Scott7

Let's hope the headline isn't tempting fate. Pessimism Loyal.

A print of that mighty banner would sell well with the over-seventies loyal.

Dens is 11,500 though 43,000 + saw Dundee v Rangers in a SC tie in 1953. Firhill is 10,800.

The Dundee v Hearts attendance is dire.

What's all this "admitting"? Had he ever previously denied it?

I see the boy Jackson can't spell "sleight" or maybe it was a subbie. The old hot print guys were a class above that.

Yes he did: " The idea of barring writers, some might feel, had disappeared with the fall of the Berlin Wall, but not at Ibrox, and indeed, not right across British football. Many clubs are at it, including Celtic." Maybe he doesn't claim to be a writer.

Writers are not barred. Not even GS is barred. They don't seem to get it.

I hope Arsenal hold off United to win it but Chelsea can never be wrtten off so long as John Terry is fit. I agree about Falcao but Mourinho tends to know what he's doing. Even more sensibly he doesn't flog a dead horse. If he makes a mistake he knows it. Can't fathom City's signing policy. They need defensive craftsmen, not prodigy midfielders and somebody to lend a hand to Aguero. He can't do it all on his own but he has a damn good try.

Who wasn't "horrendous" against M'well?

"I think there's an assumption that because he's Irish he must support Celtic. English is from Limerick and that's an unusual town and county by Republic of Ireland standards. For a start it's the only part of the Republic of Ireland where rugby is the top sport...." That's part of the point I was trying to make. To his credit, there is nothing in his broadcasts or his writing to reveal his allegiance. I know who he doesn't like. He did a bit of summarising in the rugby commentaries. I'm no expert in that game but he sounded pretty good. In the Irish match there was no favouring his national team unlike the SNP stalwarts who were sharing the broadcast.

TE writes very well. He may support celtic - I don't know, nothing in his writing reveals anything - but he doesn't like Rangers. Strangely, he was at his most sympathetic when Rangers were at their lowest ebb with a second Administration looming. His posture on the "ban" is laughable. Come to our match but not to our trough. What's hard to understand?

God's got his half-line sorted - McColl, Woodburn, Cox. Years ago on FF there was a debate on how the Iron Curtain would have fared in modern football. Someone reckoned, rightly imo, that Brown would have been too erratic, Young and Shaw would have struggled, McColl and Woodburn would have been just fine and Sammy Cox would have strolled it.

A columnist can be biased, so long as he admits it. A reporter should report and do so accurately with no slant. CM is supposedly a reporter.

No journo has been banned. The two smart alecs just have to pay to get in and pay for their pie and a cup of tea at half time. Withdrawal of privilege is not a ban on reporting.

Sacre bleu!

"Won't you play up the Glasgow Rangers, Sammy Cox, he's on the ball ...."

A fairly boring encounter littered with mistakes. Arsenal's passing was extrordinarily bad. Ozil looked uninterested. Giroud made a difference when he came on. John Terry remains an outstanding defender. Cech did all that was needed. If either of these teams had been Rangers we would have been moaning to high heaven.

If I understand it correctly, the posturing oafs have not been banned from Ibrox. It's just that they are banned from free access and goodies. So why the screaming?

This is like watching celtic v Aberdeen in a relegation play-off.

That was a stunning 'Spurs team.

The photos in 850 show what a Rangers shirt should look like. The ball big Davis was throwing probably landed in Canada.

"He wont get Sports direct advertised in the Champions League via Ibrox." Couple of snags there. First, it may be some time before Rangers are in any serious CL ties and second, the advertising shown on the telly is restricted to sponsors.

The Explanatory Note to the section: "Section 793: Notice by company requiring information about interests in its shares 1113.This section re-enacts section 212(1) to (4) of the 1985 Act. It allows a public company to issue a notice requiring a person it knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, has an interest in its shares (or to have had an interest in the previous three years) to confirm or deny the fact, and, if the former, to disclose certain information about the interest, including information about any other person with an interest in the shares. 1114.Subsections (3) and (4) enable the company to require details to be given of a person’s past or present interests and to provide details of any other interest subsisting in the shares of which he is aware. This provision allows the company to pursue information through a chain of nominees by requiring each in the chain to disclose the person for whom they are acting. Under subsection (6), where the addressee’s interest is a past one, a company can ask for information concerning any person by whom the interest was acquired immediately subsequent to their interest. Particulars may also be required of any share acquisition agreements, or any agreement or arrangement as to how the rights attaching to those shares should be exercised (sections 824 and 825). 1115.This section serves a different purpose to the automatic disclosure obligations currently contained in sections 198 to 211 of Part 6 of the 1985 Act. It enables companies to discover the identity of those with voting rights (direct or indirect) that fall below the thresholds for automatic disclosure, and it also enables companies (and members of the company) to ascertain the underlying beneficial owners of shares. 1116.The notice is not required to be in hard copy (see the general provisions on sending or supplying documents or information in Part 37 of the Bill). Notices, and responses thereto, may be given in electronic form. A response must be given in a reasonable time. What is reasonable has not been defined so as to allow flexibility according to the circumstances, but if the time given is not reasonable, the company will not have served a valid notice." fs or BD will explain the explanatory note.

The Board have asked the mystery shareholders who they are and because of no reply, the Board are restricting the mystery shareholders' rights. Might trigger an interesting response.