bmck

What did Walter say about the regime?

Timely and succinct reminder of who is actually responsible for what in this mess. Criticism of Whyte is welcome if thoughtful, and time will ultimately prove if the people's whose intuitions are supportive, or those whose intuitions are skeptical, will ultimately be proven right. We just can't know just now, but he is quite simply the only possible man who can get us through the mess he inherited. He must have been crazy, bold, loyal, or cunning, to take Rangers on with this hanging over us. David Murray seems already to have fallen into some convenient nostalgia, despite the fact that he is the precise cause of the issue that makes all of what's currently being reported look utterly, utterly trivial. That's a positively Orwellian level of cognitive dissonance. It would still be happening if he were here ffs, and the same directors would still be doing nothing and being paid handsomely for it.

As with all legal action, the issue is not who is most responsible, but who is responsible enough that can also pay damages. Hence why, if you slipped and cracked a knee in Waitrose because of a wet floor or something, you would sue the company for their vicarious liability, rather than the individual who made the floor wet, even though both are culpa under law. Technically Waitrose could then sue their employee, but they're never going to recover the money. Whose fault it is, ultimately, is sadly irrelevant. One day only I'm afraid But thanks. ETA: I think we honestly have a good chance of winning the action. David Cameron said, in Question Time today, that he would speak to HMRC about a similar thing at Portsmouth or somewhere. A political response to this I think would be wise and possible, if there are still Rangers supporting MPs.

You can thank Murray's method of wage funding for that. Who knows about Whyte, I certainly don't. But the only thing that has us on the edge of an abyss is Sir David Murray, and the fact that he ever existed as part of that 140 years history. All the good things, and all the good times, he gave us, are infinitely undermined by the fact that he has singularly led to our possible tax doom.

As a matter of (potential) interest, I wrote an overview of the legal context of the BBC documentary some time ago, and abandoned it. Yesterday I gave it a quick intro, and have uploaded it in case anyone is interested in the dour legality of this area. It may be worthwhile given how many suing claims seem to be being bandied about. That said, the reason I abandoned it is because I have so much else to do, so it is firmly just a first draft, and I certainly wouldn't stand by it as a comprehensive overview of the law. It was just a draft for my own purposes that may or may not be useful. Not for wider consumption than the forum, assuming any of you are banal enough to be interested in the law on the matter, I'll delete it in a few days! File is here: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=15267601133125747204

With regards to his failure to sue the BBC, for what it's worth, I've looked into the law on that subject, and compared it with what was said and such things. To cut an inanely long story short, he does have case at common law. However, it's a difficult area and the public interest defence is really quite strong. When I looked at cases of this nature that the BBC has lost, they are far more clear cut. If I were to guess at the advice h received, it would be something like, "you have a case, by no means a clear one, and if you lose, as you may, it won't be interpreted more widely as the nuances of delictual claims of this sort but rather that you have accused someone of lying and you didn't win, so the inferred accusation will be considered true". Which is to say, the legal case, irrespective of legalities, would most likely be interpreted as a trial on Craig Whyte himself, and he would be unwise to go into a legal action in that context unless he could be sure of winning.

It's the second guessing that has me flummoxed. Like the Tories, Whyte has inherited one hell of a mess - all details of which will only now becoming fully clear to him, and certainly not to us. There may be things to criticise him for, but it's beyond my ken. I'm all for any steps that makes the club run more sensibly, and within more sensible parameters - and this seems to me what's happened so far, as far as my limited understanding allows. It would have been lovely to see big spend this summer, but I'd sooner see the club being here indefinitely. There may have been something disingenuous about the 5million investment, but if he includes its scope to securing long term planets for key players we're more or less there. We have a more rounded squad than last year that, under the right guidance, ought to be capable of winning the league. I'm cautiously happy with that, and still glad the old regime is out. If we win the tax case, it will hopefully be the making of us. If we don't, hopefully we'll have to give them as little as possible.

I watched the committee meetings and Spiers came across just so poorly. He was thoroughly rounded on by the intelligent half of the panel, who particularly deflated the self righteous hyperbole so counterproductive to the whole debate. You could see it hurt him being labelled as illiberal - which, of course, he is. He seemed to just keep digging himself deeper into a hole with his 'thought crime' comments. Pat Nevin seemed to use the thing as a platform to publicise his personal endeavours (there are several times, it seems, he has done the hard thing, which of course makes it the right thing). The media-half of the panel really showed themselves for what they are - thoughtless dramatists who actively make money (and if their invitation their says anything), as well as win prestige from the denouncing-sectarianism industry. Their authoritarianism is astounding. In gersnet articles we've put forward arguments very similar to the ones used by the guy at the end; it was good to see them get an official airing. I think the OP is correct - the basic lack of intelligence, or if not intelligence, reasoned insight was telling from the media side. The whole thing really posed the question: do you want composed academia or morally agitated punditry as the basis for legislation? We currently seem to have the latter, which is a damning reflection on a country that was at the heart of the Enlightenment.

It's taking a little longer than planned, but hopefully once done we should continue to see genuine improvements in performance indefinitely.

Yeah, it goes through fits and starts where it's not too bad, but overall performance has been poor for a while. There was a specific database service problem around lunchtime today and it was fixed pretty quickly, but general performance just isn't that good now.

Hello everyone, Over the last few weeks (and arguably, months) the website has been becoming increasingly slow. It's now insufferable. It's really just because the site is now really very busy, and server intensive because of the vbulletin software with addons to give a good service, as well as the other content management systems running across the sites I host, and the current server simply isn't up to it. I've been away finishing this degree and doing lots of working so I'm only having a chance to look at it now. To cut a long story short, all the websites I host are being moved to a new, upgraded, infintely higher spec, server. This should solve all the problems, but, as with any migration, there may be some issues. It's going to be undertaken during the night, so hopefully it will cause minimal down time. Check facebook or twitter, or PM me your address if you hate such things and I'll keep you uptodate in case of things taking longer than planned. Sorry I haven't dealt with this sooner. It really hadn't occurred to me that we might simply outgrow the server, and I've been checking things like database and vbulletin configuration trying to find a fix. Thanks, Barry

I've not been able to look at this until today. The performance is unacceptably poor, so I'm moving to an upgraded server - hopefully tonight. The issue is really just caused by increased traffic across the board - its not a bandwidth or space issue, so not something directly within my hands. I'm assured that this should stop all the problems.

The one thing that troubles me about the Whyte angst - justified though it seems to be - is that there seems to be a dilemma. If Whyte really didn't have the money he said he did, why did he buy the club? The only sensible answer is that, despite not having the money, he just wanted to own the club - as a fan. But, if his being a fan motivated him, and he really doesn't have any money, he would know as much as anyone it wouldn't be long before he's found it and/or drives the club down the way of Leeds, which will forever destroy not only the club he loves but his reputation. Whatever this is, it may just be the wisest move in bad circumstances. He'll have financial advisers saying "These are the choices". I don't think anyone thought he had billions of his own money to pour into the club - is he not just trying to make it run on its own as a business?

Graham Spiers is an ideologue - it's learned stupidity, everyone should place him on real-life ignore.

I'm broadly satisfied with what has happened as we need to live within our means. I'm tired of Murray boom and bust. The players brought in so far look like the players we badly needed to give the squad a degree of depth. What's missing is the one or two quality players we really needed to progress - particularly someone with genuine presence and ability in the middle of the park. Given that the 5 mil is per season, we still have the january window to consider. I think I'm the one person who values Ortiz - when players, unusual though it is, actually make intelligent runs off the ball - like would happen automatically in Spain - he finds them every time. Semantic quibbles aide, Whyte gave the impression he would spend at least a net 5 mill on players, and if that doesn't happen we'll need some sort of honest explanation of why it never happened.

Think business so far has been first rate and professional. We're being wise with money and have brought in a few decent players and a really good one (Wallace). We haven't paid over the odds for any, and having spent half our budget, I'm pleased with what we have so far. The job is only half done though, and I hope we spend the rest as prudently as we've spent the first.

People are mental if they think we're losing out on these players because it's happening in public. How many times - agents inform the press to drum up interest.

We got Wallace for half the asking price!

Frightening that someone who is demonstrably illiterate as well as borderline certifiably deluded could get to such a position of influence. The internet has given everyone a voice - good thing - and everyone has decided to use it, it would seem - not such a good thing. Someone take the semi-colon off that man.

If his content of his message isn't an argument against Catholic schooling, surely the quality of the writing and grammar is.

Someone please tell me that this guy isn't an official spokesperson or the head of anything. He's actually loony tune mental.

Does anyone think we have any other priority targets - first choice targets - who are not the ones we are reading about in the newspapers etc?

Stop touting! Totally agree with all the above. I was beginning to agree with Bakbear a while ago but I felt I was just being picky in a time a where too few have done anything, and he has done infinitely more than me.

I'm no media expert, but it seems like they are just trying to control the newsflow. I agree it's a bit hard to hear from the manager's mouth that we want someone, then they go somewhere else. But, on the other hand, what's happening most of the time is that journalists are finding out - probably via leaky agents - and they are being forced to respond. Ally's strategy is clearly to be open and engaging with the press, which in a time when so many are against us may prove wise. That's the thing - we have absolutely no idea what we would have got him at 2 weeks ago other than in paper speculation that the selling club engineers to try and get more money. It looks like our Goodwillie strategy didn't work, but that's in part been due to other circumstances like his being freed from his charges. It worked with Wallace etc. You may yet be shown 100% correct that we've been poor in our transfer dealings, but it's just too early to tell.

On the one hand you moan we don't have any players and it's amateurish and on the other you say we shouldn't wait for anyone to decide to come to us. In wabash world, how exactly do you sign a player?