Thinker

7 hours ago, Adam90Haynes said:

Thanks a lot for posting such useful information! You know, I believe that everybody wants to have a good job because it considerably helps to earn some money ...blah blah fucking blah

I'd like to thank this spambot for inadvertently resurrecting such a great thread. It chronicles a significant step towards the very happy situation we now find ourselves in.

Who would have ever thought Lennon would rip the morale out of Septic and leave them a shambles? (Answer: All of us!)

On paper, tough draws for both the Ukrainian teams, which ought to help the UEFA ranking.

5 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

I don't see the relevance in other club's responses, particularly in a matter like this. 

 

Rangers only comment pre-report was to claim it was an oldco matter, so I fail to see why you think that the club knows what it is doing.

I was under the impression that there's doubt as to whether the club was contacted at all. When the initial "told to contact oldco" story was published, the board commented to say the whole thing was news to them (IIRC). I suppose it may have occurred during the spiv regime years, in which case it's practically guaranteed to have been handled badly.

1 minute ago, Biblio said:

I was really anxious again in the hours leading up to the match but feeling better now. I still feel a bit worried but every team in the world would like to be this far ahead with eight games to go, so maybe I should learn to relax more. Looking forward to Thursday, the players must be full of confidence.

I'm the same - nervous to a completely irrational degree before every league game. I shudder to think what I'd be like if it was close run!

Woo-hoo! Kent!

19 minutes ago, BlackSocksRedTops said:

Why is this being compared to the previous Celtic and Aberdeen cases? In those cases the players in question returned to training and interacted with other players. The Rangers case was nipped in the bud early and the players did not return to training. Or am I missing something?

Also, Patteron et al, were acting on their own and against the instructions of the club whereas, in the Dubai case, Lennon's players were sitting in the bar and by a public pool as part of a club-organised excursion. They were acting with their club's permission.

3 hours ago, Uilleam said:

In 2018 another alleged victim of Neely was told he should pursue his complaint with liquidators. He was told by lawyers that Rangers was owned by a different company when the abuse took place and that duty of care was not with the present owners.

Whenever this incident is reported it's always phrased as "was told by lawyers", rather than "told by Rangers' lawyers". It's not clear if anyone acting on behalf of the club was actually contacted. The wording could just as easily be read to mean that the lawyer the complainant approached to represent him advised that the case wasn't worth pursuing.

If we were to give Patterson the boot, I have no doubt hed go on to have an excellent career with some other club.

He's 19. He can learn a lesson from this and use any second chance given to him to redeem himself. It's up to the player to show the right attitude, and the management team to judge him though.

It's a relief to hear that Tav is fine.

9 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

The word liquidated does not show up in the PDF, Mr. Thomson. "One of the" implies that there was more than one, had we?

I can't find the part of the report he's refering to here either.

22 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

* No evidence could be found to corroborate Rangers FC’s claim that they contacted the police after sacking a paedophile youth coach in 1991.

15 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

Not unexpectedly. I'm not sure what evidence there would have been at the time and it's unsurprising that it can't be found 30 years later.

If I remember correctly the victim's father was a police officer - if so it doesn't even seem plausible that the incident could have been kept from the police.

26 minutes ago, BlackSocksRedTops said:

Still too risky. Just go out and win the next 5/6 with the strongest team possible. 

I agree. We should get it sewn up ASAP. We can win it before the split and play Paterson, McLaughlin, Bassey, and whoever else could do with a run-out for the majority of the last 5 games.

5 minutes ago, BlackSocksRedTops said:

If we win our next 3 games does that effectively mean we are 3 wins from securing 55?

Aye. Or 2 away if we beat septic.

It ought to be very easy indeed to put together evidence of bias in the citation/retrospective punishment process.

Working on the grounds that the standard of refereeing is supposed to be consistent across every game in the top flight you could reasonably expect that any refereeing errors would also be evenly distributed: i.e. close to 1 in 12 (8.33%) incidents would be against any given club, and equally close to 1 in 12 incidents would be against any given club's opposition.

There was a tweet going round following Alfie's ban stating that 25% of retrospective punishments had been handed out to us (3 times what you'd expect), and 40% of incidents investigated were against whoever septic's opposition happened to be (close to 5 times what you'd expect).

If that's true there really is no other conclusion you can draw than that the Compliance Officer/Panel of Anonymous Experts is heavily biased towards punishing Rangers and pulling up anyone who's upset timmy.

2 minutes ago, BlackSocksRedTops said:

Just had the chance to see a tackle ON Roofe by a St Johnstone defender. Is that from Wednesday or the game in August? That was worthy of two red cards IMO. That was a shocker yet and if it is from Wednesday I've yet to see much about it

I think it was from the game earlier in the season, but it was clearly far more worthy of retrospective action than Roofe's.

1 minute ago, RANGERRAB said:

And if Celtic, Aberdeen, Hibz, Livingston & a.n.other make the top six how many do we get at home?

we’ll have already played them four away twice

Happily, I don't think it's going to matter.

2 minutes ago, BlackSocksRedTops said:

Is this based on them winning their games in hand?

Based on the vanishingly unlikely worst case scenario of them not dropping a point from now on in.

19 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

How many wins do we need now?

We need 20 points (or 19 assuming we keep our GD advantage). So 7 wins will do it.

I'm voting for Jack even though he only played for half an hour. You can't stop me!

1 hour ago, Franc Ergs said:

My iMac has packed in so I’m typing this on my phone which logs me in automatically . So trying to access the site from a laptop, unfortunately the password I thought it was is not being recognised, and also now transpires that I have no password for the email address that I registered with. Would it be easier just to re register ?

If you're logged in on your phone you could reset your password. Not sure how to do this via the mobile site, but you should be able to choose to view the site in the desktop format in your browser (you can in chrome - hit the 3 dots in the top corner then scroll down) then use the Account Settings link to change the password.

Even if what they're doing isn't in breach of any laws it still seems like a stupid risk to take. It would completely serve them right if they come back riddled and have to forfeit a match or two.

14 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

I don't think quarantine has been applied to 'elite' sports teams.

Aye, but what about second-rate sports teams?

2 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

It's always harder to score against 10 men. 

Nah.