calscot

Just thinking - as Rangers are out of the top league in Scotland, we are no longer bound by the Taylor report or the Scottish equivalent, could we experimentally introduce safe standing to Ibrox to see if there is a real demand? I realise there isn't much money kicking around but maybe it could be done in a cost effective way by replacing areas where the seats are near the end of their lifetime. Perhaps, in these days of low prices, fans could pay for the standing areas by paradoxically paying a premium for it. Another problem would be that we may have to put back seats when we return to the SPL but if we could show for three years that the system works without incident, we could campaign for it to be allowed back into the top tier of Scottish football in its modern form - at least in limited numbers.

Trouble is, when you know the words you can't help hearing them - your brain sorts it out... I don't know if I heard it clearly but it sure sounded like it. However, I think we should learn a wee something from our recent kicking by SPL clubs and take the opportunity of the three year break to rid ourselves of some distasteful baggage and come back on the wave of a moral high ground - and with 29 new friends. If we clean up our act, they will be exposed as the true bigots of our blighted leagues. They will have a loan voice that will be despised in SPL grounds when there is no made up super-villain for them to point the finger at and claim victim-hood to detract from their vile manifesto. Celtic have beaten us to a pulp in the propaganda phony war. The way to rise again and triumph takes some moral fortitude but it doesn't seem that many of our fans are capable. You could say that maybe they are just not Rangers class.

I think it is indefensible by them anyway - "Some of it by bigotry". Celtic say they were swayed by the e-pinions of fans. You just have to look at their fans sites to see evidence of bigotry in their opinions of Rangers.

I was disappointed in some of the songs. Don't know why we are singing about our hatred of Celtic... they seem irrelevant to me at the moment. And I wish some would shut up about how beautiful and finely coloured their father's sash is. I really wonder who is interested in sashes at a football match?

There are always off-days and bad luck days where you can draw or lose. It happens to even the best of teams, otherwise the best team would win all the time.

They were not even mentioned in the interview.

There is bigotry but it's only coming from Celtic.

I thought we started very well and had a fair few decent chances very early on before opening the scoring. We then went on the back foot for five minutes before rallying again with the best chance a near miss from McCulloch. We then faded badly again after that and scrapped out the rest of the game and while being the obvious better team, did little to use that advantage. The team looked well short of match practice and fitness as well as looking like they didn't know each other too well which isn't surprising. Communication was off but so was accuracy and cleverness of passing and defending was slack and dare I say a bit lazy looking. The goal we let in was poor from start to finish and a culmination of about five errors in a row. Broadfoot and Goian were mostly to blame and were our worst performers throughout the match but you also have to wonder about Alexander's poor protection of the near post. However, at least he was solid for the rest of the game. Goian didn't look interested but he must have been highly embarrassed with that performance and will need to look a lot classier if he wants to seal a move elsewhere for the same kind of money. We seemed to dominate a lot in possession but were a bit pedestrian in the last third which was never going to break down Brechin's well organised defence. A lot of crosses were put in to a packed box as the main tactic, which in itself is a good thing, but the quality of the ball was generally poor and easily dealt with. Even on the law of averages you'd expect about one in three balls to get to a fellow blue shirt but it looked like less than one in ten. Luckily one did eventually get to McCulloch who seemed to put it in the net with his shoulder. I agree with McKay was not bad the first half but a passenger in the second and I wasn't impressed either with McLeod. Don't remember much from Naismith apart from a terrible free kick. I thought the midfield lacked any creativity and it looks like we need a decent and skilful play maker to break down the resilient defences we'll be coming up against as the narrow pitches like Glebe Park will stifle any wingers. In the end I'm happy with a win under the circumstances seeing as we were playing what was effectively a pre-season game against a team who seen it as their cup final. That attitude will be there a lot in the lower divisions and make things a lot harder for us - and limit the entertainment side of things. But it is the wins that are important and your table position shows your class, not the number of big wins. Some people seem to complain when we scrape a one goal win against the likes of Dunfermline, only for them to be thrashed 4-0 by someone like Kilmarnock the next week. The implication is that we're worse than Kilmarnock whereas a quick look at the table totally belies that. Teams always lift their game against us and we're not always on top form. It's usually when we're unplayable and get an early couple of goals that kills the chances of a result for the opposition that they then cave in for our big wins. I'm sure we'll be the best team in the league by far but our squad is going to be makeshift and not exactly out of the top drawer. Individual games are not going to be easy but as I say, it will be the table that shows where our level is. Some have been saying that nothing's changed from last season - I would love that: a year of turmoil off the park, 10 points deducted, a form slump when players take a pay cut - and we still finish comfortably the second best in the country. However, I think we're dreaming if we think we'll be as good as last season. Sometimes you just have to accept where you are and get on the road to improvement. I broke my leg two years ago and I'm just starting to play 5-a-side again and I'm currently struggling with pace, touch, keeping the ball down when I shoot and I'm standing off players instead of tackling them. I'm nowhere near where I was two years ago as I'm unfit, out of practice and over a stone heavier. If I was harsh on myself, I'd end up just giving up for life, but I understand where my limitations are coming from and I know that every week I'm getting a bit better. It's not the most auspicious start but Brechin are too good for division three and so I think we are ready to do a job. Doing it with the flair that most people want could be another thing, and it's got to be remembered that Falkirk tried to put aesthetics over results and were relegated for that philosophy. What we need is to get the job done as quickly as possible.

After reading some of your posts I have to agree and look forward to your highly intelligent debunking of Di Stephano's research - shouldn't be hard seeing as it's gibberish. But then people like Hawkings sound gibberish to the average layman. I await your enlightened response.

Wasn't it when you put the title as "Anyone go to any premiership games" in a thread on a forum where people like to debate stuff? Why would that even be relevant? Do you realise that if people only spoke when everybody is interested the no-one would speak at all? However, my problem is people like yourself who take so much of an interest in what I say that they get their knickers in a twist and become abusive. If you're not interested then ignore it instead of hitting out.

Do you actually have a real point to make or just throwing the toys out of the pram? In what way am I being bigotted? The use of "Timmy"? You really ARE falling hook, line and sinker for their propaganda. Instead of just labelling people as blinkered perhaps you could give your immensely open viewed response...

Gooble gobble!

There is no chance of a fair trial. That's the problem. Even the concepts behind the trial are unfair. The time to take Rangers to task was each year they registered the accounts. The fair thing to me would be to give Rangers a warning on future conduct, tighten up the rules and move on. That would happen in any other walk of life. I can't believe people think it's fair to retrospectively try people for repeatedly breaking an ambiguous rule for which you have turned a blind eye to at the time. People need to KNOW the rules before you can expect them to abide by them. This is making it up after the fact. If we're tried, it should be for last year only.

No, my point is that 1. Even if guilty it is due to subjective views and ambiguity. You cannot apply ultimate sanctions for that kind of discretion. That's the kind of thing you give a warning for, tighten up the rules to make them explicit and tell them they'll be punished if they break them again. Even a suspended sentence would be pushing the boundaries of natural justice. 2. How can you retrospectively punish someone for repeatedly doing something that is only subjectively outside the rules, without giving them fair warning and the opportunity to change their ways? 3. Why should Rangers be punished at all for something ambiguous when they did not gain an unfair advantage? So basically the punishment does not fit the alleged crime and the timeliness makes justice impossible.

I was under the impression that you declare all CONTRACTS. The EBT's were officially (at least to Rangers board) NOT contracts. Why would they declare contracts where they don't think there are any? Anyway, even going by your version, Rangers didn't make the payments you are referring to. An off-shore trust gave the players discretionary loans... Why do we need an investigation? It's pretty obvious what has happened. Rangers thought EBT's were a legitimate way of avoiding tax. To run them properly they had to be discretionary, paid by a trust and NOT contractual. The SPL and HMRC knew all about it and they were published every year in the accounts. Niether the SPL or HMRC complained. NOW, 12 years later, they want to punish us for it with ultimate sanctions. HMRC wanted to put us out of business and the SPL want to strip our titles. Not only is that an immensely extreme punishment for a paperwork dispute which is far too far after the fact to be relevant, it seems they have already found us guilty. I say you are deluded if you think that's anything like fair justice. Rangers should have been told it was unacceptable at the time so they could rectify it.

Ok, but the Timmy propaganda is there which twists the truth in a negative way, fudging the issue with stuff that isn't relevant and finding Rangers guilty without trial. My problem then is why are our own fans twisting the truth in a negative way, fudging the issue with stuff that isn't relevant and finding Rangers guilty without trial? At least Timmy has an excuse. It's a bit like saying people are falling for Nazi propaganda, and someone replying, "How dare you, they can be anti-semitic by making up their own mind you know." People can have different views based on ideas but why aren't they defending them then? Where is a proper rebuttal of my posts? When all people come out with is anti-Rangers rhetoric which they can't or won't back-up, and when it is little different from what the enemy is saying, then how is suggesting that they are falling for the enemy's propaganda so bad?

Why do I get the impression you didn't read my post? Why do we have a case to answer? We followed the rules as we saw them and the ruling body did not complain. As I keep pointing, you need to be timely about justice or it becomes highly unfair. Imagine the rules were tightened up on here and some of the things you write were slightly outside those rules even though you thought you were following them ok? It's just subjective whether those rules were broken and you did not gain from them in any way. Would you think it right that because the admins back date this and find that you have broken the rules 10 times and so will be banned for life with no appeal? Or would it be more normal and fair for admins to say, "Right, fair warning, we're tightening up on this - these things are no longer acceptable, we've clarified the rules, and anyone who breaks them will be warned and then if they continue, be punished accordingly"? It's like being banned from playing for life for repeatedly doing something your weren't warned about or even given a yellow card. It's obviously wrong, but even our own don't get that.

What has this got to do with Rangers? You are selling your club down the river by spinning the facts against it and have the temerity to call yourself no12? Disgraceful! 1. This is about dual contracts only, not stealing money, not about tax, or being able to afford your spending. People are finding us guilty of a tax case that is still being decided and then applying it to a different scenario where the only relevance is whether the EBT's were undeclared contracts. The fact this is not clear cut means that there can be no case to answer that should result in a sanction so severe. You can't give people severe sanctions for accidentally breaking ambiguous rules. 2. With regards to the EBT's this is NOT stealing from the bank. It is at worst finding a way to manipulate ambiguous rules in your favour - and in a way that you would not complain if everyone else did so to. It's also doing it in full view of everyone - with explanation, and without ANYONE complaining at the time. How is that cheating? And remember, it was also done by the very rival who is trying to retrospectively strip you of your wins. I can't believe how many are falling for the Timmy lies and propaganda.

Bang to rights for what? What exactly have we done wrong to deserve titles being stripped? This is all about dual contracts where at worst if we are "guilty", we have misinterpreted some paperwork and what constitutes a contract. You want to strip titles for an administrative error? An error that had absolutely no effect on what happened on the pitch - this is about dual contracts only, not about tax or affordability. Where is the precedent for stripping titles for this? As far as I know, titles have only been stripped due to match fixing which is in another universe from an administrative error that gains you no advantage. Does this mean that any club who ran an EBT should be stripped titles? Celtic ran one; however, their "argument" is that Celtic didn't win that year. Can you believe it? They base the morality of whether action should be taken on the possibility of Celtic being affected! That's integrity for you. But this would also apply to Arsenal and others in England - where are the investigations for honours to be stripped? There is many problems with the whole ethics of trying Rangers for this. Rangers did not knowingly break any rules and submitted the information to the SFA and SPL for years. Why didn't they point out the error after the first season? How can you allow an error to go past for ten years, allowing a club to think it's doing nothing wrong and then decide to retrospectively strip them of anything they've won? Like HMRC, this in entrapment. If the SFA had complained in the first year Rangers would have stopped doing it and there would be no case to answer. It's a point of justice that everyone seems to be ignoring. Anyway, if Rangers are ludicrously stripped of titles for a mere administrative error, just where do you stop in your investigations? What about image rights contracts, undeclared perks and bonuses etc? What about the covering up of child abuse that is similar to Penn State who were fined £39m, stripped of four seasons of honours and prevent from winning anything for another four seasons? What about manipulating the league with lies about mourning the death of an ex bit part player and more lies about a Japanese tour? But if we're going to strip previous titles on ambiguous paperwork points we're going to be investigating for a long time and the history of Scottish football, going by this, will be in tatters. When you spot an anomaly, the usual thing is to highlight it and then change the rules so they are no longer ambiguous. THEN you can punish clubs when they break the rules. That's proper justice.

Has he been reading Shakespeare's Julias Ceasar?

That's one of those that goes in the "it's so bad it's good" category...

Let's agree to strip our titles if they agree to strip Celtic of their 9 in a row, their European Cup and fine them £39m for covering up child abuse. See how they squeal.

I'm not saying we should do it because we believe in it. But to me it's an example of what they are doing to us. It's ridiculous but so is stripping our titles over some misconstrued paperwork. However, this will show where their integrity lies. The biggest problem I have with all the stuff that other teams' fans and most especially Celtic, is that if the shoe was on the other foot they would be saying the opposite - where is the sporting integrity there? It's all very well to say when clubs need to be punished and punished again but you have to apply the same rules to your own team - and not just because you're own team have not yet broken those rules. One of the biggest signs of the this is when Celtic fans are told about their own EBT and they say, "yeah, but we finished second so you can't strip a title" which completely misses the point. They are saying that it's ok to punish like this as it won't affect them but if it did affect them then they wouldn't agree with the punishment. This is all about bashing Rangers when any opportunity arises, it's nothing to do with integrity - quite the opposite.

That would be the best form of revenge. That and NO away fans in the SPL. No testimonials. No friendlies. No to helping any club in any way unless it helps us or the game as a whole. No to buying players from SPL teams. No to selling players to SPL teams at below market value. No to loaning players to SPL teams. Etc, etc, etc.

Surprised at the tumble weed in here...