barca72

But will they is his point?

I don't think he had to say anything. I think one look would have been enough. The man, English, is closet scum.

Do you honestly believe that after what these two have penned over the last two years, any future articles could be any worse in the way they would impact on the club and fans? Let them rail from the outside. We'll see how long their opinionated pontifications are taken seriously.

Rab, My wee ma used to say when confronted with a conundrum - 'This too shall pass.' What goes around comes around.

If you say so.

Zappa, This is not a hard scenario to imagine. An operation like Ladbrokes would have powerful trending software with innumerable triggers which could cross-reference any clients betting habits. I would not like to speculate on why they would raise the alarm on Mr. Black, a client is a client after all. However, looking at it from the point of view of the SFA the speculation is greatly narrowed. Supposing someone informed Mr. Lunny of their suspicions about Mr. Black, and he in turn requested the betting history of Mr. Black from Ladbrokes. How difficult would it then be for his staff to cross-reference team sheets with actual bets placed? Why was Mr. Black chosen? Well, I can remember asking myself a question some time ago - ' Why did HMRC decide to investigate Rangers about their use of EBTs when there was a considerable number of teams in the English Premiership who were also using EBTs, and who could more better afford to pay back taxes to HMRC? '

This guy makes some great points. I wonder what Ayr Utd. will do about the TAL information?

Look at post #103, sub-para 17.3. Why they chose only him you would need to ask Lunney.

Do you have a link, please?

These rules lifted from an answer on the DTB site - If a player is betting on matches involving his own team I would imagine the bookmakers would be duty bound to report it to the relevant association? ... If he has been doing it he has also broken the Ladbrookes terms and conditions: 5.2. It is a condition of our acceptance of bets from you that, and by offering to place a bet with us you warrant that: 1.you are not prohibited from entering into the bet by any term of your contract of employment or any rule of a sport governing body which applies to you; 2.you are not aware of any circumstances which would make the placing of the bet a breach of a rule on betting applied by a sport governing body; and 3.where the bet is placed on the outcome of a race, competition or other event or process or on the likelihood of anything occurring or not occurring, you do not know the outcome of the event. and they can report him to the SFA: 17. Information we collect about you 17.1. It is your responsibility to ensure that your personal account details and personal information is kept up to date. We reserve the right to suspend or terminate your account if this information, which includes your username and security questions, is deemed to be offensive or inappropriate. 17.2. We process information about you in accordance with our 'Privacy Policy'. Our privacy policy forms part of these Terms of Use and contains details on the types of information we collect and what we do with that information. 17.3. We are entitled to share the information we hold on you which includes personal data and betting history with the regulator, sporting bodies and other bodies, including the police, in order to investigate fraud, money laundering or sports integrity issues and to comply with our regulatory duties.

1. Deserves all he gets. 2. Who blew the whistle on him to Lunney at the SFA, no leaks there eh? 3. Explains why Ally went after Peralta so hard. 4. Brings Hutton back into the picture.

I agree with Chris that this statement has caused Ahmad and his blogging pals to pause and re-jig. I also think that JT had a hand in composing Walter's statement. This could be nasty over the next few days.

I don't know to be sure. Why don't you ask this guy, I'm sure he would enlighten you? Executive Editor/CROpod host Shane Nicholson | @ofvoid | shane@thecoplandroad.org

Here is an interesting point of view from CRO guest contributor Gordon James http://www.thecoplandroad.org/2013/08/who-kept-lights-on-at-ibrox.html#more 05 August 2013Who kept the lights on at Ibrox? by Gordon James | Guest Contributor It looks like we are heading into another acrimonious civil war at Ibrox and the battle lines are been drawn not only in the boardroom and in the city but amongst supporters groups, bloggers and the fans. I donâ??t have a clue as to what is going on and I suspect that is the case for most of us. Even the main players will be in the dark on some issues but we can fully expect to see media and journalist being used to push agendas again as the black ops of leaks becomes a gush. This could (and probably will) go to a whole new level of nasty. There are a couple of things that caught my eye and all I do here is as one fan, raise some views and probably more questions than answers. The group that includes Paul Murray are not buying anything. What Malcolm Murray has done is (as he has always done even when he was Chairman) is went directly to investors to woo support. The only way to do this is to appeal to investors that their investment is at risk and that he has a group who should be in power at Ibrox. The reason given to support him is he will look after your investment properly because at the moment it is being wasted and in danger of being lost. They are not putting money in; they are saying they will be a safer pair of hands and give the investor better security and a better financial return. So there is no question that the reasons they have the investor support they do have are purely financial ones. So what financial plan are they offering? Well at the moment that seems very unclear and this is what irks me the most about the group. Rather than offering an alternative, the tactic seems to be to destabilise the current board and attack in particular Brian Stockbridge, Craig Mather and Bryan Smart who are not the villains here. And of course they want to panic the Rangers fans to get them onside. Amazingly the talk about running out of money was the preserve of the likes of CQN and Ph-ill not so long ago. This is not a new tactic. Kieran Priorâ??s nonsense when Murray was still there (obviously in cahoots with Murray) was exactly the same. But is this fair? Firstly, why only them? Let me add another couple of names as an example. Hands up if you think Jim Traynor has done a good job. Do you think the well into (and I mean well into) six figures salary has been a good investment for Rangers? And now the almost taboo subject of our managerâ??s pay. Is £750k a realistic and appropriate salary for where we are in terms of league, financial situation and performance? If these guys came with a detailed plan that included cutting salaries for ALL the top earners in Ibrox, I would listen but they donâ??t. Taken together, the media department at Ibrox and the top three coaching staff must be around the £1.7million mark. Now the argument could justifiably be that the Finance Director should be able to do something about that. The problem is that a lot of these salaries are historic ones and were in place before or were awarded when others were making those decisions at Ibrox. There are directors who are willing to take pay cuts but not unilaterally and there appears to be no indication that others would be prepared to do the same. To simply judge the FD on his salary discounting others and how much of the IPO money is left is simplistic. What should be taken into account are the £1m per year cost savings that have happened and the money raised through Wifi, advertising, the Rangers App etc. At least he can claim to have earned the club more than he cost and it is also worth noting that he did not set his own salary structure as claimed. It also has to be said that the FD salary was clearly laid out in the IPO prospectus for all investors to see before investing. It therefore seems a little bizarre for anyone who invested to now kick off about it. You can also throw in the fact that he was not paid for two months, his part in the IPO success and his full payment for the shares he owns. Intriguingly, Brian Stockbridge will claim that he and no one else paid a £50k electricity bill from his personal account noted in the last set of accounts as the related party transaction. Malcolm? Much of the focus is on Charles Green but I think the â??who do you trust moreâ? line and making this a Green v Smith battle is duping the fans. I donâ??t even think personal gain is a major factor. Green could stay in France and become very wealthy very quickly. I know that a book deal would bring him in another six figures but the notion he is there to push up the share price for his own gain I think is misleading. This is about the forces that have been behind so many historic battles since the beginning of time. This is power, ego and revenge. We have the man who spent such a large wad of money on an investigation that was kept going by him to try aid his determination to remove Brian Stockbridge now bemoans how the money is being spent. He sees himself as being badly treated. The man who earned himself a whopping £720k returns and bemoans how the money is being spent. He wants to stop Murray and Murray and he never wants to see them gain power at Ibrox. He also sees himself as a victim. A former FD who oversaw some very poor financial shenanigans at Rangers feels he is the right man for the job. Despite having not covered himself in any kind of glory when he was on the board and talked up a rescue bid that never ever got going despite leading fans to believe it was viable. The problem is as I have stated in the past is the club belongs to the fans but is owned by institutional investors. This always leaves us open to moves like we are seeing just now. Walter Smith had seemed happy to work with Craig Mather. McCoist despite his pretty poor managerial performance seemed happy to work with Mather as well as he said â??Craig has been shoulder to shoulder with usâ? (note the us) and Mather seemed happy to work with them. No leaks were coming from the board. The CEO that Smith and McCoist liked told us there was no cash crisis. The board are giving monthly financial briefings and the Chairman is present for them. The FD insists there is a plan and that losses were also expected before we would be in a better financial place. But now we are to believe that the club is in danger because Malcolm says so. I firmly believe Green is back because of the moves made by Malcolm Murray, Paul Murray and the rest. I believe that in time shares would have been up for sale and those who were serious could have went down the route of buying them. I donâ??t believe the club is any danger of running out of money and the club and present board should have been left well alone. And what happens if bigger investors decide to sell and Rangers men who can buy donâ??t fancy the price. It is then pot luck who owns the club. In any case, if you think if this coup succeeds that that will be the end of it, think again.

Loyalty is a bitch.

Then find somebody to finish the chances and maybe we'll beat them.

I think our support has to get their head around something here. We have neither the resources to provide a team that has the skills of an Advocaat team, nor the patience to rear a youth team to maturity. Yesterday we seen last year's team, which is composed of the youth available to us and the flotsam that was speedily acquired before the sanctions cut in. When you have no starters and no one to replace poor performers, how do you win? We watched this team make chances but poor finishing, especially by Little along with a complete nonentity like Black, along with horrendous defence from McCulloch kill the game for us. McCoist used his young substitutes to try and refresh the 'engine room' to attempt to keep pressure on their defence. Even then chances came but we could not finish them. What coach could do anything with that? With Regan's embargo still in effect we need to accept that we cannot buy, or coach, a good team from dross. It doesn't mean we can't improve in the future but for now we are stuck with this.

Serious, serious disappointment.

My first reaction when I seen the headline was that the SFA would not try to contravene the precedent set by their actions done to Rangers. Then I remembered "sporting integrity". What did the SFA hit us with? Taking the information from section 2.7.3 of the draft copy of the five way agreement, the Judicial Panel of the SFA decided that we had breached rule 2 - 10,000 pound fine, breached rule 14 - 50,000 pound fine, breached rule 66 - 100,000 pound fine, and we had to pay the SFA's legal costs incurred in Lord Glennie's Judicial Review of the transfer embargo - 31,063.40 pounds. This gave us a grand total of - 191,063.40 pounds. Now I agree with the sentiment that double standards are at play here. However, what would Rangers gain by doing anything more than Mather has done - ask for an explanation of the rules? We would lose any high moral ground that we now hold by being seen to be the party that wishes to stick the boot to the fallen Hearts, and really any gain to us would be meaningless at this point. Let us go back to the copy of the five way agreement, and assume that apart from the parts about stripping titles and EBT's this copy is close to what Green did sign. This then leaves us to contemplate section 2.7.5, which reads - RFC and Sevco will not raise any proceedings of any nature in the Scottish Courts against the SFA or otherwise seek the protection of the Scottish Courts in relation to any matter or dispute involving the SFA and in fortification of this obligation will deposit 100,000 pounds with the SFA, which sum will be repaid by the SFA to Sevco (without interest) on the 31st August 2015 provided that Sevco has not been, or is not then, in breach of the Undertaking set out in this clause 2.7.5. In the event that any such proceedings are commenced, the SFA shall be entitled to apply such deposited sum to its own reasonable legal costs and outlays. There are other sentences and paragraphs in there that say Sevco can not break this contract etc. You get the feeling that big fat Rod's palm prints are all over it. However, I felt last year and still feel that a good contract lawyer could use the 'signing a contract under duress' laws to have this thing overturned. Maybe Rangers are waiting for the pieces to fall into place. At this point I feel that my subconscious knows something that it is not telling my conscious mind, because I have a great sense that Rangers are just biding their time before they strike - remember Mather's statements at the NARSA convention. For this reason I don't think Rangers want to rock any boats at present. For instance, supposing Rangers were able to force the SFA into some kind of a corner, knowing the way they make up the rules as they go along, they could reverse themselves and fine Hearts the minimal amount and we lose evidence that they are treating us any different to other teams. I am sure there is more to come, but biting the bullet for us fans at least is very frustrating.

I can't speak German, but that was funny.

When I said that political correctness was fairly new, I meant the phrase. When my old Ma was making her point about political correctness it usually resulted in us kids getting a thump about the lug or the ever present dish cloth over her shoulder being flicked across the back of our bare legs. It usually didn't take long for her to make her point, you knew who the boss was in those days. As far as the BB captain went, he used to make you march up and down the drill hall for half an hour. Hated that guy.

You know, I'd agree with you that forums like this are very helpful in focusing the support's thinking in how to take us forward. Indeed on another forum they have created a committee which is actively engaged with authorities in an effort to find an acceptable form of TBB. I would hope that it is this kind of "intellectual gym" you are speaking of, where the few have listened to the many and have carried their thoughts forward to find a compromise solution. Our support is passionate. It was passion rather than intellect that saved our club last season. Was it passion or intellect that drew 40K-50K crowds to Ibrox for most of the season? Sometimes the majority of the crowds were not over-enamoured by the level of football on display and sat on their hands, thank God for BF1. Is it passion or intellect that provides a Global support in the millions for Rangers? I would submit that when intellect takes over from passion the club suffers. As an example let's look at our east end neighbour's support. Have they decided that intellectually it is better to buy the weans a school uniform rather than buy a season ticket? Have they decided that intellectually there is no point in attending matches that are part of a one horse race? Have they decided that intellectually they do not want to be represented by the political views of the numpties that make up the GB? Have they decided to stay away from the games after sound intellectual reasoning or have they just lost their passion for the game because of the opposition on display? I would suggest that most young men in their late teens and early twenties are infused with an energy and passion that allows them to believe that they are indestructible. The arrogance of youth, eh? Maybe for generations these young men have decided to expel that energy and passion while supporting their team on a Saturday afternoon ( before TV kickoffs ). They didn't think about it so much as just let the passion flow. Political correctness is a fairly new phenomonen and like any other large vehicle it takes time to turn a support around. That's not to say that they can't act when they sense that something is in fact wrong and will hurt the club - they did stop singing TBB. Forums like this are great for planting seeds, but like any other seed the support will sense how to nurture it and bring it to full bloom. After all they have been doing it for 141 years and we are still here. The people usually always know best. WATP.

If you don't like it don't sing it. I would say that for 141 years the fans have got most of it right. They were blindsided by the decision on the Billy Boys, but they will figure it out and come back stronger. Loud and Proud. WATP.

A very clear and precise article

Here is a question that may help. Do you consider Wales to be an independent nation? If you think it is an independent nation then reject the independence vote, if you think it is not an independent nation then your fears may be founded.