der Berliner

Direct link to FF ... methinks no need for registration et al ... https://www.followfollow.com/forum/threads/appendices-to-rangers-submission-to-the-spfl-agm-parts-1-7.119767/

Would this be vice versa and someone with a Rangers / loyalist background would write this, certain people would be finger-pointing his way and scream; SECTARIAN!!!!!!!

The thing is, sports journalists are sports journalists for a reason. Some are more clever than others, but in essence, they remain sports journalists. That you have people like Michael Stewart or indeed Chris Sutton as experts gives you enough hint about the standards being set. Next "problem" is that quite a few are in the job for ages, as it is a cabal that once chosen and selected, can - unless illness or stupidity gets them first - stay in their post till they retire. I see the same names pinning articles that were there 10, 15 or even 20 years ago. And journalists have a tendency - since they are opinion makers and propaganda tools - to develop certain level of narcism, as you can see in Jackson, Spiers or Leckie. The big danger in as small a country as Scotland is that they indeed wield the power of influencing public opinion. For not everyone out there will be clued up about what is "really" going on, check out statements in full or reads fan forums. Biggest danger here is the BBc Scotland cabal, who is taken seriously out there in the world, mostly due to the good standing of the BBC as such. You would hope that our media department and PR guys note who is spitting the dummy here or writes impartially ... and hand out press credential and interview opportunities accordingly. AS well as letting the public know why certain people are not welcomed at Ibrox et al.

The Yahoos`remarks under that tweet tell their own story about their lack of brains (no surprise there).

The executive summary of Rangers submission to the SPFL AGM - download Download option for the above via the FF Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/351858699226/ Partly readable over on FF https://www.followfollow.com/forum/threads/the-executive-summary-of-rangers-submission-to-the-spfl-agm-download.119661/

Neat ... https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1258358544870580225

Thing here is, it comes from Germany rather than Germany outlets saying: "sources in Scotland claim". A few German news outlets have the story now, low key as it is.

https://www.rangersnews.uk/transfer-news/rangers-open-talks-with-former-bayern-munich-midfielder-report/amp/ Dorsch at TM -> https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/niklas-dorsch/profil/spieler/251302 NB: The website of TZ München has no link between us and Dorsch (as yet), i.e. the thing Sky Sports Germany cites as source.

That was the speed-read-and-understand-it they expected from every club with their 105 page proposal though ... ?

... more like: if the EGM will yield no result, Rangers have a good case to go to court with, which might have been the plan anyway, given the nature of Scottish clansmanship in the SPFL. Going to court may very well draw UEFA's attention into this (though they should be at it anyway), and Scum FC may be denied any entrance into CL land.

More like blatant agenda pushing, which started by having only 1 proposal to vote upon instead of 6.

Snatched from FF Public information indicating SPFL bias, incompetence or worse Beyond any evidence Rangers may subsequently publish or share with the other clubs, I'm trying to compile a list of what information is already in the public domain showing why an independent investigation and/or the dismissal of Doncaster and others is necessary. This is a long post, because it's such a long list even though I'm likely to have missed certain elements - please feel free to add!1. Their preferred option. Recorded interviews prior to the SPFL resolution being published stating that "calling" the leagues was the SPFL's preferred option (note: not the only viable option - their preferred option). a) There is no indication that this preferred option was arrived at in consultation with all member clubs, so it could only be based on either genuine thought that this was the best possible option (surely not, given that clubs are to be relegated with the league incomplete and certainly "losers") or else based on their own personal preference/bias. b) Suggests the preferred option was predetermined and then the SPFL and the low-level paper gatherer put together the case "for" this option and against all other options, rather than performing impartial cost-benefit analysis to present to the member clubs to let them decide. 2. The only option. Related to (1), the SPFL's preferred option was selected by them and presented as the only option to be voted on, rather than letting the member clubs decide between all alternatives, with Hearts statement saying the arguments presented "for" the preferred option and "against" the alternatives were highly subjective (I'm not aware that any of the details of the rejected options have been made public). This clearly wasn't in the interest of all member clubs, who the SPFL are meant to represent.3. Tying money to calling the leagues. The SPFL resolution tying the payment of prizemoney to calling the lower leagues and giving the SPFL Executive/Board the power to call the Premier League at a later date. If there was any other way of paying clubs (see 4), this alone amounts to explicit coercion - essentially blackmail for clubs that may have faced administration without payment.4. Rangers' Resolution. The SPFL stalled and lied regarding Rangers' alternative proposal to advance prizemoney without making a decision on finalising the leagues. a) SPFL statement claiming Rangers' proposal was only received very late in the day, preventing it from being actioned - contradicted by subsequent information showing they'd received it early enough to run the rule over it and tell Championship clubs it was incompetent the day before they even told Rangers. b) Hearts statement saying they were told it was incompetent due to a single word, and could therefore easily and quickly have been amended to make it competent prior to the vote. c) Rangers then being told that it was unnecessary as the SPFL already had the power to issue advances/loans to clubs. 5. "Irregularities" during the voting process. a) Aberdeen being contacted by Doncaster to say their vote wasn't needed, implicitly encouraging them to "fall into line", which they did. Logical to ask, if he contacted 1 club regarding a vote he didn't need, it's very likely he contacted other clubs who's votes he thought he needed (or else used the same tactic as with Aberdeen to encourage other clubs to fall into line). b) SPFL claiming Dundee's vote in pdf format went into their email quarantine, noting that Falkirk and other clubs have confirmed that they voted in pdf format without issue. Coincidentally, they quarantined the one vote that would have blocked their resolution. Fortuitously, they also publicised at this juncture that the 5pm deadline they'd previously publicised was actually only advisory, with Dundee actually having 28 days to "reconsider" their vote! c) Inconsistencies in statements by Dundee and the SPFL, and leaked Whatsapp messages, regarding when Dundee were made aware that their vote hadn't been received (I can't recall exact details, but Dundee's first statement I'm sure contradicts the SPFL's statements). The Whatsapp messages make clear that Dundee knew that the outcome of the vote sat with their vote. d) Inexplicably, the SPFL publishing the results of an incomplete vote. Why? e) Clear evidence, including a leaked image of the voting slip, that Dundee's vote was "no", with Partick's senior QC of the opinion that such a vote is irrevocable. While company law suggests "no" votes can be changed, the SPFL's articles of association/constitution state that written resolution votes are considered the same as if voted in person at a general meeting, in which setting there is no scope for changing a vote. f) Articles by Tom English (and others?) stating that multiple clubs feel they were leaned on and bullied into voting "yes". This is quietly forgotten by everyone in the rush to paint Rangers' accusation of bullying as unsubstatiated and uncorroborated. 6. Dundee's change of vote. a) Leaked WhatsApp messages indicating the Dundee/Nelms saw this as a negotiation opportunity. b) Publications the next day suggesting Dundee had agreed glamour friendlies against top SPFL teams. These claims haven't been repeated, but Dundee/Nelms did not demand retractions or threaten legal action. c) Dundee changing their vote to "yes" with the only persistent suggestion being they secured agreement for league reconstruction talks, despite the fact that Dundee would only benefit from league reconstruction in the unlikely event that the top division was expanded to 15+ teams. d) All of the above in combination do not give any indication of a non-dodgy reason for Dundee changing their vote. 7. Subsequent statements. a) The SPFL Board, minus Robertson, releasing a statement engaging in further financial coercion (blackmail?) regarding Rangers' EGM resolution. b) The SPFL Executive commission a review by Deloittes without either the Board or member clubs having any approval or say regarding the terms of reference to our knowledge. By contrast, for Rangers to secure an independent review they require a super-majority of club approval. Rather than recusing themselves on what should be an issue for member clubs to decide upon, the SPFL Executive have actively engaged in lobbying against Rangers proposal in their own personal self-interest (rather than the interests of the member clubs they are meant to be employed to represent), including financial coercion again. c) MacLennan and Doncaster stating loans weren't possible and claiming Gretna was the last one - contradicted by Ann Budge with documented evidence of loans/advances in 2017. d) Same statements essentially saying the SPFL's rules and articles gave them no other alternatives, yet they have recently altered these rules for other reasons, and their resolution itself called for the leagues to be finalised while incomplete outwith their rules. Likewise, if they'd progressed Rangers' original resolution and it had succeeded, this would have given them the authority of their members to issue loans/advances to clubs regardless of their rules.

Would H*n not be the racial /racist equivalent of F*enian? Or does this only hold true for German Rangers supporters?

New and rather informative article from Stevie .. A new commercial era is here for Rangers https://fourladshadadream.blog/2020/05/03/a-new-commercial-era-is-here-for-rangers/ + + + Was there any reason given why we are still owed money by Hummel et al? Was it because of the SD dispute fallout?

Ever since we returned, we fought battles on and off the field. We won quite a few off it, this seems to be the last important one from the days of admin and its "heritage".

Can't say I knew it was in place, but seemingly this law is to be or already has been scrapped in Scotland now, 12 years after England and Wales did it. How Humanist Society Scotland’s End Blasphemy Law Campaign was won: 2015 – The International Coalition Against Blasphemy Laws is launched, with Humanist Society Scotland a founding partner. February 2016 – Religion in Scots Law report by academics at University of Glasgow, funded by Humanist Society Scotland, reveals the legal detail and history of the Scottish common law offence of Blasphemy. December 2016 – Humanist Society Scotland calls on the Scottish Government to show ‘moral leadership’ and scrap Scotland’s Blasphemy law in light of Humanists International’s report on persecution of Humanists around the world through Blasphemy laws. July 2017 – The Scottish Government’s Justice Secretary responds to correspondence from a Humanist Society Scotland member saying they have “no plans” to scrap the law. August 2017 – Humanist Society Scotland gathers public support through a petition calling on politicians to scrap the outdated laws. September 2017 – Humanist Society Scotland submits evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee of how Blasphemy laws are used around the world to persecute Humanists and minority faith groups. The Committee agrees to write to the Scottish Government to ask them to consider scrapping the law. December 2018 – Humanist Society Scotland implores MSPs to scrap Scotland’s Blasphemy law at the annual Humanist Yuletide event in the Scottish Parliament. January 2018 – The Edinburgh Group of Humanist Society Scotland arrange a protest against Blasphemy laws around the world on the spot where student Thomas Aikenhead was hanged for blasphemy in Edinburgh 321 years previously. March 2018 – UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of Religion and Belief calls for the scrapping of Blasphemy laws and states they are not compatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed by the UK in 1968. March 2018 – Scrapping Scotland’s Blasphemy Law becomes official SNP party policy. May 2018 – Scottish Parliament hears from Humanist campaigners on the need to end Scotland’s Blasphemy law. October 2018 – Ireland votes in a referendum to scrap Blasphemy law after Humanist Society Scotland distinguished supporter Stephen Fry is investigated by police for comments he made on a TV show. November 2018 – Scottish Government launch consultation on reforming Hate Crime laws which fails to propose to scrap Scotland’s Blasphemy law as suggested by campaigners. Humanist Society Scotland calls the failure to act a ‘stain on Scotland’s Human Rights record’. December 2018 – Canada repeals its Blasphemy law. February 2019 – Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye and Have I Got News For You panellist, and Nick Newman, scriptwriter and cartoonist add their support to the Humanist Society campaign while touring a play they had written to Scotland. March 2019 – The Church of Scotland add their support to the scrapping of Scotland’s Blasphemy law. March 2019 – New Zealand becomes the seventh country since 2015 to scrap its Blasphemy law. April 2020 – Scottish Government confirm the Hate Crime bill will scrap Scotland’s Blasphemy law. https://www.humanism.scot/what-we-do/news/humanist-society-campaign-success-as-government-confirm-the-scrapping-of-blasphemy-law/ Wonder how this will work when it comes to "FTP" and "sectarianism" and strict liability ...

Well, biggest problem here is that public opinion and perception of us is created by the m(h)edia and their hangers on, like we see above with Stubbs mindlessly bragging on about EBTs et al.We on here can dismiss it as the utter rubbish it is, but that's what is out there and read by the public. People who hardly ever open a Rangers website or read Rangers FC twitterings or club statements, unless some of it is mentioned in the m(h)edia (and usually twisted to suit an agenda. Be it the Stenhousemuir chairman or some mud-dweller in Aberdeen.The Scum settled the score with the media quickly, threatening papers and journos alike with legal action. For a decade or so it worked, as you hardly read an article that included the Celtic and sectarian alongside one another for ages, even when outright hooliganism occured, the media was utterly reluctant to speak of Celtic fans despite images in the same article showed the culprits.We removed press privileges of Scrote and the BBC Scotland branch started an all out campaign against us ... would you assume the same had happened when it was the Scum involved here?One has to walk carefully here, as Scotland remains a pond and the opinion-making pondlife that makes up large quantities of modern day Scottish sports media won't go away anytime soon. Likewise, in good old Scottish tradition, some journos see a point in siding with Rangers (as a force in the game in full rehabilitation mode), at least when the grounds are safe. It is a way of politics that makes me sick, as we have to deal in muddy waters, but at the end of the day, it has to be done.

Coming to think of it, if this really happens, it is probably our "title" of this season.

Seemingly, SPFL board member and Rangers CO Stewart Robertson only became aware of the SPFL's "independent" Deloitte investigation after it was done and dusted. Well ...

It is always interesting to read this, but you wonder where those club's were when the EGM request was cast and where they will be at the EGM?

They've been sponsoring a stand at the Scumhut for years and print the Celtic View, so no real inquisition needed for that question.

Today As Live Rangers v St Mirren | League Cup Final 2010 9 guys and a dove ... As Live: 1996 League Cup Final Rangers v Hearts Premiers on 04.05.2020

Maybe it would be more diplomatic to speak of dishonesty rather than lies. It makes you wonder what mindest these guys at the SPFL HQ have. You only hope that they don't get away with it (again) due to some minute "legal" detail et al.

Tom, English's comments https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52472024

QUite hard to fathom the mantra about us giving the evidence to SPFL, public and whatnot ... when we clearly have stated about half a dozen times that we WILL hand the evidence to the right people as well as clubs in due course. This is much like transfer window rumours doing the rounds and ITKs are getting pestered time and again to release info that is still confidental (for a few hours / days).