barca72

Watched the game this afternoon and wasn't overly impressed with either team's finishing. If Juve hope to beat Barcelona they're going to have to be a bit more clinical in the penalty area.

Well, at least he has impressed himself with his efforts.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/ex-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-appears-5686913 Ex-Rangers owner Craig Whyte appears in court for bail review 19:46, 12 May 2015 By Gordon Robertson THE former Rangers owner attended Glasgow Sheriff Court for a bail review which was held in private. CRAIG Whyte was back in Glasgow today for a court appearance. The former Rangers owner attended Glasgow Sheriff Court for a bail review which was held in private. Whyte was earlier spotted at Gatwick Airport waiting for a flight to back to Scotland.

Reading those comments was just delicious. I guess you're really hurting Pete, eh? I believe the expression is - GIRFUY !!!!

How many more games do they have left to play?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/revealed-what-snp-candidate-paisley-5118483

While we're on the subject of playoff tickets, here's the DR take ... Rangers play-off tickets row: SPFL score £500k own goal by refusing Gers' request to allow season ticket holders in for free http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-play-off-tickets-row-spfl-5656401 Some days just keep on giving !! Hello, Doncaster are you there ??? Get this numptie outta here.

I think that this is not a fight that the SFA really need to pick. If they can't tell shit from shinolla, they may find that they are going to cost themselves more heartache. Ask Peter, he says it's costing him £10M per year. Just what kind of power does Regan's crew think they actually wield without their money-earner?

Well I think one word ( f*nian ) had the uncontested eloquence of one, Prof. Tom Devine, arguing the case for the word to be sectarian, while the other ( hun ) only had a lowly sheriff ( Steele ) convict a transgressor for using the word in a religiously aggravated manner. No comparison, one is too inconvenient, eh? Sweep, sweep.

Liewell wants to know more about King's financial affairs than King wants to tell him. ( nosy SoB )

Oh, I think the club have made their point, and covered security costs. If we get through QOS, then I think the SPFL could defuse the situation quite easily by stating a compromise whereby they agree to 50% of the gate but after all costs have been paid.

You are falling into his trap of accepting that there was not any legislation that could have dealt with O'Hara when he made his 'hun' remarks. There was - section 74 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, which came into effect in June 2003 - http://www.journalonline.co.uk/news/1003667.aspx#.VUuLA-l_lD-. Many people were in fact convicted under this Act. O'Hara fell through the cracks or got lucky. He could have been charged and convicted and that is what the SNP should be addressing. Up to and until you get RPB to accept and admit that there was legislation that existed to charge and convict O'Hara, he will lead you on a merry dance of semantic gymnastics.

There may be slight confusion here. There are two Acts to consider - 1. section 74 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, which came into effect in June 2003, the aggravation (religious or otherwise) must be taken into account when offenders are sentenced in court. - http://www.journalonline.co.uk/news/1003667.aspx#.VUsJcel_lD9 2. The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 14th December 2011 and came into force on 1st March 2012. - http://www.gov.scot/Topics/archive/law-order/sectarianism-action-1/football-violence/bill Ergo, there was sufficient legislation in place when O'Hara committed his transgressions, in 2007 & 2008, to have been charged and convicted for religiously aggravated breach of the peace. I don't know what the statute of limitations on that Act are, but that is not the point. The fact that he could and should have been charged and prosecuted is. However, since the SNP have subsequently introduced their own legislation - the OBA - this should endorse the view that a man who should have been charged with a religiously aggravated crime should not be presented as a candidate in this current election. It is cringeworthy to think that a man with this religiously aggravated attitude should be considered as a law-maker. Maybe Rabbie had it right - "a parcel o' rogues in the nation".

I shall not engage in a deranged dance of semantics. If we are going to have a discussion then you will have to agree on a few basic points. First, I shall repeat the question; Are you saying that - 'SECTION 74 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) ACT 2003 - RELIGIOUSLY AGGRAVATED CRIME' - did not exist?

Let's get something straight first with no denying and no deflection. Are you saying that - 'SECTION 74 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) ACT 2003 - RELIGIOUSLY AGGRAVATED CRIME' - did not exist?

What are you talking about, no relevance? Surely the whole point of this thread is to show how hypocritical the SNP are. The point is not that O'Hara was actually charged and convicted of "religiously aggravated breach of the peace", but that the law was in place to charge and convict him since 2003. Just because Mulholland ( or his predecessor ) and the Justice Minister of the time did not have their police and/or the CPS instruments in active response mode in his direction does not mean that O'Hara was any less guilty of having committed a crime. I think that what that review shows is that the politicians used those facts, and especially since it appears that police action was directed at 16-20 year olds, to help create the abominable OBA. Which in my mind now that the facts about O'Hara have surfaced, should be all the more reason for the SNP to stand O'Hara down. Whomever said earlier in this thread that you should stand for a political office had the rights of it. You seem to have a propensity for ignoring legal facts when it suits you, using marginal data with a fervour and stating them as facts when it suits you, and in between times talking a whole load of pish. Who else do we know that does that ...

The laws covering what would now be an offence were not in place at the time O'hara wasn't prosecuted because he committed no offense Sorry, RPB, but the laws were already in place long before O'Hara committed his 'crime' ... http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/155706/0041794.pdf USE OF SECTION 74 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) ACT 2003 - RELIGIOUSLY AGGRAVATED REPORTED CRIME: AN 18 MONTH REVIEW MAIN FINDINGS Update of Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) Report • When comparing the first six months of operation of Section 74 (27th June 2003 – 31st December 2003) with data for the same period in 2004 (27th June – 31st December 2004) – the number of incidents reported with a religious aggravation increase by 55%. During these 2 time periods, there were broadly similar patterns of Section 74 usage, with the exception that football related offences accounted for a higher percentage of reported cases in June- December 2004 and a higher percentage of cases were brought against 16-20 year olds in June-December 2004. Due to the limited timescale of this comparative exercise, the significance of these fluctuations should not be overemphasised.

I would offer you this blog; detailing and bemoaning the facts of a case concerning the word 'hun' - and as you can see it comes from a CFC-supporting blog http://www.celtic-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/scottish_football_fans_must_beware_of_the_hword_police_413448/index.shtml "dirty horrible huns" - the words on a tee-shirt worn by the youth "religiously aggravated breach of the peace" - what the sheriff found him guilty of "the hun hordes have succesfully won their fight to have the term 'hun' deemed sectarian by the law of the land" - the author's conclusion. This all took place in 2008, four years before the Act came in. Now, remind me again if O'Hara said what he said in 2007 or 2008, or if he still supports a team, the fans of whom, weekly chant this kind of word at almost every game. This means that the laws were there and in effect when O'Hara used the language he did. Why he was not prosecuted , who knows? I would remind you of D'Art's statement - "I think most people, irrespective of party politics would see the utter hypocrisy of the SNP's action, or lack thereof, with regard to O'Hara." A few weeks ago the SFA, have now officially stated that the use of the word 'hun' is offensive. Whether O'Hara used the term 8 years ago, last week or perhaps one day in in the future in parliament; he like you, will still remember what he thinks in his mind when the term is remembered.

I seem to remember the last time I read the SFA rules that a member club could not refuse to play in any competitions of the leagues under their control without facing sanctions. ( possibly even as severe as losing one's licence ).

RPB, do you ever feel that you are being allowed just enough rope?

I agree with 1. & 2., but I would not have the US Collegiate system as I believe it leaves itself open to brown envelope-type corruption. Instead I would rather have the NHL type of progression. This is where the kids play in amateur/junior leagues, then progress into Major Junior leagues. By this time they are around 17/18. They are then available to the professional clubs via the annual draft system. The best thing about this draft system is that of the 30 teams in the NHL, the worst team in the standings gets first pick in the next season's draft. In this way after a few years there tends to be parity between the clubs, because each year's phenoms are spread around. In this way you tend to break up the grip of the dominant teams. It doesn't always work out in real life the way it should in theory because teams can trade draft picks etc. but another balancing feature is that clubs have a maximum cap space. This means that all teams are only allowed a certain amount of money that they can pay out in salary, and that cap limit is the same for all teams irrespective of how big their market is. In this way you tend to see a runaway team in one year being broken up in the next year or two because they can't legally keep all the superstars in the league because each superstar is paid too much. Those players not picked up in the draft pick can play in non-league hockey and can at a later date be picked up by a team as a non-draft pick ( usually these are the late developers ) but are still subject to the overall team-cap limit.

When you consider the pittance we receive at the moment, that sanction will mean no big loss. However, for the other turkeys who continue to support Doncaster and Liewell it may be worth their while to realise how easily things are changed and manipulated to their own deprivation. Next year it is possible that they will not have the Blue Pound to sustain them, but will indeed have to survive on scraps from those who are running Scottish football. It is better that we make the stand now and set our stall for the future. How long can this incompetance be tolerated by the clubs that are Scottish football?

Are you sure about that?

Och, c'mon RPB, you understand alright. Did the SNP not introduce the Objectionable Behaviour Act? So, who's government is worse, or at least as bad as each other , the UK government or the SNP government in Holyrood?

Excuse me here BH, but are the police actions that take place inside the stadium not under the control of the match commander? Does he not decide and impart to his officers what is offensive behaviour, does he not decide where to deploy his resources. I appreciate that he requires resources outside the stadium to shepherd the crowd inside the stadium, but once the game has started he is the man and will move his resources as required. Also, is it not the case that the police sit in on pre-game meetings to advise the club and TV companies when and how the police are prepared to distribute their resources and games are moved accordingly. If he can dictate when he wants to take control them let him take responsibility for being in control.