barca72

I don't know who wrote this article from the Rhebel. What is the object of the article? Is it to inform or create hysteria? Let's see if we can agree with it or debunk it. The first allegation is -"evidence that one of Whyte’s business partners and a major player behind his attempts to reclaim control of Rangers is connected to the company behind Green’s takeover." The guy referred to is Joe Dwek who owns an 11.6% stake in Worthington Group and Whyte also owns shares in Worthington Group, so I suppose that makes them business partners. Hello, fellow fans who own shares in Rangers, are you and I business partners? By way of being a major player he means that Whyte would like Dwek to pay the legal bills for any possible court action against Charles Green - NOT Rangers. The company that backed Charles Green is Zeus Capital and their founder , Richard Hughes, in the year 2005 gave an interview that was complimentary of Joe Dwek. In 2005 I said to the rest of the guys in my supporters club that Alex McCleish was doing alright. You can see the sinister connection in both cases, eh? The next damning connection is that Green, in the year 2000, had business dealings with a financial giant of a company called Close Brothers. Last year Whyte paid to lease kitchen equipment from Close Brothers. If you are a financial giant I guess you might want to have more than two clients in twelve years - sinister, eh? Next one is a beauty - " There is another link between Close Brothers and Whyte. One of the board members of Close Brothers is Ray Greenshields, who is also chairman of Octopus VCT3, who own Ticketus. Whyte funded his takeover of Rangers by selling off future season tickets to Ticketus. " This sinister connection is so that Ticketus would know who to sue to get their 18M pound back. Now remember at this stage Walter is so infuriated that he's ready to resign and the Board called an emergency meeting at Murray Park ( Auchenhowie to you and me ) in which fierce resistance was exhibited by either side in the Board's power struggle ( can my heart stand any more? ). Now they tell us about Whyte's new company and I did a check, and it does exist :- LAW FINANCIAL LIMITED Company Summary Status: Active Incorporated on: 12/03/2013 Company number: 08440073 SIC code: Unknown Appointment Details Function: Director Appointment Date: 12/03/2013 Registered Office 48 SKYLINES VILLAGE LIMEHARBOUR LONDON E14 9TS GB Company Officers GOLD MANSON LIMITED Mr Craig Whyte DOCUMENTS Business Summary Law Financial Limited is an Active business incorporated in England & Wales on 12th March 2013. Their business activity has not been recorded. Law Financial Limited is run by 2 current members. It has no share capital. It is not part of a group. Other Documents Document Type Date Filed NEWINC New Incorporation documents. 13-03-2013 £2.00 Event History Date Description 14/03/2013 New Board Member Mr C. Whyte appointed 14/03/2013 New Board Member GOLD MANSON LIMITED appointed They say that Sevco 5088 is a subsidiary of Law Financial Ltd. That brings up another question in that if you had a parent company and a subsidiary company, would you not expect that to form a group? Under the business summary above it say that Law Financial Ltd is not part of a group. I feel so much better informed after reading that article from the Rhebel. Hysterical? Have another beer !!!

Can anyone verify that this guy from the BBC is telling us the truth?

Hopefully until at least next season so that we are in Div. 2.

That's more like it, John.

The last couple of posts attempted humour and therein lies the tragedy in our game. There is so much suspicion and acrimony involved at the moment that a person despairs of ever finding a solution with the present list of characters. We truly need someone of standing and character who is independent of the game but astute enough to understand the minutiae of detail required and still see the overall picture. I think, and I'm serious here, that we need someone like Henry Kissinger who is respected but detached, from the invested interests involved. Sack Doncaster and use his 200k, and we might get value for our money.

I listened to the podcast mentioned and it was the first time in a long while I came away encouraged by what I had heard. Maybe it was the format, but it was refreshing to hear someone tell us what was happening behind closed doors. Follow that up with Donald Findlay's statement and you feel that there is a groundswell beginning that wants the corrupt cabal thrown out. I agree with Chris in the article when he says that the SFA should only mediate especially after their statement yesterday which included the phrase -" without the threat of legal recourse or judicial review." This sentiment too, should include the pervasive PGB. We need a group of people who are able to be shown to have no vested interest in any club, but who know the game and who will genuinely thrash out acceptable solutions. Start with the agreed five points and go from there.

It's about Whyte, who cares?

I don't know. After reading this guy's guff over the past couple of years I don't think his last two articles, although fair, are going to cut it for me.

Hope this helps. Little bit of background, then the judgement. This company search lets you know about the companies belonging to Whyte and their involvement in the case. It is interesting to note in event history that Ellis creates Wavetower. Liberty Capital Limited now shows up as being dissolved. As far as the judgement document, I've cut and pasted paragraphs that I thought were required to show what happened. No conspiracy, necessarily, on Murray's part, just slick operators. THE RANGERS FC GROUP LIMITED Business Summary The Rangers Fc Group Limited is an Other business incorporated in England & Wales on 17th September 2010. Their business activity is recorded as Activities Of Head Offices. The Rangers Fc Group Limited is run by 2 current members. 1 shareholders own the total shares within the company. It is not part of a group. Registered date 17/09/2010 Company number 07380537 Previous Names Previous name WAVETOWER LIMITED Date changed 12/05/2011 Latest Shareholders Equity Figure: Issued Share Capital: £1 Shareholders (Top 20 names shown) LIBERTY CAPITAL LIMITED Directors and Secretaries Current directors and secretaries Current Officer Name Appointed Mr Andrew Charles Peter Ellis 20-10-2010 Mr Craig Thomas Whyte 11-02-2011 Event History Date Description 21/03/2013 New Board Member Mr C.T. Whyte appointed 24/01/2012 Mr P.J. Betts has left the board 11/11/2011 Annual Returns 16/05/2011 Change of Name 17/03/2011 New Board Member Mr P.J. Betts appointed 10/03/2011 New Board Member Mr P.J. Betts appointed 10/03/2011 New Board Member Mr C.T. Whyte appointed 26/10/2010 Change in Reg.Office 26/10/2010 Change of Company Postcode 26/10/2010 New Board Member Mr A.C. Ellis appointed 25/10/2010 Mr P. Townsend has left the board IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE , CHANCERY DIVISION. CLAIM No: HC12F0 3282 Royal Courts of JusticeRolls Building7 Rolls BuildingLondon EC4A 1NL Before:MASTER MARSH -Between : (1) TICKETUS LLP (2) TICKETUS 2 LLP Claimants -and- (1) CRAIG THOMAS WHYTE (2) THE RANGERS FC GROUP LIMITED (3) LIBERTY CAPITAL LIMITED { a check on this company says it is now dissolved } Defendants ----------------------------------JUDGEMENT------------------------------------ Judgment handed down on Friday 5thApril 2013 ………………………………… Master Marsh 1. Theses proceedings relate indirectly to the takeover of the Rangers FootballClub Plc (“Rangers”) on 6thMay 2011. Rangers went into administration on 14th February 2012 and is now in liquidation. It is not a party to this claim. The first defendant (“Mr Whyte”) was the moving force behind the takeover of Rangers, the second defendant was the bid vehicle and the third defendant is a company controlled by Mr Whyte and the sole shareholder in the second defendant. 2. The claimants (together “Ticketus”) are involved in the business of advance purchasing of tickets for sports, entertainment and other events. The tickets are purchased at a discounted price relative to the face value of the tickets. In the case of football, the club acts as agent for Ticketus and agrees to sell the tickets purchased by Ticketus to the general public and account to Ticketus with the full face value of the tickets. The difference between the discounted price and the full face value is Ticketus' profit on top of any fees paid in respect of the transaction. 3. In December 2009 and August 2010 Rangers entered into a number of agreements with Ticketus relating to the purchase, onward sale and marketing of Rangers' season tickets. Those agreements are part of the background to this claim, but are not directly relevant. { These were previous deals initiated by Murray before Whyte appeared on the scene } 4. On 9th May 2011, Ticketus entered into a series of agreements with Rangers (“the Ticket Sale Agreements”) relating to the sale and purchase of Rangers season tickets at the Ibrox Stadium for the 2011/12 to 2014/15 football seasons. Mr Whyte and the two other defendants each executed Deeds of Guarantee and Indemnity at the same time as the Ticket Sale Agreements. 5. Ticketus' primary claim is under the Covenant Guarantees against all three defendants. The claim is for £26,711,856.81 { advance + profit } as liquidated damages and £541,003 by way of expenses Ticketus claim to have incurred in taking steps to enforce their rights. However, Ticketus has an additional claim against Mr Whyte alone. It is said that Mr Whyte fraudulently, or alternatively negligently, made certain representations which induced Ticketus to enter into the Ticket Sale Agreements. Under this heading, Ticketus claims damages of £18,224,341. ( up front advance that Whyte used to pay Lloyds and he personally guaranteed )[/color]{ They nailed him because he did not declare that he had been previously barred as a director on the questionnaire } Jumping ahead ... this is how it got started ... my bet is that Ellis introduced Betts to Bryan. 14. Before summarising the claim made against Mr Whyte, it is necessary to say something about how Ticketus operate and their relationship with Octopus Investment Limited (“Octopus”). Octopus is an FSA regulated fund management company and is responsible for sourcing, organising and managing investment opportunities on behalf of Ticketus (amongst other entities). Ticketus have no employees themselves. Mr Ross Bryan, who has provided the principal witness statements for Ticketus, was employed at the material time by Octopus as an investment manager within its specialist finance team. He describes the standard approach adopted by Octopus in relation to ticketing transactions as involving the following stages: (a) The investment manager would carry out some preliminary work and hold discussions with his counterparty; jumping ahead again ... 16. In October 2010 negotiations were commenced with Mr Betts, an associate of Mr Whyte. 17. On 13th October 2010, Mr Bryan sent an email to Mr Whyte with the heading “Octopus meeting follow up”. The second paragraph reads as follows:“I look forward to making progress on the transaction and, I hope, building a relationship which sees Octopus becoming a partner in your long term funding strategy.” {This sounds like he, Bryan, could probably know that Whyte is going to buy Rangers.} Jumping ahead again ... 23. Mr Bryan's evidence, supported by that of Mr Berti, states that on 28th October 2010 the Investment Committee considered the proposed transaction for the first time and gave approval in principle to the purchase of £20million worth of season tickets with completion following the acquisition of Rangers by Mr Whyte and two fellow promoters. He says the investment committee had reservations about the individuals concerned, or some of them, and the approval was only given in principle. It was:“…subject to final approval requiring further information to be provided by Ross Bryan to the investment committee on a number of matters including the identity and acceptability of the individuals concerned”. 24. Mr Bryan says that concerns expressed by the Investment Committee about the individuals involved in the bid for Rangers were allayed when one individual dropped out { my guess is this is Aidan Early } and another was confirmed as having only a peripheral interest { Andrew Ellis? }. This information was, he says, reported to the Investment Committee. 25. On 16th December 2010, Mr Bryan sent Mr Betts a Directors Questionnaire for Mr Whyte to complete as part of the due diligence process. However, the Rangers takeover had by then stalled and it did not revive until early February 2011. On 7th February 2011 Mr Bryan sent a long email to Mr Whyte and Mr Betts under three headings. The first dealt with the “timeline”, the second with“the paperwork and diligence required to get us there”and the third “docs to produce or shared to close the deal”. Under the second heading the email refers to a Director's Questionnaire being attached. jumping ahead again ... 30.The Director's Questionnaire has a sub-heading: “For completion by: Craig Whyte, Andrew Ellis” “This questionnaire has been prepared in connection with the proposed provision of funds via a ticket purchasing mechanism to a BidCo { Initially Wavetower and then The Rangers FC Group Limited } controlled by Mr Craig Whyte in relation to the acquisition of Glasgow Rangers FC (“the Company”). It forms part of the exercise undertaken by Octopus Investment Committee to assess whether each company is an appropriate recipient of funds. It is an important document and you should therefore answer all questions truthfully and without omission.” { aye right ye are, pal } Jumping ahead again ... 45. Mr Whyte is right to point out that the heading to the Director's Questionnaire states it was prepared in connection with the provision of funds to a BidCo controlled by Mr Whyte in relation to the acquisition of Glasgow Rangers, whereas the transaction was later structured in a different way. Instead of funds been provided to the BidCo, the shares in Rangers was acquired for £1 by the second defendant and the funds provided by Ticketus went direct to Rangers itself, as had occurred with the previous Ticket Sale Agreements { these would be Murray's }. Despite this change to the overall structure of the deal, the funding provided by Ticketus was an essential part of the bid mechanism by which control of Rangers was obtained. The fact there was a change to the structure of the deal is not, in my judgment, of any significance. The answers to the questions in the questionnaire were provided in connection with Mr Whyte's takeover of Rangers and that takeover was indirectly funded by Ticketus. The rest of it is legal argument that would give you a sore head. Anyway from this I make a few deductions, I don't know if you'll agree. I believe the guy that kicked this whole thing off was Andrew Ellis. Remember back in the day he had tried to buy Rangers and failed and we all thought he was a bit of a chancer, just in it to develop the land around Ibrox? Well if he didn't know about Ticketus - and we had never heard about them then - at that time he could have learned about Murray's deals through his 'due diligence'. I think we would agree that all these shady characters all know about one another. He probably pitched the plan to Whyte - remember later how he squealed that Whyte owed him 25% of Rangers shares - and they created Wavetower as the BidCo vehicle. If they go to Octopus ( Ticketus ) and tell them they want to buy out Rangers - it is up for sale right? Why would they need the permission of anyone in the company? All Murray and Lloyds were interested in was confirming that Whyte had the funds to pay off the loan. Murray is aware that Ticketus is an honourable company and will pay the money that is agreed to, if indeed he knew for certain that was where it was coming from. Alistair Johnson had reservations and tried to warn the board, but the deed was done. Now that Whyte has been nailed for this, who's next BDO, HMRC or Strathclyde's finest? Had to edit out 2k words

I believe Rangers should conduct this investigation in private, not in the media. Once the investigation is complete, then publish all results in a full and frank manner. I trust the board enough for that to happen. They are not the SFA and they know they have to satisfy a wary support. If this investigation exonerates Green in his dealings with Whyte then I would be happy to support him after all of the good things he has done for us in the last year. I think that the last few weeks have given Green a lesson in PR he will not forget.

In law for a contract - whether written or oral - to be legally binding one side must offer something of value and the other side must offer a fair consideration. As an example, Murray offered 85% of Rangers shares to Whyte and received a pound sterling in return - ergo a legal, binding contract. I have been unable to find anywhere a legal written contract that binds Whyte and Green to Sevco 5088. When you look at the postings at Company House it says that - ' Sevco 5088 Limited is a Pending business incorporated in England & Wales on 29th March 2012. Their business activity has not been recorded. Sevco 5088 Limited is run by 1 current members. It has no share capital. It is not part of a group.' ... The one current member is Green. There are also documents listed, and there are two of particular interest - AP01 - Appointment of director 05-05-2012 ... This is Green. RES11 - Disapplication of pre-emption rights. 15-06-2012 ( This is the day after Duff & Phelps sold Rangers to Sevco Scotland according to their interim report ). What are 'pre-emption rights'? ... ' The rights of a shareholder to have the first refusal on any new shares in the company as they become available. In the UK these rights are enshrined in company law.' Why is this important? Well, before a board can disapply pre-emption rights it has to explain its reasons to any and all shareholders. There were no shares, but if Whyte claims that he had shares then he has lost his right of first refusal to any new shares. Since Green is the only person involved in Sevco 5088 he has free reign on doing as he pleases. If, as some claim, Duff & Phelps sold Rangers to Sevco 5088 then Green as the only controlling force could quite easily transfer Rangers to Sevco Scotland. Even if Duff & Phelps were lying about who they sold Rangers to, Green still ends up in the driver's seat. Now we come to the AP01s that Whyte has produced. Remember we don't have a written contract that says Green would appoint Whyte as a director. We only have Whyte's claim of an oral contract. We don't know exactly what the offer of value is and we don't know what exactly was the fair consideration. A judge would have to decide that one. We can say this though :- i) Legal Fact - Whyte has been barred as a director. ii) Legal Fact - Whyte has been called by a Sheriff 'a wholly unreliable witness' in the case with the roofing company. iii) Legal Fact - Whyte has been found to have lied in the Ticketus case. iv) I don't know if anything associated with the SFA is legal, but they have banned him from ever holding any position with any club in Scottish football. On the other hand Green has never been convicted of any Legal Wrongdoing. So if you were the judge who would you believe? On the other hand we have witnessed Green tell a few porkies in an attempt to cover his ass, and he has shown a decided lack of class when you compare him to the likes of Bill Struth etc. However, he did save our club, he did stand up to the bullies, and he did put us on a sound financial footing. We get to see our team play Clyde tomorrow because of him. I would say that as a support we may be inclined to offer him a period of grace to get his house in order. I would hope that with his drive and our passion we can raise our club back to the pinnacle of excellence.

Oh for goodness sake. How long do you want to keep this "overreaction" going? The man made a gaffe and has since apologized. Let it rest.

Ticketus have just won a civil suit in the High Court in London against Whyte. This allows them to go after the money they lent to him. The result of this case enhances the police case against Whyte for fraudulent acts. When HMRC refused the CVA and forced Rangers PLC into liquidation this had the effect of making Whyte's shares in Rangers PLC worthless. The assets, history etc. of Rangers PLC were sold by the Administrators to Sevco Scotland ( which according to the thread the other night by 'The Boss', severs any connection Whyte may have had through Sevco 5088 to Rangers). This means Whyte has no claim whatsoever on Rangers as they stand today. His only hope of recovering anything would be in some kind of civil action against Charles or Imran for a monetary settlement.

Zappa's right it's the SFL. I wrote to the SFL in January asking about our voting rights and our TV rights and here is their answer. Dear Mr. XXXXXXX, Thanks for your earlier message. Rangers F.C. are an associate member club of the SFL and, as such, have no voting rights until they become a full member of the League which is achieved after four successive years as an associate member. All central contracts, including television contracts, are negotiated on behalf of all clubs, by the governing body. Kind regards, SFL

From The Rangers Standard - http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/forum/article-debate/17548-graham-spiers-misquotes-neil-patey-on-bbc-radio Graham Spiers Misquotes Neil Patey on BBC Radio #2080 Chris Graham On Saturday, I appeared on BBC Sportsound Extra to discuss a number of topics relating to Rangers. At the end of the show the issue of whether Rangers were a â??new clubâ? was discussed in the context of an agenda by certain people in the media. I cited the opinion of the SFA, the European Club Association, Lord Glennie and Lord Nimmo Smith who have all made it clear that they recognise that the club has continued despite a new company owning and operating it. For the avoidance of doubt the quotes I was alluding to are included below. SFA, Tuesday 17th July 2012 â?? â??Sevco Scotland Ltd bought Rangers Football Club PLCâ??s share in the SPL and membership of the Scottish FA as part of their acquisition of assets. Under Article 14.1, Sevco Scotland are requesting the transfer of the existing membership of Oldco. This is different to an application for a new membership, which generally requires four years of financial statements.â? SFA, Friday 3rd August 2012 â?? â??The Scottish FA can confirm that The Rangers Football Club Ltd have today received confirmation that full membership of the Association has been transferredâ?. Lord Nimmo Smith, 12th September 2012 - â??In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner or operator. It is the Club, not its owner and operator, which plays in the league.â? Lord Glennie, 6th June 2012,also made clear the distinction between club and company when he said: â??This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers")â? My comments got something of a reaction from Graham Spiers who countered my position by saying that he had spoken to several unnamed â??insolvency peopleâ? who had said there was â??no debate about it that Rangers are a new clubâ?. When pressed he then stated the following. â??Neil Patey was on TV throughout last year and I asked him about it because guys like Chris and other Rangers fans became very touchy about this old club, new club thing. Neil Patey said that technically they are a new clubâ? I have also spoken to Neil Patey on many occasions about Rangers and I never recalled him saying anything of the sort. So I called him. Neil was kind enough to provide me with a quote on what he actually thinks the position of Rangers is as opposed to the way it was represented by Graham Spiers. He said: â??My view is that it is like many other business acquisitions where the assets, people, trade and trading names are "acquired" by another entity. It is a new legal entity, but essentially the old business continues. So it is right to say that it is a newco in legal terms, but the "club" is a continuation of the old one. Then it is up to football authorities if they confer membership and titles that "belonged" to oldco, which they obviously appear to have done.â? So there we have it. Neil Patey does not think that Rangers are a new club. In fact he thinks quite the opposite. Like any other professional expert in this area he can make the clear differentiation between the club and the company - something which is backed up in the comments by Lord Nimmo Smith and Lord Glennie above. He also recognises the unique role of the football authorities in this case and acknowledges that they have confirmed Rangers status as the same club. I would hope that Graham Spiers would now acknowledge that what he said was inaccurate and that he misrepresented Neil Pateyâ??s view on the subject. If you want to listen to the podcast of the show you can get it here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rr7v2 . The final 10 mins has the discussion in question.

I'm in Canada and I just listened to it on this link - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rr7v2

" If they needed to push themselves more to win the required number of games, then surely Rangers could produce football more watchable, or even just more energised, than the piddlingly ponderous version of the game that has become all too much the norm for them this season." Never rated this guy much above the level of prick, but unfortunately most of what he's saying is true.

Who borrowed the Savile calculator?

Well done, D'Art. Erudite and tenacious, just what we need. Shine the light in every little hole, brother.

Not sure if I've put this in the right spot, but it is a great post by John Gow of The Rangers Standard http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/forum/article-debate/15349-political-sectarianism-is-still-sectarianism Political sectarianism is still sectarianism! One of the interesting aspects of the recent â??Green Brigadeâ?? furore is how quickly some in the media and political world jumped to their defence and painted them as the victims of police brutality. Of-course, the police have their faults, but itâ??s usually normal to wait until we have all the evidence before assuming that arrests for assault and misuse of drugs have no basis. Strathclyde police were certainly shocked at the partisan nature of the criticism from high-profile figures, but this is their own naivety, as some have just been waiting for the opportunity. When the anti-sectarian crusade in football started, it mainly focused on Rangers fans. This was fine for many, as the established â??Old Firm problemâ?? was soon deftly framed so as to only blame those at Ibrox. Instead of looking at the larger picture of religion, football and the Irish troubles as the source of hatred - which would bring in both sets of fans - offending religion was made the ultimate taboo, while support for violent nationalism was called â??politicalâ??. It should never have been this way. One of the architects of the previous anti-sectarian motions through Parliament, the late Donald Gorrie, pointed out that, â??sectarianism is a convenient shorthand term to cover a complex issue, which is partly religious, partly historical, partly political and racial.â?? Even though both sets of fans were expressing their tribal support for one side of Irish (and British) history versus another, the Rangers fans were demonised because some leaned towards religious sectarianism, while the Celtic supportersâ?? overt political sectarianism was ignored or defended. â??But itâ??s not sectarianâ?? has now become a term to excuse bad behaviour. Singing songs about Rangers fans dying, including children, in the Ibrox disaster is bad, â??but itâ??s not sectarianâ??. Chanting in support of terrorist groups who killed innocent people just because of their nationality is bad, â??but itâ??s not sectarianâ??. Actual violence, whether it be against the police, stewards or opposition ball-boys is to be frowned upon, â??but itâ??s not sectarianâ??. Yet, some idiot who shouts â??F*ck the Popeâ?? is the ultimate evil because â??itâ??s sectarianâ??. Morality soon becomes secondary to a label. How offended you are is decided by who says it, and not by what is said. This reached a peak with the â??summitâ?? convened by Alex Salmond after Neil Lennon and Ally McCoist bumped chests for two seconds after a Celtic versus Rangers game. There was great hysteria about sectarianism at the time, so the First Minister decided to show he was â??doing somethingâ?? by furthering police powers surrounding football. But laws for religious sectarianism already existed, and with the complaint that political sectarianism was being ignored, his Government broadened the law to include anything offensive. Hence the â??Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012â??. The police were happy, because as shown in the written submission to the Justice Committee for the new bill, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland' (ACPOS) confirmed that the focus on religious sectarianism is detrimental to defeating the hatred that surrounds the totality of sectarianism because: â??there would not appear to be scope to capture, other than to badge it under inciting public disorder, those who sing or chant politically sectarian messages that are pro/anti IRA, UVF, UDA, ******, Hun etc that are intended to offend other people.â?? (Their emphasis.) Even the leading anti-sectarian organisation â??Nil by Mouthâ?? (NbM) in their submission stated that: â??We must accept that the word â??sectarianismâ?? transcends its dictionary meaning when applied to Scotland. [but] NbM understands that sectarianism in Scotland is a fusion of religion, politics, identity and ignorance. The context in which a particular act is performed, or certain word is spoken, is also highly significant. [My emphasis] Those who understand real-life know that the young lad being chased by thugs while they shout â??up the Raâ?? is just as sectarian as the thugs who chase another shouting â??F*ck the Popeâ??. Neither is a theological or political expression. It might as well be baby noises, since the tribalism is basically â??themâ?? and â??usâ?? and it doesnâ??t matter the excuse. Using semantics to divide behaviour that has the same source, intent and result is bizarre, yet this is what happened. But now Celtic fans had a problem. Their â??politicalâ?? excuse no longer held. Semantics didnâ??t matter since the criteria was offensiveness, and no longer just religion. As Dr Stuart Waiton of Arbertay University, author of a good book on the issue called â??Snobâ??s Lawâ??, and who genuinely believes in freedom of speech regardless whether it is political or religious, says: â??An important part of the [Offensive Behaviour] bill was that the law now targeted not only Rangers â??sectarianâ?? songs, but also Celtic republican or â??politicalâ?? songs that offend some people: Thus, â??evening things upâ??. [And] despite the limited overt promotion of the need to stop IRA type songs, politicians like Alex Salmond, and senior police officers were very clear about what needed to be done. â??These peopleâ??, were bringing the game into disrepute. They were â??unacceptable in a modern tolerant Scotlandâ??. They were part of â??Scotlandâ??s Shameâ?? and needed to be stamped out. And so it has come to passâ?¦.Nobody should be surprised that the Green Brigade, a pro Irish Republican singing section of Celtic supporters, have been targeted by the police in the way they have been.â?? While Dr Waiton is against all forms of censorship, and has as a better grasp of this issue than nearly everyone else, he still does not realise that freedom of speech is not the goal for the Green Brigade, or the politicians and journalists who are defending them. If the Offensive Behaviour Bill is repealed, many who support Dr Waiton will drop him quickly and denigrate him once he asks for the same with religious offensiveness. He might think he knows this, as he is aware some Celtic fans want to sing their songs while stopping Rangers fans and vice versa, but itâ??s doubtful he realises how many of the high-profile people who tell him they support or defend the right to sing about the IRA or violent Irish republicanism under the freedom of speech angle, will never do the same for violent loyalism or offending religion. Already journalist Graham Spiers will quote him in a positive way with regard to his defence of the Green Brigade, but on twitter will more than once call him â??bonkersâ??. In an interesting article on the 28th of February 2012, by â??The Heraldâ?? journalist Gerry Braiden, who has been pushing hard against the new bill, called â??Fears over police misuse of anti-sectarian powersâ?? there was a list of quotes from â??leading lawyersâ?? who seemed to be giving their objective viewpoint. One was from: â??Paul Kavanagh, director of Glasgow and Edinburgh based legal firm Gildeas, [who] said: "While going on holiday with their families, people who have been recognised at football matches by the police are stopped routinely at Glasgow Airport. It is correct for people who sing sectarian songs or shout sectarian insults to be arrested and processed through the courts. However, what about a person displaying a banner that is not sectarian in anyway, simply walking to a football match and being told to provide his name and address to police for no apparent reason, or walking down the street with his family and being spoken to by the police as they recognised him at a football match? Where is their right to privacy? Where is the crime?â?? Notice that Mr Kavanagh of Gildeas goes out of his way to state that sectarianism, which we assume is of the religious variety and not the political idiocy, is to still be stamped on. Is this really about censorship or freedom of speech? Interestingly, according to Gildeasâ??s own twitter account, they are the â??legal representatives of the Green Brigadeâ??. This wasnâ??t mentioned in the article. Another who has given support to the Green Brigade, and who is a perfect example of the double-standards being discussed, is the aforementioned sportswriter Graham Spiers. He is known as an anti-sectarian campaigner who shows zero tolerance for religious sectarianism. Yet when discussing political sectarianism there is great doubt, going to the extreme where he says IRA chants from Celtic fans are a â??complicationâ??. This is not to say he supports any of the IRA stuff - he is genuinely against it - but he holds different standards for religious and political sectarianism. â??Is this stuff political or is it sectarian?â?? he bemoans, as if singing about those who murder innocent people needs a proper label. And before the excuse is given that Graham Spiers thinks the IRA songs are about 1916, he doesnâ??t. He has previously written that it is not convincing to say that IRA chants from Celtic fans are a reference to a 100 year old Irish liberation movement. Instead, it is support for the terrorists of recent times. There is nothing less political, or more sectarian, than killing innocent people because of their background, yet chanting in support for the IRA is â??complicatedâ?? because many fans believe â??Celtic FC is a symbol of the historic struggle of the Irishâ??. While, with no hint of embarrassment, he writes that a Rangers fan who wants to include non-violent British or Protestant identity at Ibrox is, â??sounding a bit like a cavemanâ??. Why the difference? When Graham Spiers defends the expression of violent Irish republicanism does he really understand what it is or that itâ??s not the same as Irish culture? Are we to believe he thinks Rangers fans singing about loyalism is complicated or part of the Irish struggle too? Will any politician or journalist defend Rangers fans as they glorify loyalist paramilitaries for their equally heinous crimes against innocent people? Of-course not â?? and nor should they - yet supporting the IRA is somehow valid. The fight to repeal the Offensive Behaviour Bill has begun, and that isnâ??t all bad since it is a draconian piece of legislation, but Rangers fans should be under no illusion that for many this is not about freedom of speech or a battle against censorship, but the right to glorify violent Irish Republicanism while still keeping violent loyalism and religious sectarianism taboo. The ideal state for many within the game is where Rangers fans will be demonised for singing their offensive songs, while Celtic fans will be ignored or defended for theirs.

There is no agenda here. The fact that this nonsense is grabbing the headlines when other more important stories, like the reporting of progress of stories about paedo priests, cardinals and popes is getting buried is of no consequence. Gawd, all we wanted to do was read about fitba'.

SPL sets reconstruction vote date Last Updated: March 11 2013, 18:07 GMT Scottish Premier League clubs will vote on a reconstruction package on April 15 with a view to it being implemented by the start of next season, the league has confirmed. Stephen Thompson: Believes plan will be in place for next season The 12 top-flight clubs met at Hampden on Monday to discuss the new rule book for the proposed three leagues of 12-12-18, which would split into 8-8-8-18 after 22 games. It will take an 11-1 vote to pass the motion, which will also have to be approved by the Scottish Football League, who have yet to set a date for their vote. Dundee United chairman and SPL board member Stephen Thompson, said: "Everything is positive and moving forward. There is a process in place and we will take it from there." Asked if he thought reconstruction would be in place for the start of next season, he replied: "That's the plan." St Mirren chairman Stewart Gilmour was more cautious as he left Hampden earlier in the day. He said: "We had a good discussion. There was good dialogue and difference of opinion but a long way to go. "I don't know what will happen. The SFL clubs are still to meet and until they come back... "There is a lot of tidying up to be done. "The biggest thing is, once the SFL clubs meet, I'm sure they all have their own opinions as well so there is a long way to go. "If you make a decision to change, it is best to happen right away but whether we get to that in time, I don't know." Ross County chairman Roy MacGregor admitted he was concerned with the practicalities of the split. He said: "There is a lot of debate to go on yet and we will see how that goes. "My concerns are for the fans. About 80 to 85 per cent of what is there I really believe in; one league body, redistribution (of money), more competitiveness, but I do feel for the fans who are asked to buy a 22-match season-ticket. "That it is short-changing them and I believe that long-term, if that resolution is not sorted, it could be the end of people buying season tickets. "The fan is the most important person, not the clubs, not anything else and I do believe that considering what the fans are getting is really important. "But it is good, healthy debate. I must stress that and everyone in that room is very positive to get a resolution, so it goes ahead quite possibly."

From CRO 11 March 2013Lost In Transition by Andy McKellar | Deputy Editor It was supposed to be the beginning of a bright and exciting new chapter in our illustrious history where we would hand something back to the ground level of the Scottish game and develop a modern, forward-thinking football philosophy that would provide the foundation for decades to come. Somewhere down the line however we already seem to have lost our sense of direction, our sense of ambition and sight of the standards which have been maintained since the days when Mr Struth shaped the way for Rangers Football Club. Like so many supporters I was eagerly anticipating this season and was looking forward to our journey back to the top. In my eyes this was a completely unique opportunity where we could blood our young players, develop talent from within and encourage an attractive, attacking brand of football. The circumstances may have been far from ideal thanks to the procrastination and sheer incompetence of the football authorities but nevertheless there was a chance to bravely forge the way forward for our club away from the pressure and expectations that would inevitably have accompanied top-tier participation. The early steps of our journey were encouraging with an emphasis on passing the ball from the back and with the likes of Barrie McKay and Lewis MacLeod providing standout performances that ensured supporters were highly optimistic about the future. A poor run of results away from home however seemed to quickly erode the confidence of our management team and any thought of slick football was quickly shoved aside, replaced with constant long balls and aimless punts up the park. Itâ??s certainly been far from a joy to watch. The most recent disappointment in our increasingly wearying campaign came on Saturday when we were outran, outthought and outplayed at home by Annan Athletic, our part-time opponents. It wasnâ??t just the result which was hugely disappointing but more so the manner of the defeat which should leave our coaching staff, our management and our players thoroughly humiliated. The very fact that it has been talked of as the worst result in our history speaks volumes even if it is up for debate. The summer may have been far from convenient but letâ??s not get away from the facts. Rangers have training facilities that would rival those of many top clubs across the continent and play at a wonderful stadium in front of some of the biggest crowds in the United Kingdom. On top of that we also have the second-highest wage budget in the country in addition to scouting and youth development resources that canâ??t be matched by anyone other than Celtic. It therefore shouldnâ??t be too much to ask for us to dominate the Third Division with considerable comfort and style in addition to putting together some healthy runs in the cup competitions. This season though, weâ??ve vastly underachieved and underperformed. While I have regularly mentioned my desire for a free-flowing game there are some people out there that believe this is unrealistic and overly ambitious. Although I strongly disagree with them I would also like to point out that we are currently struggling to get the most basic aspects of our game right despite being well into the season and clear of the mayhem in the summer. The first main issue, and perhaps one of the most concerning, is the fitness levels of the Rangers players. Letâ??s not forget that we train full-time at the best facilities and employ a sports scientist while our opponents hold down day-jobs and train a couple of times a week on top of that. There is no doubt that we should be absolutely steamrollering over the top of teams come the last twenty minutes of matches but sadly that simply hasnâ??t been the case. In fact, in many of our recent matches, it has been the part-timers who have been going strong towards the end while we laboured and toiled. Itâ??s frankly unforgivable. The next point of contention is the fact that we are unable to execute the simplest of tasks. Basic things like taking set-pieces are regularly made to look very difficult and it appears that we have no designated players to take corners and free-kicks. On top of that we have been leaking goals all season from set-plays and there seems to have been little or nothing done to address the problem despite the obvious damage it is doing to our results. Considerable question marks now hang over our coaching staff and our training regime at Auchenhowie. There is a growing belief out there that our training just simply isnâ??t hard or challenging enough and that our coaching would appear to be substandard. The players too have come in for criticism for their lifestyles and fondness of things such as Nandoâ??s and nightclubs. Without access to what goes on at training it is hard to accurately comment however it is clear that whatever is currently going on quite simply isnâ??t producing the desired results. Thatâ??s pretty much beyond contention. Perhaps the biggest question though is about our manager, Ally McCoist. I feel obliged to highlight how much of a legend the man is and just how much he has done for our club. Itâ??s almost a necessity when discussing the manâ??s managerial capabilities for some reason. Speaking of which there is undoubtedly an increasing number of fans who are struggling to defend Ally in the face of frequent criticism of his performance in his role. As much as it pains me to say it, I really donâ??t think he is up to the job. The major positive when discussing his managerial CV seems to be the amassing of a considerable lead at the beginning of last season which saw Rangers sit fifteen points clear at the top of the table with Celtic having a couple of games in hand. There is however a lengthy list of negatives such as the way in which we surrendered that lead, our cup exits to Falkirk and Dundee United and letâ??s not forget being knocked out of both European competitions at the start of the season. Itâ??s pretty grim reading unfortunately. And that of course is before we consider the many failings within this campaign. The latest dire performance and result should certainly be enough to concern Charles Green and his investors. The fact that there were more empty seats in the crowd than normal on Saturday should certainly raise a few eyebrows and with season ticket renewals to be issued in the not too distant future, that is not a good sign. Given that we are already running at a loss the last thing we need is a drop in revenue via ticket sales. Unfortunately I cannot help but conclude that our management and players have woefully underperformed this season. A campaign which began with fun and laughter has recently been running to the soundtrack of moans and groans. Something certainly has to be done to address the issues although I donâ??t suspect that the solution will involve a change in manager, at least if Greenâ??s recent comments are anything to go by. Ally McCoist will most probably get next season to prove his worth. Heâ??ll have the summertime to strengthen the squad and to carry out proper pre-season preparations for the campaign ahead, whether that is in SFL2 or in the reconstructed third-tier of eighteen. There will then be no more room for excuses, he must deliver the goods. At the moment we are very much a team that is lost in transition. McCoist simply has to prove that he is capable of turning things around and providing the direction needed to take this club forward. If he fails to do so then sadly it will be the end of his spell as the manager of Rangers. No man is bigger than the club and Ally might just find that out if things donâ??t begin to change

Gascoigne returns after US rehab Footballing star Paul Gascoigne thought he was going to die during his latest stretch in rehab to beat alcohol addiction, it has been reported. Published: Sun, March 10, 2013 Paul Gascoigne has been described as one of England's most naturally gifted players ever The ex-England and Newcastle player returned to Britain on Saturday after more than a month at the clinic in Phoenix, Arizona, during which he was treated in intensive care. Doctors said it was the worst detox they had ever seen when the shock of giving up alcohol sent his body into seizure, Gascoigne told the Sun. He said: "Three doctors didn't think I would make it. It has got to inspire me to never let this happen again. I've come through that - death. I was dead." He added: "I thought I was on my way out. I looked like a corpse. I was a total wreck." The 45-year-old said he woke up in intensive care strapped to the bed to stop tubes from falling out of his arms and was repeatedly injected. Gascoigne, who also played for Lazio and Tottenham Hotspur, said he feels grateful to be alive and is determined to stay away from alcohol. His latest stint in rehab was organised by TalkSPORT presenter and former England cricketer Ronnie Irani and Radio 2 presenter Chris Evans, a long-term friend of Gascoigne. The move came following a charity appearance in Northampton during which the star appeared unwell and shaking, before breaking down and sobbing on stage in front of a room full of fans. The world of football has shown its concern at the latest troubled period in the life of Gascoigne, one of England's most naturally gifted players ever. Gascoigne, who has spoken about alcoholism problems in the past, was sectioned five years ago under the Mental Health Act.

From CRO 10 March 2013 Out of focus by Peter Ewart | Contributor Itâ??s said that if you havenâ??t got anything good to say then say nothing. When it comes to our manager and the way our team has performed (or not) I have pretty well kept to that adage this season. Excuses could be made - exceptional circumstances, culture shock all that. However we are way beyond that stage. The fact is that the football being played is remarkably poor and results are now suffering. The 2-1 loss to Annan marks one of, if not the worst result in Rangers history. That is some claim, but it is hard to think of a parallel. The full time team supposed to be pushing on for the league title just didnâ??t. Annan outplayed us, outthought us, wanted it more, and it could have been far more comfortable for the visitors. The result itself has been the catalyst for a backlash but it is far from the first dismal performance of the year. Supposedly professional players havenâ??t been interested, discipline and leadership have been lacking, and the buck has to stop with the manager. We have been tactically out thought on a regular basis in SFL3. On top of that our players do not look fitter than our part-time opponents. We have played one up front and the long ball game far too often. Ally has played players out of position on a regular basis. Andy Little, who has continued to bang in goals wherever he has been played, has been played wide right for far too many games. Against Annan, Little was started on the left wing, into the center when Shiels went down, then moved to the right to accommodate a slack Sandaza. A noticeably unfit Jig was played through the middle and despite needing goals, Little, our leading scorer and on a great run of form, was pushed to the wings. An absolute waste. And he was not the only player: Kal Naismith, predominantly left footed, continues to start games on the right hand side where he looks uncomfortable and frankly a position he is unable to play. It is crazy. Black appears to be unable to be dropped despite a string of under-par performances, and Shiels and Sandaza made it back on the park ahead of players who merited inclusion ahead of them. There is a pandering towards â??seniorâ?? players. Do we have to play them because we pay them so much rather than how they are playing? If Ally feels he does, and that is what it looks like, then we have a problem. There is a general lack of cohesion and discipline in the side. Take the East Stirlingshire game last week. Players were arguing with each other. Complacency was rife. There was arguing over who would take free kicks. There were pointless floated corners drifted into no manâ??s land between the penalty spot and 18 yard line. Do we practice taking and defending set pieces? We should be much better at both, certainly in comparison to our, again, part-time opposition. I donâ??t understand what is happening on the training ground, all those decisions should already have been made by the manager and stuck to without question by the players â?? why is our preparation and execution apparently so slack? As we were losing to Annan, East Stirlingshire were hammered 9-1 by Stirling Albion. A freak result? Almost certainly, but given the wage bill we have (second only to Celtic in Scotland) in what is a part-time amateur league it is what we should have been threatening to do in a lot of games this season â?? win by double figures. We havenâ??t even been close. 5-1 at home and 6-2 away are our biggest league wins. Clean sheets like hens teeth too. It is all too easy to slate the poor performances but what can we do about it? Some of the answers are sitting on the substitutes bench and in the Swifts line-ups. We should also be looking at what has not worked. Signing SPL players for the lower leagues has not proved a success. Black, Sandaza, Shiels, Templeton have all underperformed to a greater or lesser degree. We have not had leadership from them, nor have we had value for money, perhaps with the exception of the inconsistent Templeton. For senior players there are unfortunately no leaders amongst them. McCulloch flatters to deceive in that department and whilst Wallace can lead by example at times, though he is not a â??talkerâ?? or natural motivator. We are crying out for leadership down the spine of the team. We have had glimpses of some of the younger players, and Fraser Aird and Robbie Crawford have performed when played. Lewis Macleod was a revelation prior to picking up his unfortunate injury. And you suspect that there are more waiting in the wings â?? Mitchell, Murdoch and others. Weâ??ll maybe even get to see Gasparotto. Yet the stock reaction from Ally to the horrendous Annan performance is to say that it highlights the need to strengthen the team and squad. It simply doesnâ??t. It highlights the inability to bring the best out of the current squad. We have no need to buy more mediocre players from around the world. Cribari and Argyriou should be case in point for that. And with the financial state the club is in we should not be signing high wage â??bigâ?? name options for the lower leagues. Itâ??s nonsensical. We have talent already at the club that should be nurtured ahead of bringing in expensive and mediocre foreign and journeyman players. Some experience and leadership is needed but should be very carefully selected. The club can ill-afford to waste money on fringe signings such as Kevin Kyle and the like. Itâ??s not what the fans want either. Season ticket renewals are not far away and the club would do well to take heed. Now is the time to give youth time to develop, play a passing game and make the product on the park attractive all round. We are miles away from that currently. Season ticket prices will be going up, but Green should now realise that it isnâ??t â??box officeâ?? individual players that are needed to justify the hike. We want a team that plays for each other, gives its all and plays for the jersey. And that should be a damned sight cheaper than the current route we have embarked on. Just because the registration embargo will come to an end doesnâ??t mean the club should rush out and buy all round them. Letâ??s take stock of what we need for whatever league set-up we end up in next year and that should mean limited and focused transfer activity. Of course we will win SFL3. If we donâ??t I am leaving the country. But as it stands if Queenâ??s Park, an amateur side, win on Tuesday night, they will only be 14 points behind us. Weâ??ll be less than five wins better than them in mid-March. Is that good enough? We havenâ??t been disciplined or professional enough. The league should have been out of sight a while ago but we havenâ??t been up to it. The manager and coaching staff have been at fault. Change in tactics, attitude and application is needed, and the sooner the better. Certainly Ally will always be a Rangers legend, but itâ??s hard to see him making it into the top bracket of Rangers managers if a massive overhaul is not undertaken, and soon.