Jump to content

 

 

Anchorman

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,407

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Anchorman

  1. Anchorman
    RAB - you are spouting complete nonsense now. Please stop.
  2. Anchorman
    How can that stance possibly wear thin? Don't be so silly. If you don't want to line the pockets of people you think are out to fleece you, why the hell should sticking to your guns wear thin?
  3. Anchorman
    Quite frankly RAB you have become a broken record on the subject. How many times can one point be answered but ignored at the same time.
  4. Anchorman
    Good summary Zappa.
  5. Anchorman
    You will be waiting a while because that is not what I said. What I am saying is that he accepted the testimony of SARS (who have a heavy track record of corruption). So for me, I lose all trust in the legal system he resides over in this case. On one side you have SARS with a track record for corruption (and a man in a wig all too ready to believe their evidence) and on the other side you have Dave King, who is admittedly no angel. King was wrong on many aspects, which he has now admitted. Have SARS made any similar admission? Given the above, why do you (and others) continually want to take the word of a corrupt foreign establishment (SARS) wholeheartedly, while accusing King (a Rangers man who has been around our Club for a long time with a 'clean' record in the process) of all sorts? All I care about is Rangers. King would never harm our Club. He has been around our Club for a long time and has never tried to 'milk' anything from the Club. The opposite is true. Can the same be said about the current board? King is no angel, but as long as he wants the best for Rangers I will support him. I'm sure the other stuff about Regan, Doncaster, etc is interesting but I didn't mention them, so it's not relevant to what I was saying with all due respect.
  6. Anchorman
    Can you show me one shred of evidence to back that up.
  7. Anchorman
    No he bloody wasn't.
  8. Anchorman
    I don't find you irritating. I don't know you. What I find irritating is the stance you adopt towards anyone with a title, whether it be a "learned" judge or a member of the SFA. There is a certain 'snobbery' to it that really doesn't sit well with me. You've be very consistent with it over a very long period. In many cases these 'learned' people were involved in very dubious decisions against our Club for example, but in your eyes they held a title so couldn't be wrong. I have experienced many 'learned' people and 'suits with titles' who have been unscrupulous, untrustworthy and basically corrupt. It comes across to me as a form of snobbery which I abhor. (If it is simple naivety from a sheltered life then I apologise).
  9. Anchorman
    Poor BH shouldn't condescend and he wouldn't get "all barrels" as you put it. Do you think the SA "learned" judiciary were "grade A" with "clean slates"? If you read my post again I asked for a bit a balance. The world knows how corrupt the SA legal system has been. Yet you, BH, RAB etc never mention it. Why? You would rather ridicule a fellow bluenose. In fact, a fellow bluenose whose £20m probably contributed towards some of the happiest times I've had inside Ibrox. Utterly bizzare.
  10. Anchorman
    Do you really want me to tell you to stop being a condescending annoyance because you see yourself as a champion of all things legal and lawful. Your patronising responses are actually quite irritating. I know more about the SARS case than you think. You've actually peddled the "learned" judge's comments about a fellow bluenose being "untrustworthy" on such a regular basis that I think your naivety is staggering. Where is the balance? Have you ever commented on the fact that one of the most corrupt jurisdictions on the globe in recent times has been the South African? Or are you so blinded by titles that you naively believe that 'learned' chaps can't be wrong (like your 'learned' colleagues on the SFA that you defend).
  11. Anchorman
  12. Anchorman
    And you would be correct. I can't even be bothered responding to that one any more.
  13. Anchorman
    Why do we need to get the idea out of our heads that a guy with a track record of putting tens of millions into the Club wants to do it again? People need to get the idea out of their heads that him saying "I'm a last resort if you need me" is not him saying "I don't want to if I can help it". He has already agreed with his family that he will if given the chance and they support him. His comment about being a last resort was in response to a lot of comments made at that time by people saying they don't want to see the Club propped up by one man again. He was basically saying "If you can find investors - great!. If you can't then you know where to find me". The board can't find said investors. Yet they won't offer terms to King. Why? Looks from where I'm standing that King is being prevented. So I reckon you have got it wrong, so we can agree to differ.
  14. Anchorman
    Based on what?
  15. Anchorman
    No he wont. You are taking it to silly levels.
  16. Anchorman
    "Caught off guard in an arranged interview. What a moron." Sorry, but calling someone a moron? Bollocks mate.
  17. Anchorman
    Slight edit- Sandy, Sandy, Sandy in royal blue, We're all crazy over the love of you, Things will be really perfect, When you beat the Glasgow Celtic, You look so sweet, With the ball at your feet, And you score us a goal or two.
  18. Anchorman
    Those were a lot of the words I was looking for mate. As a young kid seeing his goal against Bayern at Ibrox was epic for me.
  19. Anchorman
    Looking for words. Can't find them. The gentleman's footballer. RIP Sandy.
  20. Anchorman
    A Daily Record poll is showing over 60% want him to stay - FFS!
  21. Anchorman
    His time was up long ago.
  22. Anchorman
    I'm not so sure you would want to swap with Hearts next season. On BBC Scotland tonight - reports from Lithuania that the woman (can't recall her name) who was going to bail out Hearts is about to walk away leaving a very real chance of liquidation.
  23. Anchorman
    Today's performance and game proves my point I think. Utter dross so far!
  24. Anchorman
    If we don't win that league comfortably next year then it won't be because it is competitive from a 'high standards' point of view. It will be because we are having another season of playing well below par - again. There would be nothing enjoyable about it in that scenario. If we do play the same way next year, the league may be competitive, but our fans will walk away in their droves. So be careful what you wish for in having a competitive league.
  25. Anchorman
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.