der Berliner

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 ...

At least someone had a clown for breakfast ...

One should never underestimate the stupidy of mankind.

Since both would be freebies and regularly off the park with suspension, we may need both, Gattuso and Black. On a sidenote, people can look at the facts and figures and will find that while not scoring freely, he is very high up in the assist charts. He usually ran their midfield show against us and them. Given that our midfield had been seriously overran during our pretty bad spell, I wouldn't mind a midfield hardman with a football brain. And then there is always the chance that he can develop a little further in a different environment than ICT or Hearts. (Though our resident doubters will disagree.)

I wouldn't put it past them to throw the gauntlet at us for daring to ask a civil court's opinion on "a football matter".

On a sidenote, an organization that views itself above the law whips up guidelines for themselves (!) and member organizations so they shall punish member clubs who abide the normal law? And when these member clubs look for legal aid, they are being told that - undue - penalties are on their way. Dunno, but does this not fulfill the case of coercion?

Love those people with insight into the CVs and private live of certain, usually no-name players ...

Not least since he agreed that Lennon was "charged illegally" by the SFA some years agon and had his ban reduced. Double standards et al.

To whom? By whom?

Just out of interest, after how many years become e.g. such contract issues time-barred? And as we all know, these were not payments to the players related to playing football, but to pay them for their stay in Scotland's hostile environment, wheater and Hooped Horror-wise ...

Make that "some", for I doubt that "a lot" of us really hold debentures, or massive amounts of something CVA-relevantish. Again, only a certain number of people have to be informed about club internal stuff. Sure, somesuch can lead to a Whyte scenario, but what? ... 95% of all British clubs over the last 50odd years have not talked about every internal detail with the press despite the latter wanting to know all ... and nigh all of these clubs run "smoothly". Obviously, we all want to know some more facts and plans et al, but we as much as Traynor & Co. should be realistic with the amount of info we/they can really demand.

Sometimes you can't help but laugh about the arrogance shown by reporters, not least Traynor. D&P have to do this, Green has to do that and whatnot. The God-given right of all reporters to know all and nothing but the truth, the whole truth ... which will they will impartially look at and report upon. And yes, some will say that each Rangers supporter should/has/must be told too. Next, lets go back to the real world.

Is that the same SFA - and SPL, for that matter - who for years ignores existing law* when allowing the hooped hordes to air their terrorist supporting bile? * Anti-Terrorist Act 2006

I honestly believe that Whyte would not have received anything more than 2 quid from them either.

Oh yes, Mr. Lamont! We will all stay solely tuned to your twitter account! Does he have a bet running with that other BBC dolt McLaughlin ...

Maybe people should, for the time being, just try to get out into the open, suck a bit of fresh air and wait till June 14th (et al) happens by and the CVa gets hopefully accepted. A week or two later, we will sure know whether "Green's" consortium and/or Sevco have the money to get us forward and who other members of the consortium will be. Debating ifs and buts and maybes is fine, but it will change absolutely nothing ... aside from getting at each other's throats. And you can spare that for the SFA or the media hacks, if need be.

Yes, on face value you are correct. Still, it was - so far - fairly quick, given the legal mine-field left behind by Murray, Lloyds and Whyte. People are free to compare the length of administrations in the British game*, and in Scottish terms and with regards to the hazardous deals by our previous owners, D&P were not slow. Were they expansive? Who knows? Anyone double-checked admin costs for other clubs? * As well as penalties dealt.

Unless I am mistaken, according to their spokesperson, FIFA commented on the matter without having seen the documents on the matter. Hence, the first reaction was a "default reply". Sion is a nice example, BUT actively Sion broke a running FIFA transfer embargo and tried to wriggle their way back into the competition. That is a touch different to a club asking for legal advice (sic!) about an apparently illegal ruling by the national authorities. So far, Rangers have not sued the SFA or the like, unless I am mistaken. As for the SFA, we'll have to wait and see. They can suspend membership for a year if they want to, it would change nothing right now. The SPL membership does not require SFA membership or registration, though people may argue about players' contracts or the like. Will they really open such a can of legal worms?

Sometimes with FIFA and UEFA, you'd think we are back in the middle ages and e.g. a church/Pope being above the law and do what pleases them.