boabie

When complete dumplings like Peat begin to criticise you it's definitely time to go.

Peat was directly responsible for Lennons touchline ban being overturned.

The fact that nobody in a position of power asked a single question when the planned tour of Japan failed to materialise tells us all we need to know about the charlatans running our game.

I'll wait until further down the thread after somebody has translated it all into English. Stuff like this baffles me I'm afraid.

I had to get a bit of luck sometime. You were probably lucky in Love. I wasn't.

You haven't seen the state of my wife mate.

Luckily I realised Miller wasn't playing just before KO. and changed the FGS to Kranjcar. Maybe I should do that more often.

I was at the match before finding out the team and having a mobile that only does calls, couldn't change.

He'll do what he usually does for sportsmans dinners and fail to turn up. He's done that at 3 I attended.

Rangers 4 Peterhead 0

FGS Miller.

" “Off the pitch this season there is a lot less to do than there was last season, I think there is still some tidying up with some of the commercial issues, I think all of it has been dealt with in public.

“I think the club is in far more control of the situation to where we were even three months ago so I am quite confident within a relatively short period of time we will also have the commercial picture fully under control. "

I like the sounds of optimism there.

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/chairman-speaks-off-field/?

You have to wonder if they actually asked anyone at Rangers about the aftermath.

They relied on tv footage which cut off 10 minutes after the final whistle CB. They are scared of the muppets at Holyrood introducing more legislation that will lead to them actually having to work for their salaries. Had it been Rangers fans invading the park there would have been a full NATO conference deciding the punishment. It wasn't so the large brushes are looking for carpets to sweep the problem under.

Of course they would. If Puma thought they were getting a deal with a club the size of Rangers for 7 years they would be groveling all over Mikey for the deal. Then there is the fact that Mikey has them for many other teams and business. Rangers are just a small piece in the Puma - Mikey relationship.

Look at it from the other side though Pete - Puma might sign up for 7 years, but would Fat Mike not also be looking to rake in as much as he could if Rangers were to go on to success ? I'd think a 7 year deal between a producer and a distributer would be an exception. My main thrust however is that Ashley didn't expect anyone at Ibrox to be in a position to repay the 5 million so had no need to tie any deal up with Puma for 7 years. He relied on having control of RR with his placemen there to do his bidding.

Naturally, not having seen the contracts I could be completely wrong but as said, believe that King & Co are working on a plan. If they weren't, why not just give notice right now that we will pull out when the notice period is over ?

And if the contract was signed between Puma and RRL before Rangers got their rights back, how does that invalidate the contract?

 

 

What could the contract realistically say that would allow your spin to be correct?

 

I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent as I'd love you to be correct, and perhaps there's something that I'm overlooking, but if it was really that simple and RRL had no right to redress against the club and RRL had no rights then things would have moved a lot faster than they have.

I don't think even Ashley or his puppets would be so short-sighted as to sign a 7 year deal with Puma. He had no idea how successful Rangers would be or the outcome of that on shirt sales. I believe he was relying on the contract between Rangers and RR with no chance of anybody at Ibrox coming up with his 5 million.

Rangers may be tied into a contract with RR for 7 years or whatever, but now that Rangers own the image rights I would imagine that Rangers must have a bigger say in what happens to those rights and how much they are worth.

King could be giving them enough rope to hang themselves - they produce 10 thousand shirts which Rangers immediately ban as the image rights do not belong to RR or Puma. He's tied with what he can say because of his RR position but I have no doubt some sort of plan is currently at work. If there wasn't then why pay back the 5 million in the first place ?

I also don't buy the tarred ones rubbish about Rangers then having to pay for those unsold shirts. Especially if the shirts are being produced and sold without the permission of the club.

How are RR breaking the law if they entered into the contract with Puma when they still had the image rights?

 

 

RR held the image rights until SD received their 5 million back. Rangers now hold those rights.

Rangers are free to renegotiate any deal involving those rights.

The above nods at any previous shady deals done beforehand, but not knowing the fine detail of the contract, I'm puting my own spin on things.

King certainly keeps making the point that we own the rights again. My suspicion is that fat Ashley didn't care less about his 5 million as he never expected Chucky or his doubtful pals ever to pay it back and was only looking to tie things up while he had the image rights and the distribution deal sewn up.

After spending a couple of days doing a lot of online searches and discussions with other bears, here's my take on what will happen next - when the strips go on sale, Rangers will sue Rangers Retail.

Puma obviously have an airtight contract with RR. King wearing his Rangers hat and attending RR meetings will be saying that Rangers own the copyrights and Puma do not have the right to manufacture or distribute kits bearing any of Rangers image rights. Consequently RR are breaking the law and not Puma.

SD hold the majority vote within RR and all King has to show is, wearing his RR hat, he was/against the deal with Puma.

I personally think that the huge pressure on them to win last time, was a factor in us dominating them on the park - they were too nervous and desperate to match our fast paced rhythm in the game, and drew because they had the quality of player to exploit our weakness at the back with fast counterattacking and their aerial ability which we couldn't match.

I think they haven't learned and have set themselves up for another fall for the same reason - they are so expected to win, such a very difficult game, easily, that they have a chance of trying too hard and then losing confidence, rather than assessing the opposition in a calculated way.

Their fans and the press will be a liability for them here, and unless things go well from the start, I think they might struggle to settle as a side, and motivational issues will arise.

Their transfer policy does seem strange and from the outside it looks like they've spent their money on his wages, and with an over-sized, over-paid, over-rated squad, they don't seem to have much to spare. Maybe he just came for the money, rather than for footballing reasons...

I think our mangers has the realistic goal of finishing at least second and putting in a reasonable challenge for the title, even if it's unsuccessful. Their manager MUST win the title, plus his secondary targets will have strong emphasis to do something in Europe, and probably win a cup.

Then there is the fact our manager has had a year to build a squad of his own choice, and instil his footballing philosophy, which seems to be improving. The latter also keeps our fans that bit happier.

They might have the financial advantage, and a big name manager, but there are so many parts of the jigsaw missing for them. I think if the tables were turned, I wouldn't be too happy or confident.

If you take a look at any of their sites where they actually talk about their own team instead of us Cal you'll find that the history of the cup semi final has already been re-written by them. The fact that we totally dominated possession has been whitewashed in favour of chances created, shots at goal, number of throw ins and other such nonsense.

I'll agree though, they are there for the taking if we can get another couple of decent signings in.

I hope it's not too long before Brown joins that other poisonous bastard Lennon in the lower leagues.

Aberdeen will continue to beat themselves. The biggest challenge Scott ? How did that work out the past few seasons ?

The sheep raise their game against ONE other club, and it ain't ra hoops.

I wouldn't want anyone with 20 previous convictions attending our games anyway.

Yesterday I read a bear elsewhere trying to defend 20 previous convictions by saying they could be parking tickets, penalty points, litter offence tickets or similar.

That's fine until you know that those aren't shown in court as previous convictions. The court is not told about offences like those.

Frankie,

 

Just received a communication from a mate who is a recently retired Solicitor. He was one of those Lawyers used by newspapers to read and clear copy reference possible litigation. Informed me that the online Sports Editor at the Record is Darren Cooney. Apparently a big mate of Phil McFournames from a decade past. He was difficult, constantly passing off material sourced by Phil; until the Sun's Editor stated he was tarred by the sectarian brush. Further, Darren's MO was to legitimise misinformation by supporting the thrust by securing a quote from NBM. Anyways, reckons the blogger is a cultivated useful idiot by Cooney.

Cooney is a Rangers hater who was caught previously trying to goad Dave Scott from NBM to launch enquiries into songs the Rangers support sing. The usual bigoted terms of reference for us has always been allowed when Darren Bhoy is acting as online editorial chief.

I'm happy with Findlay defending. If you can see past the fact that he is an exceptional orator and recognise that what actually comes out of his mouth is overinflated garbage, you'll find there are better QC's out there.

If they are refusing you a season ticket they will have to refund it. Rangers or any other club have no authority to fine you money which would be the case if they don't refund you. If you pay for a product you need to receive that product They may be able to take administration costs but that is all. Rangers cannot penalise anyone they can only refuse undesirable people entry.

I've got to disagree here Pete and think there is no "have to" about it. Somewhere in the terms and conditions there will be a rule stating you will lose your season ticket without recopense if you indulge in unsavoury conduct - not that I'm saying the bear in question did so though.

The question does arise however, when did the club learn the identity of the fan ? Before or after he paid for his new ticket ?

If I'm honest, I'd have hoped this was the kind of thing the club would have consulted with the fans group before sending the letters. At the very least they should have advised them of what they intended to do.

But now that the club have taken action I'd suspect that no matter what the fans reps say these guys will remain banned.

Something for Club 1872 to get involved in?

I'd think it is. But suspect they won't.

One thing I've noticed in the last couple of games is that the team are doing something I've long been asking for - mixing up the great football on the deck with the occasional long/high ball, crosses into the box, and the short corners with the odd, old fashioned swinger into the centre. I think it stops us being predictable and getting repeatedly stuck in front of a packed defence. The good thing is that some of the passing accuracy and quality of these have been high, with a good completion rate.

 

I think it's much easier to defend against one style, and harder when it keeps changing. We've had some effective attacks and a couple of goals from this and for me, it's better to watch as it helps keep the tempo up and increases the number of attacks on goal. The Stranraer players, looked shattered at the end.

I've noticed a slight increase in the number of shots from around the box instead of our normal game of attempting to walk the ball into the net.

It's just a pity it seems to be Harry Forrester trying most of them though as he's been piss poor at hitting the target.

Was he the blond number 9?

The son of ex St Mirren, Partick, St Johnstone, Morton and Q.P. player Tommy Turner mate.

McKay was my MOTM. The boy just seems to get better week by week.