der Berliner

... especially if anything Bundesliga (no matter whether 1 or 2) is involved. Unless we are very quick. Oh ... and Fulham may or may not want Whittaker!

And thus the witch-hunt starts, Lisa Gray names her article ... Rangers diver Aluko backed by Ally Of course, you would want to know how close she is with our gaffer, naming him with only his first name.

Nicely stirring it up for the next OF game. Oh, we will enjoy the hostilities spouted from the slopes of the Scumhut, the maniac behaviour from the folk they call coaching staff ... and next to nothing will be heard by the mhedia, rest assured. IMHO, we (the club) should blank all talk of and with them.

Haven't we (actually: you) not seen all angles by now? Do the panel also look at the inciednt the ref apparently missed when he was fouled beforehand? Don't get me wrong here. It was one of those penalty decisions. Some are given, some are not. All over the planet. But here, they went into overdrive over a foul / non-foul like there is no tomorrow. Aluko was called officially a "diver" and sentenced long before he was in there with the panel. And you can bet your bottom dollar, euro or pound that you will see half a dozen such fouls tomorrow too and nothing will happen at all. For if they would judge them all, half the SPL would have no players at one stage or another. It is a farce.

Maybe we should start a Fleck thread, instead of posting it here.

Just to keep a perspective ... unpunished incident, no claim by Aluko ... which c-/should have been a penalty. , no decision either. The actual incident for which Aluko was called a "cheat" and "liar", when you can clearly see the hand of the Pars' player holding him. In contrast, free-flying O'Connor was not penalized for this ... as "there seemed to be contact". We do note that Samaras was not penalised in any way for simulation, as he caused the ICT player to be sent off, thus enhancing his team's advantage to get a favourable result. As I said, it cannot be that players get the same bans as people commiting violant conduct on the field. Put points on their head, so they get serve suspension earlier, but not this. (Why do I believe that the aforementioned is exactly what will happen when a Timplayer is next in line for a simulation charge?)

Scotzine's people (meddling close with Phil the Renegade) should rather look at this, than Mr, Whyte. Terrorism Act 2006 1 - Encouragement of terrorism ->

I think relations to the SFA have now gone very icy indeed, while they get polar with the BBC. Long may it (finally) continue.

Honest opinion? I know next to nothing about his private life or his behavior these last 20odd years. I stay pretty objective in relation to his football ability though ... and no matter how you turn it, he's got a SPL goalscoring record that seeks its equals outside the Old Firm, he's high in the assist charts as well. Probably the one Hibs player these last half-decade that helped them stay at least in the mid-table at the end of the season. Hence a link to us - since he's a freebie, sure willing to perform at a decent level and for a big club - might not be too far fetched. China ... was the only way out it seems - at the time. I for one do not want to hazard a gues what football and football people in China are like. Nerd? Well, people grow up. Not saying that he will. We've seen some "strong characters" at Ibrox too, tamed by the former managers.

On a sidenote, how come that he gets a ban for that which equals a straight red card? Simulation as bad as violant conduct? Something badly wrong here. If anything, they may put points to his name (as if for a yellow or red card), so he gets a suspension in due course. This current thing is absolutely ridiculous.

The message now can only be: "We'll be watching you!" Double Standard is already at it, rest assured. Methinks the odd letter to UEFA / FIFA with regard to unfair treatment of association members by the SFA with a number of examples will be send sooner rather than later.

You mean on or off the park? I would assume no-one has any idea what happened to him in China, do you?

Who's to say that there are not letters being send as we speak ... ahem ... write? That the press is at it first is no reals surprise. That's their job.

Looks like Aston Villa may be in for Davis again. They carefully avoid any prices, but as he's what, 5 1/2 years to go on his contract, it will take serious money to price him out of Ibrox. And for all his importance to the team - since he's signed his extension - Davis has hardly been at 75% of his own standards, not being able to dominate a game against the midfielders of ... St. Mirren, St. Johnstone, Kilmarnock, Dunfermline. Though results are by far not his fault alone, you would have expected more of him in any of these games and if a Dorrans, Davidson and (!) even a Riordan would come in as his replacements ... one might be tempted to accept ... say 6m. Another article says Liverpool are preparing a 7.5m raid for Jelavic and if somesuch happens by, well, you know the rest. We'd ask for 9m, settle for 8m and he's off.

That was not my point. I see reason in why it is being postponed and I do hope that shareholders will see the reason too, even if they live in West Samoa. And I even hope that those who look over the Companies Act see the point here too, for I assume there are always exceptions to a rule.

Is there a body above the SFA in this country ... or shall I say Europe? You cannot reasonably explain the way the SFA has handled cases against Rangers, as opposed to cases against other teams. The evidence is out there, in tv and photographic evidence alike. If this goes against Aluko, you'd have to call the impartiality of the SFA into doubt, not least that of their new chief inquisitor.

Can't really see anything wrong with the above. The more information the shareholders will be told at an AGM the better, the more advanced all talks with HMRC and our lawyers are, the better. I'm sure some mean-ills will find something sinister in this news too and bring out flak of the biggest calibre.

If there's an option, please do it with Letters, no smiley required. It's not a board for the 13-year old.

Dorrans? We'd need to shed Edu and/or McCulloch ... and sign a decent replacement for Jelavic. It looks like Pizarro (Bremen?) and Olic (Bayern) will be loaned out in January, as they don't get as much football as they like ... and there's Jordan Rhodes, who is apparently valued at 3m.

IMHO, this is a BBC-instigated FARCE. And what makes it worse is that nothing happened with O'Connor, nor anything with Samaras. They bend the rules and laws as they see fit.

In any case, Britons who have heard or seen the programme above may still complain to the BBC online and if nothing comes of it, contact the BBC Trust on that matter. Should the latter fail to react, one may call in Ofcom nonetheless and present our case as one where the BBC and their BBC Trust fails to keep their own promises on impartiality et al.

Sounds like UEFA trying to get their case with Sion being handled by a COA they set up on their own, but claiming it is independent of them and their decision.

You see, IMHO there is a difference here. There's been a dispute between the BBC and our chairman over that programme. He or the club can stop them from interviewing our players, which is his right. It is not the BBC's right - still being an impartial and public institution, not a private company - to start a witch hunt on their own against the club and its players, like e.g. presenting as fact that "Aluko dived", that he "is a diver" and publicly calling that the SFA chap has to make an inquiry into this, no matter what. After, as I said, already passing the verdict. Ain't there a body watching over TV and radio stations to which one we might appeal?

Haven't seen a clear video of the incident, but the stop'n go one was showing a penalty given all over the country, some are being debated, other's not. As the Pars' players hardly protested and contact was there ... so be it. Soft as it might have been. That the Pars' boss - being what, 50 yards away? - presents the usual blood-and-thunder talk is nothing new either. IMHO, if the SFA starts to make a fuss about this, they open a can of worms.

Unless I am mistaken, the BBC leads the chase with a headline saying: SFA to review Aluko penalty award (NewsNow, Timecode: BBC 13:45 Sun, 04 Dec 2011) In their report they started with: .. which is now the new headline of the article. It wasn't on Sunday. They were the only ones to report on it, after their reporters babbled about this during the game at Tannadice. Today (!!), the Daily Record followed suit: Rangers winger Sone Aluko facing two-game ban over controversial Ibrox penalty in another misleading headline, as it should be "could be facing" -> which they write in the article. IMHO headline grabbing at its finest and we clearly see the aim and the agenda. Not least with the nice follow-up in the Record: .. which make it reading that he's doing it like Traitor O'Gheady or Petrov. Who, AFAIK, never faced any such scrutiny outside the Rangers boards. (And the replies on the DR' side are comical central again ... not least from the HHs)