madmacmacmad

If I remember anything about Lee, it will be the 'tackle' he committed against Motherwell when Shiels was on the ground - he will always be remembered in that vain in my head. In terms of how long he's got left, this season plus next, maybe a third. I think this would have been his last season at the top level, as a regular, if it had been.

We did break the rules. It's just the the SFA made them up on the spot, after any events had unfolded, to suit their own agenda. Shame they missed that bit out - it's quite important to the point they make

I was impressed by the contingent they brought last night. The last home game of last season, they only managed about 150, to celebrate with their beachballs on getting into the Champo. Considering they were supposed to be boycotting Ibrox and there was about 600 of them, I think it must be true, as we pointed out last night when they started to sing early doors - They only came to see The Rangers. I'm sure they were impressed with what they saw.

I'm in

I thought he was more threatening that Sandaza was, in the 5 minutes on the pitch. I thought both the booking and red card were harsh after seeing the replays. I agree, he's overweight and lacking a bit of pace, but he causes defenders problems. He's not as big in the flesh (height wise) as he looks on TV, but he does throw his weight about, and that's something we're going to need to do, to consistently beat lower league opposition. Bearing in mind, he's just back from injury too, I'm personally willing to give him a bit of time to get back to form, as I think he gives us something different up front.

Dunfermline Statement

It's a fair point. Not quite the end of the world. On the flip, we really do need to start play better against part-timers though.

I'm boycotting Motherwell, the town, in protest

I thought his article was funny, for once

Saw Huistra in his full debut vs East Stirling in about 1991. Was my first game. Made it a bit emotional for me, for the ES game this season 21 years on. Huistra was underrated imo

Donald Findlay - one of the best defence lawyers this country has produced. I wonder if he has any ties to Rangers and might consider doing it on the cheap...

There was only about 50 of them when they turned up with beach balls at the end of last season. That was as good as a boycott

...and they've been masking their attendance figures also

Seems like a bit of a waste of server space, when you could set up another porn site

I tweeted him back, with what my definition of 'unbelievable' was. I'm quite sure I'm not the only one

Not the greatest of footballers, but thought we could have done with some of his crosses (the ones that made it into the box) at the weekend. His commitment in sticking with the club will not be forgotten

We should offer to switch the game to Ibrox, give them 500 free tickets and pay for the buses to bring them down from the Highlands. If you throw in TV money, and the 50% of the gate, that's worth about £300k to them, and they get a big day out at Ibrox free of charge. If the SFL/SPHell/SFA are talking about league reconstruction with a pyramid system, that £300k could just about guarantee them a slot in the SFL in a couple of years

You're spot on. I thought right at the beginning it would take us 6-10 games to gel as a team (given most of our squad have only just met) and get to grips with player against this type of opposition. It's their cup finals, and they're hard to break down. If they keep their shape and we're not at the top of our game, we'll struggle. I don't see any cause for concern, or any need for calls to replace super Ally yet. In fact, I can see some improvement already in terms of a growing understanding between them. It doesn't help that we've got 2 or 3 new players in each line up either. We lacked creativity at times today, that's the most concerning bit for me, but hopefully that's something that Ally can sort out.

Harper McLeod employees realising it won't be as an easy a case as they thought, so they've all been called in?

See, told you they'd make up the rules to fuck us over if we tried it (last time I trust GDS!)

nm

I think you're right, bit of a short-cut to my conclusion, but pretty much the same point.

Well, only one is being investigated by the others' lawyers

I think GDS summed this up on one of his twitter posts, if CG had been clever, he'd have bought Ltd company with 3 years trading history to, thus be able to present 3 years accounts to comply with UEFA rules...they'd probably have change them to ban us, but the rule is 3 years accounts, or you don't get in. In any case, QOS in the Ramsdens Cup would clash with Galatasary in the Champo

The way I've always seen the EBT investigation is this: The panel is set up to decide, whether or not Rangers issued dual contracts. If found guilty, this would only prove that at best Rangers were guilty of an administrative oversight or at worst deception against the SFA (or we may find the SFA were completly incompetent because we told them everything, which wouldn't be a surprise). This can never be grounds for stripping of titles, as there is no proof that this administrative blunder gave an advantage. If the SPL tried to strip titles, it would be taken to court and they'd lose on those grounds. The SPL need to wait on the BTC to find Rangers guilty (if we ever were) of wrongdoing, before they could do anything such as stripping of titles. IF (and it' a big IF) we were found guilty, then the only reasonable way of determining if we had an unfair advantage in winning those titles, would be to look at the Balance Sheet as at the date each transfer took place, and determine whether a 'reasonable person' would have bought those players and paid the wages they demanded (including ETB payments, if we lose the BTC) or whether SDM was defrauding HMRC by doing that. At the end of the day, even if we couldn't afford them, we're talking about gearing (using someone else's money to do the deal) so the next stage of that investigation, would be to determine whether or not that gearing was excessive. Only then, could the SPL decide whether we gained an unfair advantage. Remember, the £50m (or whatever was quoted) bill only came to light when HMRC tried to pursue us...it wasn't a liability when we dealt bought the players or paid them. The chances therefore of the SPL stripping us of titles has to be slim, and if their 'compromised' panel decided that was the outcome, it will be dragged through the courts on this basis (if Charlie has the balls, which I think he's shown so far). The lawyers need to PROVE we received an unfair advantage, and they can only do this through forensic accounting and judging what a reasonable person would have done in that situation. Again, this is on the basis that DM thought this was totally legal, which would form the defence (ie he acted in good faith when dealing in transfers). Of course, I think we learned over the summer that the SPL/SFA make up the rules as they go along, so no doubt we WILL be found guilty and have to go through the courts, but I reckon the scum would be on the losing end of the legal bill. That said, if they did have proof to find we didn't log the contracts, the could employ sanctions of some sort (fines/bans), and we probably wouldn't be able to challenge that through the courts (their game, their rules). Anyone else on here who would back up this rough framework or see any flaws in this logic.