Uilleam

Is it possible that the 'philosophy' of "No tricks, tricks are for the circus" is straitjacketing those players who have a trick, or two, in their locker, say, Kent, and Matondo, and is contributing, majorly,to lack of form?

The fhilth hate it, already, and those two Muppets Sutton and Hartson declared, independently (obvs) that Pederasty FC had beaten both Hertz and the VAR man. It helped us by ensuring a red card was, rightly, dished out to a Livvy player. All good, then.

Do you need to tell us twice?!?

In how many games?

A line-up to frighten, well... me, and, I might suggest, the best part of the home support.

Yeah, I don't suppose you should appoint a manager on the grounds of irony alone.

Michael Beale?

It wasn't me who put it off-topic, if such it is. I make no judgement, whatsoever, on Ms Fox, or her Associates. American "sports' businesses" seem to operate successfully and profitably.

Apparently she wants to buy the Club, or a significant stake in it, and subsequently inject cash, or has a client who wants to do so.

Be careful; the bosses might think that you are plotting a leveraged buy-out.

Works for me.

http://dailybusinessgroup.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/DAILY-BUSINESS-LOGO-RGB.png Miami investor still keen to buy stake in Rangers Terry Murden, Editor | October 19, 2022 https://dailybusinessgroup.co.uk/2022/10/miami-investor-still-keen-to-buy-stake-in-rangers/ A Miami-based investor insists she is still keen to acquire a “significant ownership interest” in Rangers Football Club. Kyle Fox, prinicipal of KRF Capital, recently prevailed in a US District Court in a trademark lawsuit brought by the Ibrox club. On 12 October, Rangers International Football Club voluntarily dismissed its own lawsuit following two months of legal briefing and just hours after KRF Capital filed its reply in support of a motion to dismiss Rangers’ claims. KRF Capital said it had been in discussions with certain Rangers’ shareholders to “lawfully acquire” an ownership stake in the club and Rangers’ board filed its suit under the Lanham Act based on the “untenable premise” that Rangers was “not for sale.” KRF Capital pointed out “factual and legal deficiencies” of Rangers’ claims and that Rangers is a UK public company with freely transferable shares. The club was forced to withdraw many of its allegations before ultimately dropping the case. It is understood that Rangers are satisfied that the action served its purpose after the club became concerned that its intellectual property had been used without authorisation. However, in an indication that the saga is far from over, Ms Fox said yesterday: “I have always been, and will continue to be, open and transparent with Rangers’ board, shareholders, and investors. “I look forward to putting the lawsuit behind us and continuing to explore opportunities to bring value to the Rangers organisation, its loyal fans, investors, and other stakeholders through KRF Capital’s proposed acquisition of a significant ownership interest in the club.” Ms Fox, the former Global Head of Capital Markets at HIG Capital, became interested in acquiring a stake in Rangers after meeting former chair Paul Murray earlier this year and submitted a proposal to deputy chairman John Bennett that would have seen her buy 75% of Rangers and commit an additional £50 million of capital over five years. That was later scaled down to a 25% stake, plus an additional capital commitment of £75m. Rangers initially sought compensation for damages to their ‘business relationships, goodwill and reputation’ after claiming Fox was unlawfully using their trademarks and branding. Ms Fox’s representative James Gillenwater said: “We were committed to fighting these wrongful accusations against Ms Fox and confident that she would be vindicated, as she was by Rangers’ withdrawal of all its claims.” Mr Gillenwater has represented clients such as Fortune 100 companies, world leaders, and Olympians in high-stakes international disputes. His diverse litigation practice spans commercial and securities class actions, business disputes, intellectual property matters, and products liability cases.

What happened to that Yanqui broad with the scratch?

That, I think, for Scottish teams, would be 8 (eight) goals against. That is a distinct, and very worrying, possibility, and we would never hear the end of it.

Well that was a bag of shite. If it's not time to ditch the Dutch, it must surely be time to start serious discussion about doing so.

An Irish Jig

That was a form of tonsure. Baldness, I concede, is a form of torture.

There's a Republican song, called, if I recall correctly, "The Bald Fen ian Men". Makes you think.

It took me years to realise (OK, I had to be told) that these fellows were making some kind of statement with their shaven nappers. I had thought that they all had chronic head lice. No smoke without fire, sez I. In days of old, medics used to closely crop and paint affected heads with a solution of potassium permanganate, a purple coloured wash. This, of course, is the origin of the expression "dickhead".

There may be no game plan. There may be a game plan which the players don't understand or which they choose to ignore, or which they cannot deliver due to shortfall in ability. I do not, for the life of me, know which.

We seem to have an ability to make these sides look good. If it is an innate gift, it's a worrying one.

It woz The Sun wot dun it.

Maradonnaesque!

Accordiong to Wikipaedia, that unimpeachable source, VAR in England operates like this: There are four categories of decisions that can be reviewed. Goal/no goal – attacking team commits an offence, ball out of play, ball entering goal, offside, handball, offences and encroachment during penalty kicks. Penalty/no penalty – attacking team commits an offence, ball out of play, location of offence, incorrect awarding, offence not penalised. Direct red card – denial of obvious goal-scoring opportunity, serious foul play, violent conduct/biting/spitting, using offensive/insulting/abusive language or gestures. All straight red cards are subject to review. Mistaken identity in awarding a red or yellow card. If Scotland is the same, or similar, which, perhaps it has to be for UEFA purposes/requirements, then there is plenty of scope for jiggery-popery.