Bluedell

I wouldn't call not using racist comments "heavenly perfection". You seem to be taking the approach that it's OK for people at the club to do what they want as long as others are puitting he boot into us. There may be times where that might apply but there are things that are unacceptable and this is one. Green is not perfect. He deserves to be praised for the good stuff that he does and he should be criticised on other occasions. This is one of the latter.

The comments by Green are nothing to do with the media. By all means complain about double standards when things are not reported or reported incorrectly, but that's a totally different subject. The main main issue here are the comments by Green. Trying to deflect the issue by bringing in the media or what other teams have done in the past is wrong and is something that I would expect from Celtic. The bottom line is that Green should not have said what he did and should be criticised.

What Celtic players or managers do isn't that relevant. Our directors, management team and players should hold themselves to a higher standard.

Similar to the John Terry issue. He may not be a racist but there's no excuse for using racist language.

So every time a player wants a transfer and has a club lined up, he just publicly says what Sandaza says and he will be released from his contract and he pockets the transfer fee rather than the club? Yeah, right.

I thought Sevco 5088 had nothing to do with the purchase of the club and the trade and assets went straight from the plc to Sevco Scotland?

So many assumptions claimed as facts., most of them wrong. The Nast will keep making up stuff over the next 18 months. It's already tedious.

You have to wonder who did recommend a lot of these players. Green was boasting how getting players in if there was a new co was not a problem given his contacts with scouts and agencies. When we were in that situation did he just then step back and not get involved?

I don't believe it's possible to buy the company now that it is in the process of being wound up.

The old company could have still been resurrected at that point, which was the important point. It was more than just in a ring binder. Nothing had happened to the company at that point other than it had sold its trade and and assets. What subsequently happened to the company wasn't relevant to the decision taken by the powers that be. Hair splitting? I guess we were both at that

Not strictly true. Sevco Scotland Limited bought the trade and assets of The Rangers Football Club PLC and changed its name to The Rangers Football Club Limited. Not strictly true. The old company still existed when the decision about us playing in division 3 was made. The winding up of the old company only commenced in November.

I think that many are looking back on PLG with rose tinted glasses. There were a lot of bad results and a lot of bad performances. What was it? 5 wins in our first 13 league games? Knocked out of the League Cup by a first division club. Defensively we didn't have a clue and PLG refused to take action to strengthen the defence. Most of his buys didn't work. Yes, there were a few good performances (Motherwell away, Falkirk and Hibs at home spring to mind) but there many more ones that were not so good. As for us playing well until Ferguson returned from injury, 2 wins from 5 games? He didn't appear to have the character to deal with the strong personalities and I don't believe that we would have had the successes in the following few seasons if he had remained in charge. It was a worthy experiment that just didn't work.

Next time...even if it's just to say "hi".....you wouldn't want a scruff like Frankie in the directors box anyway.

Frankie and I were at the meeting too and you didn't invite us

Waltersboy. He seems to have a lot of the inside track of what's going on at Ibrox through being on the RFFF committee and also I know he will have a lot of contacts through his business.

Some truth in the OP.

Given who posted it, there may be some truth in it.

What's frustrating is that he doesn't have an answer for the question on youth development or scouting. That's also part of his job. When asked a few weeks ago about it he just spouted out something wooly about never being satisfied but could not highlight one single initiative or plan as to how things will improve in that area. That does tell you something about his daily routine. He should consider not making a comment on occasions. He should be trying to charm the SFL clubs to try get them not to vote in favour of 12-12-18 and not annoying them with this talk about moving to England talk.

I can't speak for anyone else but I'd prefer if he'd concentrate on improving the internals within the club for a while and speak about that. He's already talked about joining England a few weeks ago. There's no need to repeat it. Stuff like that does have its place but not all the time.

I guess he's just saying this to ramp up pressure on the reconstruction vote but I'd rather hear about specific plans to improve scouting and youth development.

Don't have a huge interest but still hope that they win. I'd say that I still support them but not to the extent of going to a game or even watching it on the TV but would keep an eye out for score updates. I'd probably be more likely to watch the England game if both were on the TV, not because I prefer England (I don't) but just because it'd be a more interesting game.

They may well do, but have to go through the necessary steps.

A bit like most footballers then. Can't get excited by it all. As for his play this season, he hasn't been given an extended run in the team to get his sharpness back, but generally I think he's done OK when playing, but as soon as McCulloch is available again he gets dropped.

You expect him to personally fund it?

The rules are there for a number of reasons, including public safety. I fail to see why the rules are designed for political purposes. The GB can have their march if they abide by the rules. They put forward someone who is willing to take responsibility for the march, give the correct notice, give full details of their route and supply the correct amount of marshalls and they are more than half way there. I fail to see why they should just be ignored for one group when everyone else manages to abide by them. It may be possible for a group to get both the council and the police to waive the 28 day rule in exceptional circumstances but if you decide to complain about the police and put in protests about them then you can hardly expect the police to agree to it. I also doubt that exceptional circumstances exist in this case and I also doubt that the GB even attempted to jump through the hoops required to get the 28 days waived.