craig 5,199 Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 That seems a bit harsh to me. Like me RR's opinions are often in the minority but he is consistent and I believe very sincere. He has also been warned on multiple occasions today for trolling and inappropriate language. The ban was merited 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 Tiny Gallagher is the obvious one. I thought it was cOnfirmed during the week that Tiny was still at the club ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 I thought it was cOnfirmed during the week that Tiny was still at the club ? Cheers mate that's good news. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 Any evidence that was the last of the investment ? Or was it the initial investment with more to follow ? It was initial investment according to at least one paper article. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 7,223 Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 so the sfa are going to start telling people where and when there can invest their money take the buffons to court mister Ashley show them up for what they are a bunch of narrow minded bigots 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,813 Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 (edited) so the sfa are going to start telling people where and when there can invest their money take the buffons to court mister Ashley show them up for what they are a bunch of narrow minded bigots In a normal world, you would say that they might want to protect football clubs from another Romanov and Whyte scenario. This is not a normal world though and these people sure not work in the "best interest of the game". Else they would have drawn and quartered that chap who has interest in three clubs already - as this is not exactly "news". People may also point at FIFA and UEFA guidlelines and rules, but what have those institutions done with regards to massive investment by e.g. Gazprom and Red Bull thus far? Are we to expect that these companies just hand over their money and do not want anything bar ads in return? Especially RB? The main problem lies with the "club" status of the SFA. They - much like the SPL, SFL, or SPFL - can set up rules as they wish and anyone joining up with them will have to abide. It is obviously a very clever thing if you write some vague "in special cases special rules can be whipped up" clause in there and decide on somesuch ad hoc. If anything, Ashley and or the club can very well address the utter conflict of interest of the current SFA regime, given that it is made up of direct competitors in the Scottish game ... and it might very well not fall on deaf ears in some places. Yet, at the end of the day Rangers FC is a member of that "special rules club", not Ashley. So they can whip up all sorts of fanciful fines and even revoke the license if they see fit. At the end of the day, Scottish football survived without us up there ... if nothing more. Given that and the attitude of 2012 still very much lingering on, I have no doubt that they wouldn't mind trying their luck and go the full monty. Then you could sue the SFA and that would mean that all clubs would be barred from Europe. Such tactic should, in any case, had been used much earlier in the season though. UEFA would have looked upon that with scorn though ... but the unwanted publicity shed on the "impartial" SFA might have been helpful. For that you need characters with balls of steel though. And like it or not, there is only one - unwanted - shareholder with such an interest at Rangers these days. Whether he wants to do that is anyone's guess though. Edited December 25, 2014 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,257 Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 In a normal world, you would say that they might want to protect football clubs from another Romanov and Whyte scenario. This is not a normal world though and these people sure not work in the "best interest of the game". Else they would have drawn and quartered that chap who has interest in three clubs already - as this is not exactly "news". People may also point at FIFA and UEFA guidlelines and rules, but what have those institutions done with regards to massive investment by e.g. Gazprom and Red Bull thus far? Are we to expect that these companies just hand over their money and do not want anything bar ads in return? Especially RB? The main problem lies with the "club" status of the SFA. They - much like the SPL, SFL, or SPFL - can set up rules as they wish and anyone joining up with them will have to abide. It is obviously a very clever thing if you write some vague "in special cases special rules can be whipped up" clause in there and decide on somesuch ad hoc. If anything, Ashley and or the club can very well address the utter conflict of interest of the current SFA regime, given that it is made up of direct competitors in the Scottish game ... and it might very well not fall on deaf ears in some places. Yet, at the end of the day Rangers FC is a member of that "special rules club", not Ashley. So they can whip up all sorts of fanciful fines and even revoke the license if they see fit. At the end of the day, Scottish football survived without us up there ... if nothing more. Given that and the attitude of 2012 still very much lingering on, I have no doubt that they wouldn't mind trying their luck and go the full monty. Then you could sue the SFA and that would mean that all clubs would be barred from Europe. Such tactic should, in any case, had been used much earlier in the season though. UEFA would have looked upon that with scorn though ... but the unwanted publicity shed on the "impartial" SFA might have been helpful. For that you need characters with balls of steel though. And like it or not, there is only one - unwanted - shareholder with such an interest at Rangers these days. Whether he wants to do that is anyone's guess though. What is the punchline...........Do you think it part of another cabal wanting to bring Rangers down ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,266 Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 so the sfa are going to start telling people where and when there can invest their money take the buffons to court mister Ashley show them up for what they are a bunch of narrow minded bigots Ashley should never have signed his initial agreement stating he would keep his investment to below 10% and give an undertaking not to have influence in the board room. Recent actions and emails have proved he intends to break those undertakings , I am not in the least surprised he has been blocked for now , what he does next and what damage he inflicts on us , because it will be the club thats hit with sanctions not Ashley , will be interesting . All this from a man who intended to bring the whole weight of his legal team to bare on us if Somers didnt back his deal and reject King 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,813 Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 You'd hope that whatever Ashley or King will do from now on will not retain this "make Rangers a trial & error case" - test site status. BTW, anyone knows what Kennedy does these days? He's an even more frustrating case of come and go than King, with hardly any word about his aspirations for the club. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmu 0 Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 You'd hope that whatever Ashley or King will do from now on will not retain this "make Rangers a trial & error case" - test site status. BTW, anyone knows what Kennedy does these days? He's an even more frustrating case of come and go than King, with hardly any word about his aspirations for the club. Kennedy has been quite open that he has no real aspirations to run the club but he has been willing to put in some cash to try and help us out. I was pissed at Somers comments re kennedy wanting ibrox as security, as if it was in danger in his hands. I think that was kennedy trying to get his hands on ibrox to make sure we have something left if this all goes tits up... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.