buster.

Scotland weren't technically good enough to carry out their game plan in Georgia. They were set out by Strachan to play through the Georgians with a precise passing game and against well organised and compact defensive lines (Georgian defence & midfield)..... in the last third we simply didn't have the speed of touch, movement and/or thought neccessary. It exposed an on-field lack of quality and management that didn't adapt to what was in front of them. It was no fluke and playing the same way in the same situation would probably yield a similar result. Against better teams we have enjoyed more space to play in up front and have done very well in converting this into goals. Hence decent results against the likes of Poland, Ireland and even 3 goals against Germany. In fact we scored more goals against each of the top three than the one OG we got against Georgia in the 180 minutes.

My answers in quotes and bold text. I expect if you were put under house arrest for 4 years and your health suffered as a result, and you were then found innocent in three trials for the same crime, you'd expect compensation. That option might not exist but perhaps it should. If we win, then the current system is obviously highly flawed and not fit for purpose. As I said, tax is a delicate matter and innocent people and companies should not suffer badly in its hands. HMRC should be designed to sort it out quickly and decisively. They should put their case together as quickly as possible and withdraw when they lose - unless there are very exceptional circumstance where the public would greatly benefit. In this case they severely wounded a national institution and the collateral of severely wounding the national sport. What they have done has been horrendous and it looks like they didn't have good reason to do so. The game will take massive amount of time to recover, if ever, and there has been extensive cultural schism highly exaccerbated which will only get worse, once we are back in top flight. The ill thought out HMRC actions, have had a massive negative impact on our nation. People say SDM played hard and fast with the fate of our club, but at least he was pretty much in the right. HMRC have done the same and also played hard and fast with our fragile national sport and by extension, national pride, and they seem to be totally in the wrong - and using an unfair and possibly immoral ethos as mentioned above. Murray is a boisterous schoolboy in comparison. I think people are really missing how irresponsible that a government institution has been. If ever there was ever a time to play a softer game to protect the good of the nation, this was it. I can imagine a bit of sweeping under the carpet and the more that is done, the more likely that corruption and malevolence is at the core. In fact there is already a lot of smoke in that respect, with refusals to investigate the leaks and to provide the tally of the cost of the action. In fact I think the RFFF should offer to pay the costs of counting this tally and see if they still refuse. I suspect that the cost excuse is erroneous and disingenuous. HMRC have not acted in an obviously open way that suggests innocence - not in the slightest. I realise shiftiness doesn't prove guilt but it highly raises the suspicions. I can't see how it can be ignored in the context of a hidden agenda and as I say again, the tax system not only should BE fair, it needs to be SEEN to be fair. In that respect HMRC are plain as day guilty as charged. My answers in quotes and bold text.

Incidently, when Scottish Police searched SD HQ not so long back in connection with our case, I'm sure it was Forsey that they wanted to talk to. Edit.....Link and story below. Also seems like D&P UK are building and developing a reputation of sorts.

HMRC official I made reference to in the previous post was Dave Hartnett "Deloitte appoints official criticised over 'sweetheart' tax deals" http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/27/deloitte-appoints-dave-hartnett-tax

HMRC have used the process in place and their legal counsel must have advised them that they thought they had a chance of winning. HMRC may have thought it worth their time and money (or rather the taxpayers) balanced against what they may have stood to gain (EBT precedent). "Innocence" isn't established until the fat lady sings so I see no legal recourse for oldco, unless perhaps if you could prove 'ulterior motives' which you seem to allude to. I personaly very much doubt this can be done or in fact, that they exist. IIRC a 'high' judicial authority (can't remember exactly what) had to grant HMRC leave for this latest appeal, having to be satisfied that what HMRC were bringing to the new party justified a further appeal. This was obviously granted. In the case of a further defeat for HMRC then it would certainly be a particular process that they should review from their side, learn from and if individuals are found to be incompetent, foolhardy or whatever. Then they should be made to take responsibility for and made accountable. I can't remember the guys name but there was a senior HMRC employee who seemed to have behaved 'dubiously' when making 'deals' with certain corporate giants. My guess is that he didn't have to bear full responsibility or accountability and is doing very well for himself elsewhere..........and this unfortunately seems typical of the corporate and political sectors today. ----------------------------- I'm no expert on tax matters and would invite any advice on errors above.

Worth remembering that the legal process can drag on and be unpredictable when thinking about timescales and the live cases (takeovers; 2011 & 2012) that will see some 'activity' next week and that may go on to have significant repercussions for our football club. Four years ago we were being told that the tax tribunal would come up with a judgement in the November sitting (2011) of the 'Big Tax Case, that would crystalise the amount the club would owe HMRC. It was taken for granted that HMRC were going to 'win'.

But neither do ROI and we've finished behind them after taking 4 points from them.

Golazo Ritchie !!!! Ya beautie,...great time to score.

Thanks Boabie ! What happens in courtrooms and possible appeals thereafter will have a huge bearing and no-one currently knows for sure how it will turn out or the timescales that will be involved.

I presume that you didn't have reason to disagree or qualify my assumptions from my previous reply to you. I think that the board have already done more than enough to feel entitled to more support and understanding from the fanbase,.......whilst the John James' of this world have done enough to merit an all together different type of response. At this point in time, to see both as options to vent anger/discontent,..... seems a little perverse.

I only wish such things existed ! Ashley is a loathsome individual whose business practises are repugnant.

All things considered, I can't agree with you. I see no reason why Waghorn can't be our main centre forward next season if he continues developing and improving within the right footballing enviroment allied to regular first team gametime.

I asked "who" rather than 'to what degree'. Now let's say you appear angry with both your partly identified and dubious strands of loaded information' whilst not completely ruling out that they may be right.............. I take from reading your posts on this thread, that you identify and put forward a third option (the RIFC board/DK) in somewhat couched or qualified terms. No-one is above 'vigilance' but some IMO are clearly deserving of more support and understanding within the difficult enviroment or minefield that they took over. If the points you make regards present day vigilance are as you described, "incidental" then surely in the absence of more significant issues you can give them the benefit of the doubt for now.................I'm guessing that may bring us back to what those you are angry with have said...........if it does, please say so in a clear and concise manner.

D'art.....still pending a consideresd response to some of your points in the above post but for the time being could you simply answer me who exactly you are angry with ?.......... as it very much looks as if you are subtley posing a similar question to readers. From your OP.......... “Anybody can become angry – that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way – that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy.” (Aristotle)

It's like comparing a brillantly prepared but ordinary steak bought within a reduced budget, forced because of legal action by a customer after being poisoned by the out of date pot noodle. Goodnight !

Time for bed and I'll answer more fully tomorrow but how can you begin to compare boards in the question you pose, when their (underlying) motives were/are so obviously different ? That isn't even thinking about the 46,000K average home attendence, 100% league record and entertaining football.

Not until there is much more detail available and that fully answers the relevant questions in a satisfactory manner (Bluedell has asked some of them on the other thread). edit. Had there been a 'reserve judgement until more details are available' option,...I'd have gone for that instead of 'no'.

As Bluedell suggests, there are many questions that would need to be answered with a unified voice. Sounds a good idea and the general direction we want to be heading as a support but we need to know a lot more detail, see a reasonably settled politcal base and be happy with those who have pushed the idea and that their motives are simply the safeguarding and interests of the football club. Proceed with caution.

Zappa, I'm not an authority on such matters but I have a similar understanding as your goodself ! Forgive my sarcastic humour (obviously not very good ) aimed at our ex-nomads and Daniel Stewarts in particular. It's just that I find it somewhat ironic that some make so much noise about the lack of a NOMAD as if it had served us in the past as some great protection from sp!vs and the allegedly fraudulent.

But they aren't a NOMAD on the AIM market ! You have to think back and realise how much protection our NOMADS (especially Daniel Stewarts) afforded RIFC from any profiteers, less than honest operators or questionable levels of corporate governance. How I hark for those days when Paul Shackleton allowed me to sleep at night.

We were relatively powerless whilst we (as a support) remained so divided, thanks in part to the extensive and wide-ranging remit given to Mediahouse (MH). One apsect of this was preying on divisions and widening them, creating gaps for some, uncrossable in the short-term. The reason so much time, money and effort went on spin wasn't because "fan militancy" is ineffective......it was to keep it at a level that was relatively ineffective. A good example was the 'crisis management' employed by the then board in August 2013 after the Letter of Requisition (LoR) was delivered. What was vital for the respective motions in that LoR to stand a chance was loud and unequivical 'fan militancy' supporting it that persuaded the likes of eg. Laxey partners that this was where any successful future for the football club lay. Now that LoR failed for a number of reasons with the fundamental reason being that they were always behind the 'eight-ball' because of the 'crisis management' carried out by MH which helped confuse, raise doubts and split the support. This made the task very, very difficult and produced fisures within the management of the then requisitioners/institutions (who provided the mandate). What it required was a unified support giving backing to the requisitioners. Not because they all thought that X, Y and Z were the perfect people for the club going forward but that they recognised the need to get rid of a cancer or at least take it's power away and put in place people who could start a process to reclaim the club. What we got was groups like the SoS coming to the fore doing their bit BUT opposed by too many other groups/messageboards/bloggers. There wasn't a recognition or acceptence of what our major problem was at the time and the urgent need to force radical change as best we could............. For this I'd mention the protestors when you put up a thread about "heroes" but also like others to take on board lessons from their mistakes. The general situation required a general overview that goes beyond individual/group interests. We should have recognised that a process needs various steps, that without that first major hurdle being jumped we were flinging shite at the moon and some had to radically change their stance. -------------------------------- Back in the day when I mentioned calling chancers like Green, Whyte and Ashley out, I didn't do it for self-praise.......I did it to firstly show a track record to make people at least listen and plead that they made any effort that they could to help force the cancer out.