BrahimHemdani

I apologise if this has already been discussed on the main thread about today's game (sorry, can't be bothered reading all the pages to find out) but did anyone else see this incident? After approx 38 minutes in the first half Griffiths slipped and fell when contesting possession with Wallace on the touch line and the ball went out for a throw in about in line with Rangers penalty box on the main stand side. When he got up Griffiths made an offensive gesture with a bent arm and his other fist, directed straight at the Rangers fans behind the goal. He was roundly booed most every time he was on the ball thereafter. It is very difficult to believe that this was not seen by the stand side linesman but no action was taken. Hopefully Mr Vincent Lunny will be investigating first thing on Monday morning.

Thanks for reminding me and was not a certain Mr Ronald de Boer not one of the prime beneficiaries? What price Advocaat or those payer's lawyers/agents suggested it?

Hutton + Bartley = Barton :grin: As was seen today he is a complete waste of space in midfield; the difference when Bendicksen came on was 200%. As you say he is not going to oust B&G so at best is a reserve C/H. Arsenal will not allow us to keep him if he is not playing, which is one of the reasons he started today, I'm sure. Why else play three defensive midfield players? I am equally sure that the only reason we took him again was because we didn't have cover at the time. So best to send him back.

Inverness, 13 August 2011, surely you are not too old that you can't remember that far back! He ran the midfiled with effortless ease till he got taken off injured at half time. Sadly seems permanently injury prone.

This is a ludicrous statement. What exactly was he supposed to do about issues that pre-dated his involvement and/or were not known at the time? I will stand to be corrected but I think that the EBT issue also pre-dates Bain's appointment as CEO but in any event I am in no doubt that Rangers would have obtained the advice of tax lawyers at the time about what appears to have been fairly common practice. The fact that HMRC are challenging it now, does not make those who took the decisions at the time, incompetent; provided that they took and acted upon appropriate advice.

McIntyre was not responsible for either of these issues and it is certainly not evidence of his competence or otherwise.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up the ridiculous statement that "McIntyre ...... was incompetent at best". He is an accountant and one of his jobs was to tell the bank each week how much was due to be paid the next week and get agreement for it. Like some of the other Directors I believe that his biggest "crime" was to be one of the independent directors who were uncomfortable with the Whyte offer. I wouldn't have expected Whyte to want to work with him after that but equally I would have expected the Club to treat him fairly.

My understanding is that no such offers were made and that Whyte believed that by suspending them he would gain the advantage; it's the way he does his business that I don't like. If they were made offers, then from what little I know of the two I would have said that McIntyre was the more likely to settle and in his case it was for much less money. It is not clear if any substantive allegation was ever made against him and I know for a fact that he had a very difficult job balancing the demands of the bank with the needs of the Club. I am equally sure that it would be in the interests of both parties for the Bain case to be settled without further delay. You would have thought HMRC would also have settled by now but the fact that they haven't indicates to me that Rangers can't afford even a "small" settlement and that HMRC believe that they have a strong case or perhaps that both sides have the same belief.

You are probably correct about that but then if he had offered say 6 months salary when he took over then I am fairly sure it would have been accepted and then we would not have had all this unseemly mess. Ditto Bain, by the way.

£42.00 - £43.75 a ticket on average!

Supporters Survey 2011 Kicks Off Supporters Direct Scotland have launched the second annual survey of football supporters with questions about:  league structures  television revenues and their distribution  season starts and winter closedown  supporter representation on club boards  supporter representation on national football issues  support for a Scottish Football Supporters Network Last yearâ??s survey caused a storm when fans indicated they were at odds with Scottish Premier League plans for restructuring. This year there are more questions and a specific section about establishing a Scottish Football Supporters Network as a voice of the fans body. Alan Harris, Chair of the Scottish Council of Supporters Direct commented: â??Itâ??s really important that football supporters the length and breadth of Scotland have their say on the topical issues of the day affecting the game they love and support. Last year, our first survey showed that football fans were at odds with the SPLâ??s plans for restructuring. This year we are asking more questions and on a broader range of subjects, including whether fans would support a Scottish Football Supporters Network and what they would want it to do. The survey is open until the end of December and I want every football supporter to respond this year and so that we make the voice of fans loud and clear.â?

The way Mr Whyte has dealt with this is just a huge embarrassment and has probably cost a bundle in legal fees for absolutely nothing.

Romanov will probably offer them pay day loans to tide them over at 30% /month, APR about 2,200%.

Not a very representative poll, less than 1% of members seem to care about this issue but there is a clear majority for Thanks/Agree/Disagree

Sorry, when I said "appeal" I should have said "claim"; we agree he did not claim for a penalty but I can't accept he just fell over.

Excellent idea!

The referee's performance is subject to a supervisor's report so it will depend on whether he feels that the ref simply made a mistake, in other words he should have seen the dive; or that he was so deceived that the mistake was understandable.

Welcome also. The referees decision is final insofar as the result of the game is concerned but the panel exists to deal with such matters where the Club does not accept the decision of the Compliance Officer.

Obviously we will need to agree to disagree on dive or no dive; but I have just watched the video another six times and the Dunfermline player Hardie does throw his arms in the air in apparent astonishment at the decision.

I can't agree with that. If it was not a foul, then why did Aluko fall to the ground? The only reason that springs to mind is to try to win a penalty kick. "The particular offence, SFA rule 202 , is deceiving the referee into making a mistake which leads to a penalty or a goal." (Daily Record) So if you concede that no foul was committed and yet Aluko fell to the ground, he has attempted to deceive the referee into awarding a penalty kick. The fact that he did not, so far as I saw, appeal, makes no difference; the dive itself was an attempt to deceive the referee. Apparently, the reason why a 2 match ban is considered appropriate is exactly because he DID deceive the referee and Dunfermline (in this instance) suffered as a result. That reasoning is obviously arguable but I respectfully submit that the guilty verdict is not.

The total is now up to about 1,900 with just over 40% leaving an email address and thereby joining the new Scottish Football Supporters Network (SFSN) It has gone out to all the Club Trusts and about 100 supporters organisations. It is on a number of Tweets (is that the right exprsssion?) now including Richard Gordon and the SFA. A Press Release will be issued in time for the weekend press.

I am always supicious of people who split their infinitives. Seriously though, I agree with Darthter "you (publish your accounts and) hold the AGM (on the best information available at the time) and update everyone with the info as it stands." It is now clear why the accounts have not been signed off. The auditors have asked for an up to date legal opinion on the status of the tax case and Rangers either don't like the opinion that they have to hand or want to wait for what they hope is a favourable letter. Either way it is wrong, just as wrong as the misleading statement about Mr Whyte's suspension, only more serious in my opinion.

Nice though.

Probably has to in Turkey

I agree with this comment 100%. The referee made a mistake. Aluko took off when Hardie was at least a step away from him. He (Aluko) made contact with Hardie's foot and not the other way around. As I saw it Hardie tried to stop himself and I think that's when his hand made contact with Aluko's arm. But as I have said before the mere fact of the hand to arm contact does not make it a foul, it is only a foul if Hardie pushes or holds Aluko. Obviously most people on here think that Aluko was pushed or held and that caused him to go down. I disagree, he was already on the way down at that point. IMHO it was a dive and the real argument is whether it was worth the equivalent of a yellow card or a 2 match ban. Perhaps the reason that it is the latter is that he successfully conned the ref, if he hadn't the yellow card suffices.