When Uncle Tom met Auntie Beeb

[RANGERRAB 3,653]

I'm glad to see the likes of Richard Wilson (BBC) concentrate on the more important and current issues within Ibrox.

 

IMO we need to have our eyes focused upon Ibrox rather than building up some kind of familiar 'hatethink' that only seems to serve those conducting the direction of attention and spin.

 

If there is something significant to divulge that has documents to back it up, then why not just put it all out there rather than drip feeding ?

 

Our main enemies are 'within' or around those 'within'.

 

Two years ago there were individuals who were actively seeking to put Rangers out of business altogether IMO.

Are you seriously suggesting these people you describe are doing likewise? If so in what way?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Is it really too much to ask UEFA to advise the match referee and the UEFA observer at the game of any suspended or ineligible players for the game and to advise the clubs of this. This would eradicate any ambiguity.

 

Sorry Rab I often find myself in agreement with you but having been been involved at all levels of football except I have to admit UEFA it is always the case that it is the responsibility of the club (a) to know the rules of the competition and (b) to abide by those rules; particularly where suspensions are concerned. I see no reason why a UEFA competition should be any different.

 

If you remember back to Paris I think it was we qualified on away goals even though the ref didn't know the rules.

[buster. 5,185]

Two years ago there were individuals who were actively seeking to put Rangers out of business altogether IMO.

Are you seriously suggesting these people you describe are doing likewise? If so in what way?

 

Let me indulge you and say that these "individuals" you speak of were out to maximise damage (more probable but taking each individual seperately) or even in your opinion "put Rangers out of business altogether"

 

What circumstances gave them such an opportunity ?

Was it a plot with seeds sown by "individuals" you mention or were they 'surfing a wave' of irresponsible and even wreckless negligence that originated from an autocratic leader in the Rangers boardroom ?

 

 

1. We've been distracted from our own inner problems repeatedly.

 

2. If anyone or group has documentation that can bring a result against A, B or C for doing X, Y or Z then IMO better not to pish around with Five Part instalments but instead get it out there right away.

[barca72 440]

Sorry Rab I often find myself in agreement with you but having been been involved at all levels of football except I have to admit UEFA it is always the case that it is the responsibility of the club (a) to know the rules of the competition and (b) to abide by those rules; particularly where suspensions are concerned. I see no reason why a UEFA competition should be any different.

 

If you remember back to Paris I think it was we qualified on away goals even though the ref didn't know the rules.

 

Cup Winners Cup 1972

 

The second round saw Rangers play Sporting Lisbon from Portugal. Rangers led the first half of the first leg 3–0, but lost two goals in the second half to lead 3–2 going into the second leg. The second leg finished 3–2 to Sporting, 5–5 on aggregate. Willie Henderson scored for Rangers in extra time but Rangers then lost a goal with six minutes left to make it 6–6 on aggregate. What followed has been described as being one of the most bizarre incidents in the history of any European tournament The Dutch referee Laurens van Raavens failed to recognise that Rangers, having scored three away goals to Sporting's two, had won the tie. But the referee made both teams take five penalties each, with Rangers losing the shootout. After Rangers manager Willie Waddell pointed out the away goals rule to UEFA, the referee was overruled, the result overturned and Rangers were heading into the next round.

[Guest AuldBear]

Cup Winners Cup 1972

 

The second round saw Rangers play Sporting Lisbon from Portugal. Rangers led the first half of the first leg 3–0, but lost two goals in the second half to lead 3–2 going into the second leg. The second leg finished 3–2 to Sporting, 5–5 on aggregate. Willie Henderson scored for Rangers in extra time but Rangers then lost a goal with six minutes left to make it 6–6 on aggregate. What followed has been described as being one of the most bizarre incidents in the history of any European tournament The Dutch referee Laurens van Raavens failed to recognise that Rangers, having scored three away goals to Sporting's two, had won the tie. But the referee made both teams take five penalties each, with Rangers losing the shootout. After Rangers manager Willie Waddell pointed out the away goals rule to UEFA, the referee was overruled, the result overturned and Rangers were heading into the next round.

it was actually pointed out by a journalist

[RANGERRAB 3,653]

Let me indulge you and say that these "individuals" you speak of were out to maximise damage (more probable but taking each individual seperately) or even in your opinion "put Rangers out of business altogether"

 

What circumstances gave them such an opportunity ?

Was it a plot with seeds sown by "individuals" you mention or were they 'surfing a wave' of irresponsible and even wreckless negligence that originated from an autocratic leader in the Rangers boardroom ?

 

 

1. We've been distracted from our own inner problems repeatedly.

 

2. If anyone or group has documentation that can bring a result against A, B or C for doing X, Y or Z then IMO better not to pish around with Five Part instalments but instead get it out there right away.

 

The circumstances which gave these individuals the opportunity to maximise damage upon Rangers was the appearance of Craig Whyte.

Prior to that LBG individuals were doing their bit despite the overdraft reducing from £30m to £18m and the fact that this was a mere 3 percent of the MIH debt. In other words why were these individuals so concerned with the small Rangers debt rather than the significantly larger MIH debt? Who was running LBG's Scottish business division at that time? You decide.Did they force SDM to sell to Whyte?

As for HMRC where do you start? Chasing flawed EBT tax bills so weak it has now failed two of their own internal appeals and why did they allow Whyte to walk into Rangers when he already had outstanding tax arrears and then allow him to withhold PAYE & NI when he acquired Rangers.

[buster. 5,185]

The circumstances which gave these individuals the opportunity to maximise damage upon Rangers was the appearance of Craig Whyte.

Prior to that LBG individuals were doing their bit despite the overdraft reducing from £30m to £18m and the fact that this was a mere 3 percent of the MIH debt. In other words why were these individuals so concerned with the small Rangers debt rather than the significantly larger MIH debt? Who was running LBG's Scottish business division at that time? You decide.Did they force SDM to sell to Whyte?

As for HMRC where do you start? Chasing flawed EBT tax bills so weak it has now failed two of their own internal appeals and why did they allow Whyte to walk into Rangers when he already had outstanding tax arrears and then allow him to withhold PAYE & NI when he acquired Rangers.

 

That reads like turning on the TV only for the film to already be half way through.