 15 October 2012, 16:35 All fine then because the Sun says so. All fine because the police say so. Dear oh dear we don't like to question things do we? And yes, I knew full well that was a spoof account because I'd been told. By using it I wanted to achieved two things: 1. I suspected the two Glasgow journalists would immediately play down the issue of intimidation. They did thus exposing the problem. They did. 2. I strongly suspected it would embolden David Leggat into behaving even more stupidly by issuing more threats convinced I'd been duped. He did. The journos were exposed as complacent. Leggat ended up with a motion to expel him from the NUJ and fine him £1000 being passed. Keep on sweeping mate, everything's just fine. ALEX THOMSON PRESENTER/ CHIEF CORRESPONDENT, CHANNEL 4 NEWS ------------------------------------- Re: FROM: ********** TO: Thomson, Alex Monday, 15 October 2012, 18:22 Thanks for taking the time to reply Alex, But I'm sorry: This isn't about avoiding questions or sweeping things away. With regards to the Leggoisblotto threat: if you hold up something which is clearly false as an example of a problem, it detracts from your argument. How can you expect anyone to say, "Yes, I see your point."? The only sensible response is to say, "If that's the best example you have then you really don't have much of an argument." How could the Glasgow Journalists have reacted any differently? In any case, David Leggat is regarded as a bit of a nut by most Rangers fans. He's hardly an example of a typical supporter or a tyipcal journalist - his actions can't reasonably be taken as an example of a wider problem. With regards to threats via twitter in general: if you were to write a negative comment about any football team you would most likely get an aggressive response from some half-wit or other. It's not right, but do you have evidence to suggest that Rangers fans are significantly worse? Try tweeting something derogatory about Liverpool, Chelsea, Man Utd or Celtic. They all have large enough supports to ensure that some of their number will be headcases with twitter accounts. I'm sure they all have a David Leggat. There are also a couple of points in my main post that you haven't addressed in your reply: Firstly, Phil MacGiollaBhain's book wasn't serialised because he is quite obviously a biggotted man. I really don't see how you can defend the sort of material he has published in the past - many would consider him Celtic's David Leggat. Please, I urge you, do some investigation on this fellow. Secondly, Lord Nimmo-Smith's enquiry was questioned by Charles Green (not the supporters) and for very obvious reasons. The SFA and the SPL attempted to impose a punishment on Rangers for the alleged crimes to be investigated by the enquiry before the enquiry even began. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Can you at least see how this might be a cause of some concern? You are correct when you say that things aren't necessarily fine just because the police say they're not. But conversely things aren't necessarily wrong just because an unsubstantiated anecdote says they are. I'm all in favour of questions being asked - but the answers have to be solid demonstrable facts in order to be taken seriously, not insinuations and no-smoke-without-fire innuendo. Regards, Alistair. ------------------------------------- Re: FROM: Thomson, Alex TO: ********** Monday, 15 October 2012, 18:39 No wider problem? Consider then Tom English, senior sportswrite Scotland on Sunday dismissing all this as "cyber-stick" "hysterical" and "attention-seeking". Tom has at least seen fit to clarify his remarks though not apologise. Like him you epitomise a toxic culture in genuine denial. When that's from a thick football fan I've no problem as they cannot think their way out of anger - you can. You should. Cheers - A ------------------------------------- Re: FROM: ********** TO: Thomson, Alex Monday, 15 October 2012, 20:07 Alex, I'm denying nothing - it's impossible for me to deny anything until evidence is placed in front of me. You say there's a wider problem - Tom English says there isn't. Which opinion should I believe, which one should I deny? As a Rangers fan it certainly doesn't seem like we've been bullying all and sundry into accepting our point of view - the last year has been absolutely terrible for us. The institution that we love, our team, has been alternately vicitmised and villified. We've been cast down to the lowest level of senior football - even Juventus, who were found guilty of match fixing did not suffer that. If Rangers fans have been attempting to intimidate people into accepting their opinions, then we certainly haven't been very succesful at it have we? I'm sure there would be outrage and consternation amongst the supporters of any other club who had to go through a similar ordeal, where the punishment appears ot be disproportional to the crime. What evidence is there that Rangers fans are extraordinarily out-of-line? Once again I'm sorry to note that you haven't responded to my questions about Phil MacGiollaBhain's own toxic point-of-view, or the genuinely concerning actions of the SFA and SPL in attempting to impose punishment on Rangers before any investigation. Do you deny either of these facts? ------------------------------------- Re: FROM: Thomson, Alex TO: ********** Monday, 15 October 2012, 20:48 English isn't getting journos speaking to him. E hasn't talked to the cops. English doesn't know or care what happened at the Sun. English hasn't seen the crime reports. Or spent time with Hutton. Or seen the nuj list. Because they don't care. I jkust placed lots of evidence which you simply ignore. You thinl Regan or Hutton make this up? Or Bob Smith? You cankt mention shops or most journos because they're shit scared. Or the academics. As for Phil I've told everyone I don't give a damn about his personal politics. Choice of aftershave or breakfast cereal. I care about a factual book about R not one, single R fan has complained about. Any more if this whining on about irrelevance and I won't respond. You jave to face reality and truth that your club has a violent menacing underclass and you are in deep denial. And yes - they've been unnsuccessful at intimidation in some respects - though they did for The Sun. Shameful. ALEX THOMSON PRESENTER/ CHIEF CORRESPONDENT,CHANNEL 4 NEWS ------------------------------------- Re: FROM: ********** TO: Thomson, Alex Monday, 15 October 2012, 21:14 Alex, Give me some evidence I can accept - everything you have provided is completely anecdotal. Personally, I have no direct experience of Rangers fans threatening anyone so why would I take your word for it? Show us the crime reports. Show us the NUJ list. Scottish, British and European society has a violent and menacing underclass - I don't see how you can substantiate any claim that this is unique to any one football club. You'll find Tottenham, Swansea Aberdeen fans in jail. With regards to Phil: You ought to care about his personal habits. He has a track record of lying and making things up in order to harm Rangers (please, do some research on this) - an institution which he hates with a passion not found in most right-minded individuals. He's renowned for his flights of fancy, so I admire your confidence that his book is entirely factual - do you also believe that it's even-handed? Once again: The Sun withdrew the serialization of his book because he is a Sectarian bigot. Rangers fans influenced this decision simply by saying they would refuse to purchase the paper if they insisted on going ahead with the serialization. That's perfectly acceptable behaviour in our society. There is nothing sinister about demonstration or boycott. I'm sorry that you find my concern about the treatment of my club to be "whining". All I'm saying is that you can't realistically claim that Rangers have been guilty of dishing out threats and intimidation without acknowledging that we've also been on the receiving end. There are reports that Ally McCoist's son has received threatening messages as has Charles Green. Do these reports concern you as deeply? ------------------------------------- Re: FROM: Thomson, Alex TO: ********** Monday, 15 October 2012, 21:50 I'm busy. You either listen or that's all thw help I can give: Regan - not anecdotal Hutton - not anecdotal Smith - not anecdotal The rest - shops, nuj etc I cannot go into People Are Scared Do you need pictures? ------------------------------------- Re: FROM: ********** TO: Thomson, Alex Monday, 15 October 2012, 22:24 Alex, The fact remains that anyone who antagonises (justifiably or otherwise, deliberately or otherwise) the fans of a major football team will undoubtedly receive some unpleasant feedback via phone, email or social media. Rangers are no different. The only thing that distinguishes this case is the extreme severity of the turmoil that the club, and the rest of Scottish Football finds itself in as a result. If, for example, I had to make a decision on whether or not to strip last year's Premier League title from Manchester City and award it Manchester United, I would be scared. Wouldn't you? In Scotland, due to the extremely poor handling of Rangers' financial crisis by the footballing authorities, paranoia is rife. It does not need to be fueled. It's not right that people should be threatened at all, but that's the way it is - fans are passionate about their team, and some don't understand the limits. As an experiment, try tweeting that you have evidence that leads you to believe Rangers are being victimised by the SFA and should be allowed to get on with their football unmolested. See what kind of responses you get.

Yesterday, I had a bizarre evening. Like many other fans I decided to post a response to Alex Thomson's blog: Threats and silence: the intimidation by Rangers fans. I don't think I included anything that wasn't covered by many of the other responses but for some reason my post was removed and I received an email reply. I then engaged in a short back-on-forth of messages. I'm not 100% convinced that the author was actually Alex Thomson (I guess someone could have read my post before it was deleted and replied from a bogus account) but the email address checks out (ALEX.THOMSON@ITN.CO.UK) and nothing was written that is particularly out-of-keeping with his point of view. Does anyone know of any other instances of him ever replying to a poster before? I'm not skilled in the arts of debate, plus I was distracted by being at work when I replied to his emails, so I'm afraid I didn't do a particularly good job of pinning him down. In hindsight there are points which I obviously should have made. I also feel bad that I compared Leggo to Phil 3names at one point which is probably a bit harsh. There's nothing especially controversial or incriminating in his messages. The main point would be that he claims, without any real evidence, that there is a violent, criminal underclass in existance amongst our support - one that is not present at any other club. He also maintains that the incident where he claimed to have been threatened by a Scottish Journalist was a cunning ruse on his part to expose denial of intimidation in Glasgow journalism and to provoke Leggo. Personally, I don't buy that - I think he's just making excuses for an embarassing gaff on his part. Anyway, here's my response to his blog, and the emails. There's a lot of waffle so I'm sorry if it doesn't make particularly exciting reading. ------------------------------------- A few points Alex: 1) Lord Nimmo-Smith's statement regarding the independence of his enquiry was not in response to intimidation by anyone. It was a response to Charles Green's statement that the SFA and SPL had attempted to strip the award of league titles and cups from Rangers (as part of the deal to see them re-admitted into the Scottish league set-up) before any guilt has been established. The SFL objected to this cart-before-horse form of justice and that is why League Cup wins were not amongst the list of trophies to be stripped. Mr Green understandably expressed doubt about the subsequently launched enquiry to investigate any wrong-doing (how can the SFA/SPL enquiry be impartial if they have already expressed the desire to impose a punishment prior to the enquiry commencing?) I would have thought that this matter would be of far more interest to an investigative journalist. 2) The serialisation of Phil MacGiollaBhain's book was not dropped by The Sun due to intimidation by anyone. It was dropped because it was brought to the publisher’s attention that MacGiollaBhain is a sectarian bigot with a deep-rooted hatred of Rangers. It is disappointing that you chose to write a forward for this unsavoury character's book - some of his work (The Incubator, for example) is indefensible. 3) Ally McCoist's demand to know the names of the SFA Tribunal members in April was a straightforward request for transparency in order to cast light on potential conflicts-of-interest following a bizarre decision - one which was subsequently over-turned in a court of law as the tribunal (which included Lord Nimmo-Smith) had failed to correctly apply the SFA rule-book. The SFA then proceeded to force Rangers to accept the "illegal" punishment as a condition of re-entry into the Scottish League set-up. 4) While intimidation via social networking sites is unacceptable, it is also important to check how serious the offences are by examining police records of the incidents. As far as I am aware none of the incidents mentioned in your article were taken further by the police (including those purported to have taken place in bookshops as well as those via twitter). I believe your quote that 25 NUJ journalists were threatened comes from Phil MacGiollaBhain - a man who has shown previously that he is prepared to lie and exaggerate in order to discredit Rangers. In fact, you yourself have been shown to be guilty of exaggerating the severity of threats when you declared, in a radio interview, that you had been threatened by a Scottish Journalist. It later transpired that the message had been sent from an obvious spoof account and that the "threat" was that you "needed a slap". Unsurprisingly the police did not feel this was worthy of further investigation.

Yeah, it doesn't seem particularly well informed about the details of our financial issues. The general thrust of what we should be doing is true though: looking to the future rather than the past, living within our means, using up-to-date methods to run the business side of things properly, accepting that competing in Europe isn't realistic on Scottish football income.... I think we all know these make sense.

Well, the top clubs of the BENELUX countries benefit. Elite leagues don't help club football overall, but they certainly help the clubs which happen to be part of those leagues. A couple of decades ago it wasn't so important but now it's massive. Supporters (and TV channels) want to see games between quality teams every week. In a small nation there aren't enough quality teams to achieve that. You either end up with a massive gulf in quality and scale between the top and bottom of the league, a half-size league with each team plaing each other 4 times, or (as in Scotland's case) both. IMHO, Ajax has declined in recent years precisely because it's in a "lesser" league. The larger the national (or in this case multi-national) audience, the greater the revenue from TV money, sponsorships etc. - which obviously allows for better quality squads.

It makes absolute sense for them to do that. Same currency, short travel distances, benefits all round. If UEFA give a BENELUX league the thumbs up, then we have to plead for a UK league. Likewise the big Portuguese teams will be desperate for an Iberian league. Not sure how the EPL and La Liga clubs will feel about it though...

The only way he can settle the ship is to achieve a run of comfortable wins from now until at least such a time as we're top of the league. Any more slips before then and he'll pretty much have to resign. I desperately want him to succeed, but we're not in a position to replace the playing staff so replacing the manager is the only way to change things. But then, there's no guarantee that that would work. The players that went out on the park on Saturday should have been able to win comfortably regardless of who was in the dug-out. They've got to carry a huge amount of the blame. They're prepared to lose - which is unacceptable. It would have been nice to see them declining their wages after that result.

It's pretty depressing but I think our aim has to be to stay financially healthy and hope the shape of European football changes. I agree that getting back to the top of Scottish football is an inevitability (hopefully not a delayed one), that can comfortably be achieved on season ticket money alone. Surely at some point a European League has to come about though? (We're not the only huge club condemned to being also-rans due to being in a small league). That's when we'll need to have cash in the bank and a solid youth sytem. Maybe it's a pipe-dream but it's one I cling to.

It's usually Tims who come out with that one and I take great delight in pointing out their error. Skeletor and his no-good mates, of course, hang out in Snake Mountain, which I would imagine is in the scummy East End of Eternia. Another favourite is when we're referred to as Middle-Earth "Orcs". But of course, in Lord of the Rings the Rangers are the good guys. Aragorn is a ranger and the rightful king.

Caley Thistle.