Thinker

With a bit of luck if we keep making official complaints (like the one regarding the opening titles) someone higher up the BBC heirarchy will take a closer look at what their Scottish Sports section is up to.

It regularly sweeps the board at the American TV awards, but it's more cult than mainstream in the UK, I'd say. A lot of viewers won't have picked up on the reference. I think it says a lot that the BBC saw fit to spend time and effort satirizing something that is still pretty raw for many of the people that tuned into their broadcast last night. Maybe I'm being oversensitive but it felt like taunting. They could just as easily have done a "pheonix from the flames" piece. Still, the result says more than any of their naff graphics.

I know, they didn't waste a second - straight in there putting a negative vibe on Rangers. Supposed to be like the intro of Madmen?

IMO, the SFA and SPL are less like bullies than (to continue the schoolyard analogy) snotty monitors who let their mates into the cloakroom when it's raining but not you. Then when you complain about it they say they're going to report you for swearing. (Can you tell I still bear a grudge?)

Tragically, child services have decided that the weans have to live with their slanty-eyed Uncle Peter.

Yup, I think bitterness about football is much more of a factor than bitterness about religion. Non-Rangers fans and press alike have been prepared to turn a blind eye to the injustice of this because they find "Perennial Champions found guilty of financial doping" a much more satisfying headline than, "Perennial Champions victims of plot to destroy dominance". What the SPL / SFA have done here is so incredibly stupid, I don't see how they can defend it. They declared a desired result for their investigation before the outset. The whole thing is prejudiced.

Sorry, double post!

Regardless of the source, certain questions are raised: Why did the SPL and the SFA try to impose punishment on Rangers when no guilt had been established? What does that say about the fairness of the double-contract inquest currently underway? If a judge enters a hearing with the goal of achieving a particular verdict then it's a witch-hunt - plain and simple. I initially had my doubts about CG's decision to ignore the enquiry, but he's bang-on. What is happening here has to be publicised. I wonder what so-called independent internet investigators such as Alex Thomson make of this?

Regardless of the source, certain questions are raised: Why did the SPL and the SFA try to impose punishment on Rangers when no guilt had been established? What does that say about the fairness of the double-contract inquest currently underway? If a judge enters a hearing with the goal of achieving a particular verdict then it's a witch-hunt - plain and simple. I initially had my doubts about CG's decision to ignore the enquiry, but he's bang-on. What is happening here has to be publicised. I wonder what so-called independent internet investigators such as Alex Thomson make of this?

Exactly! We need to demand answers from the SPL and SFA and an official statement from the SFL. If we get a favourable decision from the HMRC hearing I don't think they can touch us without it being the most blatant stitch-up ever. And if it's too blatant UEFA won't be able to ignore it.

Maybe GDS hasn't failed in an attempt to represent us , but he did make various statements about who was going to buy us that turned out to be pie-in-the-sky. At that stage it seemed like all he was interested in was making headlines by offering us false hope. Maybe something's changed, but personally I'm not inclined to take him seriously.

I suppose that some of the clubs would have been fearing a "no Rangers plus Mhank boycott" scenario if they'd voted for us to stay but been out-voted. I seem to remember, though, that the fans of most of the SPL clubs, when canvassed, said they wanted us out. Don't know if they were properly representative ballots, or if the results reflected the views of the board. Maybe Green's trying to build bridges, maybe he's trying to stir up or wind up particular parties... Dunno really.

I agree. I didn't have time to wade through that document in depth but the main things I took from it are: A) The SPL can't financially penalise us for the oldco's crimes (so that post a few weeks back about them fining us millions of quid seems to be nonsense). B) The SPL clearly does have the power to overturn old results / strip titles as we are, in essence, no different from a relegated club. Much as I wish it was true, CG's statement to the contrary never sounded convincing to me, in the same way as his "Any player who doesn't TUPE is in breach of contract" didn't.

Maybe "win" is too positive a word, but that situation could have turned out so much worse for us. Let's not forget that Glennie declared the sanction unvalid, not the verdict. The "power-that-be" could have chosen a more servere sanction from the list and there would have been nothing we could do to stop them. Also, as 54andcounting says, the difference between a straight ban and a suspended ban is immense. Like it or not, the anti-Rangers in positions of authority have the power (and, at that point, had the opportunity) to hurt us very badly. We negotiated our way through it well, I think.

I like him and I really want to trust him, but I'm just so paranoid after this last year that I can't! I'm a damaged man!

The argument on what we're being punished for, and how harshly, keeps going round in circles: Them: "You used EBTs to field players you couldn't afford. That's financial doping." Us: "A) We could have used one of the many other methods routinely employed by football clubs and businesses to minimise tax. And B) Septic also used EBTs and this was deemed okay. Clearly we could afford the players." Them: "Your EBTs were double contracts - that's against football regulations." Us: A) An EBT is, by definition, not a contract. And B) a minor infringement of regulations which offers no competitve advantage is not a reasonable cause for stripping titles." Them: "But you did get a competitve advantage! You used EBTs to field players you couldn't afford. That's financial doping."

Maybe the ruling on Juninho's EBT will actually do us a favour... That sets a precedent that it's okay to have EBTs as long as you administer them a certain way - and we, therefore, gained no competetive advantage by doing the paperwork "incorrectly".

Maybe Romanov's trying to make things difficult for the SPL - Either to make a point or just to be an @sshole.

I'll be honest, I'm extremely worried about it. It seems obvious to me that we need someone in there to keep an eye on what's happening; to take note of what they're saying so we can point out any inconsistencies and refute any bogus allegations. I think CG's argument that the SPL don't have the power to strip titles is flawed, so what we need to do is demonstrate that they don't have the grounds.

I'm not arguing anything, I'm suggesting (and not even seriously suggesting - just chucking ideas around for the sake of Friday chat) a system where diddies have no-one to blame but themselves for their diddiness. Obviously, they shouldn't be blaming us, but try getting that point across to them. Wouldn't it be better if they couldn't blame us because the league incorporated a system which directly rewards investment and contribution? If the majority of teams in a league feel like they're getting a rough deal, then that league will inevitably break up.

In a perfectly fair world the money into the league would be split according to how much each team contributed, but how could that be measured? Maybe Season Ticket sales? So if Hearts, say, (and this is not supposed to be realistic) built a new stadium and managed to fill it with 40,000+ fans they'd get an equivalent slice to us. I admit this is just Friday morning day-dream stuff, but something new has to be done because any set up where two clubs get a bigger slice than any of the others no matter what they do is never going to last. There has to be at least a mechanism by which other clubs could theoretically grow and catch us, even though they'll never manage to actually do it.

The FA has a 30 mile relocation rule, but if he can round that somehow, Frank Lynch could well be on to a winner. I wish we were doing something similar!

We need to play at the highest level possible. Ideally qualifying for CL group stages. Beyond that, I can't see how we'd be invited into any other hypothetical "higher level" league set-up (British, Atalantic, European, take your pick) unless we were top-flight in Scotland. I don't think the SPL will be around for much longer, so joining their league probably won't come up as an issue. As for the SPL teams? You won't see me at any of their grounds ever again.

I've not been following it closely, but isn't there a case going on in Italy where Juve are sueing the Italian FA for penalising them but letting AC Milan off the hook for a similar crime? The SFA need to be very careful. I've got a feeling though that, if it comes down to it, rather than see us cleared Liewell would give the thumbs up to sanctions against Celtic secure in the knowledge that we'd get a deeper shafting.

If a comedian (Frankie Boyle, for example) had said either of the two quotes no-one would mention the word "Sectarianism". Leaders of organised religions who try to tell the rest of the world how to behave, and what we should believe, deserve to have the piss taken out of them for their failings and hypocrisy. It doesn't become Sectarian just because the remarks are made by a Rangers fan.