Sometimes "vile" just doesnt cut it

[D'Artagnan 173]

Many years ago as a young Marine on leave, I had ventured over to Ibrox to visit the club shop for some mementos to adorn my bed space. No matter where I was serving in the world there was a little corner which was forever Rangers. For the younger Bears amongst us, there was a time the club shop was not so much a mega store but a glorified broom cupboard with barely enough space to swing a cat. The sole staff member was serving a guy about ages with myself, who I immediately recognised as Ian Redford. After Ian had left the shop the female member of staff apologised for the previous customer taking so long “That guy took ages “ she said. I informed her who “that guy” was and she looked suitably embarrassed.

 

Yesterday, along with 42,000 other Bears, we paid our respects to Ian Redford as our club observed a minute's silence in respect of his passing. Bears of today paying appropriate respect to a club servant of yesteryear.

 

Elsewhere in Glasgow however, BBC Scotland with it's cabal of Rangers hating individuals and no doubt well rehearsed guests, were plotting their latest flouting of the BBC Trust ruling regarding Rangers. I’m sure there was much back slapping, mutual praise and schoolboy giggles following the latest BBC Scotland assertion that “Rangers are dead”.

 

Of course the theft of evidence in the Rangers Tax Case, nor an EU preliminary investigation into alleged state aid involving Celtic Football Club and Glasgow Council raises not a murmur of journalistic curiosity, after all, “Rangers baiting” requires far less effort – especially when it is broadcast from a platform paid for by the public.

 

Sometimes “vile” just isn't descriptive enough.

 

When the Rangers Tax Case Blog won the Orwellian Award it was cited as “Bringing you the story that Scottish journalists seem unable to do”

 

Thats the funny thing about history – it seems to have a habit of repeating itself.

 

Freedom of Information is truly an enlightening thing.

[Juancornetto 1]

Make no mistake, it's no co-incidence that the BBC wheeled out Spiersy to whip up a frenzy in fact it's a very well rehearsed routine now for Celtic's PR attack dogs. Within 24 hours of a story with potential negative repercussions for Celtic surfacing, the lunatic fringe around town begin to spew their distasteful trash. We had a (another) claim that Rangers were going into admin two broadly discussed but that didn't take root and deflect enough heat and so, somewhere in rural Ayrshire the telephone rings and a socially awkward buffoon with enough psychological baggage to fill an aircraft hangar picks up the phone "Hello" - "Graham it's BBC Scotland here, we want you on Sportsound immediately to tell some lies and get it right up the Rangers"...

 

"OK then, I'll be right there"

[der Berliner 4,035]

As I said elsewhere, the club should finally act on this, as BBC Scotland and its cohorts seem hell-bend on ignoring their own disciplinary body. They should be taken to the cleaners and pronto. Likewise, it should also be remarked that their silence on Celtic's trouble is telling its own story.

[Zappa 0]

As I said elsewhere, the club should finally act on this, as BBC Scotland and its cohorts seem hell-bend on ignoring their own disciplinary body. They should be taken to the cleaners and pronto. Likewise, it should also be remarked that their silence on Celtic's trouble is telling its own story.

 

It makes sense in principle dB, but the Club isn't in a strong enough financial position to be going after Pacific Quay CSC and the hoards of Rangers haters in the media legally. The Club already has massive legal and financial advice bills due to paying a fortune for the services of multiple law firms as well as the likes of Deloitte, Daniel Stewart & co and multiple PR companies. Plus, let's not forget that the Club's legal fees budget is getting eaten into in a big way by going after our own fans, so there might not be much left in the legal kitty for the more important matters!

[RANGERRAB 4,012]

If we were a new club how come we didn't need to apply to the SFA for membership?(the membership of course got transferred from oldco to newco)

And if we were a new club how come we got into the SFL? Wouldn't new clubs need to start out in the lower leagues?

Edited January 12, 2014 by RANGERRAB

[Juancornetto 1]

If we were a new club how come we didn't need to apply to the SFA for membership?(the membership of course got transferred from oldco to newco)

And if we were a new club how come we got into the SFL? Wouldn't new clubs need to start out in the lower leagues?

 

And why would we pay the football debt of a dead club if we were a new club?

[der Berliner 4,035]

These questions have all been answered and not just by the football authorities, but also legal brains, a European body and an independent advertisement advisor/company/authority (?). These are facts, not fiction or something to dwell upon. Those participating in that discussion and keeping this "new club" mantra going are doing it on purpose and bring our name into disrepute. Not just a little, but to nationwide audiences. IMHO, that is libel and if the club do not have the money, why does e.g. the RFFF not throw 50k at a QC or lawer (Findlay springs to mind) and have them go after that? Rest assured, if I won the lottery tomorrow (actually, on Wednesday), I'd do so immediately.

And I would also have them send a legal to the BBC Trust asking them why they do not follow up with their repeated statements and punish those culprits?

[aweebluesoandso 290]

BBC Scotland is reviled, that cuts it for me D'art.

[D'Artagnan 173]

These questions have all been answered and not just by the football authorities, but also legal brains, a European body and an independent advertisement advisor/company/authority (?). These are facts, not fiction or something to dwell upon. Those participating in that discussion and keeping this "new club" mantra going are doing it on purpose and bring our name into disrepute. Not just a little, but to nationwide audiences. IMHO, that is libel and if the club do not have the money, why does e.g. the RFFF not throw 50k at a QC or lawer (Findlay springs to mind) and have them go after that? Rest assured, if I won the lottery tomorrow (actually, on Wednesday), I'd do so immediately.

And I would also have them send a legal to the BBC Trust asking them why they do not follow up with their repeated statements and punish those culprits?

 

DB

 

Id put it down to 2 things - Hatred & Ego's - though perhaps the first would cover it.

 

The darksiders who maintain, with their 5 minutes legal knowledge, that LNS "got it wrong" will be keen to discuss Scots Company Law with you - in their attempts to convince others of the very learned LNS's error.

 

In their haste to announce "the King is Dead" however they overlook one critical fact - Scots Company Law was not drafted or written with football clubs in mind - a mute but critical point.

 

Its significant that LNS's commentary on the subject appears to almost reflect that of UEFA's who have considerable experience of dealing with these sort of matters. It's of further significance that ASA's recent ruling in our favour saw them contact UEFA for clarification.

 

So Im afraid for all the would be Perry Mason's out there (showing my age now) its not so much " The King is Dead" but alas for them - "Long Live the King"

[D'Artagnan 173]

Apologies - double post