pete

Thanks for that mate.

Is anyone doing this for Sunday? Don't all shout at once, Yes you!

Don't ! It won't happen next season.

And then play him as a winger.

Neil Doncaster on Rangers, play-off pricing and last-day fixtures SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster has defended the league's position over Rangers' desire to allow season ticket holders into play-off matches for free. Doncaster said that the SPFL and board merely enforced existing rules agreed by clubs and that rules could be changed by the clubs themselves. The chief executive also admitted that mistakes were made over the scheduling of the final Championship fixtures, where Rangers and Hibernian were slated to play a day apart despite being in direct competition for second place. He insisted that sporting integrity was not endangered but that the SPFL had allowed a situation where it was in question. Speaking after the announcement of a new sponsorship deal with Ladbrokes, Doncaster was quizzed on a number of issues by STV's Raman Bhardwaj. In addition to touching on the importance of TV to Scottish football and the possibility of league reconstruction in the future, the league official spoke at length about recent controversy over the conclusion to the Championship season and the play-offs. Neil Doncaster on Rangers and the dispute over play-off ticket pricing via STV via STV Q: Can I discuss one of your member clubs, Rangers, and their attempts to allow season ticket holders to attend play-off matches at Ibrox for free? Can you explain why season ticket holders cannot attend the matches for free under the league rules? Neil Doncaster: That’s actually a slight misapprehension about what the rules are. The rules state that, for similar accommodation, clubs are unable to give some sort of discount to season ticket holders relative to away fans in similar accommodation. We would have been open to clubs, should they have wished, admitting all fans for free. That would have been fine or a nominal fee, a pound or five pounds. The issue is about equivalent pricing. Q: So, in effect, Rangers could have let supporters in for free but they would have to let Queen of the South fans in for free as well? ND: Generally, pricing of tickets is an issue for individual member clubs. The rules that were set by all member clubs back in 2013, in relation to the playoffs, made it clear that home and away fans had to be treated the same in terms of pricing. Q: Some people were taken aback by Rangers’ bullishness when they released this statement and said it was “fundamentally wrong” for supporters to be charged for play-off matches. What did you make of the tone of that statement and what they said in that statement? ND: Ultimately, the board and myself don’t set the rules. The rules of the competition are set up by the member clubs themselves. Those rules were set back in 2013, were agreed to by all member clubs at that time, they were reaffirmed in the last month when member clubs discussed the rules around play-offs. So those are the rules that the clubs themselves have set. Ultimately, it is open to individual member clubs to come forward with suggestions about different rules, rules that they may deem to be more appropriate. If the clubs themselves agree then those are the new rules going forward. The role of the board is to monitor and ensure as best it can that the rules set by member clubs are abided by. Q: Do you foresee changes in the rules come the end of the season? Given the apparent fall-out this time round, would that be one way of averting it next time? ND: It’s certainly possible. There was an attempt made to change the rules last month. Ultimately that was defeated and the majority of the member clubs felt that the current rules were the best rules in the circumstances. That doesn’t stop there being rule changes coming forward in the future and if enough clubs agree then those new rules will take priority. Ultimately, the board can only work with the rules as they are, not as a few clubs wish they should be. If enough clubs decide on a new set of rules then those are the new rules going forward. Q: How important was it for the league to stand firm in its position when Rangers effectively took on the league or, as some might suggest, showed two fingers to the league? ND: I think it’s very important that any league demonstrates that the rules are there for everyone and that the board is there to ensure that the rules are abided by. I’m pleased that it appears that those rules will be abided by. Q: Were you taken aback by the language used by Rangers in that statement? ND: These are passionate areas. I understand that these are issues that people will have different views on. But ultimately, the board’s view can only be ‘what are rules and are clubs living within the rules?’ If the rules are changed at the behest of the clubs then the new rules are what the board will monitor going forward. Q: As it now transpires, with Rangers deciding to charge a fiver, a flat rate, that would equate to maybe about £100,000 that the league might get. You will lose out on money you may have had if they had a higher pricing level. ND: Ultimately, the rules are what they are and clubs are entitled, within the rules, to charge what they want for tickets for those games. If clubs had intended something different then they would have set different rules. If clubs are within the rules then it’s entirely up to them what they do. That has to be the right way to approach it. Q: Is this a scenario you would want to avoid next season? ND: Ultimately, you will always have some clubs that disagree with some rules. That’s life. That’s what it’s like when you are in a league. But we are a collective. We’re a collective of the 42 clubs and the 42 member clubs sign up to that set of rules and it’s the board’s job to enforce those rules. Q: But you think there’s a feeling towards [changing the rules]? ND: I genuinely don’t know. There was a debate about changing the rules last month. When it was put to the vote clubs generally felt that the existing rules, other than the new proposed rules, were the right ones to have in place. Q: And Rangers’ ultimate climbdown almost made your position justifiable? ND: As I say, I think it’s absolutely important that leagues, and league boards, enforce the rules and are seen to be enforcing rules equally across all member clubs. Final day fixtures, sporting integrity and moving games for television via STV via STV Q: Another talking point going into the play-offs was the scheduling of the fixtures. Do you have any regrets with the way the scheduling of the final day of the Championship season was handled? ND: I think you can always do things better. I think it would be wrong to pretend otherwise. Ultimately, we allowed a perception to be created that sporting integrity somehow didn’t matter. The truth couldn’t be further from that. We do need to take the lessons from what happened and ensure that we are not erroneously creating that misapprehension going forward. Q: So it was wrong to schedule a match , the Hearts ve Rangers match, 24 hours after the Hibernian match? ND: No, not at all. Ultimately, the scheduling of individual matches to suit TV is at TV’s behest. We sign up to a contract with our TV broadcast partners that will enable them to move games for televising. Ian Blair chose to consult with clubs before moving other games to ensure that all games took place at the same time on the final day before making decisions to move other games. That gap allowed the erroneous impression to be created that somehow we didn’t care about sporting integrity. That is just not the case. Q:But you’re saying it’s an erroneous impression. Do you think sporting integrity is in question when two clubs are competing in the same competition on the final day of the season but are not playing at the same time? ND: But they are... Q: They are now, after a reversal ND: The reversal happened, effectively, because the broadcaster decided to reschedule the game. Ultimately, when the game was initially scheduled to be moved from the Saturday to the Sunday, at that point the company secretary consulted with all the other clubs in that decision about those games moving. It was that choice to consult rather than simply moving games which created that erroneous impression. Q: At some stage did someone in the league not think ‘Hang on a minute, you’ve got Hibs and Rangers both vying for second spot. They should be playing at the same time. ‘ Did nobody think about that? ND: Absolutely, at that time. But the decision was made to consult with clubs before moving those games. Q: And the decision was made by whom? ND: The company secretary Ian Blair, who schedules games. Ultimately, the broadcaster moved the Hearts-Rangers game to the Sunday and, before moving other games, Ian decided to consult with clubs before moving them. It would have created some inconvenience to other clubs, moving all games en masse. Ultimately that was probably what needed to happen. It was the decision to consult before moving those games that allowed the false impression to be created. You’re saying lessons have been learned. Can we then take it that next season, should the situation arise, we will not be in the same position? ND: Well, we’ll certainly be in a situation where some games will move for TV. It’s how we then respond to that. It’ll be incumbent on us to simply move games rather than consult with clubs before moving them, if we want to avoid the same situation happening again. You’re saying it’s possible that you could have a similar scenario next season? ND: It’s certainly possible that games will move for TV, while we’re in a live TV broadcast contract games will move. Ultimately we schedule all the final Championship games for the final Saturday at 3pm. Clearly you can’t broadcast within those hours so as soon as the decision was made to broadcast one of those games then it led to a number of games having to move. So is the league saying that if fixtures are moved, and it may lead to some people questioning sporting integrity, blame the broadcaster not the league? ND: No, not at all. Games will move for television because we’re not allowed to. The starting block is that all games are scheduled for 3pm on a Saturday, but games do have to move and they have to move for a number of different reasons . Other clubs competing in the Europa League or Champions League is one reason and games moving for TV is another reason. Why didn’t Ian Blair go to Sky and say ‘Hibs are playing 24 hours previous, can you not do it on that date’? ND: You can’t schedule [televised games] at 3pm on a Saturday. That’s when the fixtures are scheduled for initially and when they move for TV you need to work through the consequences. What allowed the mistaken impression about sporting integrity being created was the decision to consult with other clubs about moving their games. Had the decision simply been made that ‘We’re going to move all the fixtures to Sunday to be in line with Hearts v Rangers’ then we wouldn’t have been dealing with a situation where sporting integrity was questioned. We would have been dealing with a situation where the league was being seen to be heavy-handedly moving all fixtures and inconveniencing all clubs simply for one game on TV. That’s the nature of where we are with live broadcast contracts. Do you see any issue with two competing teams, in the same league on the last day of the season, not playing at the same time? ND: Absolutely, and that would never have happened. What happened was, the decision to move one game was followed by a decision to consult with all the other clubs before moving all the games. It was that decision to consult that led to the impression that we didn’t care about sporting integrity. Had all the games been moved, en masse, at the first opportunity then different issues would have arisen. Q: It did say in your statement ‘It’s not clear to us why this has caused so much surprise’.... ND: The rescheduling of games for TV shouldn’t. It should have been no surprise to anyone. Q: On the final day of the season? ND: Absolutely. Ultimately, once a broadcaster selects a game for TV, you move the game and then you need to think about the implications of that move for sporting integrity. http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/hibernian/1320345-neil-doncaster-on-rangers-play-off-pricing-and-last-day-fixtures/

I think Celtic is a derogatory word can we get it banned?

I suppose the way they are looking at it is that if Hibs had beaten Rangers then Celtic would have won the league even in defeat. I admit I would have been pissed off as well to lose the league that way but why has it taken 10 years to come up. Secondly I don't think anyone can put Celtic and morality in the same sentence.

He won't have much luck there then.

I am sure in the seventies the tims were the huns because they worked with the Germans during the war. I remember we used to sing Go home ya huns meaning the same as in the famine song. I have no idea how they turned this round on us. If the hun word is going to be found legal then we should turn it around again and start calling them it again and tell them to go home.

Disgrace of Gijón From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia West Germany v Austria Interior de El Molinón.JPG El Molinón held the match Event 1982 FIFA World Cup West Germany Austria West Germany Austria 1 0 Date 25 June 1982 Venue El Molinón, Gijón, Spain Referee Bob Valentine Attendance 41,000 The Disgrace of Gijón refers to the 1982 FIFA World Cup football match played between West Germany and Austria at the El Molinón stadium, Gijón, Spain, on 25 June 1982. The match was the last game of the first-round Group 2, with Algeria and Chile having played the day before. With the outcome of that match already decided, a win by one or two goals for West Germany would result in both them and Austria qualifying at the expense of Algeria, who had beaten West Germany in the first game. After 10 minutes, West Germany took the lead. Thereafter, neither team scored, and few scoring chances were created, along with much own-half passing and few tackles: with both sets of players flamboyantly missing with no clear attempt to guide the ball whenever they shot on goal.[1] As a result of this, and similar events at the previous World Cup in Argentina, FIFA revised the group system for future tournaments, so that the final two games in each group would be played simultaneously.[2] In German, the match is known as Nichtangriffspakt von Gijón (lit. "Non-aggression pact of Gijón") or Schande von Gijón (lit. "Disgrace of Gijón"),[3] while in Algeria it is known as the Anschluss (in reference to the unification of Austria and Nazi Germany in 1938).[4] Contents 1 Background 2 Match summary 3 Match details 4 Aftermath 5 Notes 6 References 7 External links Background Note: 2 points for a win, 1 for a draw, first tie-breaker is goal difference. Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts Austria 2 2 0 0 3 0 +3 4 Algeria 3 2 0 1 5 5 0 4 West Germany 2 1 0 1 5 3 +2 2 Chile 3 0 0 3 3 8 −5 0 Algeria began their campaign by recording a shock 2–1 win over West Germany on the opening day, referred to as the "greatest World Cup upset since North Korea beat Italy in 1966" at the time,[5] and retrospectively as "one of the biggest shocks in World Cup history".[6] Algeria became the first African team to defeat a European team at the FIFA World Cup. They then went on to lose 0–2 to Austria before beating Chile 3–2 in their final match. The Chile victory made Algeria the first African team to win twice at a World Cup.[6] As Algeria played that final match the day before West Germany met Austria, the two European teams knew what result they needed in order to qualify for the next round. A German win by one or two goals would see both West Germany and Austria qualify. A larger West German victory, by three goals or more, would see West Germany and Algeria qualify (because Algeria had scored more goals than Austria, they would qualify even with the same goal difference) while a draw or an Austrian win would eliminate the Germans. Match summary After ten minutes of furious attack, West Germany succeeded in scoring through a goal by Horst Hrubesch. After the goal was scored, the team in possession of the ball often passed between themselves in their own half until an opposition player came into the vicinity of the ball. The ball was then passed back to the goalkeeper. Isolated long balls were played into the opposition's half, with little consequence. For the next 80 minutes there were few serious attempts on goal, e.g. by Wolfgang Dremmler of West Germany. The only Austrian player who seemed to make any effort at livening the game up was Walter Schachner, though he had little success. This performance was widely deplored by all observers. German ARD commentator Eberhard Stanjek at one point refused to comment on the game any longer. Austrian commentator Robert Seeger bemoaned the spectacle and actually requested that the viewers should switch off their television sets. George Vecsey, a New York Times journalist writing in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette stated that the teams "seemed to work in concert", though added that proving such would be impossible.[5] Likewise, many spectators were not impressed and voiced their disgust with the players. Chants of "Fuera, fuera" ("Out, out") and "Que se besen, que se besen" ("Let them kiss, let them kiss") were screamed by the appalled Spanish crowd, while angry Algerian supporters waved banknotes at the players. The match was criticized even by the German and Austrian fans who had hoped for a hot rematch of the 1978 World Cup match, the so-called "Miracle of Córdoba", in which Austria had beaten West Germany; one German fan burned the national flag in protest.[7][8] El Comercio, the local newspaper, printed the match report in its crime section.[9] Match details 25 June 1982 17:15 CEST West Germany 1–0 Austria Hrubesch Goal 10' Report[dead link] El Molinón, Gijón Attendance: 41,000 Referee: Bob Valentine (Scotland) West Germany Austria GK 1 Harald Schumacher SW 15 Uli Stielike RB 20 Manfred Kaltz LB 2 Hans-Peter Briegel CB 4 Karlheinz Förster CM 3 Paul Breitner CM 6 Wolfgang Dremmler CM 14 Felix Magath RF 11 Karl-Heinz Rummenigge Substituted off 66' FW 9 Horst Hrubesch Goal 10' Substituted off 68' LF 7 Pierre Littbarski Substitutes: GK 21 Bernd Franke GK 22 Eike Immel DF 5 Bernd Förster FW 8 Klaus Fischer Substituted in 68' MF 10 Hansi Müller DF 12 Wilfried Hannes FW 13 Uwe Reinders FW 16 Thomas Allofs MF 17 Stephan Engels MF 18 Lothar Matthäus Substituted in 66' DF 19 Holger Hieronymus Manager: Germany Jupp Derwall GK 1 Friedrich Koncilia DF 2 Bernd Krauss DF 3 Erich Obermayer DF 4 Josef Degeorgi DF 5 Bruno Pezzey MF 6 Roland Hattenberger FW 7 Walter Schachner Booked 32' MF 8 Herbert Prohaska FW 9 Hans Krankl MF 10 Reinhold Hintermaier Booked 32' DF 19 Heribert Weber Substitute: GK 21 Herbert Feurer GK 22 Klaus Lindenberger MF 11 Kurt Jara DF 12 Anton Pichler DF 13 Max Hagmayr MF 14 Ernst Baumeister MF 15 Johann Dihanich MF 16 Gerald Messlender MF 17 Johann Pregesbauer FW 18 Gernot Jurtin FW 20 Kurt Welzl Manager: Austria Felix Latzke & Georg Schmidt Aftermath Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts West Germany 3 2 0 1 6 3 +3 4 Austria 3 2 0 1 3 1 +2 4 Algeria 3 2 0 1 5 5 0 4 Chile 3 0 0 3 3 8 −5 0 With West Germany's 1–0 victory, they joined Austria and Algeria with four points in three matches. The teams were separated by goal difference, with West Germany and Austria progressing to the next round of the tournament at the expense of Algeria. It appears that this was a case of spontaneous match-fixing, in which Austria gave up their opportunity to be first in the group (by winning or drawing the match) in exchange for a sure opportunity to advance. The bargaining positions of the two teams was affected by West Germany being in danger of elimination if it failed to win, but also being the higher-ability team.[10] The Algerian football officials were furious and lodged an official protest. However no rules were technically broken as a result of the match, so FIFA declined to take any action or investigation and the outcome was allowed to stand. Both teams denied any collusion during the match.[11] West Germany manager Jupp Derwell defended his team from the criticism, pointing out that Uli Stielike and Karl-Heinz Rummenigge were both unfit.[12] In addition, the president of the Algerian Football Federation opined that referee Bob Valentine should have intervened and his failure to do so was worthy of complaint.[13] The West Germans made it to the final, where they lost to Italy 3–1. Austria fell at the next group stage, to the benefit of eventual fourth-place finishers France. The direct consequence of the game was that from Euro 1984 and World Cup 1986 onward, the final pair of group matches in international tournaments always start at the same time.[14] In Euro 2004 Group C, it was alleged that Denmark and Sweden deliberately played to a 2–2 draw which saw both teams advance at the expense of Italy.[nb 1] UEFA refused to investigate.[15][16] At the 2010 FIFA World Cup, the last ten minutes of the group match between Chile and Spain saw similar behaviour.[17] At the 2014 FIFA World Cup, the United States had unexpectedly made it to the end of the Group stages as favorites to make it to the group of 16, all they needed to guarantee it was a tie with Germany in the final group game, this fact combined with the friendship between German coach Joachim Löw and the USs German coach Jürgen Klinsmann caused fears of similar collusion, once the game started, those fears were eliminated as both sides played a competitive match and at the 55th minute Thomas Müller scored the only goal of the game, which had it not been for a favorable result from the game between Ghana and Portugal would've knocked the Americans out of the tournament. Germany (the inheritor of the West Germany side from 1982) played Algeria in the last 16 of the World Cup. Lakhdar Belloumi, who scored the winning goal in 1982, claimed that the 2014 Algerian side would be "inspired" to gain "revenge" due to the events 32 years before.[18] However, Germany went on to win 2–1 in extra time after a hard-fought match.[19] In the 2015 CONCACAF Gold Cup, the final group stage matches of all North American Football Union teams are played two hours and thirty minutes later than the others, similar to the Disgrace of Gijón.[20] Notes The 2–2 draw between Denmark and Sweden ensured the elimination of Italy, which simultaneously played its last group match against already-eliminated Bulgaria, because UEFA's tiebreakers took into consideration head-to-head results before overall goal difference. Because both Sweden and Denmark had lower-scoring draws with Italy, and because both teams had beaten Bulgaria, it was known prior to the final pair of group matches that a draw of 2–2 or higher score would eliminate Italy regardless of the result of their match with Bulgaria. References "World Cup: 25 stunning moments ... No3: West Germany 1-0 Austria in 1982". Guardian. 25 February 2014. Retrieved 2 April 2015. Booth, Lawrence; Smyth, Rob (11 August 2004). "What's the dodgiest game in football history?". The Guardian (London). Smyth, Rob (25 February 2014). "No3: West Germany 1–0 Austria in 1982". The Guardian. Retrieved 23 June 2014. Spurling, Jon (2010). Death or Glory The Dark History of the World Cup. p. 67. ISBN 978-1905326-80-8. Vecsey, George (29 June 1982). "When West Germany and Austria danced a Vienna waltz". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. p. 12. Retrieved 24 July 2014. Murray, Scott; Walker, Rowan (2008). "June 25 - West Germany 1-0 Austria: 'El Anchluss' (1982)". Day of the Match. Boxtree. p. 183. ISBN 978-0-7522-2678-1. "World Cup Tales: The Shame Of Gijon, 1982". twohundredpercent.net (London). 9 May 2010. Retrieved 30 December 2010. Doyle, Paul (13 June 2010). "The day in 1982 when the world wept for Algeria". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 30 December 2011. Honigstein, Raphael (29 June 2014). "Germany won't repeat 1982 mistakes". espnfc.com (ESPN). Retrieved 16 July 2014. Caruso, R (2007), The Economics of Match-Fixing (PDF) Molinaro, John (16 June 2008). "No agreement between Germany and Austria this time around". CBC Sports. Retrieved 15 September 2009. "German victory in World Cup stirs controversy". Milwaukee Journal. Associated Press; United Press International. 26 June 1982. p. 10. Retrieved 24 July 2014. "Cup game labeled as 'fix'". The Register-Guard (Eugene). 26 June 1982. Retrieved 24 July 2014. "The Game that Changed the World Cup — Algeria". algeria.com. Retrieved 15 September 2009. "Uefa will not investigate". BBC Sport. 22 June 2004. Retrieved 15 June 2012. "Italy angry at rivals' draw". BBC Sport. 23 June 2004. Retrieved 15 June 2012. Ingle, Sean (25 June 2010). "World Cup 2010: Spain survive – and steer clear of Brazil". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 June 2014. Doyle, Paul (29 June 2014). "Algeria’s 1982 World Cup veterans eager but not bitter before Germany tie". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 June 2014. Ashdown, John (1 July 2014). "Algeria fail to avenge Disgrace of Gijón against Germany". The Guardian. Retrieved 1 July 2014. Why are the final group stage matches at the World Cup played simultaneously? External links Video highlights of the game on BBC Sport (UK only) [show] v t e 1982 FIFA World Cup [show] v t e 1982 FIFA World Cup finalists [show] v t e Germany national football team matches [show] v t e Austria national football team matches Categories: 1982 FIFA World CupFIFA World Cup matchesAustria national football team matchesGermany national football team matchesFIFA World Cup controversiesAustria–Germany relations1981–82 in German football1982 controversiesSport in Gijón1981–82 in Austrian football Navigation menu Create account Log in Article Talk Read Edit View history

If you mean the painting of McCoist I don't think so. If you mean my post then I have to admit, you have got me sussed.

Four appear in court charged with fraudulent activity over sale of Rangers FOUR men appeared in court yesterday charged with fraudulent activity following an investigation into the sale of Rangers FC in 2011. By Stephen Wilkie PUBLISHED: 00:25, Tue, Nov 18, 2014 David Grier, 53, Paul Clark, 50, and David Whitehouse, 49, who worked for Duff and Phelps, Rangers’ administrators, were detained in swoops in England on Friday. Solicitor Gary Withey, 50, who worked for law firm Collyer Bristow, which represented Craig Whyte before he bought Rangers from Sir David Murray for just £1 in 2011, was also arrested. Police Scotland officers carried out the operation under warrants. They were backed by officers from Surrey, Cheshire and Thames Valley, before transporting the four to Glasgow, where they were detained in custody over the weekend. All four made no plea or declaration at Glasgow Sheriff Court. They were granted bail until a future hearing before Sheriff Sam Cathcart. Mr Grier, Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse were also charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. Mr Withey, from Woking, Surrey, who also faces a charge under the Companies Act 2003, was heckled by Rangers supporters outside the court. The four men are expected to appear in court again at a later date Mr Whitehouse, from Wilmslow, Cheshire, and Mr Clark, from Esher, Surrey, each face two charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice. Mr Grier, from Wokingham, Berkshire, is also alleged to have attempted to pervert the course of justice. All three men were employees of MCR Partners prior to its acquisition by Duff and Phelps in October 2011. The firm acted as Rangers’ administrators from February 2012. Mr Withey, who was Rangers’ company secretary and a former partner with Collyer Bristow, resigned his role at both the firm and the football club in 2012, citing death threats against himself and his family. The four men are expected to appear in court again at a later date and could find themselves standing in the dock alongside former Rangers owner Craig Whyte. Prosecutors confirmed on Friday that an arrest warrant has been issued for the 43-year-old, whose location is unknown. Whyte, originally from Motherwell, pledged to settle the club’s £18million Lloyds Bank debt. It later emerged that he paid the debt by selling three years of season tickets to finance firm Ticketus for £25million. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/536633/Four-appear-in-court-charged-with-fraudulent-activity-over-sale-of-Rangers

Whyte, the lawyer guy and the two admin guy's were charged were they not?

Ah that is why I heard it as Mieller and Messiii Cuddled up to David Murray then:)

I don't understand why she painted a WWW address into Struths painting. It spoils it a bit. It wasn't even around in his day.

I heard a rumour Barcelona were interested in a swap deal Miller for Messi. I think it came from a source in Yorkshire.

By you yes that will be true as you seem to see all the negative points. The positive supporters will shake themselves down and move on. if we buy Messi tomorrow you will pick out the negative points of his play. I don't think you can help it it is just the way you are.

Sun 17 Queen of the South 15:30 Premiership Play-Off QF2

Not sure Gribz there has been posts on here saying we would be better staying in the championship for another year.

Not wanting promotion is crazy. We need to be promoted and then start working our way back up to the top of the premiership. That bar is not that high and we should be there within a few years. The fact the tims are already talking about 10 in a row after only winning 4 should be enough fuel to drive us forward. We are Rangers FFS! If Inverness can make Europe then it can't be too high a bar to aim for. Once we gain a European place we are on the same peg as the tims and will be back fighting for the title. If we get promoted this year then we will be fighting for the league the season after next season. All of course depends on the financial packet put forward by the new board and the support turning up in numbers.

It was expected last week as well. Rumour is that King has not supplied the documentation the SFA require

Me and my mate pulled two birds in that hotel many moons ago when only hotels were open on a Sunday. Only time I was ever in it so I have got 100% record there.

There will only be one winner and that is McGregor. Disappointed that Ally McCoist wasn't nominated for manager of the year.:fish:

No problem Frankie I will catch another week if nobody else wants to or can't do it.

Scott Brown.