der Berliner

I just wonder how much humble pie will be eaten should the CVA come off ... and how much rejoice some of the Green and D&P detractors will spread all over the place should it not.

How about trying to understand the concept of "bigotry" before slamming posters who try to tell you what it is? I for one would assume that no-one is happy to call a fellow Bear a bigot, yet, if they do behave like bigots, what can you do?

On a sidenote, Bedoya is actually a "inside right" by trade, used mostly as a right-sided midfielder or even right fullback though. We never really used him in his best role since we have utilized either Naismith there or played with two strikers.I for one wouldn't mind having Naimsith, Aluko and Bedoya playing on the wings and behind the main striker in certain games. All three have pace, ability and are not shy of a shot.

Why's time running out fast? Everyone, from top to bottom at Ibrox knows this. Everyone also knows that the transfer window is open till the end of August. There is nothing that can accelerate the course of events, so why whipping up this "time runs out" stuff? Sure, Green could try and talk to the players and maybe he already has done so. But any binding agreement is only possible after the CVA has been agreed and the club is fully in the new owner's/-s' hands. Full stop.

The point is that all players are being back at normal pay. They will sure see that all can be sealed and delivered soon now, while the transfer window's end is still nigh three months away.

Where does he say this? He gives his opinion on some people who clearly have a bigotted / intolerant mindset. Maybe people get annoyed by the words "bigotry" and "sectarianism", words who have indeed been used pretty freely of late, not least by the Scottish media and politicians. IMHO "intolerant" would be more appropriate. Speaking up against intolerance ain't putting Danny on any higher morale ground than any other poster. I could go on all day slamming Christian, Islam or any other monotheistic belief, as it is by default intolerant to any other belief (no need debating that, history is proof enough). I would imagine that e.g. if I say that I believe in my signature statement and "the fact that Fortune is going as she pleases" and it would be best to give her the odd prayer, people would laugh or scoff at me all day long, people groomed well by their monotheistic or atheistic schooling.* That would, in essence, be nothing but the intolerant behaviour shown by some towards Lafferty. Tolerance is the way forward for this club, despite the intolerance shown by the rest, not least the Scum. You'd hope it is included in the Rangers Standard and speaking up against intolerance on a civil level should be part and parcel of that standard. *You'd obviously think that deep down in their hearts anyone would still not dare to tempt fate that way.

On a unrelated related sidenote ... Schalke today set in motion a bid to get rid of their Euro 184m debt (sic!) within the next 10 years.

The SFA replies to the statement and stumbles again: In a swift response to Rangers' statement, the SFA issued one of its own on Sunday evening. It read: Lord Glennie (Opens PDF): Do they know their own rules? :admin:

Which would imply that I have an agenda? Oh dear.

Denoting fellow posters ... ... when he's essentially standing up against intolerance. I'll keep that in mind then.

Wanted to comment earlier, but ... Aha! ... but we don't know for certain. FIFA has ordered? Says who? ... but we don't know for certain either. It is believed that this is a non-story, but we don't know for certain just yet. We understand though, that posting garbage ain't that terrible since half of the readership will buy it still and spend days debating over it with the non-believers. By that time, it is thought that we have another story at the ready which we believe will target the non-believing faction amongst the readers more successfully.

And it is up to you to make such judgements/statements? @ Zappa ... never read the other article, bnut from my understanding some intolerant chap needed to comment on Lafferty "jumping the fence" and marry (SHOCK HORROR) a Catholic? I would assume that such intolerant behaviour ain't welcome on here. Debating it though, IMHO, seems to be another matter, right? Not least when the papers present these people as "your average modern day Rangers supporters" ... like you and me?

Says who? Strange comment.

Noting people who need to live out their religious or political bias has hardly anything to do with playing the moral guardian or whatever other rubbish is posted in the above quote. These chaps live in their very own intolerant mindset - which is hardly up to debate on either side of the Old Firm divide - and you would have hoped that in this day and age our support has grown above that. Still, we have to live with the fact that Rangers cannot handpick their support, the support makes their own choices - whether they come from the top of society or sleep below the bridges - in many ways than just wealth, BTW. At least we make some effort to quash such intolerant way of thinking, as opposed to the lot from beyond the Clyde. Of course, it is typical of the press to jump on the morons slagging Lafferty off as if they were the standard bearers of our support. For that alone these idiots need a right good whack ...

Is Rangers-man Lee taking a snipe at his fellow professionals who may look for a easy escape route and good money deal ... instigated by their all-caring agents? As for the article itself ... I was under the impression that football debts are paid in full. Must have missed some info inbetween, it seems. Obviously, no matter what, IMHO we should fullfil these deals, perhaps post-CVA.

I know. The problem is again the lack of info from those responsible and the amount of half-info or conjecture by those just wanting to sell papers or get some publicity. Much of the above article is based of hearsay, but no hard quotes when it comes to interesting bits: Says who? What's his deadline for all the money to be there, ready for the creditors? Who's to say that the money will not be there on that day? Just asking. I'm not convinced of anyone until he provides us with the CVA and the money to get us running again. But neither am I willing to bite on any hook thrown by the media.

Because of?

Most of the article paints it as bad as it can get. Whether all the above is indeed "fact" remains to be seen. I for one can wait till the CVA is going through or not ere jumping on either bandwaggon.

Re-telling of previous stories and news and "facts". What is interesting though are the last few lines, if true ... Source to come, for the time being FF.

Are you sure? On average, not all of our games are screened live, not all of our games are at home (where the money is made ... and split in half in the cup?), there is no guarantee that we actually get all the way ... and the prize money is? ... Just saying/asking.

Methinks someone pointed out that the Glennie "ruling" works both ways. They cannot impose that sanction, and we - under SFA rules - cannot accept it ... or a lesser version. That said, should we compromise here, the SFA would essentially have a precedence (to hit us and any other offending club with) and our acceptance that they can - essentially - whip up any new sanction they like without fear of repercussion. Hence, we shouldn't go down that trail. Essentially, it is similar to a case where someone committed a crime which seems to be out of sync with the current law. Yet, no matter what, that someone has to be charged with the current law, while the high court (or anyone responsible for that) whips up a newer, up to date law to deal with future instances of that crime. What the SPL/SFA did is trying to whip up new laws without having them covered and apparently thought through (no wonder if you see the brains they utilize). Obviously, that leaves us and them in some sort of danger. For they are indeed left with sanctions that they as well as we see unwarranted (after all, it was not the club and the fans who brought the game into disrepute) , as well as sanctions that would - if we are honest - have no great impact on the club. Obviously, thanks to the media and the hysterical reporting, it looks like the rest of Scottish football bays for our blood - no matter what, reasonable or not. Still, much like the crime case above, the rules are set out and the SFA has to commit itself. If they indeed go for broke here, I wouldn't mind if Rangers take them to court for real and let Scottish football suffer here. For IMHO, it is still like people trying to punish the Costa Concordia itself and its passengers, not the captain and the helmsman.

Link to full story to come. You'd hope that hacks would read this first before slamming Rangers left, right and centre. It should be the SFA's turn ...

Some quotes in there, though as usual by "a source close to " chap. Looks like once a CVA is done and HMRC out of the way, Sheperd may invest. The Daily Record How much is Freddy "worth"?

Ain't that ex-ref now one of FIFA's (or was it UEFA's) referee supervisors (et al)? He could tell them a few things about fairness and integrity within the Scottish game.

Turns into a lose cannon. Maybe Liewwell needs to replace him sooner rather than later ...