BrahimHemdani

I am pleased to be able to announce that Ally Scott will be our special guest at the The Fifth (formerly Semi-Annual) Official Gersnet Dinner. Ally was a striker who signed for Rangers from Queens Park in 1973 and went on to score 20 goals in 54 appearances (including at least one vs Celtic) before leaving for Hibs, Morton, Thistle, QoS and East Stirling. I suspect he might be the only player in Rangers history to hold a 1st class honours degree in Natural Philosophy i.e. Physics. He is always in the Press Box at Ibrox working part time for a news agency.

I didn't raise it Ian. You might be surprised to learn that in my email to Frankie I mentioned I was concerned that he might be "putting himself in harm's way". But fair enough, he won't be at this one, end of.

GS, I'm not getting embroiled in this yet again; but there are probably only two people in this world who dispute the facts that I uncovered in 2010; I'll leave you to work out who they might be.

It is often stated that the Union Flag should only be described as the Union Jack when flown in the bows of a warship, but this is a relatively recent idea. From early in its life the Admiralty itself frequently referred to the flag as the Union Jack, whatever its use, and in 1902 an Admiralty Circular announced that Their Lordships had decided that either name could be used officially. Such use was given Parliamentary approval in 1908 when it was stated that “the Union Jack should be regarded as the National flag”. https://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/british-flags/the-union-jack-or-the-union-flag/ I think it's pretty clear that the picture is of a flag on a ship but even if it's not ......"The claim that the term Union Jack properly refers only to naval usage has been disputed, following historical investigations by the Flag Institute in 2013." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack A bit off topic, entirely my fault.

Thanks very much; it's nice to be vindicated even at this late date.

And what's worse they have the Union Jack in the corner of their flag. King Kamehameha I flew a British flag throughout his kingdom in the late 18th century, given to him as a token of friendship from fellow ruler King George III. However, during the War of 1812, an American flag was raised over Kamehameha’s home to placate American interests. It was soon removed after British officers in Kamehameha’s court opposed to it. Instead, Kamehameha commissioned a new flag—one that incorporated elements of both nations. The result is the flag we are familiar with today: the Union Jack of the British Empire sits in the top left corner, while the body reflects the stripes of America’s Old Glory. The Hawaii flag’s eight stripes represent the major Islands. Historians credit its design to an officer of the Royal Navy, who based it on a British naval flag. http://www.hawaiimagazine.com/blogs/hawaii_today/2008/10/21/is_that_the_flag

As a member it bothers me that the organisation can't issue a half decent statement in proper English. We often talk about schoolboy defending, I doubt any schoolboy or girl would have put their name to those 4 lines. But I won't drone on about it, till the next time......

What a difference between PC and MW. Real answers, even tactical explanations about 1v1 situations and correcting the midfield imbalance by bringing Miller inside and where improvements need to be made. He has revolutionised Holt by giving him a deeper role and is clearly revelling in his performances. A man worth listening to.

Watch this space for guest speaker announcement on Sunday.

We might disagree about the importance of grammar but would you not agree that using an apostrophe to indicate a possessive noun is pretty basic stuff.

If the statement is to carry any weight it should be written in proper English. As it stands there are at least 5 grammatical or punctuation errors in 4 lines of text. As a member I have expressed my opinion that the Chairman's actions (or rather lack of action) are not in the best interests of tbe Club and hence its fans and therefore should be condemned by the fans' organisation Club 1872.

I am speculating that since Mr King is an experienced businessman, albeit in South Africa, he must know the potential consequences of his actions and that therefore he may intend the said consequences to occur. If he were to be subject to penalties imposed by the High Court or the TPA his position as Chair of RIFC may become untenable.

I think it was a real question, so the sentence should end with a question mark and furthermore I will answer it.

I do accept the comment as light hearted but would suggest that I didn't need to end with a question mark because it was a rhetorical question. I agree with you completely about stylistic confusion in business correspondence and the reasons therefor. You are right to blame the Americans for much of this confusion and you may have noticed that President Trump's administration has been soundly castigated for numerous spelling and grammatical errors. Email and text speak also have a great deal for which to answer. I have just returned from the Hawai'ian Islands where it is often very difficult to understand spoken English; in shops, for example, because many of the staff are of Chinese, Japanese or Korean origin and the Hawai'ian language only has 13 letters in its alphabet so the few native Hawai'ians tend to speak a kind of pigeon English.

Whilst i agree that even the BBC make errors in English grammar these days, it is a really poor statement, quite apart from saying nothing at all. (It is also worth noting that you can't really say "13th March", you need to say the 13th of March or just 13 March and there isn't even a full stop at the end, how sloppy is that.)

I emailed Club 1872 last night as follows..... This statement is extremely badly phrased. I'm sure we all know what you are trying to say but the second "this" actually points back to "the TAB ruling" and not "the non compliance of the Chairman Dave King" and as a fully paid up member of the apostrophe society I would suggest "King's" rather than "Kings". Lastly I was taught to say either.... or OR neither..... nor; "neither supportive or critical" is a bit of an abomination quite frankly. Club 1872 should make a categorical statement that Mr King should have complied with the decision and should not contest any order of the High Court. Failing to comply has already damaged the image and quite possibly the commercial interests of the Club and Club 1872 should use its best endeavours to ensure he changes course without delay.

I am suggesting that there may be some method in his apparent madness i.e. it is a means to an end.

The Big Boss, Frankie.

NO. He was officially barred after the last debacle.

I commented previously that it would be nice if more ladies attended whether members or guests. We do have two regulars, Christine and Allison aka Mrs Charltonman. That's 9/10 already, which is a good start.

I agree about Dodoo and as I said elsewhere McKay is wasted (and frustrated?) on the left, his real position is as the #10. So I like the thoughts and line up expressed here: 13th April, 2017, 9:57 PM COMMENT By Harvey Byrne Manager Pedro Caixinha should axe attackers Martyn Waghorn and Joe Garner from the Rangers team which is set to hos Partick Thistle at Ibrox on Saturday afternoon. The Gers’ last game saw them earn a crucial 3-0 win away at second placed side Aberdeen with a late double from Kenny Miller alongside a Joe Dodoo goal. Now, youngster Dodoo deserves to make his first league start for the Glasgow giants since the 2-0 defeat against Hearts in November. This means Caixinha should put in a formation change to accommodate the young summer signing with Waghorn, 27, axed after failing to score in his last three league appearances. Meanwhile, Garner should also join him by dropping out of the team with Barrie McKay stepping in, in two changes. The front two of Miller and Dodoo should line-up well against the Partick defence and the mix of experience and youth should cause all sorts of problems. Meanwhile, with McKay behind them the Partick back four will have something else to think about with the Scottish national proving devastating on his day. Behind the attacking trio must see talented loan duo Jon Toral and Emerson Hyndman alongside Jason Holt. Bournemouth’s Hyndman played a more attacking role against the Dons, but he struggled to impress and a more reserved role in the centre of the park may suit him better as he clearly has some quality. The unchanged back line of James Tavernier, David Bates, Danny Wilson and Myles Beerman is also capable of keeping it’s third consecutive clean sheet with Lee Wallace, Rob Kiernan and Clint Hill all ruled out. Lastly, usual number one Foderingham should start between the sticks and he will be aiming for his 12th clean sheet of the campaign. http://www.footballinsider247.com/27-year-old-axed-caixinha-4-3-1-2-rangers-best-possible-xi-face-partick-thistle/

That's great Boabie, it's already clear that there will be a number of new faces this time; which will give the event some added impetus. I'll be trying to finalise the arrangements over the weekend but it might be difficult due to Easter. Those that have been before know that I maintain a special bank account for the dinner, we don't publish the details online but you can PM me for details when I announce the price. For a variety of reasons it is likely to be higher than the last couple, but I'll be trying to keep it under £20. We have varied in the past between taking a deposit and full payment, which is certainly easier from an administrative point of view, especially with only 4 weeks to go. Watch this space.

As is well known Christine, you could buy and sell the rest of us put together and still have change left over for a new CB, CMF and striker; so you'll be on the bell and none of your usual lemonade nonsense :cheers:

I find it very difficult to understand what Mr King is trying to achieve by defying the Appeal decision of the Takeover Panel Committee. His principal arguments of not controlling the shares in trust and "common sense" were dismantled and I don't think they will be re-run. So unless he can find a procedural error, the High Court will surely rule against him and order him to comply. If he still fails then all manner of bad things might happen, I don't pretend to know what they might be, but it has been suggested that he would be held in contempt of court and that disqualification as a director might follow. That would then raise again the spectre of "fit and proper". Mr King is not a stupid person. Is it possible that this is a Machiavellian plot?

This is extremely poorly phrased. We all know what they are trying to say but the second "this" actually points back to "the TAB ruling" and not "the non compliance of the Chairman Dave King" and as a fully paid up member of the apostrophe society I would suggest "King's" rather than "Kings". Lastly I was taught to say either.... or OR neither..... nor; "neither supportive or critical" is a bit of an abomination. Do I detect another conflict of interest in this statement?