der Berliner

... and for some it all fells nicely into place.

... well, at least he does speak to the various supporters groups, and on a nigh weekly basis.

More recently I was wondering whether the quitting of Greig and McLelland might have indeed to do with not liking Whyte as a person. Be that personality, age, or business dealings so far. Just wondering.

As for King, he's got more taxmen running after him that we have an average home support ... and for years. While he sure can give advice on that, his whole role at the club appeared to have been minimal. We do not know by now whom Whyte wants to be near to him, nor do we know the exact reasons why King left. Might put that question to him via the RST this week though.

You seem to believe the media when it suits.

You did read my remark about pinchs and cups of salt? Matter of fact, I tend to believe the words of Whyte as posted on the homepage and the Rangers supporters group's websites more (sic!) than what I read in any sort of press or media release. If you take this removal of King as an example, the whole way it is presented essentially oozes of antipathy towards Whyte ... when exactly how many people know how King and Whyte get along which each other?

Again, who is King apparently talking to here about stuff he would keep to himself if he's any dignity and loyalty to the club? If the above is actualy correct.

First, I did not read that garbage, since it will not state anything that has not been printed about half a dozen times by now.

I wonder why people even contemplate to speak about "Celtic's demands" or "demotion to some lower league". The SPL rules for administration are simple and ther for everyone to see. Should they find a new solution if we go into administration will surely be contested by RAngers. It did not happen to any other club of any stature before. The scum's demands simply show them up for what they are.

Staying out of Europe for three years. Yes, if we go down the drain and start as a new club, that will be the case. Why should we though? Simple administration does not work along those lines, what is painted here is the horror-scenario of pre-prac admin, which will hardly come to pass. What might occur is that we are still in administration over the summer or early next season and thus will not get a European license for next season. But whether we are in administration that long, or whether we are in adminstration at all still remains to be seen.

Thanks for that input, forlanssister. Still stand by my point. The way this episode is becoming a nexus for judging his personality in the media (and on here) proved that the hacks are on the right way.

That the sheriff disregards his ban has exactly what to do with this case?

I wonder how some on here have "definite" information. Sounds much like what is said in that photocopied article: "for daring to question" ... well let's make Whyte the ruthless dictator now!

Pinch of salt? Nay, cup of salt these days.

No it isn't.

 

In his ruling on the case, Sheriff Ross stated: "I accept the evidence led by the pursuer (One Stop Roofing) as credible and reliable, and supported by the available documentation.

 

"I reject the evidence of Mr Whyte as wholly unreliable.

 

"It is not possible to ascertain whether he is not telling the truth or is simply unable to recollect the true position, and has convinced himself that this arrangement is something that he would not have entered into.

 

"Either way, his evidence is contradicted by virtually every other piece of evidence."

 

Walter Mitty springs to mind.

As I said before, other judges have ruled that Rangers songs are sectarian and sentenced people for it. Then another judge ruled that Celtic songs of equal pedigree are not sectarian but annoying some people in the public, the accused got a stern talking to and were done with it. I for one do not trust a judge in Scotland much more than I could throw him/her.

Not that this will help if people want to walk along with the media and dance a jig on all negative evidence and perceive evidence that is published about Whyte.

Best to cease debate till after the case is heard, for right now those behind all the shyte-stirring are making the most of one of their underlines schemes, i.e. splitting our support.

I don't know anything about the VB (except that I think I am correct in saying that some or all were members of RST prior to the split in 2008) but what I find astonishing is how anyone accepts all this claptrap from Mr Whyte.

 

If his evidence in a court of law is regarded as "wholly unreliable" what reason is there to believe that what he says out of court is any more reliable?

There's no black & white (wonder, how often I need to say this). No-one says that Whyte is reliable, or what he says to the RST, Assembly, or now Vanguardbears is reliable. BUT so to is nothing the press and media spouts on a nearly daily basis, fueled by Rangers-haters or people who - despite being so-called Rangers men - still have an axe to grind with Whyte (namely various directors and CEOs).

Despite all the constant malcontent thrown at Whyte, so far he has done nothing to suggest that he's at this moment and time not the right man for the job. Now, I asssume that within minutes people will throw various points at me with regard to his financing of this and that and whatnot, but as far as I am concerned, he has answered all these question a few times by now. Sure, people want to know more and are not satisfied, but SO BE IT. He will not invite anyone who wants to have a look at his work, nor would any other chairmen of this planet. He can only do so much and once this HMRC case is being dealt with, we will see the "true face" of Whyte. But for the time being, some people should start to relax somewhat and give the guy some breathing space.

As for court of law people, these are the same sort of people who deemed certain songs aired by the scum to be political and not sectarian (if a touch discriminatory), while sentencing our folk for singing various utterly non-sectarian or at least non-discriminatory songs. And rest assured, if the press would dig an inch deeper, they would fine similar finance cases concerning McCann, Desmond, Murray and others, but Whyte is the tune of the day. And as it goes, you wonder what would have broken lose had Dave King taken over instead, with his hundreds of million of tax bill cases in his wake.

I'd suspect that by now even Craig Whyte is making sure that he relates the correct information. My instant thought was: when is this case being discussed then?

Small Tax Bill - This is being challenged as the clubs legal advice is that because this is over 6 years old HMRC are not within their rights to pursue it. So the stories about Rangers not paying it or can't pay it are wrong and merely mischief making.

This, e.g., was news to me.

Hmm, they don't seem to want to publish my comment.

I just scanned the current replies and you really are embarrassed by some of the stuff said there. Some really mentally challenged folk on there.

Pascal Feindouno ... is playing behind the strikers in the "No 10" slot, a it is called in Europe, ain't he not?

Frankie, did you get a auto-response into your e-mail account? Not sure whether my complaint was send, since the "share your feedback" screen reappeared with no note of the complaint being sent.

I'm sorry but you are not correct, you are confusing cashflow with profit. The "profit" is the sale price less the purchase price excluding fees, VAT and any other expenses involved.

As far as I see it, we bought Jelavic for 4m (plus agent fees), sold him for 5.5m (plus agent fees), and made "a profit" of some 270k (at least going by the poster above). While that holds true, the fee was paid back then and has been dealt with in the accounts and whatnot. The money we got for him now are these 5.5m (minus agents fees; whether or not in one sum or not), thus we are now 5,5m better off than before January 31st. Thus, this money (or however much Everton paid; minus agent fees) is now ready for use, no matter how much the "actual profit" on the Jelavic deals brought to Rangers. What is being done with these millions is another matter.

Sent this one a few minutes ago ...

Hello Eurosport / YahooSports,

 

This is a complaint with regard to the blog article "Would Scotland miss Rangers?" by Desmond Kane:

 

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/desmond-kane/scotland-miss-rangers-173834275.html

 

While there is a fair amount of upheaval at Ibrox and especially the press about Rangers' recent financial problems with the HMRC, the way the press has gone on with taking vicious attacks on all things Rangers becomes nigh embarrassing. The same holds true for this article by a Scotsman who has not only a well-known dislike for Rangers FC, but also quotes a well-known Rangers hater of the past in Ian Archer. To have somesuch published on an independent and hopefully objective website like that of Eurosport / YahooSports would be an embarrassment in itself, but the whole article is also construed out of facts not just dating back to an event 4 years ago (which was a very special case in many ways, strangely ignored by the author), but even to events 40 years ago, when the Rangers supporters' mindset was - indeed - very different from these days. But that was 40 (as in FORTY) years ago! The way the author presents it makes it seem that nothing has changed at all, which can be deemed to be a straight lie. Rangers draw support and players from all confessions, "races", you name it, without any problem at all. Some of their greatest stars of these last two decades have been Roman Catholics and exactly NOTHING was made of it. The only club that throughout these last three decades openly promoted its otherness in Scotland has been Glasgow Celtic FC ... and they do to this very day. This antagonizes them inside the country ... and not just with the Rangers support. It makes you wonder how weak the SFA/SPL appears to be when challenging this behaviour.

 

Yet, this is about Rangers and the way they are presented. The author states that there are songs being sung about "child abuse" and the Irish Potato Famine", which are both utterly false and misleading. First, the song about "child abuse" is cynical banter about a well-know Celtic and Scotland manager knowing and ignoring about the child abuse of a Celtic youth coach. They sing about the fact that this child abuse was swept under the carpet by Celtic FC and not being dealt with by "Big Jock" Stein. In fact, the Rangers support sing up very massively AGAINST child abuse, as well as Celtic.

As for the "Irish Potato Famine", this song has been proved long ago (not just now) to not targeting any victim of the Great Famine, but the Celtic support's "Would-be-Irishness" as well as "Anti-Britishness", evident everywhere they go and play. This has nothing to do with the Irish, nor a racism so poorly insinuated by Desmond Kane. That behaviour by the Celtic support can be seen in various samples on here, samples that shame not only the name of the game, but also that of Scottish football more than any so-called "sectarianism" (a word that desperately needs a new definition, since it is massively abused by the Scottish media and authorities):

 

http://doublestandards.bplaced.net/index.html

 

Of course, I did not even touch the actual question posed by the article, "Would Scotland miss Rangers?". For Desmond Kane nigh solely goes on about "sectarianism" (of the past, as I stated) and some violence not specifically to the Rangers support either, but actually fails to mention the status of Rangers in the Scottish game. The status as one of the two clubs who generated most income of all things SPL and SFA, be that club revenue, TV income or drawing support. Instead, he goes on about dragging a "sectrarian" element out of the locker of history and presents it as prevailing in the modern day Rangers support.

 

Such sort of journalism is not exactly up the standards of Eurosport and YahooSport.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

NB: While a feedback of the author is welcomed, it should be pointed out that this is a complaint to YahooSports / Eurosport itself, since it is the latter who allowed such one-sided reporting to be attaced to their name and brand.

Would Scotland miss Rangers?

 

By Eurosport | Desmond Kane â?? 12 hours ago (i.e. Fri, February 10th)

 

Of all the quotes that can be regurgitated relating to the darker side of Rangers and a helping of the imbeciles that have clamped themselves to the Glasgow club seemingly since time began, Ian Archer's musings remain perhaps the most pertinent. It was penned over 30 years ago. "This has to be said about Rangers, as a Scottish football club they are a permanent embarrassment and an occasional disgrace. This country would be a better place if Rangers did not exist," wrote Archer, who latterly worked on the now departed television programme Scotsport, in a Glasgow newspaper.

 

What was exceptional about Archer's heartfelt words is that they were scribbled down during some of the finer moments in Rangers' history, specifically alluding to a night when they snagged the old European Cup Winners' Cup in Barcelona in 1972 with a 3-2 victory over Dynamo Moscow. As a piece of newspaper prose, it was ahead of its time.

 

Inspired by beers and cheap wine while being firmly planted in Spain, a Roman Catholic country at odds with the anti-Catholic signing policy once employed by Rangers and endorsed by its supporters, a furious rump of followers battled with riot police in the Camp Nou amid their team's rise to clasp the only European trophy in the club's history.

 

It will be argued that the heavy-handedness of local police made the riots in Barcelona eminently preventable, but then Rangers seem to have spent large swathes of their past defending the extremist behaviour of those who masquerade as football fans. The blame always seems to fall on others.

 

In a taxing period when a case with HMRC threatens to capsize the club with over £50 million of debt, it is perhaps Karma as much as unpaid taxes and gross financial mismanagement that has left Rangers facing the trap door. Rangers may well be left to pay the price for the sins of the father, with or without his sash, and their inability to drive out the rancid element that has tailed them.

 

They range from their highly inflammatory position in shying away from signing Catholics, the racist and sectarian songs sung by some followers of the club, the orange shirts wheeled out a decade ago as a "Dutch tribute " marketing ploy and the wretched riots in Manchester when a big screen television went on the blink. These are just some of the episodes that have tarnished not only the Rangers brand, but the image of Scotland as a tolerant country.

 

Scottish football may be left impoverished by a league without Rangers, but will society? Should society feel a certain sadness towards the plight of Rangers?

 

While the Scottish Premier League, satellite television and perhaps even twitchy Celtic directors would lament the loss of the income that Rangers generate, a progressive Scotland may feel differently.

 

At a time when Scotland's first minister Alex Salmond is trying to drive forward the idea of an independent, progressive, multicultural, multi-faith Scotland - a rainbow nation of Scots - the country's national sport is perhaps the last public haunt for the miserably uneducated. This was seen and heard when Hearts and Celtic exchanged lamentable ditties on Wednesday evening that continues to illustrate the deep-seated anti-Catholic sentiment that exists in pockets of Scotland. The strained old IRA choruses were heard from the visiting end amid the pestilence. Tramps behave better.

 

Celtic supporters are plagued by their own unsavoury band, but have always been uncomfortable with the Old Firm tagline that they continue to share with Rangers. The racists who have used Rangers to further their warped ideology will remain intact, even if Ibrox does not after the tax hearing has been played out. This would be a tragedy for a club with so much potential.

 

For the decent Rangers fans, progressive people, who follow their club only as a football team, there is a genuine sympathy at how departed owner Sir David Murray allowed the club to fall into such a state, but there are too many who have been allowed to hijack the good name of Rangers to further their own ideals away from a sporting context. For them, there will be no sympathy.

 

Rangers may well survive in some form if they fall into administration, which would be heartening for the national sport, but would clubs outwith Glasgow such as Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibernian, Dundee United or Dundee be sorry to see them go?

 

To the ones who sing songs about child abuse and the Irish Potato Famine, it is difficult to argue that the air would not be cleaner if their club stops. "And because some people are so sick, I have to put six words at the end of this column," wrote Archer. "I am not a Roman Catholic."

Eurosport

Right time, right picture, right quotations ... from an anti-Rangers point of view.

I wonder whether Kane has anything to say about the behaviour of the Hooped Horrors, these last three years in particular?

Can he play in Europe?

IMHO, we hardly have any idea about somesuch when done by Murray / MIH or e.g. Desmond (then again, in the latter's case there was something similar posted a wee while ago). At this day and age, everything is put under the microscope and is then thrown at us like there is no tomorrow.

Sure it ain't good for the club, but I am not surprised by the publicity it gets now. Especially from the BBC. Then again, the latter are lacking already, since they missed that our former goalie Grant Adam was bailed because he "apparently" sung sectarian songs and thus causing a breach of peace! Wonder what those scum supporters where doing at Tynecastle on Wednesday then ...

Looks like forlanssister is the angel of the negative stories on here too. Have really hard to remember a posting on here or FF when s/he had something positive to say?

This is something which would only put our hesitency in the transfer window into perspective as well as shedding more insight into the modern day transfer dealings.

On a sidenote though ... "profit" now would still mean that we got a large bit of the 5.5m now, but compared to what have we paid back then, the actual profit from both deals was minimal. Not that this is unusal in this day and age, unless you want to buy a player from (sic!) the EPL (or Porto).

Just out of interest ... can anyone (like Murray & MIH) ask somesuch of another businessman? For all the bluster, I simply don't understand why a new owner of a company should be open about this to an old owner. Same goesfor AJ and his stuff, or the press' constant harassment of Whyte "to tell the truth".

IMHO they can demand whatever they like and ask questions to their hearts' content, but Whyte is probably as required to give answers as Lloyds Banking Group would be.

(On a sidenote, internet and its instant updates on news sure has people in their grasps these days. Hand on heart, how many of you have checked whether there's any news of the Cousin deal being concluded ... these last 30 minutes alone? )

I'd hope that football players stop utilizing him as an agent.

Wasn't it said that the Ticketus deal was done over a certain number of years ... and that payments will be made accordingly, rather than one lumps sum?