bossy

Many of these 'journalists' seem to have an issue with 'internet bampots'. Perhaps it is due to the realisation that the internet is rapidly supplanting their more traditional 'organs' as the main source of news, information and comment for football fans. This, of course, increasingly renders these talking heads irrelevant.

I take it that they don't do irony.

I think that what we are now seeing is a war of attrition. Can our enemies in the SFA and SPL - aided by the media - bring us to our knees and bend us to their will before clubs start going bust, season ticket sales slump and the TV deal goes south. Their problem, of course, is that we are gathering strength week by week and month by month. They now know that an SPL without Rangers is of waning interest to the average punter and even less to the TV audience. They will try to bring us back to a 'reconstructed' SPL but on terms which are wholly unfavourable to Rangers because the alternative may well be oblivion for more than a few clubs. Certainly, we will need to 'box clever' but there are some fights that we will not be able to avoid. Whatever happens and no matter what the rights and wrongs, the finger of blame will be pointed at Rangers. We will just need to accept that will happen and stand intransigent in order to protect our own interests.

And therein resides the problem. It would appear that the concept of 'moving forward' for the SFA, SPL , the Scottish media and many others is that Rangers declare unconditional surrender. After all that has happened and with Rangers once more gathering strength, that has about as much chance of happening as does Scotland winning the world cup. Sadly, it is going to take having some real damage inflicted upon Scottish football before wiser heads prevail. And if that involves a Hearts, Dunfermline or Motherwell going bust then I, for one, will not be crying into my cornflakes. When you sow the wind .........

They want us to 'move on' because they sense that the balance of power is shifting in our favour.

To move forward, we need three things: 1. The illegal transfer embargo needs to be lifted 2. The kangaroo court needs to go away 3. The monies stolen from us by the SPL/SFA need to be restituted.

Reconciliation is a two way street. Unfortunately, I sense no willingness in the SPL or the SFA to give any ground towards this end. They are still all about punishment and vindictiveness. Until there is a real change in attitudes in both these organisations then there can be no moves towards making peace. They started the hostilities. Let them make some substantive concessions to bring them to an end.

Claims to be Glasgowâ??s â??originalâ?? derby could be made by West and Accies as it was this derby match that first took place in 1868 â?? some four years before Rangers were formed by the Gallant Pioneers. The match was between West of Scotland FC and Glasgow Academicals FC. Their titles demonstrate that codifying football was still in its infancy and still evolving, with football being played under various rules such as the Sheffield Rules, the Cambridge Rules and, of course, the Rugby Rules â?? the latter permitting more handling. However, the early rules adopted by Queenâ??s Park also permitted a degree of handling, to the extent that â?? some four years before the formation of Rangers â?? Queenâ??s had hoped to meet Glasgow Accies on the field of play: they had embraced the rugby rules in their early constitution. This match never took place because, despite considerable correspondence, the clubs could not come to an agreement over the rules for the challenge match. This confusion in interpretation and rules is confirmed by the fact that, when the SRU was formed at the Glasgow Academy in 1873, it was named the Scottish Football Union. So maybe it is the West v Accies match of 1868 that could lay claim really to be Glasgowâ??s original football derby. Taken from Etcetera - The Glasgow Academy FP Magazine

One of those posters, Buster, said on FF: "I don´t really have a problem if he wants to have a go at me because I've done the same to him and have nothing but circumstance to back up what I say.....but the rant was all over the place and in part, factually inaccurate."

When the firm I worked for got audited by the US tax authorities, they leaked information about the audit to the Wall Street Journal. The result was a big article about how the partners had been playing fast and loose with the tax and how they expected them to have to pay up thousands each. Result of the audit was that the firm had actually paid about $20 million dollars more than they should have. I personally got a cheque for $12,000. Funnily enough, the IRS kept very quiet about that. Nothing was leaked to the press and there were no articles in the Wall Street Journal or any other newspaper. All that to say .... no news is good news.

Why is that a problem?

As do the police.

Of course, after Hillsborough, the Andrew Mitchell case and multiple other cases, the veracity of anything the police say has to be taken with a generous pinch of salt.

A good friend of mine was walking past the back of the Broomloan as all this was going on. He felt that the police were using their horses as offensive weapons without any regard for the safety of people who had nothing to do with the incident. He described the environment as 'dangerous'. This is not a person who is prone to exaggeration. It is reasonable to ask whether the police response was proportional to the incident. Given the general police approach where football fans are filmed, herded, etc. etc., a fair minded person might feel that the UBs were handled in a more assertive way than they merited. That same person might feel that a conciliatory, rather than a conflictual, approach might yield better results.

I already said that I thought the blog was poor. But I hardly read Leggo anymore. I don't like his 'tabloid' writing style, I find him to be inconsistent and I generally find the blog to be uninteresting.

I believe that they announced that they were going to seek leave to appeal. But that does not mean they have or that leave has been granted. The silence so far is interesting.

I think the blog is poor (I think most of them are poor). I don't think it is fair to Mark to suggest that he was in some way part of it (unless, of course, you have proof) and I don't think Leggo should have been naming posters. I also think it is damaging to the RST through no fault of their own.

I liked that .... brought a smile to my face. We can all question the motives and the intentions but, just for a bit, I intend to enjoy having a CEO who takes the side of the support and is not afraid to say it out loud.

I have had a few exchanges with Buster over on FF and, while he remains a staunch critic of Green et al., his posts are usually balanced and well argued. I don't know Buster outside of FF and I often disagree with him .... in a most civilised way from both of us. Based purely on his posts, he appears to be intelligent and well educated. Perhaps that is Leggo's problem.

How predictable. A thread on 'unity' becomes and attack on the RST.

We were forced into liquidation by HMRC and we had money that was due to us stolen by the SFA/SPL. Maybe that is where the creditors should address their queries. In addition, I and thousands of others did not invest good money in recapitalising the club to see it go to creditors. That might sound harsh but just the way it is.

If the SFA/SPL restituted the money they stole from us then we might be able to pay off some of those creditors.

I quite like the spectacle of the Scottish mhedia foaming at the mouth.