Jump to content

 

 

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/10/19 in all areas

  1. To simplify this - king done what he had too to stop the Spivs really ruining the club As a result he knew the consequences but took them anyone at a cost of £1m for love of the club The sanction means nothing to Rangers or King as he will have no interest in doing anything in GB anytime soon - hence why he won’t appeal A complete non event by cretins like Sommers to try & hurt King King & the board have done things wrong but without them the results are potentially catastrophic - today only reinforces our luck he is here onwards for Rangers
    8 points
  2. It's about time the Kurds had their own country. They have been victimised over the decades by each of the three countries bordering their un recognised regions, i.e. Iraq, Syria and Turkey. The UN should have redrew the map after the defeat of Saddam and the purging of ISIS from Syria and recognised a Kurdistan state in Northern Syria and North Eastern Iraq where they are most populous. Instead the UN will stand by while Turkey invades Syrian territory and destabilises the region again.
    4 points
  3. In my view King is as much of a fan as any of us are and has delivered what he promised. Remember the mockery when he took over and made a comment about a "£30 million warchest" ? Initially the spending was relatively frugal such as the 200K or so spent on Tav which cranked the mockery up no end but then when he began to spend that 'warchest' in the millions over the next few seasons the mockery became outrage despite the fact he had stated exactly what he intended. We all know the lines. They're skint. Admin 2 blah blah. One of the first things he said was we need to get out of the Championship as champions not through the playoffs. Check. We need to get back into Europe probably initially in the Europa League. Check. We need to be challenging for the title. Check. While I have no problem with anyone questioning his decisions actual criticism to the extent that I have seen 'King oot' cries here and there along the way when we don't know all the underlying detail behind his decisions is over the top. I fear to think where we would have been without him as the Whytes and his ilk circled like vultures waiting to pick the bones clean.
    3 points
  4. I appreciate that King doesn't want to challenge this, but the ToP will now get away with mismanaging this case. I know this forum is about Rangers, but as someone who wants to be able to place reliance on the ToP for integrity in other cases I am left very annoyed and frustrated. And as a tax payer, this has been a complete waste of time, money and resources which could have been better redirected elsewhere. Back on topic though, it's good to draw a line under this but contrary to what too many commentators were opining, this was never going to cause the club problems. And for what it's worth, I don't know any fans now who think King is doing this for anything other than the "love of the club". There's no doubt he saved the club, and although we will understandably continue to scrutinise everything the board does, we will forever be grateful for what he's done.
    3 points
  5. Cheer up, Steven Clarke, anyone?.........Anyone? Seriously, though, McLeish was vilified -thoroughly, shamefully, vilified- but now, as far as I can see, it's the players, and their manager/coach/leader is, if not beyond reproach, unlikely to receive the criticism heaped upon his predecessor (who was of course, no great shakes, himself). Naturally those who clamoured for Clarke's appointment will be slow to concede even the slightest error of judgement. What did anyone, experts included, really expect of international competition, when the SFA appointed, as National Manager, a man who fielded a well organised team, replete with a sprinkling of officially tolerated hammer throwers, and which played its home games on a truly god awful plastic pitch, a surface which favoured only those accustomed to its vagaries? He achieved relative, limited, and, note, short term, success in the SPFL Premier Division (or whatever it is called), one of the few professional Leagues in Europe -possibly the only such competition- where ' journeyman' is a term of approbation, and where the expression 'It's a man's gemme' is routinely used to approve, and to cloak, what are, frankly, its limitations. The solution is obvious: 1. lobby UEFA and FIFA for changes in the Laws of the Game, and in their interpretation by officials to permit more robust play (Collum and Co could run remedial classes for continental referees). Currently both Laws and interpretation thereof discriminate against Auld Scotia, on the grounds of national characteristics, and, clearly, this is unacceptable in 2019, and must be against some legislation, somewhere. 2. get the crappy plastic surface down at the National Stadium, as a matter of urgency 3. following the savants of the press and the BBC, get that sorcerer Kieran Tierney, a defensive midfield striker, apparently, back in the side.
    3 points
  6. This is a small amount of money but it seems to me that Club 1872 members are being asked to fund something that would be happening anyway. This is not the type of project that I had envisaged when I was on the Club 1872 Working Group.
    2 points
  7. The concourses will be completely and totally revamped as part of the 2022 works a side effect of the concourse work is that it increases the options for the inclusion of wheelchair spaces among other things. Though I'm not entirely convinced that some of the options I've seen are either viable financially or feasible I'm sure the majority of fans will welcome the overall improvements.
    2 points
  8. Sorry but Club1872 is as dead as a dodo and it’s all their own fault , no amount of constructive criticism could change their minds , an absolute waste , yet again and again it’s our own fault .
    1 point
  9. Wait until you learn of the other tragic news. An unsinkable ship left port, in Southampton, only to collide with an iceberg ...
    1 point
  10. No, he wasn’t a multi-millionaire and I’m quite sure David Murray knew exactly what Whyte was. I always wondered what Whyte got in return for playing his well-scripted role in Murray’s escape plan. in any case, the Labour proposal is complete tripe
    1 point
  11. Well nobody seemed to know or use these proven methods. Whyte was a well known multi-millionaire was he not.
    1 point
  12. Better to wait and buy the "55" DVD for his next Christmas.
    1 point
  13. 1 point
  14. Agree 100% with this: the Kurds should have their own country - they are one of the most persecuted races anywhere. And the UN will not condemn a NATO member. Britain could help though, by stopping the export of arms parts by British Ae to Turkey.
    1 point
  15. 1 point
  16. I do. She was PM. She was in power. Something had to be done. She was right to explore possibilities. She didn’t have photos taken. Corbyn was a back bencher with no influence. His pictures with terrorists show a grim and steely-eyed expression. Part of the gang, one might say. Did Corbyn not go on holiday to East Germany? Not the most popular of holiday destinations. Wonder who he met there.
    1 point
  17. Isn't it about getting rid of people like Craig Whyte who didn't have any money but almost drove our club to extinction?
    1 point
  18. The main driver is to get people onto the footprint earlier, staying longer and more importantly spending more ergo eventually having more cash to invest in the team. We don't really have any option but to improve the facilities all round as where we once led we now linger miles behind due to decades of fiscal ineptitude.
    1 point
  19. It’s really quite touching to see someone think people are going to invest their own wealth in a football club without being able to control the direction and performance of that club. As for football clubs being vital public assets, pure fantasy.
    1 point
  20. I must say it’s impressive to see the difference a great manager like Steve Clarke is making to the SFA XI. But has he now achieved everything he can? Is it time for Derek McInnes to take us to the next level of mediocrity?
    1 point
  21. No it isn’t proof of dodgy morals and all you are doing is showing is your ignorance. for your information, many women (and indeed men) these days use poles (fitness poles) for fitness. It isn’t a stripper pole which you clearly are surmising with your “dodgy morals” comment. It’s a fitness pole and becoming ever more popular as a fitness technique. my ex attends pole fitness classes in a fitness studio and has a pole in our house. Does that mean she has dodgy morals or does it mean she has found an intensive way to get fit - much to the chagrin of old traditionalists like yourself ? sometimes it would benefit you to not jump to conclusions based on your own prejudices but rather educate yourself beforehand.
    1 point
  22. We would probably be exactly where we are, as we wouldn’t have needed King & co to bail us out in the first place! There would have been no Craig Whyte, Charles Green & Mike Ashley, and no liquidation. Only difference is we wouldn’t have been waiting 8 years for a major trophy. In any case Dave King doesn’t own Rangers, yet is prepared to put money in. We are actually not far from the community ownership model already.
    1 point
  23. It's difficult to argue against that. I think that the current board seem to have it right though. They've spent money on doing up Ibrox, introducing a fanzone etc, and if they believe that they can make other improvements without it affecting anything on the field then I'm all for it.
    1 point
  24. If we're owned by the community, where would be now? There wouldn't have been the funding that King at al have provided. There's no way we'd be top of the league. I'm all in favour of fans having a say, but fans having the power to replace directors etc wouldn't work going on the amount of crazy opinions that you see on-line. A great number of people are easily swayed, depending on the forum they're on as well.
    1 point
  25. I have long thought that the 'Not Proven' verdict, along with the principle of corroboration (also recently under attack), helps to prevent miscarriages of justice. Both aspects of the law also help prevent prosecutions on the basis of malicious 'evidence'. One need only consider the recent farrago involving the Metropolitan Police and the pathological liar and serial fantasist Mr Carl Beech, to grasp this point. To emphasise the potential import, the current brouhaha seems to relate, principally, to the difficulty involved in securing convictions -or even bringing charges- for rape and sexual assault, where, as often seems to be the case, there is only one witness. We should condsider the situation of the 'victim', in such cases, particularly, where a 'Not Guilty' verdict is returned: in effect, the jury is dismissing his/her/their evidence, and, if not exactly marking them as "Liar", certainly is not being helpful to the preservation of their good name. 'NP', perhaps, helps in this regard. (I often wonder, idly, if, in such cases, when the defendant is found 'NG', a charge of perjury is ever considered.) 'NP', of course, leaves a question mark, socially, if not legally, over the defendant. On balance, I think it better to suffer the stigma of 'NP', than to endure a wrongful conviction. I accept that viewed from another perspective, these particular parts of the judicial system may be perceived as contributing to or causing a "wrong" decision. Perhaps, however, as Blackstone declared, it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. The other matters under exercising the great and the good, are the 15 person panel, and the principle of majority rule. Having sat on juries in both The High Court, and the Sheriff Court, I would retain both. I would add that I would never support, unequivocably, a motion proposing that Plod and the PF always get it right.
    1 point
  26. Imagine investing £50m for a controlling stake in a football club and some malcontents with all the business acumen of a spider came along and told you who the directors should be and how it should be run. Whether they had the best interests of the club at heart or not, no one in their right mind would ever invest in football again. The biggest loser would be the football clubs. This is another example of the dried-up socialist conviction that people should not be free to act as individuals and that fear of failure should cancel out achievement and success.
    1 point
  27. He's 30 league games away from becoming one!
    1 point


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.