mrd

Lennon's fecked either way - nobody else will hire him the way he behaves, you wouldn't trust him running a shop let alone a multi-million pound group of footballers. Whether he wins a few more assisted titles or not he'll be out of football for good when he leaves Celtic.

Hinting at the belief that Duff and Phelps have we can walk away without owing Ticketus a penny. I.e. we wipe out the Lloyds debt for effectively nothing and the only major debt for the new owner is to HMRC

I wish mate, if its the guy I met he seemed to be living quite the life at the time. Workaholic mind you, gave you the impression he worked morning to night.

I think I've actually met, through a contact, Scott Murdoch and the same guy had dealt with Alastair Johnston (and David Murray in the past). I've been trying to find a photo of Scott to see if I'm right but I can't believe there's many Rangers fans that are also self made property millionaires who work a lot in New York. I understand it would be preferable if the owner was a mulch-billionaire who could bankroll us for 20 years but assuming there isn't someone like that interested this is a much better solution for us as fans than an English investor/speculator who thinks he can make money here. The likes of Johnston and Murdoch are incredibly intelligent and have made their money elsewhere, they're just in this for the good of Rangers as a club so they can be counted to act in the support's interest. Besides that Murdoch didn't seem like someone who tolerates a poor standard of work, if he's involved I imagine there won't be a Martin Bain style guy at the top who nobody is really sure is qualified or good at his job. If he is invested the club will be well run from a business point of view - much more in the style of Lawell you'd imagine. I wouldn't like to be the one to tell Murdoch I've made a loss this year and he needs to put money in to cover it. It depends what you want to happen I guess, if you quite liked the erratic pattern of the last 15 years or you're desperate to roll the dice to try and get regularly into the Champions League you might hope for someone who's going to throw money in. Me, I'd like them to get the basics right; breaking even, bringing through players, the squad on fair long term contracts, a club that competes with Celtic at an SFA/board room level and supporter representation on the board.

I said that and I happily stand by it. What white farmers campaign for and get in a free Zimbabwe is something that we can only judge if and when it happens. I'd be less worried about having pride in my skin colour and more about the land I owned but maybe that's just me. And its not for me to say whether "blacks" can "have the right of a black history month" or not, I was trying to explain why one thing might be judged differently by the general public than another. Its a free country, have a month for whatever you want??

I can't tell for certain but I can make my judgements based on relative risks. Don't be intentionally obtuse (unless this is just trolling? is it?) - the risk of a guy with Griffin's past who has to excuse many indiscretions by saying "I've changed my mind" getting to power and following a hard-right anti civil rights agenda and the risk of the mainstream parties promising x and delivering y are very different. I know that and most of the public know that, hence they won't get our votes.

That doesn't make any sense, you can't have the present without the past. As for how long needs to pass before these things become acceptable, its a case of waiting and seeing, the BNP and similar organisations gaining popularity makes it less likely. Its completely possible there'll be a white farmers union if Zimbabwe returns to some kind of normality, there will definately be groups which act for they're rights and correctly so. You ain't making the world a better place by having your white-rights clubs mate and that's because of the last few hundred years of history. Had they been different maybe you would have been - if you try and claim "life isn't fair" because you can't then let yourself be judged by that and so be it.

Its probably, at least in our Western world, got something to do with there never having been a black only drinking fountain, black only seats on the bus or rules excluding white males from voting. So that excuses 'positive discrimination'? It is either racist or it is not. Who's excusing anything? someone said "why can't I have a union dedicated to white men" and I told him why he can't. If two men want something to the detriment of others, one of whom after a life of priviledge and one of whom after a life of struggle then public perception will favour one over the other because a sense of fairness and equality exists in the natural unpredudiced mind. And public perception or its conscience, for all its faults, keeps a lot of the things that keep society sane ticking over.

There's no comparison between the fear that the tories or labour will go back on their word when the worst case is something like the public not getting a veto on the EU treaty and with Griffin. Just zero comparison, none.

Its probably, at least in our Western world, got something to do with there never having been a black only drinking fountain, black only seats on the bus or rules excluding white males from voting.

Think we've deserved this haven't played at all well since the start of the 2nd half