Uilleam

So far a Sunday School for our lads

Jeesus! He'll never do that again in a month of Sunday matches. Uphill now. Still, plenty of time.

Cranker AND Wanker!! WTF!!

0 - 3 FGS: Roofe

You've just had sight of his Continuous Assessment

Archer, or so I am led to believe, was a boozer, often copiously in his cups. Speirs strikes me as a guy who is too tight fisted to drink. There's a Monty Python sketch (sorry) about a London gangster, deceased. An interviewee declares him to have been a diamond geezer, or somesuch. The interviewer protests that the deceased had actually nailed the guy's head to a coffee table, to which the victim responds; "Yeah, but I deserved it; he had to do it." Taking the Porteous comment, and, allowing for hyperbole, the Python skit, we might see the beginning of an explanation of why folk continue to vote SNP.

.....with celebrity guest caller Ryan Porteous, ably assisted by the Milky Bar Kid. You have to laugh, the liar, buffoon, and, lest we forget, "Rangers' man" turned hater of Rangers, Graham Speirs has actually got printed a puff piece on serial East Coast thug, Ryan Porteous. "Ryan Porteous: I had death threats, was called a racist and told to die of cancer. It was off the scale" https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ryan-porteous-i-had-death-threats-was-called-a-racist-and-told-to-die-of-cancer-it-was-off-the-scale-f529thv00 I cannot condone the abuse, which is unacceptable, and unnecessary, although I think that I am more appalled at this player giving his approval, and signature, to a commercially available poster, showing him, a white guy, standing screaming abuse over a fallen black man. A more racist image, I have rarely seen in Scotland. Yet it seems acceptable, and is, of course, available, mounted, for c40 GBP to hang on one's Prestonpans' parlour wall. I am surprised that more has not been made of this, and can't help thinking that if a similar poster was produced showing, oh, say, Filip Helander, standing over, oh, say, Marvin Bartley, and screaming abuse, then there would be a stampede of denunciation, furious questions in the Holyrood Wind Farm, and self righteously wrathful demonstrations in those streets where the SNP still permits such. Now, of course, and inevitably, Porteous joins that wanton and unseemly rush to victimhood, which, encouraged, no end, by, it seems most, parts of the media, bedevils contemporary society. I do not wish to belittle victims, genuine victims, but I do wish that adults would consult that childhood story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, as I fear that many missed it, in their early, formative years. "Porteous was at the centre of a storm but says the only opinion that matters to him is that of his manager" But "Ryan Porteous: I had death threats, was called a racist and told to die of cancer. It was off the scale" "Ryan Porteous grew increasingly distracted as the bile began flowing his way." and so on.... Enjoy the Bingo: FOOTBALL Ryan Porteous: I had death threats, was called a racist and told to die of cancer. It was off the scale Ryan Porteous talks exclusively to Graham Spiers as he speaks for the first time since his tackle on Joe Aribo made him a target for abuse Saturday October 23 2021, 12.01am, The Times Porteous was at the centre of a storm but says the only opinion that matters to him is that of his manager Ryan Porteous grew increasingly distracted as the bile began flowing his way. It started in the hours after his red card at Ibrox three weeks ago for his tackle on Rangers’ Joe Aribo and gradually built up into a torrent. Porteous found himself facing the entire gamut of abuse: sectarian and homophobic dog-whistling, people wanting him dead. All this, for a tackle on a football pitch. As the days passed, and Porteous tried to ignore the opprobrium pouring towards him, well-meaning friends kept sending messages asking: ‘Have you seen this?’ It finally led to Porteous having a meeting with Jack Ross, the Hibernian manager, to work out how to deal with the hate, where both resolved to condemn it publicly. The 22-year-old defender is adamant about one thing: he won’t stand by and allow vitriol to fall freely upon his head. “I’m strong-willed and thick-skinned,” Porteous says. “I’ve had to deal with a lot of critics: ex-professionals who are in the media and who are paid to give their opinion. These guys have got every right to their views but do they see all the games and do they know everything they are talking about? Are theirs always educated opinions? Probably not. “Opinions as such don’t bother me. But I had a long conversation with the gaffer about the abuse I was taking, and we decided to speak out, because it is unacceptable. This stuff cannot be allowed to go on. I do think old-fashioned ‘stick’ is a part of football and, being a player, you have to take it. But when a 22-year-old guy like me makes a challenge on a football pitch, and then receives death-threats, and gets slandered by many people as a racist because I dared to tackle a black Rangers player, and is then wanted ‘to die of cancer’, I just think all of that is wrong. Maybe some players wouldn’t come out and talk about these things . . . they would shy away from it. But I can’t. It’s totally off the scale and it has to be called out.” Porteous says he is perfectly aware that online content now dominates so many of our lives. But his experience recently after that match at Ibrox reminded him of a duty he feels he and other footballers have to younger generations of fans now coming through the turnstiles. “You have a generation of kids growing up, who might see this stuff — religious abuse, gender abuse, homophobic abuse — and think it is normal, and think they can get away with it,” he says. “Kids today they can see adults calling someone a ‘******’ or a ‘******’ and they think this is acceptable, they maybe don’t know any different. Well, it’s not acceptable. It can’t keep happening. It needs to be called out again and again. Here we are living in 2021 and you still get stuff like homophobic abuse going on. That’s the sort of stuff that — rightly — can make you lose your job. And you’d be banned from most [social media] platforms. I don’t think people should get away with sectarianism or racism or homophobia. I don’t think any player should have to face that. “I’d certainly hope Hibs would do that [ban supporters] if they saw any fan doing stuff like that. I know other clubs would. Recently, quite rightly, we’ve seen people getting punished for racist abuse. I know that racism is a bigger, wider, more global issue, after everything that has gone on over the last couple of years. But I don’t see the difference with sectarian abuse, or when it comes to singling someone out because of their race or sex or religion or gender. It still hurts people the same way. And there are still too many people out there who think they can get away with it.” On the tackle itself — an aggressive challenge on Aribo which won the ball but which many deemed reckless — Porteous is unrepentant. He says he won’t change the way he plays. He was also unmoved by Rangers manager Steven Gerrard’s withering criticism of him, when he referred to Porteous as “the kid”. “Amid all the comments after the game at Ibrox I was more interested in what my own manager had to say. And he told me I had been brilliant for him ever since he came into this club, and that it [the tackle on Aribo] was not an issue, and that I hadn’t let him down, and that I hadn’t let any of my team-mates down. “The only people that matter to me are the people at this club who can influence me now: and that is Jack Ross and [assistant coaches] John Potter and David Gray and my team-mates. If any of them thought I had let them down in any way, they would come and tell me. But not one of them came to me like that. They were all sympathetic to me over the way it happened. “Listen, it was a tackle. It happens. People get sent off every week. I actually feel my disciplinary record is fine. For a centre back I only got booked five times last season, in maybe 38 games? That’s not bad. I don’t differentiate the way I play the game, whether the crowd plays a part in it, or whether my reputation plays a part in it. I’m never going to change the way I play. I’m an aggressive defender and my manager basically tells me: ‘don’t change’. “If the ball is there to be won I’ll go and win it. But there is no way that I go out to injure or hurt anybody. I never have. In fact, I don’t think anyone has ever been injured from any of my tackles. Having said that, we can all improve our decision-making in games, and I’m only 22. I do want to get better. It’s mistakes like the one I made last season against St Johnstone — when I passed it out and Glenn Middleton then had a tap-in — that’s the sort of thing that really gets to me. So there are moments when I know I should do better.” One obvious means to avoid the abuse that has come Porteous’s way is to come off social media entirely — but it is a choice the defender refuses to make, for a very specific reason. “It’s hard to distance yourself from it — it is what life is now. I’ve actually only got one platform on social media, and that is Instagram. I have it because it can be a massive way to reach out to fans. I think I need Instagram because there are a lot of young Hibs fans out there who want to interact with players, and see how we react to wins or losses. You’ll also get people who are trying to get a signed strip for an auction. So I think it’s good for a guy like me to interact that way. But, on any of these platforms, it’s too easy to throw abuse. And too many people think — and know — they can get away with it.” One other group entered the fray in the whole Porteous/Ibrox saga: the professional pundits. A torrent of opinion followed the red card episode, which only served to fan the flames. Porteous does not have an overly-admiring view of some commentators. “Someone in print called me ‘a fake hard man’. I don’t think I’ve ever claimed to be a hard man. Another I got was ‘he’s a hatchet-man’. Some of this came from ex-pros, who probably wanted a headline. I don’t mind anyone having an opinion on football. But it has to be an educated opinion for it to be worth my while. Too often I think some of these opinions are people just trying get a reaction, trying to stay relevant. “I felt a lot of pundits were posting articles about the tackle, because they wanted to get the click, click, click from Rangers fans, and listen, Rangers have such a big fanbase, so I can see why. That fuelled it, but I get that the incident was a big talking point. Unfortunately, for me, with it came wider abuse and slander. It went from me making a tackle, to people calling me racist, wishing me dead, and all the other stuff. It’s the world we live in today.”PY In conversation, Porteous certainly doesn’t come over as any “hatchet man”. On the contrary, this Dalkeith lad, who did well at school and might have gone on to university had football not come in the way, seems a decent sort who has become a mainstay of this Hibs team. It is nearly four years since Porteous, under Neil Lennon, made his first league start on a famous afternoon when newly-promoted Hibs went to Ibrox and won 2-1. “Lenny was brilliant with me,” he says. “He was one of those managers who looked after you. And he wasn’t scared to chuck you in at the deep end. “My first league start was at Ibrox that day [in February 2018] when he pulled me into his office and said to me: ‘I’m not going to lie to you. . . I’ve got no-one else. So you’re going to have to play’. But he added: ‘You’re ready for this. You’ve been training with the first team for over a year now. I trust you. I’ve got no fear of putting you in’. We went out and won 2-1. We had a good team, and John McGinn played like a man possessed.” Just as with Jack Ross, Porteous says he learned a lot from Lennon. “Neil wasn’t scared of going to places like Ibrox. He wasn’t scared of any team. And if he was, it would feed off into the team. He would get in amongst the boys and make us believe that we could go and beat anyone. I’ve got a lot to thank Lenny for, in terms of chucking me in at such a young age. We had good times and bad under him, but when they were good, they were brilliant.” A player with a social conscience, last year Porteous made the decision to sign up to Common Goal, the charity that asks footballers and anyone else to pledge one per cent of their salary to help football grow in areas of either disadvantage or inequality. The charity was founded in 2017 and has attracted a number of high-profile pledgers, including Juan Mata, Thomas Tuchel, Jürgen Klopp, Eric Cantona, Caroline Weir and others. Porteous knew instinctively that he wanted to become involved. “You can choose why you want to contribute to Common Goal and I chose two specific areas: grassroots football and equality in football,” he says. “You pledge one per cent of your salary every month, and some people might say ‘only one per cent?’ but I wanted to do it to show other people that, okay, it’s only one per cent, but many others might think, ‘yeah, we can do that as well’. It might not seem much but what it can achieve collectively is massive. “For years now we have been talking about kids not having enough pitches to go and play on: no goals, no nets, nothing. It’s been a big problem. It needs to change.” Through Common Goal, Porteous also focuses on women’s football, in part due to the experiences of his sister, Emma, who came up through the ranks at Hibs before knowing that playing professionally would not be an option. “I also chose the gender-equality issue — not so much for the equal pay side of it, which I know is a huge issue, and nowhere near good enough — but because I believe we can do a lot more at younger age-groups to help women’s football grow. We’ve already made massive improvements in it, but why not go further? I saw it all with Emma, who grew up playing football. I saw first-hand how the opportunities for her, career-wise, were not financially there, and so she went in a different direction. If she had been able to play football full-time, like me, and have a salary from it, I’ve no doubt she’d have wanted to do that. “So when Common Goal asked me what my priorities were, in terms of my pledge, that was one area I wanted to focus on. It’s one area where I wanted to help. I wanted the money I was putting in to go to that specific cause.” Ryan Porteous: a robust, ball-winning defender. A pretty good man, too.

St Mirren Chairman Shagged Janey Godley Shock. Not My Fault - It's Catching He Says. What's 'catching' is getting caught, of course. Maybe Poileas Alba are on his case as I write. Aye, right.

I think Aribo, as he really caught the eye, and put in a shift, too.

Go 1 up. Let the Danes play themselves back into the game.

Calvinists 3 Lutherans 1 Fgs: Roofe

The Gherald's take is below. 'Garry Borland QC for the SFA said that the original court decision "flouted common sense". ' The Hearing was before Lord Carloway (et alia) the Justice who, i I r c, declared, (in)famously, citing that very commodity, 'common sense', that EBTs represented emoluments, and thus should be taxed. An interesting tactic, then, from the SFA's man. 20th October SFA pay the price as Rangers chairman Douglas Park wins legal dispute over SPFL £8m cinch sponsorship By Martin Williams @Martin1WilliamsSenior News Reporter SFA pay the price as Rangers chairman Douglas Park wins legal dispute over SPFL £8m cinch sponsorship https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/19660786.sfa-pay-price-rangers-chairman-douglas-park-wins-legal-dispute-spfl-8m-cinch-sponsorship/ THE Scottish Football Association is being forced to pay all costs after losing a fight to exclude a firm run by the Rangers chairman from an arbitration in the club's sponsorship row with the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL). In August, Rangers chairman Douglas Park, whose company has his own sponsorship deal with the club, claimed a court victory in blocking the SFA proceeding with the case against the Ibrox club. But Scottish football's governing body has be en seeking to have the Court of Session decision to grant an interim interdict overturned to stop Park's from being an interested party in the dispute over the Ibrox club's refusal to promote an £8m league sponsorship deal with used car retailer cinch. But the Court of Session appeal court has thrown out the SFA's challenge. Scottish football's governing body is now having to foot both its and Park's costs in the case. The Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL) asked the SFA to arbitrate after Rangers refused to promote car retailer cinch, citing an agreement they already have with Park's of Hamilton. The club have not displayed any cinch branding on players' shirts, nor on any advertising hoardings or media boards. The club claim the SPFL's rule 17 means they are not obliged to promote the sponsorship because they have their own pre-existing contract with Park's of Hamilton second-hand car dealerships. The SPFL referred the dispute to the SFA in August and an arbitration case was set to proceed, but the proceedings have now been placed under an interim interdict. The dispute resolves around a failure to include Park's in the arbitration process. The SFA argue Park's are not part of the jurisdiction of the governing body, should not be party to the dispute and should not be part of the arbitration process that it orchestrates. But a previous hearing ruled that Park's - a rival car retailer to cinch can take part in the arbitration process as an interested party. Garry Borland QC for the SFA said that the original court decision "flouted common sense". But Gavin McColl QC for Park's said the dispute was best resolved with all the parties that have an interest in the dispute being involved. He said it made "little commercial sense" for Park's to be "forced" to go to court to "seek to vindicate its contractual position". He added: "It is plain beyond any question that Park's is a party with an interest, a real patrimonial interest in the dispute." He said that the SPFL’s own rules show that Rangers is correct not to allow cinch branding at Ibrox. Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General of Scotland said there was "no reason" to reverse the original court's decision. The SPFL have previously warned the dispute could affect payments from the five-year deal with cinch, warning clubs the stand-off presented a "real and substantial commercial risk". Scotland's leagues had been without a title sponsor last season after the previous deal with bookmaker Ladbrokes ended. A letter to clubs said the SPFL board - on which Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson sits - had been trying to settle "this very serious impasse" to no avail. It also stated that Rangers have not provided the SPFL board with "sight of any pre-existing third-party contract" that would represent a conflict of commercial interest. After Mr Park's initial court victory Rangers accused the SPFL of adopting an "inadequate and antagonistic approach". It said the ruling "once again underlines ongoing concerns regarding the corporate governance and leadership of the SPFL". The club added: “These concerns are shared by many of the SPFL’s member clubs. We have complied with the SPFL’s own rules but today’s court hearing was one that could easily have been avoided if those responsible had adopted a more consensual and less confrontational approach. “The Executive of the SPFL required to carry out effective due diligence before entering into its contract with the new league sponsor. “Instead, an inadequate and antagonistic approach appears to have been adopted; one that it is hard to imagine is in the best interests of the SPFL’s member clubs.” Last month, judge Lord Braid heard advocate Lord Keen of Elie QC - who has been representing the SPFL - say that bosses at Rangers Football Club Ltd spoke to chiefs at cinch about renaming the club’s stadium earlier this year. The lawyer told the Court of Session that the organisations explored the possibility of calling the club’s home ‘the cinch Ibrox stadium.’ The club denied the claim. Following the hearing, a statement from Rangers read: “Cinch approached Rangers to discuss commercial opportunities in early 2021. “Rangers provided information on what opportunities might become available. This is common practice for our commercial team. “At no point did cinch offer any terms to Rangers. Contrary to the SPFL’s claims, no ‘negotiations’ took place."

Tasty. You must be a Satanist.

The more exposure for Rangers' victories -esp those in Court- the better.

You're not wrong (8/15 - 31/5 - 7/2 the draw) You're not wrong You're not wrong When was the last time you had a treble up?

The SFA loses in court to Douglas Park, and, "Lord Carloway, who as Lord President is Scotland’s most senior judge, ordered the SFA to pay Parks of Hamilton’s legal bill for the hearing - the sum which will be paid is not known", which is nice. Sorry, but this report is from The Old Currant Bun: Rangers chairman Douglas Park claims second victory in legal dispute over SPFL’s £8m cinch sponsorship RANGERS chairman Douglas Park has won a second victory in a legal dispute over the SPFL’s £8 million sponsorship deal with online car retailer cinch. The businessman’s company, Park’s of Hamilton, obtained an interim interdict to prevent the SFA proceeding with an arbitration process involving Rangers, the SPFL and cinch. The Scottish champions are currently refusing to allow cinch’s branding on team shirts or an advertising boards. Mr Park believes that the deal struck by the SPFL breaches a commercial agreement which has been made between his firm, Parks of Hamilton, and Rangers. The SPFL have referred the matter for arbitration to the SFA. On Wednesday, lawyers for the SFA addressed the Inner House of the Court of Session - Scotland’s highest civil appeal court. The SFA’s legal team told judges Lord Carloway, Lord Pentland and Lord Woolman that the decision to grant the interim interdict was incorrect. Lawyers for the SFA believed that Parks of Hamilton shouldn’t have a place in the arbitration process because it wasn’t a member of the SPFL. Parks of Hamilton’s legal team told the court that the decision to grant interim interdict was made correctly and that the SPFL’s own rules entitled Rangers to refuse to display cinch’s’ branding. They also argued that Parks of Hamilton should have a role in the arbitration process. After hearing the submissions, the judges agreed with the submissions made by Parks of Hamilton and refused to overturn the lower court’s decision. Lord Carloway, who as Lord President is Scotland’s most senior judge, ordered the SFA to pay Parks of Hamilton’s legal bill for the hearing - the sum which will be paid is not known. Earlier in the year, a Park’s spokesperson welcomed the court’s decision to grant the interim interdict saying that the SFA had no other option but to involve it in the arbitration process. The spokesperson added: “We can confirm that Park’s of Hamilton has been successfully granted an interim interdict at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, to prevent the SFA from proceeding with its arbitration process in relation to the sponsorship of the SPFL. “For the purposes of Park's interim interdict application, the Court considered that the failure to include Park's went against the SFA's own rules. “This ruling now prevents the SFA from proceeding with an arbitration process without Park’s of Hamilton being involved.” At another hearing in the case, the SPFL’s lawyer, Lord Keen of Elie QC told the court that bosses at Rangers had spoken to cinch about renaming the club’s stadium ‘the cinch Ibrox stadium.’ However, a spokesman at the club said no negotiations took place. On Wednesday, advocate Garry Borland QC, who is acting for the SFA, said it was wrong for interim interdict to be granted. He said that laws surrounding arbitration showed that Parks of Hamilton shouldn’t have a role in the process. He added: “In the present context Rangers Football Club Ltd are members of the SPFL and they are therefore required by virtue of article 196 to comply with the SPFL rules. “The petitioner, Parks of Hamilton, is of course not a member of the SPFL and is hence is under no obligation to comply with the SPFL rules. “Membership of the league will mean the clubs will have to be bound to comply with certain things including the articles of the SFA. “Parks of Hamilton is not subject to or bound by those rules. It follows that Parks of Hamilton is not party to contract of the dispute referred to in the arbitration.” Gavin MacColl QC, for Parks and Hamilton, said that the commercial issues brought up by the matter meant that it was only right for the company to participate in the arbitration process. He said that the SPFL’s own rules show that Rangers is correct not to allow cinch branding at Ibrox. He added: “An individual club that is a member of the SPFL does not require to comply with overarching contracts entered into by the SPFL with advertisers, if to do so were to place the individual club into breach of prior contractual obligations. “In these circumstances, the commercial reality of this is that from the petitioner’s perspective and any objective perspective - is that the dispute is something best resolved with all of the parties that have a clear interest participating in that process and being bounded by that process and avoiding the possibility of the sort of divergent views and divergent orders that could be made if one process having taken place between Rangers and the SPFL alone the petitioner here is sought to go to court to vindicate its own contractual position and other parties such as cinch are forced to take similar steps - that sort of approach makes very little commercial sense.” Announcing the court’s decision, Lord Carloway said he and his colleagues would issue a written judgement explaining their reasoning. He added: “We will give our reasons in writing in early course - hopefully within the next week or so. “But we are satisfied… that there is no reason upon which we can reverse the Lord Ordinary’ decision and we will refuse the reclaiming motion.” https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/7875320/rangers-douglas-park-win-legal-dispute-spfl-cinch-sponsorship/amp/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter

"Off the radar", Compo, "Off the radar".

"Annual accounts released by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) show that £35 million has been spent on the (Rangers) case so far, with millions more being earmarked for future payments." " ' In 2020-21 we have charged £27.9 million (2019-20: £12.6 million) as expenditure in relation to the various cases associated with this.' ” Actually, if we do the sums, it seems that the public purse coughed £35.3M to claimants, and £5.2M, presumably in fees, disbursements, expenses, and like sundries to others. And there is more to come more. I wonder if the promised, inevitably eye wateringly costly, Enquiry will conclude (should we live so long), that 8 titles and a gimme was worth it. Or will it take its line from Holyrood's Heid Hobbit, and declare that "Och well, these things happen." Botched Rangers prosecution has cost taxpayers £35m so far Marc Horne Tuesday October 19 2021, 12.01am, The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/botched-rangers-prosecution-has-cost-taxpayers-35m-so-far-0n36jbl53 Tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money has been paid out by the prosecution service over botched cases related to the takeover of Rangers FC. Annual accounts released by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) show that £35 million has been spent on the case so far, with millions more being earmarked for future payments. A series of successful compensation claims have been made by businessmen who faced “malicious prosecution” over for their role in the Ibrox club’s financial collapse and subsequent sale. The final cost to the taxpayer is expected to rise significantly, with Duff & Phelps, an international financial consultancy company, seeking up to £120 million for reputational damage sustained when employees were arrested without probable cause. Russell Findlay, a Scottish Conservative MSP, said: “It is astonishing that unknown sums of taxpayers’ money are being diverted from frontline public services to pay for the Crown Office’s malicious prosecution scandal. It appears no one yet knows how many tens of millions of pounds this will cost.” Last year David Whitehouse and Paul Clark, who were appointed as administrators for Rangers FC in 2012, agreed an out-of-court settlement after launching a £20.8 million compensation claim. The pair, who worked for Duff & Phelps, were arrested in 2014 but the charges were dropped. They secured an apology from James Wolffe QC, who was then the lord advocate, for a “very serious failure in the system of prosecution”. In August, it was announced that Charles Green, the former Rangers chief executive, had also won £6.3 million plus costs after bringing a £20 million claim against the lord advocate. Craig Whyte, who bought Rangers for £1 from David Murray in May 2011, was cleared of two charges after a seven-week trial in 2017. The Court of Session ruled in 2019 that the lord advocate did not have immunity from claims of malicious prosecution, upending an area of the law that was largely taken for granted for 60 years. The COPFS accounts state: “We have been involved in civil litigation brought against the lord advocate by individuals prosecuted in connection with the acquisition and administration of Rangers Football Club. Some cases were resolved, with sums paid to pursuers as at September 2021 totalling £35.3 million, and other cases remain before the court. In 2020-21 we have charged £27.9 million (2019-20: £12.6 million) as expenditure in relation to the various cases associated with this.” In 2018/19, the year before money started being set aside for Rangers cases, these so-called losses and special payments totalled £229,000. The Scottish government has agreed to hold a judge-led inquiry into the episode once all legal proceedings have concluded. The Crown Office said it was not in a position to speculate about any further costs. It said: “The Crown will support public accountability and a process of inquiry once related litigation has concluded.”

It is said that The Great Man played in every outfield position for Rangers, and that sometimes he did this in the same match.

Must have been smokin' the same weed as Napoli's guy

Happens when you are carrying others......

' Inspired' by paper cleared from a jammed colour printer.

Spurs deserves a sound thrashing for sporting that rig out.