Search the Community

THE following quotes were published on the official Rangers website on January 31, 2011. “First, I would like to address specifically the latest attempt to undermine Rangers in today’s Daily Record which devotes five pages to trashing our efforts to get this club back on a sensible financial footing. “In the most lurid terms, the Record accuses the club’s management and, specifically me, of using supporters’ money to help fund the buy-out of Rangers. Not true. “The club is accused of not paying £5million in VAT. Not true. “The Daily Record’s approach to this story sought to distort and dramatise the matter. I for one will not be reading or buying the Daily Record again and I’m sure many other Rangers fans will share my disgust at yet another smear on this football club. “These are challenging financial times for Rangers – as they are for many other businesses. What I can say to you as a Rangers fan is that everything I will do as chairman will be in the interests of the club and I thank you for your continued support.” For the avoidance of doubt, these quotes were attributed to Craig Whyte. On the day the Daily Record revealed the truth about his ruinous financial chicanery. Two weeks before he plunged the club into administration. And a full six months after he had banned yours truly for revealing what he was up to with the club’s season tickets in the first place. A story which he aggressively dismissed as a pack of lies to the delight of many of the club’s supporters. Much could have been done to save Rangers from Whyte, in those intervening months, if only the Daily Record had been listened to. Which is why there was something chillingly familiar about the latest populist propaganda to have been churned out by the club’s politburo at the weekend. It read thus: “Nor can we react to every journalist and publication who appear to pursue an anti-Rangers agenda, publications such as the Daily Record which today boasts yet another headline which does not accurately reflect what manager Ally McCoist said in his press conference yesterday. “This paper’s intent is clear and we urge our fans to see it for what it is. If Rangers fans want the truth they will find it only on the club’s official platforms.” These will be the same platforms which trumpeted all of Whyte’s many denials – including the very website which, as recently as a couple of weeks ago, removed quotes from the club’s own manager after McCoist had harpooned Charles Green in a press conference at Forfar. And now they wish the world to know that the Daily Record has adopted some form of anti-Rangers agenda? How absurd. How infantile. How very sinister. Let’s deal in the facts here, just for the avoidance of doubt. This newspaper is a staunch supporter of Scottish football. Commercially, the more the game thrives in this country, the better it is for our business. And while doubtless there are skewed and malevolent people out there who long for the day Rangers self-destruct for good, these extremist views are not shared across this office floor. On the contrary, the Record knows that, in order for Scottish football to be returned to a fit state, Rangers will first have to be fixed or, to use another of McCoist’s own words, “cleansed” from the inside out. The sooner this happens the better for all of us who love our national sport. With that in mind, this newspaper has done more than any other in an attempt to shine a light on some of the murkier operations which have been carried out behind closed doors ever since Whyte’s pointy shoes first crossed the threshold. I take great pride in the work this paper undertook to prove Whyte was a liar and cheat. It was a six-month slog throughout which Whyte consistently cuddled up to our rivals and fed them scraps from his table. Such subservience is an affront to journalism. But it is the easy option and one favoured by the Scottish Sun in particular. That publication has repeatedly handed over its pages to people such as Whyte, Green, Imran Ahmad and most recently Brian Stockbridge, the financial director whose own questionable conduct regarding videoing Malcolm Murray and then releasing it has also been revealed in the Record. Not one of the above has a good word to say about this paper and for good reason. We nailed Whyte, chased Green and Ahmad relentlessly in pursuit of the truth and exposed Stockbridge. When this column suggested earlier this year that huge chunks of the club’s money was disappearing into other accounts, scattered to the four corners of the globe, it was accused of trouble making. Last week, of course, Stockbridge spoke exclusively to the Sun to admit the £22m of IPO cash raised at the turn of the year has now gone – but to insist with his very next breath there is absolutely no need to be panicked by this mind-boggling cash burn. Of course, there isn’t. And yet, only days earlier, Stockbridge claimed at a supporters’ meeting not to know how much of that money was left. If he really did not know such enormous amounts of cash had been spent then he ought to be fired for gross negligence. Instead, tomorrow, Stockbridge will pull up a seat at a board meeting to discuss whether or not Green should continue in his role as club “consultant”. Chief executive Craig Mather has called this gathering and he had better hope Stockbridge and directors James Easdale, Ian Hart and Bryan Smart choose to do the right thing – because if they do not agree to axe Green then Mather’s own credibility will be shot to pieces and his position untenable. There is, of course, another critical issue to be discussed and that is a shareholders’ requisition for the removal of Stockbridge, Mather and Smart and the appointment of Paul Murray and Frank Blin as directors. If these changes are not approved by Friday, an egm will be triggered and a bloodbath most probably will ensue. This can still be avoided by compromise and clear thinking. But only if Green is first removed from the internal affairs of a club which continues to self-harm so spectacularly. Saturday’s official statement was another indication of just how confused this outfit has become. And it came 24 hours or so after McCoist and his squad checked into five-star luxury at Turnberry to prepare for a League One trip to Stranraer – an extravagance which was not lost on the club’s anxious staff, many of whom have been living in fear of redundancies and restructuring. It went on to point out in its very last line: “Finally, Jack Irvine of Media House does not speak for this club.” This appears to be in response to weekend quotes from the PR mogul, who is representing James and Sandy Easdale. Up until very recently Irvine’s Media House enjoyed a highly-lucrative contract with Rangers. Over the past two years it acted also to protect the reputations and interests of Whyte, Duff and Phelps, Green, Ahmad and Stockbridge. Earlier this month Irvine selected a group of hand-picked “friendly” journalists to interview Green at the Easdales’ bus depot. Green used those platforms to demand £14m from Jim McColl, while admitting to being devious and an embarrassment. For the avoidance of doubt, the Daily Record was not invited. Nor did it have any wish to be.

SO MANY voices in this Rangers saga and so many mixed messages, so much contradiction to pile on top of the poison that has reigned in the place for far too long. Dire warnings from Dave King that the club is living beyond its means and is heading inexorably for the rocks again and, on the flip side, Ally McCoist looking to sign a reserve goalkeeper (is there nobody there already who can warm the bench for the season?) as well as two others. The club appears to be bleeding money. They have burned their way through their share-offering revenue – supposedly £20 million-plus – and have £10m left in the bank and overheads that are eye-watering. And yet the manager is carrying on – being allowed to carry on – spending where there is no need. No need whatsoever. Three more players might increase Rangers’ winning margin in League One. Big deal. They might give them an extended run in a cup, but is it worth it? More mouths to feed, more money going out, more pressure on a club’s finances that concerned Rangers fans are bending over backwards to have a look because they fear the worst. Is there nobody at Ibrox prepared to cry “Stop! We need to cut costs not add to them”? Apparently not. Contradiction upon contradiction. Yesterday, more of it. Sandy Easdale sent a message out there via his PR man, Jack Irvine, who came blinking into the light having spent so many years operating in the shadows. Laughably, Irvine attempted to portray his client as a man who would sooner jump in the path of one of his buses than do anything to damage his beloved Rangers. What is required desperately at Rangers – before it is too late – is transparency. The bonnet needs to be lifted on the club’s fiscal reality and the suspicion is that it had better happen quickly. For all their faults, the trio of Jim McColl, Paul Murray and Frank Blin want to do this in rapid order. That’s their modus operandi. Easdale doesn’t want it to happen. He has called the prospect of an EGM and a possible over-throwing of the board an “appalling waste of money”. He has, through his PR man, said McColl and company are wasting their time and that they will end up looking embarrassed. That is to say that seemingly an overwhelming body of the Rangers support are also wasting their time in their pleas for proper financial transparency. Easdale, it would appear, thinks everybody in the Rangers fanbase should pipe down with their complaints. He – or his man – calls the whole thing “boardroom nonsense” Boardroom nonsense? Quite a description, that. Just a little bit of an understatement, wouldn’t you agree? Tuesday is when the Rangers board meet to discuss Charles Green’s role as consultant. By rights, Green will be stripped of his position, if only for his capacity to cause humiliation to all those around him. That’s a long-honed skill of the Yorkshireman and his cohorts and it’s going to be difficult to stop. Green holds a lot of aces at Rangers. He’s going to take a bit of shifting. Overseeing all of this, of course, is Craig Mather, the chief executive who has to, on one hand, appease the Rangers support and, on the other, attempt to neutralise Green’s addiction to mortifying public utterances that send those at Ibrox into apoplectic fury. Mather, it has to be said, is not exactly a leader of substance. You might remember that, back in June, he borrowed a move from the Green playbook by trumpeting his desire to go after Rangers’ enemies, a carbon-copy of the tactic deployed by Green at the outset – and one that worked very well with the fans until they could see through him and his money-grab. “There will be times when you [the support] want us to tackle our enemies and it will seem like we’re somehow reluctant to do so or that we don’t care,” he said. “You might believe we don’t feel hurt to the same extent as you, but we do. Sometimes you have to wait. We’ve chosen, and we will continually choose, the right moment to strike. Please, never believe that I or any other directors don’t know the names of the people who have tried to damage this club. We know them all. We know what each one’s tried to do and I can assure you we will never, ever forget about that.” This was populist claptrap at the time and it’s populist claptrap that Mather has singularly failed to back up. Rangers’ enemies? Does he – or anybody else at the club – seriously believe that the media, the BBC in the main, are the club’s major enemy? If they do, God help them. Their analysis is desperately skewed. The main “enemies” are surely the ones who are wearing – or have recently worn – the Rangers blazer. The Greens, the Imran Ahmads, the Brian Stockbridges. Stockbridge is the financial controller at Ibrox. A few weeks ago at a fans meeting he was asked how much of the share-offering money remained in the club bank account. He didn’t know. Or didn’t want to say. A few days later he appeared in a tabloid saying that, er, nothing was left. Nothing. A financial controller? What, exactly, is he controlling when vast bonuses are given out to himself and Green for the pitiful honour of winning the Third Division. Big salaries and 
100 per cent bonuses. That’s not control, that’s the very opposite. Where is Mather’s ire at these people? It doesn’t exist because he is among them. Mather doesn’t know who the real enemies are. On Tuesday he, and the board, will have a chance to right a wrong and remove Green, a man who, it is said, is prepared to support Ahmad in his multi-million pound legal action against the club. With friends like that… Mather has said other things. He went after the SFA, for instance. Another Rangers enemy and more populism. The chief executive demanded answers from Hampden about the different punishments doled out to Hearts and Rangers in administration. He made great play of this in a statement. He wanted to know if it was one rule for Rangers and another for Hearts. He was going to press the SFA to explain themselves. All of this gave the impression of a man taking on the Rangers haters. It was bunkum. His anger and his call for transparency didn’t even amount to him taking the time to send an e-mail or write a letter to the SFA asking for clarification. A warrior in his statement and a pussycat thereafter. The SFA did, indeed, provide clarification, but not because of an official request – that’s normal procedure – but because they wanted to highlight what garbage Mather was talking in his phoney call to arms. The SFA statement was a deconstruction of Mather’s earlier position. Why had the SFA fined Rangers, Mather had demanded to know. Answer: Because Rangers asked them to. To Tuesday, then. And the hope that those seeking clarity are not once again painted as the enemy by the incumbents who want an end to mere “boardroom nonsense”. The reality, as most appreciate now, is far bigger than that. http://www.scotsman.com/news/tom-english-rangers-and-the-need-for-transparency-1-3051356?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

“Not the Rangers way" was the cry; as our previous boardroom turned our club into both a media circus and a laughing stock with their behaviour and antics. Leaks, accusation and counter accusation characterised this troubled period. For us, who as Rangers supporters, expect all connected with our club to behave to a certain standard, it was indeed a most unedifying sight to behold. Whilst the "generals" in this battle certainly have not changed, both the battleground and the “support units” most certainly have, with Rangers bloggers entering into the fray as the theatre of war shifts from the tabloids to the internet. You know how the saying goes - "Hearts & Minds" – it would appear some believe ours are up for grabs to the most persuasive bidder. A considerable irony in all of this was that these same bloggers ravaged our old board for washing its dirty laundry in public. We appear to be missing both a goose and a gander. "Tweet" sounds such an innocuous word, yet the tweets being exchanged via twitter are anything but that. Perhaps a 140 character barb would be a more apt description, as both sides, sadly appearing to have unlimited energy for the task, trade those barbs according to whichever faction they happen to be in. Particularly unsavoury were the attempts by either faction to claim the moral high ground by playing the race card against the enemy. The problem was there was no moral high ground to be claimed – both the comments of Charles Green and Jim McColl were in themselves particularly vulgar, with perhaps surprisingly the latter managing to outdo even Green in the vulgarity stakes. The old adage that “truth is the first casualty of war” has certainly held true. In the midst of all this carnage is a support rightfully concerned about their club and looking for answers and information. For those of us who don’t have a source inside the club, or access to powerful players in this game we are all left totally bewildered by it all. With both sides being so deeply entrenched perhaps the casualty which is the truth has been lost from sight, obscured by a fog of egos, spin and recrimination. Along with truth, objectivity seems to also have fallen in the heat of battle. Bloggers such as I, started writing to counter and challenge some of the media lies, imbalance, and, on occasion, downright harmful articles about our club. It was a war against lies and misinformation. We strived to give the Rangers support a different angle from the hateful one being taken by so many of Scotland’s press. But in every war there is always collateral damage. Perhaps the lasting indictment of this conflict will be that the Rangers support will have to return to the Scottish press to glean objective, agenda free information, with regard to what is happening at our club.

I originally wrote this over the weekend and didn’t get an opportunity to post it due to the database issues that GersNet unfortunately suffered. Even after the recent developments with Imran Ahmad taking the club to court for the sum of £3.4M I am still going ahead and posting this. There was a time (I am sure some of you may remember) where I would have been all over the recent shenanigans surrounding the power struggle for our club, but a few things have changed in the last few years which have meant that I have taken a step back and no longer having my finger on the pulse of what is going on. This is something that I am not ashamed to admit to, so apologies if anything written here is inaccurate or not up-to-date. Now, that doesn’t mean that I don’t care, I do, passionately, like we all do. However, for the best part of a decade I have typed warnings that we as a club were heading for disaster. Looking back, this ‘campaign’ and losing battle took some of the fun and enjoyment out of following Rangers and it alienated me from the vast majority of Rangers fans who refused to believe that our club was in any danger. The mess we currently find ourselves in can be traced straight back to Sir David Murray’s door. Without his reckless mismanagement of the club, there would not have been Craig Whyte, there would not have been administration, there would not have been liquidation, there would not have been Duff & Phelps and there would not have been Charles Green etc, etc, etc…. Now, this is not going to be a customary Cammy F rant, I am a changed person. For those lucky enough not to remember my inane rantings, I would rant tirelessly about SDM and basically anything related (or otherwise) to our great club. I hope my old Gersent friends forgive me and let me reminisce a little. As a fresh-faced youth growing up in the sticks I had two passions, football and music and my choice in both was hardly ‘en-vogue’ at the time. Rangers, under legend John Greig were going through one of the worst periods of their recent history (until this last year and a half) and the first wave of Punk and come and gone, but this kid passionately followed both. I spent years follow following Rangers and punk bands to all corners of these isles and beyond meeting up with many kindred souls some who I still like to think of as friends. Now, it was on a rare occasion that I found someone who supported Rangers and liked Punk music. To most they appeared mutely exclusive. There was one day that I was chased from Ibrox for wearing a Sex Pistols ‘God Save The Queen’ t-shirt. Ah, the naivety of youth! However as time marched on and times and attitudes changed, you began to see familiar faces at Ibrox and at concerts. In fact, about a decade ago I have the pleasure of seeing the Dead Kennedys at King Tut’s and met many people there whom I would also meet at Rangers games. In fact, I would take this opportunity to say that if you ever get the chance to see the likes of Rancid, Bad Religion, Cockney Rejects or The Angelic Upstarts do so as you won’t be disappointed. To witness The Upstarts blasting out Soldier, Green Fields Of France and Last Night Another Soldier is always a pleasure. So for longer than I care to remember I slowly but surely got totally engrossed in Rangers and Punk music and did so until just over two years ago when we were blessed with our twin boys. The boys were born dangerously premature and were both in hospital for a while. These events changed my perspectives overnight. I still passionately cared about Rangers but I admit that they fell down the pecking order. Our smallest went through an operation in Yorkhill just prior to being released from hospital after a torturous 15 weeks (99 days) on the day that we clinched our 54th title at Kilmarnock. In fact we heard that he was fine and coming back to the ward just as Kyle Lafferty scored the opening goal and we were 3-0 up by the time he was delivered back to the ward. Conveniently you could see the ever impressive structure of Ibrox from the wards window and I spent hours with him telling him endless stories of past glories witnessed at Ibrox and beyond. In fact, we took the bigger of our boys who had been released from hospital by this time to Ibrox to see the return of the victorious players / management team and the wee bugger slept through it all. Apologies, I digress. I decided there and then that my words of warning had fallen on deaf ears and whatever happened with Rangers was out of my control and that there was nothing I could do to change what was becoming inevitability. I stood watching the celebrations and knew that this was the end of Rangers as we knew and loved the club. I understood that all the glories were coming to an end and that soon we would run aground and everything would fall apart. The consequences of administration and liquidation are still being felt and I fear / predict that we will still not fully realise the ramifications for sometime. So the current infighting, power-struggle, call it what you will is frustrating and is in danger of ripping this institution apart, something that our many enemies have failed to do. The rhetoric that is being thrown around is disgusting and it now appears that the vocal element have pinned their colours to the anti-green mast. Now before going any further, I do not believe EITHER camp have demonstrated enough to convince anyone that they DESERVE to be the custodians of this club going forward. I have time for Green simply because he put his (or someone else’s) money where his month was when we needed someone to lead us out of liquidation. He also showed that he was no pushover and stuck up for us and club on more than a few occasions. We also have a situation where even the two most prolific and well known Rangers bloggers are backing different sides and populate their blogs with reasons to support their preferred option. I will give them credit as both have put up stern defences outlining why they are supporting Green or McColl, All the other ‘groups’ that have emerged since those days intrigue me, as they, like Green had the opportunity to purchase Rangers for £5M (in fact they could have gotten Rangers for £1 from SDM), but for whatever reason, they baulked. It would be safe to assume that they baulked due to the uncertainty of the ‘Big Tax Case’. Is it coincidence that once we had ‘won’ the Big Tax case, everyone and their dog wants to own Rangers?. The latest and very public attempt to have Rangers removed from Green’s control is hard for me to support as I don’t see how they plan to fund the takeover and the ongoing costs of running Rangers. So what’s the point of all of the above? Nothing really, other than allowing this oldtimer to reminisce a little, to remind everyone that we as a support were never privy to the truth from the boardroom and that we are in danger of doing what our enemies have failed to do. Also, there are two sides to every story and personally, I will never believe a word written by Rangers hater Keith Jackson and his Rangers hating paper The Daily Record. In conclusion, it is this fans opinion that if we were as vocal and venomous in our mistrust of the SDM regime, we might not be in this current mess. Cammy F – Punks Not Dead and neither are Rangers (just yet).

Excellent article submitted by der Berliner A view from afar â?? The Reconstruction Lie? A little more than a year ago, Rangers FC went into administration. In the process of the club being handed over into the hands of a new company, the SPL board went out of their way to hand responsibility about its member's â?? i.e. Rangers' â?? future into the hands of their supporters. Those people at the board simply declining to do their job, or even contemplating that Rangers might have been led into administration by a criminal â?? as has been confirmed over the course of last year (and you hardly find a journalist north of Hadrian's Wall to say so). So off it went to the impartial fans of all the other SPL teams and had e.g. Bayern Munich been in a similar position and faced a vote from the BL fans, they would have played Bundesliga 2 football for a year or so too. A farce from top to bottom. Not that this was unexpected by the SPL bosses, who obviously assumed that the challenge for silverware and European places would be greater, people would come back to watch their teams in the new one-horse race in droves. Those same fans who cried blood-and-vengeance at their clubs, should they not vote Rangers out of the SPL. Those same fans who apparently developed a greater liking to gardening, video-gaming, or curling during the course of the season. It did not take the SPL board long to resume its powers after that, urging (to say the least) the SFL to place Rangers not into the lowest tier (according to the SFL rules), but into the First Division. For anything else would imperil the SPL's TV deals, constructed neatly around 4 to 6 Old Firm games per season. The SFA jumped in and told the SFL that for the greater good of the game, that was the way to do it. The â?? naughty and unruly - SFL stuck to their own rules though â?? as well as the opinion of their chairmen and fans. Rangers were included in the set-up like any new team, in the lowest tier. The SPL quickly got back into stride after that stumble and coerced the SFL into accepting a TV deal that included the screaming of the SFL's Rangers, much to the benefit of the SPL clubs. That did not help the state of affairs of the SPL though. Facts and figures show that its income has dropped, attendances went down at an alarming rate, despite what the SPL's boss Doncaster tries to tell the audience. With the SPL facing various legal bills now, a TV deal only known to Doncaster and possibly his close ally Lawwell, and many SPL clubs hardly able to sustain themselves, does anyone actually think that this same body is actually able to keep up with the financial backing of the SFL, the back-up they proposed alongside their 12-12-18 reconstruction? A recent survey was clearly telling that the football supporters were opposed to the 12-12-18 plan the SPL tries to sell as the last-possible option (why?). SFL clubs were asking their supporters about this and while they all agreed that change was required, there was a clear understanding that 12-12-18 was not the format to move forward, nor was it required straight after this season. But this time, the SPL bosses â?? along with those at the SFA â?? seem to disregard the opinion of the clubs' supporters, not least those of the SFL. Selective democracy? Rather on the contrary, the chairmen of Dundee United and Aberdeen show great endeavour to discredit other chairmen like those of St. Mirren and Ross County, who appear to stand firm in their critique of the proposed changes. Those who were fore-runners of fan-power and the call for â??sporting integrityâ?? - which essentially ignored that fact that Rangers FC on the park were indeed the same Rangers FC as before, despite new owners (â??not guilty until provenâ? springs to mind) â?? now deny this very same right to their fellow chairmen and supporters? And in fact blame them for being self-interested and not looking for the greater good of the game? These people certainly don't do irony! Last season, the whole lot of them acted purely out of self-interest when voting Rangers out of the SPL, looking for greater gains and more money than ever before, not least the likes of the New Firm, Aberdeen and Dundee United. How could they have envisaged that they will end â?? again â?? up in mid-table of a weakened SPL, crowds dwindling, quality dropping? How could they have envisaged that the likes of Inverness Caledonian Thistle or Ross County put up a more sterner challenge to the league race than their own distinguished teams? So why the urgency in the reconstruction, a reconstruction lead and essentially forced through by the SPL, a reconstruction that is being tauted as â??now or neverâ??? Casting aside the rather convoluted split system that does not help Scottish football develop or being any more attractive than it is now â?? not least for those teams in the 18-league. There is only one real reason why the SPL teams need their way here, the reconstruction under their terms: the plight of the SPL. It faces up to law cases with regards to money owed to a pub-owner (1.7m), prize money owed to Rangers FC (2.3m, oldco or newco does not matter), and face the legal bills of their very own EBT-case chase from Harper McLeod. Apart from the TV deals that only Doncaster and probably Lawwell have seen, TV deals that should help them pay the SFL teams after the reconstruction? TV deals that are not yet signed and delivered? You wonder why no-one in the media has ever had the audacity to ask the SPL about their financing programme? Or shall I say moonbeams? And with those Doncaster and Co. run about and try to bully their fellow SPL chairmen and those of the SFL into agreeing to their deal? You wonder if they actually check their accounts every now and then? Let's make no mistake here. The SPL is walking on empty and if the reconstruction is not being pressed through this year, there might not be a SPL left in 6 months time. Which in turn leaves a dozen teams without a league and facing the prospect of asking their way back into the Scottish game via the SFL and â?¦ the Rangers route. The SFL teams should be very aware of this. They hold nigh all the aces after the SPL dug their own grave last summer. They may actually start to invite the likes of St. Mirren and Ross County into the SFL under their terms of reconstruction. There's nothing that should stop the SFL taking over the reigns of all four divisions in Scotland again this summer, keeping the current format, but under a hierarchical structure â?? again. And while the TV deals et al are being utilized by one body for all, learned people can start to create a model better suited for the Scottish game as such, in time for the season after next. The SPL and a cabal of chairmen have ruined the whole Scottish set-up, mainly out of self-interest. It is time that they are removed from the game, for the better of the game. In that respect, stand firm Ross County, stand firm SFL! Fan Survey

New blog up on recent sectarian stats. Take a moment to read if you can. http://chrisgraham76.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/lies-damned-lies-and-statistics/

"Stand up if you hate sitting down". That could be the chant you hear at football grounds around the country before too long. Record Sport's revelation that a group of Motherwell fans were ejected from Pittodrie on Saturday for standing in support of their team has sparked fresh debate on the introduction of safe standing areas at Scottish stadia. The idea has taken off in Germany and other European countries but so far the SPL hasn't entertained it as a viable option. Instead, the top-flight clubs in this country are forced to have a 6000 all-seater stadium which invariably lies half empty every second Saturday. It's a huge issue in England too and the FSF (Football Supporters Federation) are campaigning to see safe terraces brought back into football - and claim nine out of 10 fans want to see it happen. At the moment they don't represent fans in Scotland but spokesman Michael Brunskill has supporters in the SPL and urged SFL to highlight the issue as much as possible. Brunskill has documentary evidence which states it can be done safely and told Scotland's biggest clubs, Rangers and Celtic, that introducing a standing area won't contradict UEFA guidelines on all-seater stadia. He told Record Sport: "I urge Scottish fans, like the Motherwell supporters, to back the FSF campaign and sign our online petition first and foremost. "They should contact their MSP or MP, let them know their feelings on safe standing and ask them whether they're aware of it. "Contact your club and let them know, get in touch with the SPL and SFA as well. It's about raising awareness of the subject. "Football authorities say there isn't an appetite for it because few people contact them. "We don't do any specific campaigning in Scotland but we wouldn't turn any fan away. We'd strive to offer them advice. "Uefa regulations state that European games must be played in front of all-seater crowds. But Rangers and Celtic could still bring in a safe standing area because you can have flip-down seats - it's like a barrier with an upright seat. "So you have the standing area for domestic matches then flip it down for European games. "Any Scottish clubs who are in Europe could still comply with UEFA regulations and have a specific standing area." Brunskill has sympathy with the Well fans who were thrown out of their game with Aberdeen and believes clashes like that are completely avoidable. And with the likes of Arsenal chief executive Ivan Gazidis and John Barrow, who designed the new Wembley Stadium, giving the thumbs-up to safe standing areas, the FSF are hopeful clubs will experiment with the idea in the not too distant future. He said: "We have dialogue with supporters who talk about tension at games between stewards and fans. It's normally over standing and this is entirely avoidable. "There are stringent safety guidelines on stadia laid down by the Government, it's called the Green Guide. But you can bring in safe standing to meet the criteria of the Green Guide." Celtic have been exploring the idea of introducing a standing zone and they told Record Sport: "We are carrying out a study into the possibility of introducing a safe standing area in Parkhead."

http://leggoland2.blogspot.com/2011/10/sfa-prosecutors-football-background.html

PEOPLE used to call Walter Smith defensive. But compared to yer man Craig Whyte, the old silver fox was Jimmy Calderwood going 2-4-4-1. With his goalie up front as the one. There's an old saying that if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to hide. And it's run round my head again and again this week in regards to the new Rangers owner. Why IS he so secretive? Why DOES he bristle quite so angrily over any kind of criticism? I mean, he's done one truly impressive thing since taking over at Ibrox and that was to turn up at the first Old Firm game of the season alongside a blonde with a cleavage like Kenny McDowall jumping to head a Mitre. Yet here we are, more than a month on, and her name STILL hasn't come out. And in this day and age of celebrity tittle-tattle, that takes some doing. So if this is how closely he wants to keep his socialising to his chest, what chance is there of him letting his guard down when it comes to his hush-hush business affairs? Some men in his position would have dared the Beeb to come ahead with this week's documentary then gone to war if and when anything iffy was broadcast. Yet Whyte had the wagons in a circle before the apaches even appeared over the hill. He got his retaliation in first by banning Auntie in advance â?? a naïve piece of knee-jerkery, because the first thing his actions did was make far more people far more aware of the show than they might have been otherwise. Plus, it was a clear sign that he's not half as big a player as he wants us to think he is. Put the tackities into a Murray or a Lawwell or the like and they'll cut you out of their gang, spin a story to the opposition as their idea of punishment and make sure you're as unwelcome on their turf as humanly possible. But they take it, because they're strong enough to take it. Because they know that you're only one guy with a laptop while they're running a gigantic institution that's taken blows for 100 years and is still standing. Whyte, though, seems so brittle he makes Celtic's central defence look like Baresi and Maldini. He's actually very like Romanov in the way he deals with the outside world, the Lithuanian's insecurities highlighted once again by a media blackout in the wake of his manager criticising a referee; a blackout that comes by pure coincidence at a time when players are speaking out about unpaid wages. If Romanov thinks people can't see through stunts like this then it's a miracle that he ever made himself into one of his country's most powerful tycoons. And if Whyte thinks shutting out a national broadcaster will stop people asking questions about his ability to bankroll Rangers, he's even more like Tim Nice-But-Dim than he appears. Anyone who's been in debt knows nothing gets better till you stop hiding the final demands and start facing up to your problems. It seems for all the world like Whyte's actions this week are those of a man in denial about the weight of the worries he's taken on. If that's not the case, why is it that RANGERS are refusing to deal with the Beeb and not just the man himself? After all, apart from the fact that their name was in the title of the documentary, there was barely a word of criticism about the club. It was all about Whyte. Yet he felt the need to throw stones at his attackers from behind the red brick of the main stand. As for that criticism itself? Well, I'd love to go through it here with a fine-toothed comb, because some of it was serious stuff indeed. But, true to form, before the opening titles had run, Whyte's lawyers were issuing dire warnings of what they would do should any allegations be repeated in print. So I'll ask again: What's he scared of? If, as he says, it's all a pack of lies, why not face it down and tell us WHY it's a pack of lies; because just saying it is isn't enough. And let me say this. If there's one journalist out there in whom I'd put 100 per cent faith, it's Mark Daly, the man who fronted this investigation. I've known him since he was a kid on the local paper in Clydebank and his track record is there for all to see. He's infiltrated Greater Manchester Police to weed out racist officers, got to the bottom of the Royal Bank of Scotland's collapse and probed the Stephen Lawrence murder. He's a top-drawer, old-school digger who doesn't hang his theories on "insiders" and "sources". The spine of his documentary was an interview with Robert Burns, head of the UK Insolvency Service, the organisation dealing with every company that goes down the pan. It would be hard to imagine Mr Burns going on camera and on the record if he wasn't sure of what he was on about. Yet Whyte calls the documentary and its makers biased, despite it being stated on camera that they asked him more than once to give his side of the story. As he took the decision to refuse, maybe his definition of biased is different to the dictionary's. All in all, he's an odd one, is Craig Whyte. You take a Duncan Bannatyne or an Alan Sugar and they can't wait to tell the world how they made their squillions. Along the way, that means the world finding out stuff they'd probably rather it didn't. But in the end, they shrug and move on, because they know that the good stuff on the CV far outweighs it. You'd think that Whyte would be the same, that if he was big enough to run Rangers, he'd also be big enough to deal with the odd black mark he may have against him in the past. But then, that's the biggest unanswered question of all. Whether he IS big enough. Read more: http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/3888799/Why-do-you-feel-the-need-to-stay-in-shadows.html#ixzz1beY4wsf2

Does the dick not know that Rangers so far this season have been without Wier, Papac, Whittaker, McCulloch, Ness, Bartley, Goian Naismith, Lafferty and Jelavic at some point this season. Lets see how the tims do without Brown.

http://leggoland2.blogspot.com/

In the Franz Kafka novel The Trial, a man is prosecuted by an obscure authority that fails to state his crime. I havenââ?¬â?¢t read it since my Existentialist teenage years, but memory is of a bizarre, claustrophobic fiction showing the evils of faceless bureaucracy. Of-course I would be hysterical if I said this was in any way modern Scotland. We are still part of a wonderfully free society that should make us proud. But we are still not past condemning others with labels ââ?¬â?? with no thought given to what that label actually means. We now habitually call others ââ?¬Å?Sectarianââ?¬Â without telling them what they have done wrong and then refusing any defence. Labelling someone ââ?¬Å?sectarianââ?¬Â is the new fashion, yet most assume their personal definition of sectarianism is the actual definition. The truth is that there is no agreed definition, and that is a major part of the problem. And donââ?¬â?¢t assume that those in authority are even aware of this. When people like Margo MacDonald MSP say the difference between Hearts/Hibs fans and Rangers/Celtic fans is that you will never see a family who supports both Old Firm teams, is to become aware that those making the decisions are sometimes scarily ignorant. This ignorance and reliance on ââ?¬Å?Groupthinkââ?¬Â can lead to a state where myth and lies becomes accepted as truth. The majority take the path of least resistance and rely on shallow statements and surface details, and never thinking of scratching below the surface. Over the past six months this has led to Politicians, Police and anti-Sectarian organisations so determined to stamp out sectarianism that they will flatly refuse to tell us what it is, or participate in any project to ease discrimination in society. Itââ?¬â?¢s all slogans. In fact there is so little action to ease sectarian discrimination in Politics, Law, the Media, Housing and Employment that you could say no-one believes it exists in these fields. Instead, the sole focus is on singing songs. Yes, the great fight of sectarianism that has so many people outraged is of a few football fans. When First Minister Alex Salmond wants to publicise an anti-sectarian initiative he goes to a football stadium. I am sure many readers will know of FARE (Football against Racism in Europe) who in their determination to stop Sectarian chanting from Rangers fans refuse to tell Rangers fans what is sectarian. (A cynic might think they are uninterested in preventing sectarianism so Rangers can be punished again.) What would happen if Scotland fans were accused of racism by FARE and UEFA punished the SFA without telling anyone what was said? There would be uproar among the SFA, Media and Parliament. The reason why this hasnââ?¬â?¢t happened in Rangersââ?¬â?¢ case is that most in the aforementioned chattering classes are enjoying it. Itââ?¬â?¢s human nature that we accept accusations against those we dislike without much care. The Rangers FC must take some of the blame for not stamping out certain songs among some Rangers fans quicker, and for being weak in not defending the vast majority of the overwhelmingly decent supporters from attacks by obsessed pro-IRA supporting ââ?¬Å?journalistsââ?¬Â, who spend their existence on blogs and twitter making all the worlds ills the fault of a Glasgow football team. Deranged bloggers and murky UEFA bodies aside, we should expect different standards from our political class and Police. How is it possible that Central Police publicly state in a recent match between a Rangers XI and Stirling Albion, that Rangers fans sang sectarian songs, yet cannot tell us what the songs are or why there were no arrests? Why the secrecy and lack of action? Yet, for all the recent fuss, Central Police, like Strathclyde Police, are aware of and defend the right of openly pro-IRA bands to sell concert tickets to sing songs about Surface to Air Missiles downing British Helicopters in Northern Ireland; IRA snipers executing young British soldiers as they plead for their life and blatantly racist lyrics like, ââ?¬Å?The Brits will never leave us until theyââ?¬â?¢re blown away.ââ?¬Â The truth is that Scottish Police, like other British police forces, are highly political. There is no political capital in senior officers stopping songs about murdering British people for no reason other than they are British. Why go after pro-IRA bands that are supported at concerts by high-profile people like Billy McNeill, Bertie Auld and John Hartson and others who have been authorised in the past to make pro-IRA song videos at Celtic Park? They know the fallout would be immense. However, there is plenty of career-advancing opportunity in being strong in condemning sectarianism among a few hundred young Rangers fans. Sectarianism that was so bad there were no arrests and the Police canââ?¬â?¢t even tell the public what happened. Take a moment to let that sink in. The Police are so confident that an offence has taken place that they publicise it, but refuse to arrest anyone and wish to keep the offence a secret. The new ââ?¬Å?Secret Sectarianismââ?¬Â at work. http://johndcgow.com/2011/07/14/secret-sectarianism/

RANGERS; WE WILL NOT BE BLAMED FOR SECTARIANISM New boss promises "aggresive" fightback against critics Craig Whyte, the new owner of Rangers, has launched a robust fightback against the football clubs critics on sectarianism, making clear that it will "not be made the whipping boys for society's failings". Ahead of next weeks meeting of the Scottish Governments joint action group, chaired by First Minister Alex Salmond, Mr Whyte has tasked his friend Jack Irvine, executive chairman of Media House International, to spearhead a "more aggresive" response to Rangers critics within and outwith the political world. Mr Irvine said, "What we won't be is knocked around by knee-jerk politicians and by others across the coty. We're drawing a line in the sand. Sectarianism is a problem, but not the sole problem of Rangers Football Club" A decision to be more assertive was made following a meeting between Mr Whyte and members of the All-party Rangers group at Westminster, which includes chairman John Robertson, the Labour MP for Glasgow North West, Peter Robinson, the Northern Irish First minister, Lord Wallacw of Tankerness, the Advocate general, and Eleanor Laing, the Conservative back bencher. Sectarianism was high on the meetings agenda. Mr Irvine, a former editor of The Scottish Sun, said that Rangers views were clear: that it fully supported Mr Salmond and the SNP Government to ris Scottish society of bigotry and that it applauded the decision not to rush through legislation. Mr Irvine added: "However, we are clear in our own minds that there alre elements both in Glasgow and abroad, who are desperate to lay the blame of Scotlands ills at the doors of Ibrox. "I would have thought these poliyically motivated critics might use their energies to analyse the chief problems in our society such as poor education, unemployment, drugs and youth crime. "All respectable Rangers supporters, and that is the vast majority, condemn bigotry and sectrarianism but we will not be the whipping boys for societys failings. "For too long, Rangers have taken it in the neck. it's a new owner, new management, new rules. Craig wants a more robust challenge to ill-informed critics. He does not intend for Rangers to be pushed around." Without naming names, Mr Irvine added: "I have a message for those of you who would denigrate Rangers: if you stop telling lies about us, we'll stop telling the truth about you." Brian Donohoe, labour Mp for Central Ayrshire, who is the all party Rangers Group secretary, supported Mr Irvines sentiments, saying: "We should be on the offensive, not the deffensive. Our record is there to speak for itself. This has to be taken forward on the basis of fairness to all." In April, Rangers was fined �£71,294 by Uefa for sctarian chanting and will not have any of its fans at the first away match of next season after charges of inappropriate chanting were brought in both legs of a Europa League tie against PSV Eindhoven. It has been estimated that Rangers could lose more than �£2 million in lost gate receipts. The issue of sectarianism came to ahead earlier this year when Neil Lemon, the Celtc manager, bacame the victim of a hate campaign and was attacked during a match away to Hearts in Edinburgh. A 26 year old man was subsequently charged with breach of the peace and assualt, both aggravated by religious prejudice. In May, the high profile Glasgow lawyer and former Rangers chief, Donald Findlay QC, was targeted when a suspicious package, thought to be a knife, was sent to Cowdenbeath FC, where he is now chairman. Meanwhile, two men are to face trial after suspected bombs were posted to Mr Lemon as well as other leading supporters of the club.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/05/24/rangers-suspend-chief-executive-martin-bain-and-executive-director-donald-mcintyre-over-irregularities-86908-23153310/ RANGERS chief executive Martin Bain and Donald McIntyre, who holds the positions of finance director, secretary and executive director, were suspended yesterday after what was described as "irregularities" were discovered at the club. An Ibrox insider confirmed some of the alleged irregularities were financial, but said this was not the main or sole thrust of an inquiry that is now under way at the Glasgow club. On Bain - understood currently to be in the United States - and McIntyre, he added: "They remain on the board for now as they are only suspended." The club, he explained, had to act immediately to satisfy stock market rules: "As soon as the irregularities were uncovered, they were duty bound to make the suspensions." Alastair Johnston and Paul Murray were removed as directors of Rangers late yesterday with the news being announced to the Stock Exchange this morning. An Ibrox insider said: "Johnston was in America and spoken to by conference call from a board meeting in Ibrox. He was offered the chance to resign but refused, so he has been removed." It was not clear what lies ahead for other high-profile directors. Dave King was not in the meeting and was not contacted during the conference call. The Ibrox source said: "Like John Greig, he remains on the board as well as John McClelland." Former player and manager Greig is a non-exective director, while McClelland is the board's executive vice-chairman. I think it's safe to say Martian Bains time is over

From STV He would be a good bit of business

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?209677-Neil-Lennon&p=2803270 Their rational views highlight what the informed neutrals think.

Cracking post,IMO. Borrowed from another forum. Firstly, let me state that I think the latest UEFA ruling on our club has been an absolute stitch-up, an absolutely scandalous farce of a decision. FAREââ?¬â?¢s involvement in the whole process has been nothing short of a joke. Let us face it, we are hardly going to get favourable treatment from an unaccountable organisation whose head is married to a staunch Celtic supporter who hates Rangers! We simply have to appeal the decision, or run the risk of facing guaranteed greater penalties in the future. There is also the fact that far worse behaviour goes unpunished throughout Europe on a regular basis. The problem of racist chanting in countries like Spain and Russia is much worse than anything I have ever heard come out of Ibrox. However, we cannot defend our own behaviour by simply pointing to the fact that others teamsââ?¬â?¢ fans are worse. Yes, the fact our club has again been singled out is not fair, and we have clearly been stitched up by enemies of our club ââ?¬â? but if we are clever about this, we can turn recent events into a victory. I would ask this question: do our enemies ââ?¬â? mainly Celtic fans who are motivated and prepared to put the effort into hurting us, Tims with typewriters in the press and ââ?¬Ë?Celtic-mindedââ?¬â?¢ politicians ââ?¬â? really care about what songs our fans sing? Do they really want us to become, for want of a better phrase, a ââ?¬Ë?family friendlyââ?¬â?¢ club? Of course they do not! No, all they want to see is for us to suffer, to continue to be punished by UEFA ââ?¬â? and eventually face being banned from Europe. If we manage to turn this all around and become the type of club they claim they want us to be, they would actually hate it. They will have nothing to complain about and will have left themselves open to be targeted for their own behaviour. I truly believe that this latest turn of events could be the making of our support and club ââ?¬â? our enemies have tried to strike us down, without realising that, if they do so, we will only become stronger. We have a long road ahead of us but it has to start somewhere ââ?¬â? and here is how I would go about restoring our reputation and making us a club to be proud of. The first thing we have to do is accept the unfairness of the situation which surrounds Rangers. Yes, the club absolutely must fight the latest UEFA charges as far as they can, to not do so would have catastrophic future consequences. However, we, the support, have to do our bit to make sure we are never put in such a position again. But how do we do this? The only option is for the club to work together with the fans, particularly people like RSC representatives, the Rangers Supporters Trust and The Blue Order. For too long, the club has failed to seek the opinions of the support ââ?¬â? indeed, I would suggest they have been openly hostile to groups like the RST ââ?¬â? and look at the mess we are now in. Together we have to come up with a proper plan to ensure we celebrate our unique position of being proud to be Scottish and British, our quintessential Britishness, if you like. Under normal circumstances, you would think that the Scottish club who pretend to be Irish and, in doing so, hate their own country would be seen as the one in need of having their behaviour and attitudes called into question. It certainly is a strange and bitter little country we live in. But back to the main point of this post, what can we do to put our own house in order?ââ?¬Â¦ We have to realise that the best way to celebrate traditions that we are proud of is not to denigrate that which we are not. I am not a religious man myself but it is clearly obvious to me that the best way to celebrate our Protestant culture is surely not to criticise other religions, particularly Catholicism. As far as religions go, Catholicism is the one I dislike the most ââ?¬â? but I do not think a football match is the best place to get involved in a theological debate. I do not think for a minute that even the most staunch of our Protestant supporters would go to the cinema and sing songs about religion, so why do we have to do this at a football match? Likewise, I despise a murderous terrorist organisation like the IRA but, again, do we really need to sing about them at the football? Most decent people surely hate the IRA but they do not feel the need to publicly sing about them, so why do we? Let the Celtic fans embarrass themselves by glorifying the murderers. Let us get our own house in order and show them up for the anti-Scottish and anti-British racist bigots that they are. It is time to celebrate our own culture and everything that makes us great ââ?¬â? it is time to celebrate what we are, not what we are based on what we are not. Now on to the bit which will probably be the most contentious issue in this post: what should we sing and what should we consign to the history books? In case anyone levels any ââ?¬Ë?handwringerââ?¬â?¢ accusations at me, let me state that this could not be further than the truth. I have sung every single song which has got us in trouble in the pastââ?¬Â¦ I still have them on my iPodââ?¬Â¦ I still sing them in my own homeââ?¬Â¦ my favourite Rangers pub was The Clachanââ?¬Â¦ part of me still thinks all fans should be allowed to sing what they want at the football ââ?¬â? yet I will no longer sing anything home or away which will put the club I love in jeopardy. And nor should any other Rangers fan who professes to love Rangers more than the songs they want to sing. With that in mind, I would put our songsheet into three categories: those which we should celebrate and sing with pride, those which should immediately be binned and, perhaps more controversially, those which are not in my opinion sectarian but still should be dropped. So, here goes (and I know this is purely subjective, that many are not and have never been sung at Ibrox, and that the list is not exhaustive ââ?¬â? this is top of the head stuff): Loud And Proud Penny Arcade, Derryââ?¬â?¢s Walls, Paisley Road West, Rule Britannia, Follow Follow (original lyrics), Wolverhampton Town, God Save The Queen, Every Other Saturday, The Sash, The Best, The Blue Sea Of Ibrox. Lose For Good The Billy Boys, The [so-called] Famine Song, Super Rangers, No Pope Of Rome, Here Lies A Soldier, No 1 Platoon, Men Behind The Wire, Weââ?¬â?¢re Coming, Will You Stand, Daddyââ?¬â?¢s Uniform. Non-sectarian But Do They Have A Place At A Football Match? Build My Gallows, UDR4, A Fatherââ?¬â?¢s Advice, King Billyââ?¬â?¢s On The Wall, Fields Of Ulster, I Was Born Under A Union Jack, Gibraltar, Englishmanââ?¬â?¢s Betrayal, Wee Spot In Europe. Again, let me state that I am not claiming to be an authority on the above ââ?¬â? I am merely just wanting to start the debate somewhere. An agreed list, like the above, should be finalised between the club and the support and then printed in the media and distributed on seats etc. I think the majority of our fans are Scottish, yet a lot of the songs we sing about, particularly the ones which land us in trouble, are related to the troubles in Northern Ireland. Now in no way am I knocking our Northern Irish brothers and sisters ââ?¬â? I am very fond of that particular part of the world and I appreciate the huge lengths so many of them go to in order to support Rangers ââ?¬â? but should they not be coming across the water to celebrate how magnificent Rangers are, rather than most of our support singing about the issues they have left behind in Ulster? If this is offensive, I apologise, I do not mean to cause offence on such an emotive subject ââ?¬â? all I am trying to say it should all be about The Rangers! Another thing I would like the club to look at would be creating an ââ?¬Ë?eliteââ?¬â?¢ songwriting team in conjunction with our fansââ?¬â?¢ groups ââ?¬â? and fully supporting, perhaps even financially, them. I would charge this new group of talented and creative individuals to come up with acceptable new songs which celebrate our club. We should have far more songs about Rangers and our magnificent history, songs about our current players and songs which celebrate our legends. I will end, at last many of you may say, by repeating the title of this post: ââ?¬Å?No-one likes us, we [should] care.

I don't know about you chaps, but this ghiolla bhain individual could slowly be turning me into a bigot. His lies, conjecture, accusations and lack of any objectivity whatsoever, coupled with the fact that there are people who buy into his stuff and take it on, could be turning me into a hater of "Irish Catholics" His website is so full of "tales" about our Club, it shows up the "offensive singing" complaint as merely just another rant and really nothing as important as the media would have us all believe. The website is also a continous rant about anti Irish/Catholic racism in Scotland. Apparently Irish/Catholics cannot even walk down any street in Scotland without being attacked...that's the last time I keep company with any of my friends of that persuasion, far too dangerous so it seems. Even the Church of Scotland and, would you believe, the Scottish Arts Council get a bit of a kicking. If you haven't read his site, see for yourself and make your own minds up. http://www.philmacgiollabhain.com/ I appeal to you all, on behalf of myself and all my ashamed "Irish/Catholic" friends, please play Mr. Bhain at his own game; use the internet to contact everyone you know, your MP, MSP, and the Scottish Government to mention just a few, to get this bigot shut down before he turns us all against the entire Irish Race.

This is turning into farce. We all know songs are sung by crowds as an expression of solidarity but when you think about it, what business is it of UEFA to judge the songs or the singing. What next - marks out of ten for lyrics and melody? A morality version of Eurovision? If public morality has now become the province of football authorities, is it only be judged in terms of the collective voice of crowds. Would Jim Torbet abusing children have led to a ban on Celtic admitting anyone under the age of twelve to watch their games. Or the Catholic church systematically buggering children prevent the participation of catholic coaches or managers throughout Europe? Did the mass murder and ethnic cleansing of Bosnians see UEFA banning the Croatian or Serbian FA's from Euro Championships? Did Franco's systematic brutality of his citizens see Spanish clubs banned while Real Madrid were winning all those European Cups? Is having an owner involved in dubious business deals an afront to UEFA's moral code? Are convicted criminals to be banned from attending football games? Are players convicted of breaking the law to be suspended? Or Ginger haired managers suspended for beating their wife perhaps, where does UEFA stand on wife beating? Surely UEFA is a body to administer the game of football in Europe. Surely we already have governments, legislatures, police and courts to establish codes of behavior and deal with offences against the public interest. Where in the legal framework of any European country does it accommodate UEFA to act as judge and jury on the conduct of it's citizens? UEFA is effectively serving punishment on private companies on the basis that criminal law is being broken on it's premises by individuals who are not employed by it and have no contractual responsibility to it. And UEFA is doing this, not on the evidence of it's own police service interpreting it's own laws, but on the reports of unaccredited and unaccountable individuals and organizations, sometimes with a clear conflict of interest. In this part of the world enormous effort is placed upon ensuring democratic governance. We willingly rush to war in order to assure our democratic rights and award Nobel Prizes to those who foster democracy across the world. The exception appears to be our willingness to stand aside while a footballing authority intercedes in the legal affairs of our citizens and corporate organizations. We demand no democratic credentials of UEFA, there is no accountability required, and no democratic participation by the individuals being judged by it. I have no problem with UEFA judging the conduct of it's constituent clubs and national FA's. I have a huge problem with UEFA stepping outside its footballng perimeter and judging the conduct of private citizens who are not members, employees or owners of those clubs. That, in my estimation, is a matter reserved exclusively to the national and EU courts. If I am to be excluded from attending a football game on the decision of UEFA, where do I seek redress for the constraint of my freedoms? The answer of course is that I don't. I am punished after being judged by a body with no jurisdiction over me and without ever having been convicted of any offence.* This might seem to be a pointless perspective but I think it lies at the heart of the entire madness and is the crack though which personal interest is able to leverage collective behaviour. It's why we go to such enormous lengths to guard our democracies. At least that's how the script is usually written.* The rise of the sporting authorities, their growing wealth and political influence, and their impact on nations and citizens alike is not limited to football either. Perhaps the best example of why someone urgently needs to stand on UEFA's toes is the mind boggling corruption of the Olympic movement. In the history of western society and with the possible exception of the catholic church and FIFA, has there ever been a less accountable organization that wielded more power and influence than the IOC? If this is the template that UEFA is now embracing then it is perhaps no surprise that it has little interest in respecting the rights of people like you and me. We all realize there are indeed issues to be dealt with but every one of us needs to think seriously about the deeper and more insidious game being played by those who are in a position to threaten something altogether more offensive than the songs being sung at football matches.

The following article has been doing the rounds for a few days, and as usual it's full of lies and incorrect and misleading information. Just because Murray has transferred his shares to an off-shore trust company does not mean that he is not the beneficial owner. Most of his Murray Sports shares have been owned by IFG Nominees CI Ltd for a number of years, and I have never given it a second thought. That's the same company that owns the shares in MIH, and not the one mentioned in the article. Just because "Declan" is a director of the company does not mean he owns the club and it is nonense to suggest it. I'm a director of a number of companies, one of which is based in the Republic of Ireland, and it doesn't mean that I own any proportion of any of them. If the club did go into administration Murray's wealth would be unharmed. Rangers are a limited company. Limited means that there is limited (or no) liability on the shareholders. Murray will have placed his shares in an off-shore trust because it benefits him personally from a tax point of view. Standard stuff when you are at his level. Now for the biggest lie. Uberior owns Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares. This entitles them to divdends only. No mention of the word "Convertible". There is no right to convert them to Ordinary shares. Murray's ownership cannot be diluted to 7%. It's not worth wasting any more time in the article, but there's nothing in it that is of any note, other than to highlight their continued capacity for being liars.

The latest thoughts from James Traynor:

RANGERSââ?¬â?¢ Europa League opponents Sporting Lisbon are embroiled in a messy civil war following the sacking of the clubââ?¬â?¢s director of football, Costinha. The former Portuguese internationalist was removed from his post after he broke ranks in a TV interview to accuse club directors of lying to supporters. Costinha openly questioned the clubââ?¬â?¢s ambition and claimed he and coach Paulo Sergio were not informed of plans to sell Liedson, the clubââ?¬â?¢s top scorer, to Brazilian side Corinthians on the last day of the January transfer window. He also criticised internal procedures and called for an ambitious regime to be installed at the upcoming presidential elections. ââ?¬Å?The Sporting fans are separated from the club because of the lies ââ?¬â?? things are always unexplained. Nobody has the courage to openly explain a number of situations,ââ?¬Â he said. ââ?¬Å?When that happens, fans tend to move away because you donââ?¬â?¢t know what is truth or lies. We are spending pennies compared to our rivals and it is not easy to manage this situation.ââ?¬Â Sporting travel to Glasgow next Thursday for the first leg of their last-32 meeting with Rangers. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/rangers/sporting-sack-costinha-ahead-of-rangers-tie-1.1084422

I saw this on article on Yahoo but believe it was originally posted on Eurosport.com ...... not sure who penned it and won't claim there's much new but thought I'd share it anyway. Edit - seems it was written by one Desmond Kane (oh dear?) Rangers Pay the Price for Murray's Self-indulgence A fool and his money are soon parted. To leaders suffering from hubris, such a proverb can prove to be gruesomely true. As a spectacle, the game of football continues to contain an innate ability to reduce sober-suited, profitable businessmen to regretful rags. Sir Alan Sugar continues to be depicted as a wise old sage on television programmes such as The Apprentice, but the barrow boy from London's East End who discovered a a beach of gold after founding the Electronics firm Amstrad in the 1960s, never managed to use his gumption in avoiding the unique pitfalls of football. The world game remains a forum where can you can squander millions of your personal fortune for the love of one club, and continue to be booed by its supporters when you return. There have never been any laws of logic governing the fundamentals of football. Sugar conveyed the message that he viewed his period as the controller of Tottenham Hotspur in the 1990s as a waste of his time. "Football is about the only business in the world where it's embarrassing to make money," said Sugar. Football is not the only business in the world where it is embarrassing to lose your bread, but it can prove to be the most painful. The dearth of funds affecting Glasgow Rangers, champions of Scotland over the past two seasons, would be embarrassing if it was not so serious. As chairman of a club in the English Premier League, Sugar made money on his controlling interest in Spurs when he sold up a decade ago. He received Ã?£22 million for two thirds of a stake that he paid Ã?£8m for in 1991. Sir David Murray, the owner of Rangers in the Scottish Premier League, put up around Ã?£6m for the Glasgow club three years earlier, but looks likely to be left with nothing more than a series of gilded and galling memories when he finally departs a scene he has been trying to escape with some urgency for several years. He will be left bereft of vast financial rewards for investing his emotional capital in Rangers. In trying to apply the Midas touch to the game of football, Murray has been left badly scalded. There is a growing sense that the worst is yet to come for Rangers as the club is forced to face up to its fiscal responsibilities. Debt has gripped Rangers since the former Dutch coach, Dick Advocaat, was given carte blanche to blow over Ã?£80m on players over a decade ago in an attempt to furnish the Ibrox trophy room with the European Cup, a vision commensurate with such an extravagant commitment to excess. Pride comes before a fall. Common sense, if not finance, was in short supply when Rangers began spending money they evidently did not have. The Glasgow side are again jousting with their eternal foes Celtic as they pursue a third successive Scottish Premier League gong this season in a championship that has not been won been by another club side since Sir Alex Ferguson ran Aberdeen in 1984. They do so against severe financial hardship. Having failed to find a buyer for Rangers over the past few years, Murray has been conspicuous by his absence in failing to inform the fans of what is going on. These are the same diehards who lavished praise upon the proprietor for helping them match Celtic's record of nine successive domestic titles in 1997. It must be said, the supporters of Rangers deserve better than they are getting from a figure who once liked to project himself as a figure of dignity in a rabid Scottish football scene prone to moments of madness. Murray bought Rangers in 1988 before leading them to the fore of British, if not quite European football. To a neutral, Murray is a man to be admired, a brave figure who recovered from losing his legs in a horrific car crash in the 1970s. He is one of the country's leading businessmen, a so-called pillar of society and owner of one of the country's largest sporting institutions, but money never made a man. Before the advent of Sky Television and the English Premier League as we know it in 1992, Rangers were arguably the biggest and wealthiest football club in the United Kingdom. Funded by Murray, Rangers reversed the trend of talent departing Scotland for more lucrative shores. Mark Hateley, Brian Laudrup, Paul Gascoigne and Giovanni van Bronckhorst are a selection of the names to have washed up at Ibrox during Murray's stewardship, but all this has come at a price. It is a price they now seem unwilling, or unable, to pay. The owner's treatment of Rangers since around 1998 has proved classless bordering on reckless. The sums involved are truly astonishing, and not just in unloading Ã?£12m to purchase the much-maligned Norwegian striker Tore Andre Flo from Chelsea a decade ago. Net debt at Rangers reached Ã?£82m in the early part of the previous decade, but they have not yet got their house in order. Murray remains owner in name only with the club's bankers Lloyds TSB taking an active interest since the recession bit deep into his company Murray International Holdings three years ago. To cut a longish story shorter, Rangers are inextricably linked to Murray's other assets. They have taken a hit, and Rangers have been dragged along for the ride. It is unclear where the final destination for the club will be in all of this. Run in the interests of Lloyds, who are attempting to claw back debts of Ã?£27m, it is interest on an unpaid tax bill that leaves Rangers sporting a jaundiced look. Prospective buyers Andrew Ellis and Craig Whyte have appeared to be Walter Mitty characters in failing to purchase the club, but it seems the figures do not add up for them. If they are toying with the idea on whether investing in football makes sense, they need only study the man they are buying the club off to understand the pitfalls of such a foolhardy venture. Money spent without care on Scottish football tends to be money lost. It must be assumed that the real reason why Rangers have not yet found a buyer to purchase the club is that no prospective owner wants to be left with an estimated tax bill of Ã?£24m and interest of Ã?£12m, a figure touted by several commentators on the subject, once a hearing into the case is played out in May. If you read some of the literature swirling around this mismanagement, added penalties for failure to pay tax to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) over wages paid into offshore accounts to the club's employees in the past decade could apparently see the tax bill rise to over Ã?£50m by the end of next year. This is before the bank debt is totted up. There remains a possibility that Rangers could be forced into administration when this reaches a crescendo. Rangers look unsellable unless some rich Sheikh in the Middle East decides he suddenly has a penchant for golf or the Scottish Highlands. There has even been talk about Glasgow City council coming in to to take over the running of Ibrox Stadium and leasing it back to Rangers. It is little wonder that Lloyds Bank are refusing to release sizeable funds for new faces if the tax man is about to take back what is his. None of this is good news for the general health of Scottish football. Rangers opted to sell top goalscorer Kenny Miller, a man who had discovered 22 goals in the SPL this season, to Turkish champions Bursaspor for Ã?£400,000 at the outset of the January transfer window rather than watch him walk away for free during the summer months. This was a decision taken by the bank. If Rangers were in rude health, Miller would have signed a long-term contract last year. He walked away because the club is financially paralysed, unable to meet his demands. They were apparently outbid this week by Celtic for the attacking Derby midfielder Kris Commons, who was offered a modest Ã?£20,000 per week compared to the maximum of Ã?£15,000 Rangers could unearth. Who would have countenanced such a possibility when Murray vowed to put down a tenner for every fiver Celtic spent a few years ago? Rangers now toil to stick down a ha'penny without the permission of the bank. Of course, apart from the loss of face, these are trivial moments compared to the wider issues. It is ironic that for a club which wraps itself in the Union Jack and God Save the Queen, Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs could help Rangers plunge into a period of deeper despair. Murray must shoulder the blame. He used to court interest from a fawning Scottish press in the 1990s when money was no object. A few newspapers in the country were furnished with a bottle of Scotch from the Rangers owner back in the day, but he is nowhere to be seen when the going gets tough. The constantly impressive Walter Smith has helped Murray by luxuriating in trinkets since he returned to manage Rangers in 2007 a decade after he oversaw nine-in-a-row, winning with the spine of a team purchased three years ago. An appearance in a UEFA Cup final and two SPL titles in three seasons suggest Smith is more an alchemist than a football manager, but he has been left exhausted by his inability to strengthen his squad. It would not surprise this onlooker to see Smith manage in the English Premier League or Championship next season if he so wishes. At least Sir Alan Sugar got out of the cursed business with millions for his shares in an English Premier League concern. Not so Murray. His silence on the subject speaks volumes. "There is a massive moonbeam of success coming to us. We've got big plans," said Murray at the time he bestowed the job of manager upon Paul Le Guen in 2007. Such sentiments now sound like the utterances of a fantasist. Rather than Sugar, perhaps history will remember Murray as a man who was more similar to Leeds United under Peter Ridsdale, a custodian of a club who believed his own press, a figure who spent money without preparing for an economic downturn that was just around the corner. 
As has been said in other quarters, such treatment of a great club like Rangers amounts to a form of financial vandalism. The fans will thank Murray for fuelling their rise to nine-in-a-row, but they are also discovering that the road to ruin lies in living outwith your means. Time may yet be a great healer for Rangers, but in poring over the effect of the Murray years at Ibrox, it has also been a great revealer. His empire appears to have been built on shifting sands.

I find it interesting and hugely disappointing to look at Rangers and Celtic today and consider the mirror image we saw twenty years ago. Who remembers Celtic's transfer dealings back then and didn't find them satisfyingly pathetic, desperate even. We looked at some of the players they were bringing in and we knew, we absolutely knew, they would fail. We understood it was all they could afford and we gloated because we also knew with total assurance that those signings were simply consolidating failure within the walls of parkhead. We saw their squad as mere confirmation of the superiority of Rangers and the widening gulf between our success and their failure. Now look at the two clubs today and the situation appears to be completely reversed. It strikes me that we have increasingly little prospect of winning the league title this season .... unless of course you win titles merely by wishing it. Our squad is already threadbare, our signings increasingly pointless, and every bit as desperate and deprived as those of celtic twenty years ago. I fear what then lay in front of them now lies in front of us and no amount of bluster and bravado will change the inevitable, final decline of Murray's rotten boasts all those years ago. Why state this now? Just indulging in self-pity? Well no, it would be nice to think that if we would actually admit what lies ahead of us, we might not feel inclined to wait two or three years before expressing what we think about it. We might want to think about persuading the likes of Bastard Murray that he should shoulder public accusation for the result of his management policies at Rangers. Most people call it protest.

I wish this guy had a newspaper to publish his articles but judging by the number of bheasts leaving moronic comments on his blog he's certainly being noticed by some......... Saturday, 8 January 2011 DALLAS WITCH HUNT? DID I just blink and miss something? Has Henry McLeish suddenly taken over the Scottish Football Association? For right now*the SFA is slap bang in the middle of the sort of muddle which cost McLeish his job as Scotland's first minister. Remember? A muddle, not a fiddle, was the McLeish whine as he got the boot. Well, if what is happening at the SFA is not a fiddle, then it is most certainly, at best, a muddle. For it would be no surprise to find that there are many out there, who value the virtue of fair play, who may just be starting to believe that Hugh Dallas is the victim of a witch hunt. And if they do come around to forming such a view then the question they will be asking is just who it is who has been doing the witch hunting? The facts as they are .....five SFA employees, including Dallas, were investigated for an email which was said by some to be in poor taste. Peter Kearney, the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland's mouthpiece, then weighed in with the claim that it showed sectarianism was rife within the SFA. Dallas and the other four were sacked. Four, including Dallas, launched an appeal. All, except Dallas, now have their jobs back. Before the email row blew up we were told that the then newly installed SFA chief executive Stewart Regan wanted referee*Dougie McDonald's head on a plate after the penalty row when Dundee United lost to Celtic. Assistant referee Craven, who was involved, then lashed out at Dallas, and quit. There followed a series of leaks about the referees' department at the SFA, with some claims so outlandish they are not worth repeating. Regan was said to be less than happy that Dallas defended McDonald, and that the referees' committee were so lenient with the whistler. Thus, some people may conclude, when the email details were leaked - by whom? - in the wake of Craven quitting, that*Regan saw his chance. The timing will lead some*to this perception. The SFA, by giving the three others who appealed, their jobs back, have created a real and present danger that*some will gain*the perception the real target was Dallas... and Dallas alone. *And that there was a witch hunt against the most respected referee Scotland has given UEFA and FIFA for decades. At the moment Dallas is keeping his powder dry as his options - and those of the SFA - narrow. The chance for the SFA to give him back his job, along with the other three, has now gone. The only option remaining for the SFA is to offer Dallas a bumper payment - hush money - with a confidentiality clause - a gag. Dallas would surely insist that any such deal bound the SFA to continue to back him as a senior official at UEFA - and possibly even FIFA in the future. The Dallas options are that he could accept such a sweetheart deal, or he could fight to clear his name, and have his day in court. Such an option carries the danger that he could lose. Regardless of the rights and wrongs. Remember those clowns in the jury which found for Tommy Sheridan when the liar*he sued the News of the World? That injustice has been righted and Sheridan faces years in the slammer for his lies. No doubt Dallas, a highly intelligent man, is getting the best legal advice money can buy, plus advice from other world renown former referees throughout the world. In the end, though, the decision will rest with him. Will he take the risk?* Is*he is brave enough to drag through the court those who many believe, by their actions in giving three of the four who appealed, their jobs back, now stand accused of a witch hunt against Dallas. A muddle? Or a fiddle? Oh dear, we're back to old 'Enery McLeish again. And that's never good news.