trueblue 64

The money lost on non renewals of ST would have repaid both loans and left a big chunk of the 4M that is being sought.

This idea of his would be better applied to newspapers, stop giving your paper money to the big nationals who spout a lot of shite and give it to local ones who seldom print guff like this.

I believe you, SC, but you must realise that when people succeed in their lives to this extent, the change that would come from buying Rangers is huge and potentially very disruptive.

 

Yes, people can be appointed to pull strings, but the profile that goes with being Rangers kingpin can compromise other business areas and intrude into personal life.

 

David Murray loved it, but would he do it in 2014 if he could be that younger man again? Rangers was a great acquisition when he bought it, but it's not a great acquisition any more.

 

Today's thrusting young Scottish entrepreneurs will not be drawn to Rangers as readily as David Murray was, which is a shame, but it's a sign of the times.

 

It's not just fame that goes with the Rangers gig, it's infamy too, and many don't need the hassle - or the large and inevitably expanding hole in their bank balance.

This scenario has been created by our own supporter groups as can be seen in the statement blasting Mike Ashley and all the way back to "yanks go home".

Good article but the non payment of PAYE turned a lot of genuine neutrals against us. The papers did'nt help with their stories about how many nurses you can get for 9M or how many life saving operations it would buy.

And the 6th is way past cancellation date.

 

If we get it next Thursday we will have closer to a week than 3.

Chris says the 6th, your arithmetic is appalling. There is a few posters arguing about number of days but no one is arguing about Chris putting a negative slant on the contents of the review.

your maths is really bad.

It's not maths it's simple arithmetic. On my calender there is 19 days until the 6th counting from next Thursday.

The review is due next week which gives almost 3 weeks to study it's content, ample time I would suggest. We all know irrespective of it's contents it will only take Chris minutes if not a few hours to put a negative slant on it's contents.

If cancer had been cured and was gone for ever and the majority voted for it they wouldn't say much I suspect.

The minority would be conned as the money they contributed would go to a cause they voted against..

What would people say if a group raised money for cancer victims then gave it to drug addicts. This may be an extreme example but the principle is the same, you can't raise money for one cause then give it to another or you are conning the contributers.

I hope Mohamed Diame is okay.

Bring it on Dave, great news

After the Firhill game last season at under 17 level the police will be insisting on full old firm police levels. These games have the potential to draw large crowds. The right decision IMO.

There is no need to go to court over this if he was willing to remove them, but why then go and repeat them, maybe Craig fancies his chances in court.

He would have removed the posts because they were drawn to his attention. It is not a matter of guilt.

He removed them because they were defamatory so that makes him guilty.

Can you show the rest of us mortals any evidence you have that Craig "choose to get on the wrong side of the law"? I'm just reading through this thread and it's the second time you have assumed the guy is guilty without any evidence and before a court case. Strange behaviour for a Rangers fan.

He removed the offending posts which suggests he thinks he is guilty. The fact he then repeated them suggests he is not very smart and way out his depth.

Sandy Easdales criminal behaviour has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, so much so the he personally felt compelled to admit to it in the dock at Croydon Crown Court.

Am I right in thinking Craig has a tainted past.

Did this site sign a gagging order or did it just agree not to allow the offending words. This site chose to stay on the right side of the law, Craig intentionaly chose the confrontational route. The RFFF was not set up to protect people who choose to get on the wrong side of the law.

But it's not up to Craig to decide what words are filtered across the internet. **** line has been the main thrust of dissent against the board, so he's hardly going to filter it on his own page, but he does delete comments and apologises.

This site chose to filter the **** word and no further action was taken, Craig could have done the same.

Can't believe some fans are happy for this Rangers fan to potentially lose everything,whether you agree with him or not!,he is being used as a scapegoat,shameful

Anything but happy about this situation. Craig should have taken the same course of action as this site and kept on the right side of the law. He only has himself to blame.

Craig deleted the comments and apologised to Sandy. This place is easier to control than an open Facebook page.

Any page on the internet can be set up to bar the typing of certain words. Craig admitted he refused the gagging order.

It is many things, but not astonishing. Expected, sadly.

Do you think Frankie was wrong to stop the comments?

All over the word there are billions of football fans slagging players managers chairmen. But this is the first time one has done this for a good reason. What next. J k Rowling suing me for saying harry potter is shite.

Harry Potter is shite and it's okay to state this. Try making derogatory personal comments about JK and you may find yourself in the same situation as poor Craig.

both reacted differently to nonsense from easdale. There is no correct way to react to nonsense. Either way is perfectly fine.

 

Out of the 3 only one is being stupid and it's the one with the most hair.

Frankie's way kept the site out of trouble so I would suggest it was correct.

Absolutely. One of the first rules of the a playground is that if you get called something you don't like, don't react. If you react, you'll forever be called it behind your back or otherwise.

In my playground you got a slap.

If one of the safety officers mates had slagged you on his Facebook page would you have complained to your manager.

 

If yes do you think he would have stopped laughing yet 20 years later.

 

Stop standing up for this its unconscionable

Silly question as facebook is only ten years old. I never complained to my manager either.

Who do you think took the correct course of action, Frankie or Craig.