BoydsFavouriteDonut

It was meant to be decided in a full council meeting last October. A couple of days before the hearing AFC asked for the vote to be postponed, following a meeting with the council. The story is that they had been told at the meeting that the council we’re going to recommend refusal. They’ve spent the last few months trying to address some of the problems with the application. The big problem they have is that the land is zoned as green belt in the local development plan and there are two other sites shown on the plan for a new stadium - one at the beach behind the existing midden and the other over near Cove where they got permission a couple of years ago. They’ve been trying to justify why neither of those sites are suitable - basically, they want to conjoin the stadium and training facilities and are refusing to split them, so they argue they need a 50 hectare site (Ibrox is about 8 hectares) and there’s nothing that size closer to the city centre. They’ve also produced an economic impact report (which is utter fucking shite) to show how great it will be for the area and to justify a development on the green belt. The site is right on the boundary with Aberdeenshire. Aberdeenshire Council are against it. It’s 8 miles from the city centre. There are no trains up here so everyone will have to drive or come by bus. Stuart Milne is too used to getting his own way up here.

I live in westhill where they want to build the stadium and have objected. If the application is judged objectively it will be refused outright. The club know that so there’s a campaign to try and pressurise the counsellors - local businesses in Aberdeen are being asked to promote it (put bunting outside, take out adverts, encourage staff to wear red etc.). I think it will probably get approved (likely in the face of a recommendation from the planners that it by refused) then it’s off to court (plenty of well heeled OAPs in westhill). The tantrums if it gets refused will be a joy to behold.

The SPFL (represented by celtic's lawyer) can't take any further action against Rangers because their rules (drafted by celtic's) lawyer) and previous disciplinary process (led by celtic's lawyer) don't allow it, so the SPFL and celtic (clearly acting in consort) try to scapegoat the SFA!! The relationship between celtic, Doncaster and their common lawyer has been dodgy from the start. Lawell attending meetings with Sky, Mackenzie attending meetings between Doncaster and crazed celtic fans, Doncaster issuing statements on behalf of all clubs at the calling of one etc. I'd like to see Rangers firmly turn the attention on the SPFL and Doncaster. I'd also like the club to publicly question why in a country with thousands of lawyers the SPFL needs to use celtic's. Did Mackenzie review celtic's statement? What about Doncaster's letter? What hat is he wearing when he pitches up at meetings with celtic fans and bemoans that no action can be taken against Rangers? Whole thing is a fucking farce.

Think I read somewhere it's 50% of gate receipts before costs. So, in real terms the club's cut will be significantly less than 50%. Scandalous. Can't see this going through - why would they pass up on free cash - although I obviously hope it does. Don't know if Rangers were asked to support this - if so the board have done the right thing staying out of it. Don't give the fuckers the satisfaction.

I had a look at the Parkhead title sheet that's up on the footballtaxhavens website. In my view it doesn't show that Wille Haughey owns their ground. That title sheet relates to the Superiors' interest under the old feudal land system. Superiorities were all abolished a few years ago. The feu has now been converted to absolute ownership. So, the true owner of the ground is the successor to the original feu granted in 1911 - one of the Celtic companies I'd expect - and the Co-op will have a security over that interest. There's plenty other dirt for the Commission to wade through though!

His firm are also appointed as "official lawyers to the Glasgow Commonwealth games". They never shut up about it and are doing the lot. Fingers in every pie.

100% behind this. A one word change would make no real difference to the impact of the song. I always felt some people stopped singing or mumbled when they got to that line before the song got banned. Take away the word and there's no reason why everyone can't be belting this out. The scum would hate it and there would be fuck all that anyone could do about it.

I'll be over the moon if they are shown to have been in cahoots with GCC and get a heavy fine. Justice could never be more poetic. Further up the thread it was suggested that it would be easy for a reader to trace the title. It was also asked what the deal would be if it turned out the scum didn't actually own the land. Pre-recession I was involved in this type of work for more than ten years and just tried to answer those questions. It's somewhat self defeating for the guys trying to publicise this stuff if, when posters like me get involved, folk question our motives.

Tannerall - it's not always possible to work out who owns a bit of land, especially if it hasn't been conveyed for years. In this case I'd be very surprised if you could come up with anything definitive without a lot of searching, and even then you might draw a blank. What will have happened is that the council will have conveyed the land without a demonstrable title. The council won't have given that lot any title warranties or title guarantee. The scum wouldn't have cared though - all they would have wanted is a title capable of being registered so as to start the process of prescription. Basically, once their title has been on the registers for 10 years if no one has challenged it then it becomes bullet proof. It used to be pretty common for dispositions to be granted without a proper title but this was so open to abuse and Registers of Scotland have tightened up on it. Now, before they will accept a disposition in these circumstances you normally need to demonstrate the enquiries you have carried out. If an owner can be identified Registers will tell you to go speak to the, and won't accept your disposition. If the land was truly without an owner then it should arguably have fallen to the Crown. In this case however I suspect the council and the scum were arguing that one of them probably owned it and it just wasn't clear from the old descriptions in the title deeds - all a tidying up exercise... If an owner was to come along they could challenge the scum's title within the 10 years. The council would be clean because no guarantees have been given to the scum. Registers of Scotland almost certainly excluded their usual indemnity in respect of the land so they'd be in the clear as well.

Was there not talk a while back of them trying to claim back the legal costs that the SPL racked up on the "investigation" and the enquiry (again at Rod's suggestion)? That's all gone a bit quiet. Bottom line is that they spent a fortune on this, are skint, and are scratching around trying to find some cash. What concerns me is that I don't think the 5-way carve up has ever been released (along with the Sky contract its the one thing that never seems to get leaked). Do we know for a fact that Charles didn't agree to pay any financial penalty imposed? If that isn't specifically in the agreement we should tell them to fuck off before this goes any further.

If PLG was such a footballing genius why could/would he not address the obvious problem with his team that everyone else in Scotland could see - namely that we could not defend crosses. It was even worse that Criberi and co. Every single time the ball came over a goal looked likely. Walter came in and the first thing he did was sign big Ugo to provide some height and presence in the middle - immediately the defence looked more solid, we stopped losing soft goals every week and we had a decent finish to the season. We started that season under PLG playing some really nice football but a number of his imports (particularly Sionko) seemed to lose interest around the time he did. At least he didn't demand a payoff and left quietly.

Did fat Rod not write the rules? Now he's being asked to interpret them. This should be easy, unless of course Doncaster and co are desperate to avoid Hearts going down... This is just the start for Hearts. They are totally fucked. Why would a detached insolvency practitioner in Lithuania accept pennies in the pound for the debt if the assets can be stripped and sold for more (the only asset being the land under Tynecastle)? Suppose they are fortunate that there is not nearly the demand for residential development land in central Edinburgh as there was when the Pie Man was running the show. Personally I hope they survive with Tynecastle (great wee ground in my opinion) but they need to go down.

I'd like to see an official response from Rangers to the scum's statement mentioning some or all of the following points: - 1. Green was dragged before the discipinary committee for, it was alledged, questioning the integrity of the tribunal. Celtic's statement questions the tribunal's decision (it suggests they think it is ludicrous) and Lennon in his usual style hinted that he always thought Rangers would "get their way", which seems to undermine the integrity of the tribunal. 2. Given that the EBT scheme has been held to be legal it would be perverse to conclude that using it is cheating. The conclusion of the tribunal seems to be that had Rangers filed the side letters they would have been in the clear with the SPL. That being the case complying with the rule would have hd no impct on the money avilable to the club to pay for players. 3. Celtic's wage bill through every season in question was far and away bigger than Rangers. They lost those competitions because even with that advantage they weren't good enough to win them and it is pathetic that they would suggest otherwise. 4. Celtic also had an EBT and the payments into it were not disclosed. Hypocracy knows no bounds. 5. Its widely reported that Celtic and key Celtic players have used their own agressive tax mitigation schemes. Hypocritical bastards. 6. The Club has no interest in challenging the tribunal decision becuase it is of no consequence to it but had the Club been sanctioned we would be challenging the decision on the basis that the tribunal appears to have erroneously concluded payments from trustees into a trust were payments that required to be disclosed. This flies in the face of the tax tribunal decision. 7. Finally, a wee dig that its surprising that the lawyers who act for both Celtic and the SPL don't understand the SPL's own rules. If and when Rangers agree to go back into a top league with Celtic we will not accept the league body being represented by Harper Macleod.

I love it how he always responds to a question about us by saying "I don't want to talk about them", and then proceeds to talk about us for the next 5 minutes. Clown of a man. This clearly hasn't gone the way Fat Rod told them it would. Hahahahahahahaha.

Wasn't at the game and didn't see it as I don't have EPSN so I'm just going on what has been written on here and the stuff on You Tube. A few themes seem to be developing: - 1. Anger that the Club may have had a hand in the singing being raised as an issue: I think people need to accept that the leadership of the Club are not traditional Rangers people who are in any way engrained in this stuff. They are predominantly English and otherwise foreign. I suspect they don't understand or give a shit about this stuff. What they do care about is the reputation of the Club as this affects sponsorship and other revenue making opportunities. Also, if they are of the view this stuff damages the club then arguably as directors they owe an obligation to the shareholders (who remember are mainly institutions who definitely do not want to be attached to this stuff) to address it. I wouldn't rule out that the Club welcome this argument. 2. Anger that Rangers are getting attacked now for songs that have been sung for years: On another thread a poster was getting pelters for comparing the debate on songs to the abolition of slavery. She was taking that a bit for but the point still stands - attitudes to what is acceptable change over time and people have to change with them. Attitudes to sex equality in the work place is a better example. The kind of jokes and behaviour that made you a good lad years ago can now see you disciplined and fired, or dragged before an employment tribunal. 3. Anger that the filth don't get the same treatment for their IRA songs: I agree with that, however, we can't exactly take the moral high ground on their behaviour when this stuff is going on at Rangers games. 4. "Fuck what anyone says we'll do what we want": Okay, but it looks like the authorities are serious about going after people so doors will be getting knocked in. Also, if the Scottish football authorities were ever tempted to "get tough" on Rangers by deducting points the time is now - after all (a) the Club have acknowledged the singing and come out against it, (b) any reasonable points deductions will make no difference to the outcome of the league, and © as we all know its open season on the Club just now. I would worry more about the precedent it would set. It clearly isn't good for the Club so people need to decide for themselves whether they will do what the Club are asking or carry on regardless. 5. "There will be no atmosphere if the handwringers have their way": If Rangers fans can't create a good amosphere without singing a handful of troublesome songs and saying a few troublesome words then what the fuck is going on? For what its worth, my view is people need to move with the times and stop making themselves a target. What we have to do to get onside with the law is actually not that much - its a few songs and words. People will say that if we stop signing those songs then others will be called into question and that there is an agenda to strip away all Rangers traditions. For me, the Club should issue a statement setting out the songs that it considers are not appropriate and support any actions by the police in respect of those songs. At the same time it should make quite clear that it supports the rights of supporters to sing all other songs that are generally sung and will fight against any moving of goalposts.

Despite his legal disclipinary issues and concerns over the agenda he is pursuing on his website I'm pretty sure I saw an article by him published in this month's Journal of the Law Society of Scotland (which is published by the Law Society and issued to every solicitor in Scotland every month). Stuff like that helps to give him some credibility. Our friends from the east end would of course have you believe that the legal profession, like all other significant branches of Scottish society is dominated by Rangers supporting biggots.

And the 3rd divisions will be won at a canter. What's your point? We weren't playing there today. Some people (and I count myself in this) thought we should have signed the better players from the next league up. Paid them a fraction of what we are paying these mercenaries and worked our way up. Had we done so, we'd still have got pumped today.

So what are we saying? Rangers should have pumped Utd today? A team built more or less from scratch in a couple of weeks. Perhaps if there hadn't been a signing embargo coming the club wouldn't have dived in to signing some of these guys. Its a matter of mindset. People still think Rangers should be pumping everyone in sight yet a few months ago said they would be happy just to have a club. For most of the game today I thought we competed okay and, at times, passed the ball around okay. The defence is a fucking cluster fuck rapped inside a flaming bag of shit. But, we'll win division 3, move on, sign better players, win the next league, sign better players and before we know it we'll be putting these cunts back in there place again. For now, it hurts, but you know what - I'm glad. Its better than not having a club to give a fuck about.

Think some folk have forgotten where the fuck we are. Just because we signed a few "premier league" players doesn't mean we have the right to turn teams over in the cups. Our defence is a fucking disaster. I'm fairly sure Coisty knows that but due to an illegal transfer ban he can't fix the problem just now. We had, what, two weeks to sign players in the summer - and yes, we signed some turkeys. Had he signe reliable Div 2 players (as many said he should have done ) we would still have got pumped today. Bottom line is this - a few months ago I thought I might not have a team. Everyone got on board with starting at the bottom and building slowly but at the same time people spit the dummy because they get beat in the cup by one of the better teams the country. Fuck right off. And before anybody comments on my lack of posts its because i generally can't be fucking arsed.

Long team reader, medium term member lurker and first time poster. The report tonight really really surprised me. I think I'm a pretty moderate, reasonable guy and I regularly watch Channel 4 news but that was an absolute joke. It is very unusual on a reputable news program for a correspondent to have such an obvious agenda to push. Any decent reporter looks at events/circumstances in context. He frequently mentioned the "fact based book". Surely relevant to the reaction to the book is the context - the fact that it is written by a a guy who on a daily basis goes out of his way to wind up/offend Rangers fans. A guy who has revelled in our club's downfall and is now aiming to make money out of it. A guy whose posts are regularly of a sectarian nature and who clearly hates everything about Rangers. Why would that generate a negative reaction?? However, Alex chose to overlook all that and (I understand from other posts) actually wrote the foreword to the book. I for one would love to see a proper independently written fact based book about everything that has happened at Rangers. I think lots of fans would. What I don't want is to read about it through the eyes of a horrible bitter wee cretin who hates my club. This is difficult one for the club - react and give him oxygen or ignore him. I hope they ignore him for now. I hope fans do the same - he's looking for a reaction. Channel 4 news is not watched by many compared to the other main news programmes and beyond annoyed Rangers fans, and Celtic fans wanking in the Lisbon Lions PJs this idiot won't even cause a ripple.