Uilleam

Feelgood stories, eh? Of course; it's all warmth and touchy-feeliness down sellik way.

Or Jesuitical, as the infamous maxim has it: "Give me the child until he is seven and I care not who has him thereafter."

If the solicitor dropped dead would the charges follow him into the crematorium?

At least we now know what they mean when they say, "Sellik - more than a club."

I haven't seen a Scottish player in the last, oh, 40 years, who could lace Baxter's boots. In fact, when I think about it, I haven't seen a Scottish player, at all, who could lace his boots.

We will see what emerges from the media's wiping and washing. I do think, however, that there are too many victims for a cover up to succeed. Anticipate a deluge. Covering up will, surely, make people accessories, which may be causing concern among the unwashed hierarchy, and former hierarchies. To date, there has been very little of actual substance about our own illustrious Club. Long may that continue.

Agreed. However, I think it indicates, also, and very significantly, that Scottish footballers have long been divorced from real pro-football, as it is practised in Europe.

Saw the front page of the Rhebel in the shop: main story teacher and ex-sellik boys' club coach suspended. I am unconvinced that this will go away, or be swept under the carpet. Too many victims to hide, I think. I am almost convinced that Daly's documentary was an attempt to deflect, and divert the focus from his beloved hoops: yes, things were bad, but look at these other Clubs, too. It's not a defence, but may work in the PR stakes, particularly when a large element of rasellik minded lack intellectual stature.

During the period of exile, when the waters and backwaters of Scottish fitba' played host to Rangers, a large travelling support followed, and followed on. Ibrox, itself, was often filled, and over the piece, crowds held up to an extraordinary degree, particularly when the quality of entertainment is considered. Our friends in the media, never ones to avoid a lazy, and ill considered explanation, declared this to be a show of "defiance" by the support, and this quickly became their default position, to the point of cliche. Of course there was, always, a pejorative component to their use of the word, with elements of insubordination, of recalcitrance, of disobedience, implied, if not always explicitly stated I have noticed, as must have the media, that Ibrox, now, following the Club's return to the top division, is enjoying more or less capacity crowds, regularly, and certainly as far as home support for League business is concerned. I have not noticed any explanation for this. No new reason, or elucidation, or interpretation has come my way. Is the era of defiance over? Are the media afraid to utter such words as loyal, staunch, or even the less charged devoted, steadfast, or dedicated? I think we should be told.

I do not think that you may sack someone, as Stein did to Torbett, we are told, if you do not control the organisation for which they work.

Why singe their beards when you don't actually have to? It seems that even if David K can get out from under, by, say, proving he is not the beneficial (or other) owner of the shares, it leaves the actual owners still subject to action under the 30% rule. If dispensation is required for the debt/equity swap then it could get messy; even if those in a position to grant such were acting with bloody minds, it could take some time to prove it. Has David K, boxed himself, and/or the owners of 'his' shares, into a corner, no matter the irrationality of being forced, at some expense, to offer to buy what one might classify as the unbuyable?

You'd let the Club continue? Didn't have you down as a softie, Rab.

Owned by a Trust, the beneficiaries of which are family, and others. Or am I mistaken?

Seems a racing cert to me, chaps.

It is David K's problem, if such it is, absurdity and all. It has been put to me that never before has the Takeover Panel acted against any alleged malefactor within minutes -minutes- of the response period expiring. Such apparent, and unusual, alacrity seems odd.

I would be surprised, but not much, if Daly did not know about this. I would not be surprised if he had spent a few months trying to find 'evidence' to drag other clubs into it.

Nonsense upon nonsense upon stilts!! And all, ahem, " in the public interest". It would seem that the CofS will endeavour to force David K, on pain of sanction, to make a costly offer for shares at significantly below market value -an overture which even the man in your local knows will fail- because, well, "Them's the rules", and irrespective of the particular circumstances of the Company, of the views of other shareholders,of the views of stakeholders (supporters, primarily), and of the clear risk that the public will regard this with hilarity, feeling that the Lords/Ladies of Session, and the Gentlemen/Ladies of the Takeover panel, are, in their application of the Laws and Rules, and in their interpretation of the greater interest, quixotic at best, pathologically pedantic at worst. A reductio ad absurdum, as they would have said in the Wine Alley.

Interesting. I wonder how far this will go. Can the Takeover Panel be seen to back down? Can the CofS uphold and enforce an unreasonable requirement upon David K? Is now the time for all good men to come to the aid of the Party? (And women, of course.)

I don't know. In general, as far as I understand, unreasonable actions may be viewed as legally faulty, throughout most, if not all, branches of law. From the layman's point of view, forcing David K to undertake an expensive exercise purely for the sake of undertaking that expensive exercise, seems an unreasonable position on which to found an action. From the same perspective, it does seem that undertaking this unreasonable exercise is not in the interests of the Company, nor of any of the shareholders.

Another red monkey on another red stick; or perhaps another green monkey on another green stick, variety being the spice of life. Maybe the Aberdonians' melancholy arose because they were persuaded, by Davie Provo's sage advice, to invest heavily against the 'Gers at the weekend. I certainly hope so. I heard part of last night's circus, but felt constrained to switch off when McLeod announced an item on that up and coming Scottish team, Derry City, reasoning that if I wished to hear about Oirish fitba', I should tune to an Oirish station.

Young athlete, has talent, seeks a principled adviser.

....She'd be sleeping with Brendan Rodgers?

If PC "...is yet to show his hand on which players he wants to keep", then why is the Club making an offer to McKay? It seems that contradictions do not appear on the Daily Mail grammar and spelling checker.

Completely insensitive by UEFA. Why do I feel no surprise?

The Takeover Panel has ordered that Dave King issues a Prospectus and makes a formal offer to all shareholders @20p/share, which as far as I can see is some 12p below current market value. This absurd exercise will cost north of £500K, per the Daily Rhebel, which may or may not be accurate, but we can rest assured that it will involve a significant amount. Quite why anyone, at all, would decide to sell at significantly under value is a matter for conjecture, but, to the man on the Cessnock omnibus, it seems pretty damn clear that such an 'offer' will 'flop'. That the Takeover Panel will pursue court action, with all the concomitant expense to both parties, to enforce this nonsense (which would surely fail any 'reasonableness' test to which it was subjected) is something which travels well beyond Dickens's declaration of the Law's asinine nature. Truly we would be witnessing, through the looking glass. a pissing contest conceived by Lewis Carroll out of Franz Kafka. It would be edifying to no one, and productive to neither party. I wonder if shareholders, en masse, could take a view, and an active role, here. If, say, sufficient numbers were to declare that they would not sell at that price, that they felt that the exercise was no more than a sham doomed to fail, and that, in their considered opinion was not in the interests of the Company, then, perhaps, the Takeover Panel would reconsider its position. I wonder, also, whether the imposition of a takeover bid, however nonsensical, will open the door for a counter offer, or counter offers.