spanther22

tbf to the merkins - they usually put the away team first - they just need telling that they do it wrong, same with dates

if the tarriers were understating their income, isnt that evasion/fraud ? if so then hmrc can go back as far as they want no?

proper bo!

john mclelland (81-84) left to sign for watford while captain because they offered more than the 250 a week he was offered here. when he signed he was on 200 quid a week. he was still on 200 when he asked for more and turned down the 250 on offer. terry butcher signed 2 yrs after mclelland left - how much the wages increased i dunno..... link to interview

no i think that was another one who was called gordon bennett (seriously) who after leaving aberdeen got a job as a postie - so a massive step up for his career.

eh havent we already had 10 points deducted? thats the punishment for administration why should there be anything else? if we form a newco why should a newco receive punishment? if we come out of administration why should there be another punishment? weve had our punishment anything else is just other teams desperate to get an advantage - fuck them. you cant just go around making new rules.

if they are going to be releasing 6-11 players that must be somewhere around 70k a week or 10 grand in wages A DAY! surely they wouldnt drag it out too long then?

link to new york times article theres the link to the original article in the new york times

charge the tarriers 10 grand a ticket - 7500*10000= 75 million bish bash bosh - debts are gone

hes followed up by retweeting someone saying its terry butcher making a cunt of himself with ice cream

hes followed up by retweeting someone saying its terry butcher making a cunt of himself with ice cream

second fav to get the job according to the bookies - steve bruce is fav. although walter was 50/1+ yesterday, now 9/4

http://photos.oregonlive.com/photo-essay/2012/02/kris_boyd_comes_to_portland_ph.html theres also a video of his press conference on that site. video weird to see him wearing that scarf tho.

disagree - i would welcome a brand new owner but i think mccoist deserves a season without all the external crap he had to deal with during this one.

i think over time the meaning of words change - f****n was originally irish warrior, then irish republican, then bizarrely we were told it meant all catholics (so we could be labelled bigots) now it means anyone who supports or appears to support kiddiefiddler fc. journos need to move with the times and to stop looking for offence.

if i had a big wedge in the bank, loved my job and the company i worked for - i probably would.

Thursday, 16 February 2012 DAVID MURRAY STATEMENT DOES NOT ADD UP IT was just hours after my Valentine’s Day blog which said that David Murray had made the first move to find a legal loophole to restart his love affair with Rangers that the former Ibrox owner broke cover. Clearly what I wrote startled Murray. And I know he would have read it, as LeggoLand is part of his daily diet of news and views. And if he did miss it I know of at least one of his remaining press lackeys who would have been right on the phone to him. Such puppets are handy! Murray responded to what appeared here by issuing a statement which claimed that there is no legal route back for him, no loophole by which he can save Rangers from Craig Whyte, the man Murray sold out to. But – and this should come as no surprise to seasoned Murray-watchers - what he said in the statement did NOT add up. In fact it added up in just about the same way as the Ibrox accounts did when David Murray ruled the roost at Ibrox and the debts soared to nudging £80M at one stage. The fact that the statement was issued by the Murray Group, and refers to his dealings with the Whyte company he sold Rangers to, should not be allowed to cloud the issue. That issue is between David Murray and Craig Whyte. So we will dispense with company name niceties, blow away the fog of war and cut to the chase. On Tuesday I revealed that Murray had written to Whyte requesting clarification regarding certain agreements about how he would Rangers that were part of the deal which saw Murray sell to Whyte for a quid. I added that if these obligations had not been met – citing the fact that it seems Whyte paid off the £18M Lloyds debt with a £24.4M loan from Ticketus, set against future income from season tickets, BEFORE he owned Rangers - as an example of the sort of legal loophole which could allow Murray to fulfill his morale obligation to the club. But the Murray statement, printed in a number of newspapers including the Scotsman and the Guardian, claimed that there is no legal mechanism for Murray to re-acquire the club. What David Murray said next though is curious and needs to be questioned. Murray revealed that he had written to Whyte as long ago as August 25 2011 seeking reassurances that various obligations were being complied with and that such an assurance confirming they were, was eventually given to Murray by Whyte on January 3 this year. Which begs the question. If there is no legal mechanism available to Murray to do anything to retake control of Rangers if Whyte does not comply with various obligations, why did Murray write to Whyte in the first place? And in the second place, why did Craig Whyte bother, albeit over four months later, to reply to Murray? Next, Murray’ statement that he has sent a further request to Whyte for clarification. Why? Murray added that the second request has so far not been answered. It was on learning of that second clarification request, thanks to a previous Murray Group statement, and on being told by former chairman Alastair Johnston that there are certain ‘nuances’ involved in the ownership of Rangers, that I claimed the latest Murray request for clarification was the first move in the former owner accepting that he had broken his pledge of never selling Rangers to anyone who was not good for the club, and taking action to stop the rot. Instead, what we have had from David Murray is a statement couched in double-speak, which far from stopping the rot is full of a lot of Tommy Rot. And bull! As far as clarification is concerned, it is the David Murray statement which needs to be clarified. For as I said at the start, exactly like the Rangers accounts when David Murray was in charge, it just does not add up.

the only way round it would be if you, (or someone else) collects the money and gives it directly to the staff on the condition that they work for Rangers for free. as mentioned above if the club gets it, itll get snaffled up.

paul murray is the director who made a 25m bid just before whyte took over - despite sitting on the board for years and doing nothing

we need to get this bear signed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zwcknF9VCc&feature=related

"Should this be refered for review ?" official sfa rules states - "it depends, do st mirren play celtic soon? if so then he will face a ban - do st mirren play rangers soon? if so then no ban" in summary, if it helps celtic = ban, if it doesnt help celtic no ban - thats the sfa cardinal (no pun intended) rule. trufact

liewell or liewell jr (aka regan)

we played them in a friendly not long after they were spawned in 1888 - beat them 9-1 on the 11th august 1888. their 1 was probably offside. i also vaguely remember hearing about a benefit/friendly match played against them more recently but cant find anything about it.

more to the point, how many of us are watching turkish football and bought the strip of the team kris boyd plays for? how many of us know what team he even plays for?

i take it you didnt see the interview with ally mccoist then? and if you did, how can you explain your belief that there is no bias against rangers? there are just too many incidents for it to be bad luck, coincidence or whatever.