Ian Black notice of complaint

[der Berliner 3,239]

Lol so you accept the real reason we sacked sandaza was because he was shite?

 

Black has played 1 and a half decent games for us. He was the first post meltdown signing and probably the highest earner at the club as a result.

 

That's a bit off the mark, don't you think. Ian Black the footballer is still Ian Black the footballer and it was only him and a selected few (which you can count on half a hand) that gave the 100% they had during that awefull spell between January and May. And I for one commend him for at least giving the 100% he has rather than 80% of the team who simply did not even reach 50% of their own ability.

 

As I have said above, not-guilty until proven. It would do well if those who generally dislike him don't use this stuff as another cudgel to club him. For that would show a certain kindergarten mentality.

 

It does look to be some well orchestrated campaign, as it managed to reach the German Handelsblatt (essentially a city paper) and all of the German tv's teletext sites (who, btw, have him playing for Hearts till June 2013) in no-time. Which is rather strange indeed.

[54andcounting 0]

 

It does look to be some well orchestrated campaign, as it managed to reach the German Handelsblatt (essentially a city paper) and all of the German tv's teletext sites (who, btw, have him playing for Hearts till June 2013) in no-time. Which is rather strange indeed.

 

Keeps Rangers in the news I suppose, no-one can say we 'disappeared' for a few years.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

My bet is he will be fined at worst.

[UCF2008 0]

I wouldn't suspend him just yet. I think the club needs to be very careful how it approaches this one. We don't want to be stuck paying a suspended player indefinitely and it wouldn't be wise to pre-emptiviely carry out our own investigation and sack him before the outcome of the SFA disciplinary proceedings. I'd suggest the club should issue a statement acknowledging the accusations and say that it will co-operate fully with the SFA to investigate the matter. No more, no less.

[ian1964 10,409]

I wouldn't suspend him just yet. I think the club needs to be very careful how it approaches this one. We don't want to be stuck paying a suspended player indefinitely and it wouldn't be wise to pre-emptiviely carry out our own investigation and sack him before the outcome of the SFA disciplinary proceedings. I'd suggest the club should issue a statement acknowledging the accusations and say that it will co-operate fully with the SFA to investigate the matter. No more, no less.

 

I'm certain the club will know all the facts already!.

[ian1964 10,409]

It would be interesting to find out when the SFA were made aware of this,is it just recently since he joined Rangers?

[UCF2008 0]

It does of course leave us the position where we're potentially down an experienced CM for the season. I think we'd manage OK without him though. Ideally I'd like to see us revert back to a straight attacking 4-4-2 with Macleod and Law as 1st choice CM's anyway. Plus we've got cover in Crawford, Hutton, Peralta, Jig, McAusland and Faure to name a few.

[UCF2008 0]

It would be interesting to find out when the SFA were made aware of this,is it just recently since he joined Rangers?

 

According to a couple of media reports I read it was Ladbrokes that contacted the SFA. Apparently they have some sort of arrangement in place to 'protect the integrity' of the game. I'm not sure when it happened though.

[ian1964 10,409]

According to a couple of media reports I read it was Ladbrokes that contacted the SFA. Apparently they have some sort of arrangement in place to 'protect the integrity' of the game. I'm not sure when it happened though.

 

That's what is the interesting bit,why now if he has been doing it for 7 years?,and just before a board meeting!,the timing is very strange.

[UCF2008 0]

That's what is the interesting bit,why now if he has been doing it for 7 years?,and just before a board meeting!,the timing is very strange.

 

The timing is indeed very strange. Not to mention the date of the hearing being set to the same day as the EGM if I'm not mistaken.