Scott7

No journo has been banned. The two smart alecs just have to pay to get in and pay for their pie and a cup of tea at half time. Withdrawal of privilege is not a ban on reporting.

Sacre bleu!

"Won't you play up the Glasgow Rangers,

Sammy Cox, he's on the ball ...."

A fairly boring encounter littered with mistakes. Arsenal's passing was extrordinarily bad. Ozil looked uninterested. Giroud made a difference when he came on. John Terry remains an outstanding defender. Cech did all that was needed.

If either of these teams had been Rangers we would have been moaning to high heaven.

If I understand it correctly, the posturing oafs have not been banned from Ibrox. It's just that they are banned from free access and goodies.

So why the screaming?

This is like watching celtic v Aberdeen in a relegation play-off.

That was a stunning 'Spurs team.

The photos in 850 show what a Rangers shirt should look like.

The ball big Davis was throwing probably landed in Canada.

"He wont get Sports direct advertised in the Champions League via Ibrox."

Couple of snags there. First, it may be some time before Rangers are in any serious CL ties and second, the advertising shown on the telly is restricted to sponsors.

The Explanatory Note to the section:

"Section 793: Notice by company requiring information about interests in its shares

1113.This section re-enacts section 212(1) to (4) of the 1985 Act. It allows a public company to issue a notice requiring a person it knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, has an interest in its shares (or to have had an interest in the previous three years) to confirm or deny the fact, and, if the former, to disclose certain information about the interest, including information about any other person with an interest in the shares.

1114.Subsections (3) and (4) enable the company to require details to be given of a person’s past or present interests and to provide details of any other interest subsisting in the shares of which he is aware. This provision allows the company to pursue information through a chain of nominees by requiring each in the chain to disclose the person for whom they are acting. Under subsection (6), where the addressee’s interest is a past one, a company can ask for information concerning any person by whom the interest was acquired immediately subsequent to their interest. Particulars may also be required of any share acquisition agreements, or any agreement or arrangement as to how the rights attaching to those shares should be exercised (sections 824 and 825).

1115.This section serves a different purpose to the automatic disclosure obligations currently contained in sections 198 to 211 of Part 6 of the 1985 Act. It enables companies to discover the identity of those with voting rights (direct or indirect) that fall below the thresholds for automatic disclosure, and it also enables companies (and members of the company) to ascertain the underlying beneficial owners of shares.

1116.The notice is not required to be in hard copy (see the general provisions on sending or supplying documents or information in Part 37 of the Bill). Notices, and responses thereto, may be given in electronic form. A response must be given in a reasonable time. What is reasonable has not been defined so as to allow flexibility according to the circumstances, but if the time given is not reasonable, the company will not have served a valid notice."

fs or BD will explain the explanatory note.

The Board have asked the mystery shareholders who they are and because of no reply, the Board are restricting the mystery shareholders' rights.

Might trigger an interesting response.

We must all listen to that broadcast and deluge bbc with complaints.

Scott Brown - would he get a game for Juve, Real, Barce or similar? Or even Bolton Wanderers?

Just think how good Law and Baxter would have been if they'd laid off the drink.

Group A is a beast.

Wales should stroll theirs.

JM could fairly head the ball.

Jim White might primarily be out there to take in the Springboks v All Blacks game in Jo'burg on Saturday. The world sports press will be swarming all over Jo'burg over the next few days.

What would JW know about that?

Top players jumping ship and they only just avoided the drop last season and struggled the season before so,it's a downward spiral. But, maybe, new players who are efficient rather than occasionally brilliant might make for a better team spirit and a finish above the mid-table barometer, Stoke City.

Their former promising defender Lowton will be turning out for Burnley against Rangers.

Naw. Clyde likes to keep it in the family, so to speak. They won't take on a jammy juter.

See what I did there? Avoided any reference to journalism.

Wondering if Jamie Mills (19), Pascazio (19) are training with the First Team squad or have they gone? Not seen their names mentioned recently.....................

Pascazio may be on loan to Elgin City - poor kid.

So, the Circus is going to be a clown short.

Sterling had a half season of brilliance but I might look not too bad playing with Suarez and Sterling has baggage.

City need defenders. What would John Terry be worth? Ageing but still a master defender and likely to score a goal or two.

I have heard that quite often, yet what exactly does the CoS now preside over? Or in what way can they turn previous ruling on its respective heads?

They can say that Heidi Hoop was right and the other three were wrong so they can't overturn the whole thing or any part of it or they can say let's all laugh at HMRC

EBTs as used by Rangers are legal until this current tribunal or the one above it says otherwise.

The fact that the mode of operation breached SFA rules does not make them illegal.

eg. It is perfectly legal for me to wear my hat in the golf clubhouse but the club's rules might require me to doff it so the club fines me £10 but I've done nothing illegal.

Why? If glory is thrust upon you would you want to deny it?