Scott7

the arab hibs feared a drubbing from the tims. They sense, however, they may have a chance against Rangers in their present state so a few more of them might turn out if it's a nice day so they can tell their descendants "ah wuzz at Ibrox the day we beat the famous Rangers efturr extra time." The record books won't show that Rangers were a crippled ghost of their normal selves. Nor that all five arab penalties were offside.

I know what you mean but there is a worse one scarred on my memory.

Sheep win 4-2.

0 - 0 aet

4 - 2 on penalties. You could see the fear in the caley faces at the first two kicks.

4 - 2 makes it sound like a good game.

So nothing changes.

I quite like the city of Aberdeen and Aberdonians are fine so long as they keep off the topic of football. Inverness and Invernessians on the other hand! So it has to be the reds - no, the hell with that , pity they couldn't both get beat!

They have no intention - at the moment.

That could change tomorrow.

Cardinal Lunny has given up the Inquisition for Lent.

Thanks for. Coming, Mr Hubbard. Perhaps you inspired the young guys.

For the 90% + of fans who never had the privilege of seeing him play he was more than just a precision penalty taker. Wing play for him was a geometry. He ran lines and angles at speed to get past opponents with ease and without the demented flea tricks of the likes of celtic's Johnstone. Scored plenty from open play. Rarely scythed down by fullbacks because they generally couldn't get near him.

Rangers have been fortunate with wingers - Waddell, Scott, Henderson, Wilson, Johnston. Old Mother was as good as any of them

Not if there's an invalid change of conditions made towards the end of the competition.

If the venue is changed we should withdraw from the competition not because we are deprived of an advantage we never sought in the first place but because the change would be made a) in response to bleating and b) because it's Rangers who are in involved.

If Hibs had made it to the semi-final and the venue pre-determined had been Easter Road there would only have been a very tiny fuss by United and neutrals couldn't have cared less.

Are they ditched because they are useless or because Rangers can't afford them?

Perhaps they've gone of their own accord to concentrate on building a higher end portfolio. Yes, I expect that's it.

SER and SC - are you one and the same? One posts and the other agrees within minutes. Echoes of "Moonbeams" and "Sir Minty" in another time and another place.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not suggest that the foregoing in any way detracts from the validity of your ponts of view with which I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree. Nor do I suggest that you are or are in anyway connected with the cyber-lunatic mentioned above with whom I violently disagreed all day every day.

Right enough, Gazza, but you know what I mean.

I wouldn't mind if the Blades won it but they can't get past Hull so come on Gunners. Play to your best, through to the final and it's 4 - 0 no matter who else turns up.

Some formalities to go through but nothing to stop them.

...... when Albion scored. Could have been the effects mike but it sounded Richard Gordonish.

He should be careful what he wishes for. Sheep might have a better chance against us than Rovers.

By their actions shall ye know them.

Big crowd at Bramall Lane.

I think we were in the lording business for a lot more than twenty years.

Sunderland, Blades and to a lesser extent Charlton have a bit of faded pedigree to them and both Sunderland and United will fill a stadium which as you say should be Villa Park for one and Old Trafford for the other.

Hull and Wigan are nonentities though I expect City to beat Sunderland. I know Wigan won the Cup but any team can tiptoe to a final and play above themselves against opposition that doesn't take them seriously. Lisbon 1967?

He's right about the photo taking.

I agreed with you, Bd but on second thoughts did the bank manager not live in the wardrobe at one time?

Seriously there is a considerable misunderstanding about the effect of securities. Here is an idiot's guide. (I know because I am that idiot)

So long as you pay the debt and it's components as and when due, you're fine.

If you don't pay, the lender can take the asset, sell it, keep what's due to him and give you back the surplus if any.

The lender can't just keep the asset for himself but he can bid for it in the open market if he wants.

Didn't know that. Admin must have settled because the security subjects weren't sold.

I think Trueger above was meaning the surplus of the realised value over the amount of the loan.

Were there any secured creditors last time ? I can't remember. If the cash pool is big enough the liquidator can pay off the secured creditor in exchange for a discharge without going through the whole rigmarole. Different if there are postponed (or prior) security holders.

" passes to him " - not so fast, gs.

On default he can enter into possession and have the place sold at market price. He keeps what's due under the loan and gives the surplus to the company/ administrator/ liquidator, whoever's running the show at the time. He can even be a market value bidder but he can't just walk in and say This Is Now A Bus Stop.

Who is the big accounting cheese? Brendan O'Hoolihan, Chartered O'Ccountant?

Seriously, the situation is worrying. A second admin. will provide another round of troughs for the spivvery to gorge in. The question is whether there's enough to tide them over to a third event.

I've got a terrible feeling we're done for. A wounded lion brought down by hyenas. A lion of little brain, it has to be said. It should have mauled its keepers long ago.

And that's the end of melodrama for today. I'll be better tomorrow. Won't I?