D'Artagnan

But not yesterdays ruling BD - the test they applied is one of "common sense"

Should we dispense for the need to refer to case law BD & just apply the test of "common sense" to every legal debate ?

John, If you think others will allow us to look or move forward, then with all due respect you are extremely naive.

Quelle suprise barca

Spot on FS.

You are right Zap he clearly is on another planet and that article is particularly revealing as to the type of character and personality he is, and how he reacts when obstacles block his way.

Its the need for corroboration he proposed scrapping Zap and he was rightly condemned for it. But then again why rely on corroboratory evidence when you can just defer to "common sense" http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/lord-carloway-under-fire-over-corroboration-plans-1-3109928#axzz3qYoTGK00

If you look at todays ruling they, the 3 judges, appear to have totally ignored previous findings and rulings from the foregoing tribunals, as well as the decisions arrived at in Dextra Accessories ([2005] STC 1111) and Sempra Metals ([2007] STC 1559). Instead they appear to have cut rhough all normal legal precedent relying to set the test against nothing more than "common sense". Much as I detest him Speirs actually sums this up very succinctly in his Herald column. He is right in that it is not only surprising but also highly unusual - particularly when put into the context and determinations of the previous lower & upper tribunals. Hence why i feel there is a good chance if challenged - it may be overturned.

Presume they mean Murray LG

I hope they do - I think there is a good chance the Supreme Court would overturn today's decision.

Would be interesting to know FS why BDO felt the need to contest this. Will be interesting to see if they are willing to appeal today's decision.

The problem with that figure Frankie is the it has no comparative figure to put it into any kind of perspective. Even if the suggestion is wholly accurate we have no idea how that compares with previous deals or revenue which other clubs take from their retail deals. It is not difficult to work out though just how bad this deal is from a review of facts :- We have Craig Mather describing it as the most one sided deal he has ever seen. A deal negotiated by an individual who is now subject to serious criminal charges A deal which saw Ashley issue a court gagging order in order that the details of the deal were not widely known And finally King clearly attempting to negotiate better terms in respect of this deal. I know what Id be doing if I were you Compo.

That's a fair point Buster. But it wasnt so long ago we had no confidence in how shareholders voted as their desires for the club were not at one with fans concerned about her well being. Boards and shareholders have a habit of changing - Id like to see some long term processes put in place which would re-assure us as fans with regard to vigilance.

is it really negative spin to also wonder where the finance for all this is coming from ?

I dont agree DB and his comment about "And into this vacuum all manner of malicious and ill informed gossip is slowly being poured." underlines this. I agree with Bluedell re vigilance and in defence of that article would cite a word we have discussed frequently in the past - consistency. What was good for the goose should also be good for the gander in terms of vigilance.

https://twitter.com/Danny_RFCACM There is a slow motion video of it on here BH - you will have to scroll down a bit. Apologies I dont have the technical know how to reproduce it here.

I actually think the later elbow to the throat was the more serious of the 2 incidents. The ref only felt it meritted a yellow imo it should have been a straight red.

If he survives...

Perhaps indicative Dragosani that you had to go back almost quarter of a century to cite a few of our players who were less than angels. You could add Souness to that list with the caveat that he received a red in his first game against Hibs. Id be surprised if anyone would suggest what was acceptable 25 years ago or so would be tolerated today. As I said in the OP the focus should not be on Burchill & his comments but on the regular brutal tackles Oduwa is forced to endure - with the perception amongst even some fellow pros that such treatment is entirely justified because he has the temerity to display flair on the park.

In the world of Scottish football a celebration of Back to the Future Day was more akin to a re-visit of a fairly dark and dismal past. Without doubt much of the focus today will centre round the comments of Mark Burchill on Radio Clyde last night, which were rightly condemned by the Rangers Supporters Trust. To base a “plea of mitigation” around the respective nationalities of both offender and victim was never, ever, going to end well. But Burchill’s inappropriate comments must not be allowed to dominate or overshadow this debate. The real issue at hand is the brutal treatment being dished out on a regular basis to Nathan Oduwa, which as we have all witnessed this season, was not confined to Tuesday night’s game. In this respect the comments of Berwick Rangers player Andy Russell provide a more valuable insight into the mind set at work. One is left to ponder what is “fair” about the sort of tackle which has the potential to end a playing career. Furthermore, is the expression of flair on the pitch the equivalent of “acting the big man and playing the clown” ? Should we expect any player performing a nutmeg, exciting or entertaining the crowd during the course of 90 minutes to receive the kind of “summary justice” Russell alludes to in that tweet ? Heaven help us. For a country which once cherished the tanner ba player it is perhaps indicative of the state of our national game that there has been so much fuss about a player arriving on the scene who has the “audacity” to serve up some flair and skill during his 90 minute outing. BBC Scotland even managed to break its self-imposed sabbatical on reporting all things Rangers with an online article as to whether the rainbow flick displayed by Oduwa against Alloa was a “Flick too far”. And not an Operation Market Garden in sight. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/33958315 This is the same Scotland which revelled, and still revels to this day at Baxter’s game of keepie-uppie at Wembley in 1967. Perhaps it’s the shade of blue on the shirt which determines whether the expression of outrageous skill is appropriate. And perhaps it’s the shade of blue on the shirt and erroneous allegations of favourable refereeing decisions which prompted Andrew Dallas to keep his cards in his pocket on Tuesday night. One thing which is certain however that is the brutal treatment being dished out to Nathan Oduwa can no longer be allowed to go unpunished and it’s up to Scotland referees to do their duty without fear or favour. Scotland’s reaction to the flair of Nathan Oduwa is worthy of a bookmark. One we can visit when we are doing nothing else during the Euros.

So whats the relevance of the victim's nationality and his loan status ?

Perhaps you wont Frankie, but the point is you took an honourable reasoned based stance. Thats all any of us can do when we live in a country which upholds freedom of speech. If others want to use such freedoms to allow individuals a platform to peddle their hatred, bile and lies - then quite simply that is their shame.

It would seem that a Ruth Dudley Edwards “punchline” has left Phil Mac Giolla Bhain dazed and on the canvas, if his latest offering in the Belfast Telegraph is anything to go by. It prompted the latter to lay out his credentials and qualifications for Irish citizenship followed by the inevitable low blow towards the Rangers support which we are all too familiar with: Well let’s prise open Phil’s crack and see what kind of light pours in. It could be that the bhoy Phil has been writing about Rangers for so long that he has committed the cardinal sin and forgotten the history, but there is a certain irony when you mix together his claims of nationhood and his accusations against the Rangers support. A terse paragraph in the Irish national dailies on 3 May 1945 started the avalanche of international protest. Under the heading ‘People and Places’, the Fianna Fáil-backed Irish Press reported laconically that the Taoiseach and Minister for External Affairs, Éamon de Valera, accompanied by the Secretary of External Affairs, Joseph Walshe, ‘called on Dr Hempel, the German minister, last evening, to express his condolences’. The condolences were for Hitler who had committed suicide on 30 April. He certainly got something right in that article – “History remembered is a weapon and sometimes in history it has been the time for weaponry” Of course the thousands of Scots and Ulstermen who gathered at Ibrox on Saturday to cheer Rangers onto their 10th straight win can claim their own line of ancestry. I doubt very much there would be one amongst them whose distant relatives were not affected by the Clydebank or Belfast Blitz. As a support we are only too well aware of the product and consequences of fascist regimes. It’s a support who cherishes our armed forces, well evidenced by our celebration of Armed Forces Day, an event we all know Mr Mac Giolla Bhain pays particular attention to. Had his square mile source been operating at full capacity perhaps he would have caught this expression of support for a fascist regime amongst Scotland’s football support. It is vitally important we recognise that neither of the foregoing weapons of history are reflective of the Irish people nor the majority of the Celtic support, and attempting to stereotype or demonise a whole group of people accordingly should remain the exclusivity of the preachers of hatred. Their “sermon” is based on carefully manipulated selection and omission – I’m sure Joseph Goebbels would be extremely proud of them.

No idea FS how he would get Oldco out of admin - but I could see a scenario, depending on how the court case goes, where he may have a claim of ownership.

This will set some precedent if he wins Pete. I wonder what Victim Support would say if the victims of a crime were forced to pay the legal costs of the alleged perpretrator of the crimes against them