calscot

I feel weââ?¬â?¢ve missed a lot of pertinent stuff out of this meeting. All thatââ?¬â?¢s happened is an admission of guilt of all charges and a promise to be good from now on. The problem I have is that while we are guilty of some of the charges, there are plenty where while there is mischief, there is no breaking of the law beyond twisted interpretation from those who are serially offended by anything that does not pander to them. The fact is most of the ââ?¬Å?sectarian problemââ?¬Â accused at Rangers fans does not even exist in reality and only in the fantasy mind of a group of people with an agenda against us. You only have to look at the furore over flying union flags at Ibrox and then unbelievably in the workplace when only to celebrate the royal wedding, to see that most charges against us are plain ridiculous. The police, the courts and the politicians have been totally duped by our enemies despite these ludicrous examples into believing words like ââ?¬Å?fen1anââ?¬Â and songs like (the so called) ââ?¬Å?Famine Songââ?¬Â are sectarian when they are nothing of the sort, while ironically the accusers themselves are liberally using sectarian words like ââ?¬Å?hunââ?¬Â to describe us with impunity and openly singing songs with obvious sectarian meaning. Even the word, ââ?¬Å?whatabouteryââ?¬Â has become a totem for putting only us in the dock and ignoring any natural justice which no doubt only fans the flames of a small problem to create a huge one, and sets up an apartheid judiciary system in a misguided and contrived attempt to deal with discrimination! As is often quoted, ââ?¬Å?you couldnââ?¬â?¢t make it upââ?¬Â. We should be saying something like: ââ?¬Å?Yes, we are guilty of songs and chants against the Pope ââ?¬â?? this is wrong and we will stop. ââ?¬Å?No, we are not guilty of any sectarianism whatsoever when it comes to the F word and the F song, and they have been wrongly and ignorantly deemed illegal. However, we agree they are mildly mischievous and we also obey the law and so will stop. ââ?¬Å?BUT, in return we want to see equal justice applied to ALL discriminatory chanting at ALL clubs as well as condemnation of mischief making when people are continually making false accusations in an attempt to increase hatred in our society. This includes those inciting hatred using the media with lies, twisted propaganda and deliberate misinterpretations as well as biased, unequal reporting.ââ?¬Â The problem is that no-one is saying this stuff in public - except perhaps for David Leggat. You will never stop a feud by only disarming one side.

I don't think we can complain much about the odd draw or loss this season. The fact is that our points total is above average for us and about the best since Walter came back. Despite all the cuts the team have done a decent job and it's just unlucky that Celtic, with all their spending and large squad have done slightly better. The bad luck comes from the fact that we lost Jelavic for a while, then pressure to sell Miller and also the injuries to McCulloch (along with Edu's terrible form), Bartley and Weiss. Also the referees have given in to their unsportsmanlike pressure and Celtic have had quite a few lucky wins - not to mention the aberration of the 9-0 drubbing of Aberdeen which could end up being very significant. Having said all that, I think Celtic are due a bad result and we're still in fighting distance of the title.

I think the point being made is that selling Miller was an easy choice within the club's power to say yes or no. "No" seemed like the obvious answer to most. It's not an "if or but", it's a glaring error due to mental short-sightedness. We don't know for sure if it would have made any positive difference but given the evidence of his scoring exploits versus Lafferty, it looks very likely. We may have been scoring goals since he left but all it would take would be just one or two more to make a difference and give us another one, two or three points with the latter putting us in the driving seat. Even a bit better goal difference could count for us if Celtic draw one game and we win all three. There is less evidence that spending 400k on a defender in the summer or January would have made as much of a difference. People talking about losing games earlier in the season being just as important are missing the point - we didn't CHOOSE to lose those games. We chose to sell Kenny. Others saying that he chose to go are forgetting he had a contract to fulfill. Then the argument he wouldn't have played well if he was refused a move to me is unlikely considering he is a mercenary who would be looking to keep his stock high for his free transfer at the end of the season. We HAVE been worse in defence than attack this season but only in attack is there plenty of evidence that �£400k could have made a significant difference.

It's 2-0 now, all over as I can't see them doing what they did to us. The only mild hope now is that DU score a consolation goal to keep narrowing the goal difference as a possibility.

PS Can you imagine someone on "Deal or no deal" taking �£4k from the banker with �£100k still up for grabs? That's about the equivalent.

I completely agree with Craig. If we lose the league there will be many mistakes we made that contributed to it. However, most of them are mainly apparent on hind-sight - with Miller, the it was a mistake we could see clearly as it happened with so much foresight it smacked you between the eyes. No matter how incompetent the current board has been, I can only believe the bank, via Muir, forced us to sell him as a short sighted, short term gain in cash flow, combined with a reduction in out-goings for the season. It was a very poor footballing as well as business decision. Had we say received �£4M for Miller and spent �£1.5M on a reasonable but cheaper replacement like Goodwilly, then the decision would not look so stupid. But 400K plus saving 15k a week while losing a guy who'd become a prolific goal scorer in the best form of his life, which then jeopardises the league with only one CL place up for grabs, was not a well calculated risk. There is no way that anyone with the interests of Rangers in mind could have made that decision and it could well be THE one that haunts us.

Jelavic might be a better player but he doesn't score as many goals as Miller. But the thing is we'd have played both of them anyway - Miller on for Lafferty. They could have had a pretty fruitful partnership as they already were looking good before Jelly's injury.

It seems you like to think backwards. Your attitude is that of the complete opposite of democracy - what you are looking for is something called "anarchy". You seem to be rebelling against the principles and laws of the country that clothed you, fed you and educated you... I can't believe there are people who think there is actually a place for these songs - what is that all about? With this kind of attitude, we are guilty as charged.

That's what I'm thinking, the ludicrousness and sheer injustice is going to bring emotions to boiling point and there are some who can't stop themselves demonstrating their anger physically. I can also imagine an escalation of tit for tat.

If SDM made a profit on Ibrox renovations then it is still a profit due to being owner of Rangers whether it cost the club the same or not. People make money from nepotism and cronyism - the fact that it might not cost the customer more doesn't change how they landed the contract. What do you call nepotism when it's favouring yourself?

PS I think it is a false premise to say that because there is not a queue of owners now while the price is low that there will not be in the future at a higher price. If you look at property, it is difficult to sell at he moment as it is; however, it's much harder right now to sell properties in bad shape and in need of major development. They are snapped up in the boom but last to go in the bust. With not much spare money floating around at the moment and the threat of bankruptcy everywhere, it's not exactly the best time to take a punt on a football club. You would imagine that Whyte will be the guy who does a "property ladder" on the club, rips it apart and gets it back into pretty decent shape - just in time for the recovery to be in full flow and spare money being in abundance. When that happens, I think it's natural for most people to go for the nice, shiny, newly decorated houses or clubs in excellent condition, where you can move in without having to worry about doing anything for a while.

There are lots of ways Murray made millions out of Rangers. The fact he lost most of it again isn't relevant. How about when Ibrox was revamped with the club deck and filling in the corners, it was Murray's companies that supplied the steel and Murray's companies that did the construction work. There is the money made from the car parking, the catering and the ticketing - not to mention all those enterprises grew quickly due to the turnover from having guaranteed contracts with Rangers. Those avenues may not all be open to a new owner but it was lucrative to SDM. However, the stadium does need some millions worth of renovation and there's bound to be a few avenues of income to pick up - even savings in areas like offices and conferencing for his businesses. Then there is the intangible gains in wealth. As owner of Rangers during some very successful years, Murray had the sparkle of fame and celebrity about him - how many cogs and wheels of his business deals did that lubricate liberally? I would guess quite a bit. Do you sign the contract with the famous guy you see on the telly, who wines and dines you as a VIP guest at Ibrox before a big game while also introducing you to the manager and top international players, or do you go with Joe Bloggs Construction Ltd who took you for a nice curry? Our potential new owner has already gone from Craig Who, to a household name... If the value of Rangers can be kept constant and the spending controlled so that year on year losses are not sustained then the intangible worth of owning Rangers starts to become apparent. Rangers have been paying back the debts at an extraordinary rate recently and so there is a possibility the club can be run on an even keel for say five years and sold for it's true worth - which by my reckoning would be around the �£50M mark. However, most people are guessing the development of the Ibrox area will be where the real money is to be made in the future. The recession will bottom out in the not too distant future and the next boom is waiting patiently for exploitation.

Again, all this banning of flags does is stir up the troubles and increases the divide while polarising the moderate... Just what is it they are trying to achieve?

After their anti-football jibe as well as their cheating opening goal against us, I have to agree.

http://sport.stv.tv/uefa-champions-league/245200-football-victims-barcelona-are-far-from-an-attractive-proposition/ Football 'victims' Barcelona are far from an attractive proposition Barca are revered around the world but their persona isn't to everyone's liking. By Thom Watt I have a confession to make. I donââ?¬â?¢t like Barcelona. I know they play exceptional football, and their tactics and possession retaining abilities have been revolutionary. I believe Xavi was robbed of the World Player of the Year award and his team are quite rightly held as an example of effective attacking football. Just donââ?¬â?¢t ask me to like them as a club. While you cannot fail to be impressed by the way in which Barcelona utilise their system, it is puzzling why they cast others as lesser beings for adopting different principles. Barcelonaââ?¬â?¢s style is built from the Johan Cruyff model, and the rabid fervency with which they believe in their system could not be more fitting with the Dutchmanââ?¬â?¢s personality. After losing 3-2 on aggregate to Jose Mourinhoââ?¬â?¢s Inter Milan last season, Xavi stated that ââ?¬Å?we are proud of what we did; I donââ?¬â?¢t know if in Milan they can say the sameââ?¬Â. After eliminating Arsenal in this seasonââ?¬â?¢s campaign he said ââ?¬Å?Arsenal didnââ?¬â?¢t want to play football, all they cared about was defendingââ?¬Â. The same attitude was shown after the Copa del Rey loss to Real Madrid. Why should there be such a complex about the way in which others set up to play, particularly when they are entitled to defend their leads? More pertinently, why would anyone take on Barca at their own game at the moment? The case of Inter Milan is particularly bizarre. Catanaccio predates total football by around a decade, has been synonymous with Inter Milan since its inception, and in terms of ââ?¬Å?football purityââ?¬Â, it is as close to a national identity as any single tactic in world football. Standing up for all that is beautiful in the game is all very well, but while Barcelona are now quite rightly seen as the zenith of cavalier football, this was certainly not always the case; just watch what happened when Spurs hosted them in 1982. This is a team that employed both Ronald Koeman and Miguel Angel Nadal. So much from the Inter game has been stricken from the record: the Italians imperious deployment of a counter attacking system in the first leg that penned in the Barca full backs, Mourinhoââ?¬â?¢s defensive wall in the Nou Camp, the way Sergio Busquets contrived to get Thiago Motta sent off with the kind of cloak and dagger tactics that are hardly synonymous with the beautiful game. The latter is a prime example of the subtly cynical side to their game ââ?¬â?? surrounding the referee, giving away numerous fouls in the centre of the pitch ââ?¬â?? which Jose Mourinho seems more aware of than most. He is deadly serious in his belief that at some point, Real Madrid will be reduced to 10 men in the Champions League semi final. One of the many joys of the game is that it is celebrated and revered for different reasons in different parts of the world. When Juventus and AC Milan played out 120 minutes of goalless football in the 2002/03 European Cup final, pundits were quick to criticise the ââ?¬Å?negativeââ?¬Â tactics that both sides employed. Except in Italy, where the chalkboard battle between the two managers was heralded as a great example of the thinking manââ?¬â?¢s game. One of the many reasons the European Cup retains so much interest is because it pits these kinds of ideologies against one and other. A disciplined and compact Scandinavian side like Rosenborg or IFK Gotenberg can progress because they play to their strengths, while the recent successes of Porto and Liverpool show that there is far more to winning than simply having the better players. There is a particularly apt scene in Jason Reitmanââ?¬â?¢s film, Thank You for Smoking, when Nick Naylor, played by Aaron Eckhart, argues with his son over whether chocolate or vanilla is the better ice cream. While his son argues the merits of the best chocolate ice cream in the world, Naylor states that it is the freedom to choose between flavours that matters. The same holds true for any ideology. And then there are the statistics. There are few figures in football more deceptive than passing stats, and the fact that Barcelonaââ?¬â?¢s dominance in this area is used as a barometer for their success is less than illuminating. One does not need to delve too deep into the numbers around the club to see how good they currently are. Pass completion and possession stats do not show how attacking a team is, how defensive a team or, or even necessarily how good their passing is. A defensive player will make numerous low-risk short passes to team-mates during a match and as such will have a very high completion rate. A highly creative player will attempt fewer of the proverbial ââ?¬Å?killerââ?¬Â balls, but each of these will be more likely to be intercepted. Michael Essien and John Terry have completion rates of over 87 per cent this season. Spain had 72 per cent of possession in their friendly with Portugal in November, and lost 4-0. Barca have very good passing players, and in Xavi and Iniesta have arguably the finest proponents of the eye-of-a-needle through-ball in the world. The fact that they so often play three times more passes than their opponents only summarises their own style, rather than showing its undoubted effectiveness. Possession, as we all know, is only nine tenths of the law. My final rankle regards the idea that the Catalans are ââ?¬Å?mes que un clubââ?¬Â. It is true that the club are theoretically owned by their fans, but this is not an enterprise in the Stirling Albion mould. The fans own the club in the same way that the British people own David Cameron. For a team that are ââ?¬Å?more than a clubââ?¬Â, there are certainly a number of distinctly ââ?¬Å?club-likeââ?¬Â aspects at the Nou Camp. Barcelona have a debt of around 440 million Euros; the fifth highest rate in Europe and just 25 million Euros less than Real Madrid. They are currently the highest paid sports team in the world, with average earnings of Ã?£4.9m per player per year, and while their now-legendary youth system is quite correctly praised, their transfer policy is hardly minimalist. In the past two years Barcelonaââ?¬â?¢s directors have spent Ã?£120 million on transfer fees, while Manchester United have spent around Ã?£50 million, the capitalist pig-dogs at Chelsea around Ã?£100 million and Inter only Ã?£90 million. Only Manchester City and Real Madrid have spent more in the same period than the Catalans. They may well be ââ?¬Å?more than a clubââ?¬Â, but only in the same way as Manchester United, Liverpool, AC Milan or Real Madrid are ââ?¬Å?more than clubsââ?¬Â; they are super-brands designed to sell a certain image. Manchester Unitedââ?¬â?¢s image revolves around the ââ?¬Å?Theatre of Dreamsââ?¬Â, while Real Madrid trade on their All-Star cast. All of these clubs have character and a certain soul, but none are more or less than the others. The great American comedian Bill Hicks once quipped that marketing men see his anti-corporation stance as ââ?¬Å?going for that anti-marketing dollarââ?¬Â. This is Barcelonaââ?¬â?¢s ââ?¬Å?mes que un clubââ?¬Â philosophy in a nutshell. This is undeniably a great football team, but it seems that no matter how successful the club is, they cannot dispense with their victim persona. Their victories are ââ?¬Å?for footballââ?¬Â and their few defeats are due to heinous acts against the spirit of the game. For the Catalans, Mourinho personifies this kind of treachery. If that is the case, then I hope the bad guys win.

Is it normal for a bank that will be a recipient of a large fraction of the monies to hold the escrow account also? Seems like a conflict of interest.

From the ET: "Whyte had the basic blocks of his bid in place. He has reached an agreement with Sir David Murray for the businessmanâ��s 93% share of the club and has deposited �£28m with Lloyds. "This includes �£18m to satisfy the conditions of the debt repayment and a further �£10m for working capital for the club." So we're paying off the debt and still using Lloyds as our preferred bank and actually depositing working capital? I know the management has changed there but I really hope we move to another institution soon after the takeover.

It is difficult to guess where the funds for the investment in the team will come from, but it does seem to me that the key word is "investment". Is this not a bit like a businessman shoring up the value of his company by investing in tools for the work which will make the business more competitive? It seems akin to a takeover of a production company followed by investment in up to date tooling which raises the quality of merchandise to a new level. That surely underpins future operations as well as raising the share value? If you bought a dilapidated house on the cheap but with a covenant to spend a (reasonable) minimum amount of money on renovations, would you not be quids in in the long run? Even in the SPL backwater a club with a turnover like Rangers FC should be worth 55M - but even more so with almost no debt and a fresh �£30m investment in the playing staff. The main task will be to buy wisely and concentrate on players who can realise an selling on fee in the future which is at minimum, not too much less than the original purchase, and optimistically at least a bit more. Keeping as close to that model will keep the original investment sustainable over a long period of time. In the end, the main question is where the money will come from and it does seem unlikely that it will be all from Whyte's pockets. There must be additional investors in the wings to spread the burden of funding - unless the investors will be of the construction kind and Rangers will be benefiting from the profits of the redevelopment of the Ibrox area.

Shouldn't this be "the pressures he has deliberately incited and put himself under"? Why is he not praising the Rangers support for dealing with the enormous pressures they are UNFAIRLY being put under?

I think the counter argument against these countries is that Scotland are above them in the UEFA rankings which suggests that we're doing better without them. The fact that Rangers are totting up all Scotland's points can be argued both ways - it means our team are much better than those countries but also means there's no point recruiting from the rest of our league as they are the equivalent of Wales or NI. Those countries are much higher than us in the FIFA rankings but they are very suspect when you consider we are 16 places below Albania and 20 places below Burkina Faso as well as one place below NI...

This truly shows one of either at best a shit stirring agenda or at worst plain racial and sectarian agitation of such newspapers. They dubiously complain about Rangers singing using ambiguously interpreted words and when that stops they have the bare faced cheek to complain about flying the national flag of the team's country - which also comprises the team's colours. It is no wonder it is so hard to stop people singing the real songs that are out of order - they are damned if they do, damned if they don't and so you'd expect them to do what they damn well like. Looking at this objectively, it comes accross as incitement to hatred against British Nationals - unbelievable from what is supposed to be a British National Newspaper. At best it's the REAL PC gone mad liberalism where we can't express our own nationality in our own country for fear of offending minorities. It's the kind of stuff which makes moderate people start to listen to the likes of the BNP as they start to make sense against this poisonous drivel. That's not the most likely scenario for Rangers fans - they'll just feel more justified in denouncing the minorities who seek to make them second class citizens in their own country. This will be exacerbated when they are inundated with immense television footage and press photography of millions of union flags on Friday. Just where do Rangers fans really stand and why are they singled out for victimisation by the media, football authorities as well as government? Even the arguments given by the Times are weak and purile - "other teams don't fly the national flag". How is that relevant, aren't all clubs different? There is the fact that the Union flag is the perfect colours for Rangers and is a quite aesthetic flag - Rangers fans fly the "French flag" for the same reason so why not your own national flag? However, it makes more sense when your bitter rivals are constantly parading a foreign flag with an anti-British agenda as well as supporting terrorist attacks against your country. Is it no wonder that decent people would start to stand up and be counted against such sordid provocation and insult? There is nothing that makes people stand and unite in their nationality more as when they are under constant attack from an Axis of Evil.

It's an obvious trap but you can tell the idiots among us will fall for it. Best to let them have it and have a banner saying something like, "Rangers fans condemn ALL acts of terror" and maybe another saying, "We are NOT responsible for society's psychos".

The thing that should be pointed out is that this story has NOTHING to do with Rangers, Rangers fans or even football. It is the story of a sick psychopath who has targeted someone for abuse. That can happen in any part of society and which part has no relationship to the nutter. We don't even know who this person is or what their motives are, what their religion is or which football team they support but it's irrelevant in any case. If others of his ilk are tarred with his psychopathic brush does that mean his/her nationality, gender, race, what TV programs they watch, which breakfast cereal they eat are all relevant - and anyone who has anything in common with him is de facto to share the blame? Are all John Lennon fans responsible for his death? All men? All Americans? Who do we point to in society to blame for the random, sick acts of psychopaths? To try and find anyone guilty by a contrived association is beyond the realms of common intelligence and decency. It's time to completely disown this act and the perpetrator.

My speculative interpretation of that is that Whyte has 23M up front plus his 5M per year. SDM gets 3M up front, The bank get 16M - leaving 4M of debt. That gives 4M for spending plus the 5M. Whichever way it all adds up, the 4M residual debt plus the 5M per year coincidentally add up to the 9M spending allocation.

The crazy thing is that the song would be fine if we slightly changed one F**n word to "Fuckin'". And that would harldly be nicey, nicey or PC for all those idiots who think they are hard or something when they sing "naughty" stuff.