der Berliner

Double Standards will soldier on, I think I'll take the points to someone in a higher position in the near future. On a sidenote ... people sometimes mix up the ban of "sectarian" songs in the stadia with being restricted in their personal freedom (of speech). You can essentially sing nigh any song 24/7 out there at home or in the streets, though it is always about the way these songs are being sung. Much of the rebel and loyalist songs are essentially "folk" songs or the like and are being sung all over Ireland and in parts of Britain with no ill intend in mind. The only places you are not allowed to sing certain songs is on a Saturday afternoon for about 100 minutes in a football ground. That is essentially the some "law of the land" rule that is in place in every concert house or library. Something everyone ought to be able to obey. That said, if there is one rule for us, there should be rules for the rest too. The SFA/SPL should have more guts and make sure that e.g. Killie supporters also stop their version of TBB and whatnot. In the Glasgow context, the songs take on a more grim tone though, yet I for one would still regard them as some sort of ill-adviced and cynical banter between football fans. At least until roundabout 2007. Since then, the more we essentially "stopped"* nigh all singing of TBB and FTP because of UEFA rulings, the more their singing took on a viler tone. As if they would revel in our songbook's decline and the fact that absolutely none is being done about theirs. Their songs revolve around terrorists and anti-British behaviour, not football, and sure not politics. And even if, what would be the difference between "discriminatory" chanting on our behalf and pro-terrorist chanting on theirs? Apart from the latter being offensive not just to Rangers supporters, but to all British people, not least the British troops who served in Northern Ireland, Afghanistan et al, whose dead are continually mocked? Points I will put to that higher authority. *That said, you cannot expect 100% correct behaviour in amongst thousands of football fans, who come from every age group, being emotionally charged up or simple bampots. But these 5 to 10% per game cannot simply be put to the sword or the like each and every game - nor being used as a club to wield against the whole Rangers support. FARE's Celtic-minded spy has shown the way though ...

Edu has played CD for the US of A before, but methinks his engine is needed in the midfield. Bedoya, BTW, has also played alongside the right hand side for his country. Maybe it is time to see people used in their correct positions. Good to see midfielders Andrew Mitchell and Rhys McCabe getting involved, the latter is being said to be "another" Naismith in the making.

While I'm no friend of sectarian (a term that needs a definition much more than "fenian" or "hun", btw) songs, I clearly see a difference between calling someone with a title like "Hun" (which is IMHO just a cynical sort of football banter), or using the title Fenian in full knowledge that it refers to a terrorist group that is responsible of thousands of deaths. And here I refer to the Hooped Horrors using this word to denote themselves, not us. They bath in this anti-British tradition, this faux-Irishness and sure wet themselves - as we write this - that it is in fact those who oppose their terrorist-mindedness who have come under the scrutinity. It is essentially like the Spanish government castigating those who voice anti-ETA songs at the ones who praise these terrorists.

As I pointed out already, "Fenian" has been re-defined in the West of Scotland ... and it is pretty clear by whom. There is a clear agenda behind this and the sooner this movement is being tackled the better. What next? Look up a nicer meaning for Al-Qaida or Taliban and warp reality to that? I gave a definition of that term from an independent book over on our German website: + + + ... the definition of the word in one of the worldâ??s leading publications on the matter: James MacKillopâ??s - Oxford Dictionary of Celtic Mythology. (ODoCM, p.210) When a Rangers supporter uses this term, s/he does not refer to anything else but the terrorist group mentioned above or their supporters. No anti-Irish sentiments or the like, as modern day press- and media folk like to impart into anything the Bluenoses sing or utter. The Bears usually denominate the Celtic support as Fenians (much like the latter call themselves too (sic!)), as well as anyone connected to the I.R.A., which essentially is nothing but a successor of these â??Feniansâ?. The term as such is not religious or sectarian, unless used in the context of Roman Catholics of Irish descent. Other than common opinion, the latter is not the pre-eminent notion when common Rangers supporters address those of Celtic as Fenians. For the Celtic support revels in the traditions of the "Fenian" I.R.A. terrorists, glorifying their personnel and deeds in many a song. People who are responsible for the deaths of more than 1,800 British citizens. + + + As long as we do not make a stand against the to make their ends meet, we'll lose out.

... Broadfoot is a "left back", while Little can play right back, right winger and striker. Has done it before. On a sidenote, Kerkar has been utilized as left back by Walter and Ally in the reserves, so we may send Broadfoot to the right and Kerkar to the left back positions. I do expect a packed midfield though, with Edu and Davis being charged to do some cover work on the wings, while McCulloch "clears" the middle. EDIT: in all honesty, I have not been impressed with Bartley since his return. Not that anyone bar Aluko has shone these last few months, but Bartley did not reach his own standards of last season. Maybe saving his wages is welcome too.

McGregor Little - Goian - Bocanegra - Broadfoot Aluko - Davis - Edu - Wylde Healy - McCulloch/Hemmings With Celik and Hemmings the "key" players on the bench. Is Bedoya still there? NB: Yes, Little has been used as a right back before.

IMHO, it is beyond sanity that a handful or even a hundred of people amongst 50,000 shouting TBB or the like are highlighted as having commited a cardinal sin that needs all the attention of the SPL and media, whereas for weeks and weeks those across the city can spout their sectarian terrorist-adoring bile in their thousands without any word of it appearing in the press. Time to address some higher authorities, methinks.

... and another point is that now there is people seeing the need,so IMHO it has to be done now, since the momentum (as ill a term in this situation as any) is still going.

With regard to the latter, I'd still be massively surprised if the Murray, Lloyds and Ticketus folk were all "conned" by Whyte and his lot. So at least with regard to Murray, I would think that this rumour might have some substance - not that we'll ever find out.

A membership level system like that of Motherwell might work (though how it can be turned into ownership is to be debated). People would pay for the certain membership levels and for the first "season of need", rich investors could easily buy e.g. 6 of these e.g. 1886 Memberships with a 25k joining up fee, while those who can afford less than that take up a membership they see fit. Members would be represented by someone with a name, someone who looks how the money is wisely spend. Someone who's a diehard Bluenose, someone the people all trust. Someone like Walter Smith.

Right now, I regard Whyte as semi-official at best. The source right now are the administrators' statements. And while the scenario is still grim, they have been rather positive* about it all so far. *Relatively speaking, of course.

My tune is that I do not believe the rumours and hearsay of the press unless it gets confirmed by an official source. And that holds true with transfers or our recent financial plight. As I've said before. And, BTW, I for one tend not to remind others of the "tunes they play or want to listen to". While we are at it, I again like to ask questions how the BBC gets a look into HMRC documents and how money frozen in our accounts can be used to pay off VAT or the like. The former is confidential ( I would assume), the latter is nigh impossible (I would assume).

I was under the assumption that Whyte blamed Bain & Co. for e.g. not finding out and taking care of the small HMRC case. They had quite a few numbers of years to do so. Anyways, that was just an assumption. As for this "liar" stuff, we should keep that bit civil too. While we all know the saying "once a liar, always a liar", our parents would also belong to that when it e.g. comes to Santa Claus. I'm quite sure now that Whyte walked in the shady and grey areas of financial dealings, yet ... I have to wonder how SDM (and his folk), Lloyds (and their folk) and Ticketus (and their folk) would have agreed to all what they did if Whyte was all bluster but no substance. Given his previous, you would think that they all did their job on him ere agreeing any deals.

And their source is? The administrators? HMRC? ... would any of the parties in talks just now spill any sour beans to the press and make the situation even more difficult? (And believe to be in the job by tomorrow morning?)

Methinks I already suggested that someone should actually get into contact with a relevant crown office here. If the SPL and/or SFA is paralyzed by the scum's behaviour, they will surely not be. It was/is of course a telling sign that it is Germans who run the Doublestandards website ...

First step is that people have to complain at the right places. We can lament on here or FF for weeks, but if no-one actually does it at the SFA, SPL, or indeed Strathclyde Police, they won't raise a finger, it seems. BTW, STV's prime twitterer Raman Bhardwaj was also disgusted when hearing "us" singing the naughty fenian word. Asked him ... ... and guess what, no reply. There is a warped mentality in West Central Scotland, a mentality that warps the definitions and meanings of words to their purposes.

Now, perhaps I'm wrong here, but if Pacific Shelf 595 Limited was founded in 1994 and took on the mantle of Celtic, who folded beforehand, wouldn't that have resulted in the "3 year European absence" penalty that we were threatened with? If so, and Celtic didn't make it public, wouldn't their results from those three season extinguished from the records too?

This looks to me like some sort of fighting fund. I wonder why they don't adopt something like the Motherwell membership scheme?

When reading that I actually started to wonder who of the administrators /-' team is in constant talk to the media about this. I would assume that they do not talk to the media aside from press announcements because of confidental stuff is going on, which will later be made public though. (And since - from the administrator's ooint of view - it can't be in the public interest of Rangers to spill these beans, why would they do it?) Whyte's lawyers will not talk about it to anyone, so where does the Record get this from?

Now it is for our business branch on here to tell us what they think would/could happen if the obligations have not been met. I doubt AJ wants HMRC or Lloyds being re-installed as creditor?

Well, it was only half in jest, of course. As I and others have said, there is a lot of stuff not matching up, so I am careful in accepting the various numbers thrown about in the media. Within this last week we came to know where the Ticketus money went. We also signed and extended contracts for what, 14 players. The running costs had to be met - with or without VAT. Some, but not all of the money from the CL of last season might have been used, but wouldn't they show up in the last accounts of 2011? I'm just asking questions here. And there still is the case about the HMRC bills, one frozen in our accounts, the other looming large. Would it have been sensible ... if you aim to clear the club of the HMRC stuff via admin in one way or another ... to keep all this money in the Rangers accounts and not "save" from the taxman in someone else's accounts? Same with the Ticketus money. By using this and not his own money to clear the debt, wouldn't he ensure that there is somewhat more pressure on HMRC to keep the club running and "safer" from liquidation, as another company and thousands of people get involved? Cynical as it seems. Again, just asking questions, not taking Whyte's side. Shameless behaviour with regard to the Arsenal shares, btw.

STV covers this story ... at least a little

I don't. I used it to start a question, i.e. if he used the Ticketus money for clearing the Lloyds debt, which money did he use to run the club. Simple grammar, nothing sinister. That he used money of his own to run the club, maybe? You try to read something into my replies that is not there. There is not just black & white here, but many shades of "grey", in our respect, truths, half-truths, and hearsay. I for one rather listen to what comes from official sources from within the club than any guesswork by the media. And here - time and again - I refer to the sports hacks, who hardly get their average transfer rumour correct. I did not outright deny that all stuff in the media is rubbish. If others - who usually discard media rumours as garbage too - now develop a new sense of trust in the media, so be it. Now that you gave it to me with both barrells again, think about your reply above, me recent reply and ask the simple question of "so what"? Give me those problems you envisage and lets talk about them, rather than calling me dumb or the like. BTW, did I defend Whyte in my reply above? "Whyte can't do wrong"? What's that? So far, the only ones who can't stop with unkind accusations are of the ... now well established anti-Whyte faction. I try to keep my mind open and hear what all people concerned have to say here. Let's keep it civil, please.

But King is still neck deep in RSA-tax affairs, is he not? The mhedia would love someone like him, who can be used as another club to club our club. (English is a nice language ...)

There is no black & white here, both with Whyte as with the hysteria of the fans. We have been fed with facts, half-facts, assumptions, hearsay and lies from day one of this. Most of it came from a media with a clear agenda. Now that some of Whyte's doings have been revealed, quite a number of people went over the edge. In the cold light of day, and not defending any of his previous "lies", what he did is buy back the club from Lloyds with "our money". So what? Essentially, he turned the bank debt into a "three-season loan" that will most likely get paid back with season ticket and normal ticket money. If he made sure that during this spell the ticket prices do not see an increase, we get the club debt free in three years' time, unless someone jumps in with some money and buys the deal from Ticketus (why would anyone do this?). Had Lloyds kept the debt and we had continued e.g. AJ's or Murray's plans, we would probably carried the debt on for far longer, unless we would have thrown any outgoing transfer money and CL income (if any) at them. On another note, had Lloyds pulled the plug ... with the incoming tax bill in sight, does anyone think the Bears would have grouped together and whipped up that money? I would not like to guess the answer here. While we are at it ... if he indeed used the Ticketus money to cover the Lloyds debt / take-over, how did he manage to cover the running costs since then? Anyone hazard a guess? On another note, something which apparently was ignored by the incensed folk, he actually said something about the unpaid 9m, what it included and that we/he actually offered to pay it back. No mention about this so far. Though I hazard a guess that people simply do not believe him here ... because he lied once or twice. Well, well ... black and white. There are so many open ends here and a few more are added any day. While I can understand why Whyte has done what he did, I sure do not condone it. The question remains whether it was necessary to save the club or whether there were other means to sustain the debt and keep it running, with the HMRC stuff looming large? And finally ... what is in for Whyte here. Anyone get some hard facts what he would get from getting us into admin et al?