der Berliner

Section43 Hibs fans welcoming Celtic to Easter Road with a massive 'surfer' banner in February last year...

Saw them too, but I was also pointing out ...

Has anyone actually checked what sort of flags and banners were allowed into Easter Road or a similarly sized stadium when it hosted a national cup final before? What is/was the size of flags normally allowed into such a place?

For I know from my own experience that league and cup games/internationals (not least when screened live) get a different approach from the authorities.

Not saying that I agree with the actions taken for tomorrows game, but I see the/a reason behind it.

FFS, is the game on BBC Alba?

What do you reckon?

Using google would have given you the answer.

Just a few points ...

Hampden, Ibrox and the Scumhut are not Easter Road on a cupfinal day. What happens at the former can, but should not by default be used at happenings somewhere else. It seems clear that superversion at either of the OF grounds is different, not least the Scumhut. At any greater sports event the size of flags and banners is limited, unless all parties concerned agree to it. Generally, what Rangers and Easter Road folk deem secure enough does not need to be the same when it comes to the police, fire department and ambulances. The company I work for had to deal with somesuch at the World Cup 2006, the Women's WC, the World Athletic Championships and the like, and still does it at the Olympic Stadium for Hertha Berlin as well as German internationals and the Cup Final. Likewise for international icehockey and basketball events at the O2 World Berlin. Pending on the event at hand, regulations could very well and do change.

Has anyone actually checked what sort of flags and banners were allowed into Easter Road or a similarly sized stadium when it hosted a national cup final before? What is/was the size of flags normally allowed into such a place? I wouldn't be surprised that if they want to take it into Ibrox next week, no-one will bar them from doing it.

Obviously, we all are disappointed that the Bridgeton Loyal great flag is not allowed into that place on Sunday. I for one doubt that there is anything cynical or anti-Rangers involved here.

Wasn't it our very ex.-own James Traynor stating that Regan & Co. knew about what Whyte was doing in December (at the latest)? Why did HMRC wait till that fatal point before acting? Why did HMRC chose us in this ill-fated witch-hunt?

What exactly is actually being done to Whyte as we speak. I'm not exactly reading that he's actively fighting court cases left, right, and centre these days? Nor any greater public outcry about sending us into ruin essentially single handedly. Why does it take BDO et al this long to get him behind bars?

Give us some surging runs, a dozen neat crosses and have a pop at goal too. That will do the job for you and the team.

PS: And remove that beard.

Or someone has been hung out to dry to cover the tracks of others.

Maybe, yet, it would do well to avoid a Area 51 scenario. Vigilance is required, not a conspiracy mentality*.

*Just a general remark!

So essentially (if he was responsible) Nash is doing his job.

Sometimes it is the club, sometimes it is the board, sometimes it is the owners. And in one way or another, they are doing apparently unexected capitalist stuff and only for their very own benefit ... it seems. While King would simply come in and do it (nigh all) for the greater good of the club, and solely for the greater good of the club. Just like ... Letham. Well, we can always retain that hope.

kings told us how his money is to go in. lets not waste time making up ways the board can fleece him and remain in total control.

"We" waste quite a lot of time lauding King and blasting the board, rather than offer ideas how to get the club forward. If King's (and your's) way of investment revolves solely about a share issue, fine. It still remains just one way to get money into the club. There are others too and - if decently constructed - there is no "guarantee" that these will solely fill certain coffers, as you keep suggesting.

[Double post)

or king could put in 30 million plus via a share issue.

Of course he could. Nothing of what I suggested above bars him from still doing it. A share issue is but one of many options that can and should be utilized.

Ideas .... one of King's companies could equally well become a name sponsor of Ibrox, with King demanding a say in where the money goes. A trust / membership scheme / King could (temproraily) take on/over Auchenhowie (or financing it), paying youngsters and staff and upkeep (using the place itself as security if need be) and thus create a "feeder/development club" for Rangers itself. All under the premiss that those investing and paying have direct knowledge where the money is spend. The latter is how quite a few membership schemes work.

In the annals of utilising a steam hammer to crack a nut, Sandy has played a mean-spirited blinder.

 

Respect!

It would do well if Rangers start to take a similar approach to any slurs on and lies about the club.

... actually, someone on FF noted that people were moaning that Bobby Madden is rumoured to be a ST holder at Ibrox!

10.5k already sold! That just 100 shy of their home game against the Yahoos late last year. Their top home crowd this season, methinks. What's the income split for that cup game again?

Just noted that Motherwell beat ICT at home last night and John Hughes again was praising their valiant - but in the end vein - display.

Well, when Butcher left ICT for the Hibs from the East, the Highlanders were 2nd in the table, 5 points adrift of the Yahoos, 6 points ahead of Motherwell and 8 points ahead of Aberdeen.

Since Hughes took over, ICT has slipped to 5th in the table, 36 (thirty-six) points behind the Yahoos, 11 behind Motherwell, and 10 behind Aberdeen.

No wonder the Highlanders are growing restless ...

Meanwhile, Butcher's masterstroke has lead two teams into SPFL no-mans-land, with Hibs trailing ICT by 11 points, despite the latter's horrendous run. "Wrecked" to teams in one go, did he ...

No sorry, that can't be! Diouf was the villain and brought it on all by himself ...

Certain irony in that picture, as the No 25 of the Yahoos goes into it full blooded too and serial offender Brown looking on.

still showing as overdue. good to see we have plenty of cash for fines.

 

just not for players wages it seems.

Unnecessary dig ... for on the other hand you want them cutting cost by laying off staff. You can't have it both ways, you know?

Inconsistencies or changing landscapes???? There are some who don't seem to understand that situations change & therefore plans that were in place 3-4 months ago, may not be relevant now. When this happens, the board are seen as inconsistent. The biggest issue for me is that 99.9% of the folk commenting on the clubs business practices etc have absolutely no insight or access to the day to day workings of the club - it is all based on media reports and opinion passed as fact.

 

The fact (as per interim accounts) is that the club has made a £3.5m loss for the 1st 6 months, compared to £7m for the previous year - That's a good thing surely. Yet I'd put money on folk/media still commenting about "the board losing £1m per month".

 

I think a good number of folk need to take a few steps back and re-assess things based on FACTS as officially presented by the club & sometimes apply a touch of common sense.....

While we all surely agree that things are hardly good, you do wonder why people lay focus on all the negative stuff and highlight them to no end, while leaving out other details, as you pointed out. Not that making a loss is that good or should be lauded. But in our current environment (conveniently left out of much of the debate) still a progress. And, for that matter, a progress not been made by Wallace and Co. either, since they haven't been in charge in that period. Who knows what they have in store ... and people can still give them broadsides galore should it not satisfy their "demands" (which will happen anyway).

Regardless of the content of the 120-day review, there will always be a large section of fans that will find fault.....and there will be a large section that will be encouraged by it. If GW states that a share issue will happen next week, there will be those crying "what about this week???"

 

What needs to come out of the review is a clear & concise way forward for the club - a sound business plan. That alone will attract investment.

 

As for building an SPL capable side....the Board over the last couple of season have allowed the management to sign some of the SPL's top players - we already have to level of players to compete at the top end of the SPL (on paper). The key thing will be how these players perform against the country's "top" teams - will they & the manager be able to step up their play & tactics???

Thanks for posting the above! Was about to write something similar and ask people - for the time being - to stop the constant and utterly tiring flak they hand out. We've heard it all before, even King has asked to await the results of the 120-day review ... and maybe folk can just refrain from having one sh'tstorm after the other till then. For that is what it has essentially come down to by now.

I ... almost shed a tear.

How he could overlook his very own briliant manager and mention Balotelli in the "Why always me!"-shirt contest ahead of TLB is beyond me.

I agree, i think a membership scheme is a good idea, but not with this board, i'm not having my direct debit buying anyone Louis XV furniture for their French Chateau.

As I described above, the membership scheme must be run indepently from the board, yet in accordance with it. After all, they will have to allow (sic!) the members to participate in the finance of certain areas of the club. Much like it is done all over the place. It should not be monumentally difficult though.

craig houston would be a good shout.

And that is why a ST Trust will not come to pass.

A decently set up membership scheme would be a (sic!) way ahead for the support to offer some help financially, with the guarantee that the money is solely spent of club issues. It must be done in co-operation with but independently from the board. First, you need to find someone who can run and lead and promote such a scheme, someone utterly independent from the board and its machinations.

There's a cabal of sports journalists up there who apparently won't get out of their jobs unless the grim reaper happens by. They have their own rights and laws and are happily disregarding their superiors. (That said, haven't read much from Scrote of late, even though they have a habit of leaving the reporters' names out of some articles.) But that's the same with many newspapers as well, where your read articles from the very same folk for decades. And as we all know, age does have some side effects ...