compo 7,042 Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, buster. said: As "nasty" as Peter Watson ? Who's Peter Watson 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,194 Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Just now, compo said: Who's Peter Watson Jack Irvine's mate and go to lawyer. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,939 Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 20 minutes ago, 26th of foot said: What are the odds that the guy who first expressed the wish to strip Rangers of titles ending up as the SPFL's in-house legal counsel? Short, mon brave, short. Probably odds on, and a wager on his appointment would be classed by the punting fraternity as 'buying money'. I recall, principally three things about this wretch 1. He is a lard barrel, quite the hogshead, in fact. 2. He is a rhabid sellik man, who, allegedly, in a meeting with Rangers, SFA, SPL, et al. referred to Rangers as , "You bastards..." Conduct unbecoming, hardly Ciceronian, and indicative of a rather prejudicial and unlawyerly attitude, in my view. 3. He was described in the press as Harper McLeod's "attack dog". This expression was used with approbation, rather than as a term of opprobrium, probably because it was hoped that he would be the man to drum Rangers out of the corps of Scottish Fitba' completely, and forever. Maybe he even fantasised about this himself: "Oh how, they would worship me at the piggery after such a coup!" Ballsed that up, the Neapolitan Mastiff. Anyway, whenever I hear expressions like "attack dog", or, worse, "mad dog", I anticipate Force 10 bluster, the high wind accompanied, generally, by plenty of watery piss. I do not suggest that he is anything other than dangerous to Rangers, but, perhaps, not quite so hazardous to the health and welfare of the Club as he and others may hope. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannochsidebear 2,407 Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Perhaps Peter got him the gig in return for his "you've been cheating "us" for years" tirade during the meeting with McCoist & Green and others when discussions about our sentencing were ongoing? One thing is for sure, Rod will always look after his beloved hoops in front of his employer, so this appointment should be challenged by us to the fullest extent of our powers. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,939 Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 3 hours ago, Tannochsidebear said: Perhaps Peter got him the gig in return for his "you've been cheating "us" for years" tirade during the meeting with McCoist & Green and others when discussions about our sentencing were ongoing? One thing is for sure, Rod will always look after his beloved hoops in front of his employer, so this appointment should be challenged by us to the fullest extent of our powers. I tend to agree. However, if any challenge -by Us and/or others- falls, remember that we know what he is. 1 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.