The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[The Gasman]

What I would like to know is why Neil Doncaster invited this particular group to a meeting with him?

 

What about the supporters groups of every other team in Scotland who may have had concerns about his statement.

 

It says to me quite unequivocally that he has once again shown the attitude that only two teams in Scotland matter to him and the rest of us do not matter one jot. His arrogance is breathtaking.

 

He is hopeless and hapless and the quicker he and Mr Reagan disappear the better our football will be for it.

He did offer to meet any group, but whether any (other than this lot) took him up on that and requested a meeting, I don't know.

[campbell]

.

[corryjambo]

He did offer to meet any group, but whether any (other than this lot) took him up on that and requested a meeting, I don't know.

 

Didn't know that Gasman.

 

We should have sent some of Kickback's finest to meet him. He would have probably resigned right away after meeting them. 

[Jam Tarts 1874]

Didn't see this mentioned anywhere else, I thought it was really funny from The Hun:

 

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/1431610/martin-tyler-rangers-new-club-celtic-champions-league/

 

Martin Tyler working for the Fox network at Celtic's midweek game referring to The Rangers as a new club.  No doubt poor old Tyler will now see his Facebook and Twitter full of death threats. 

[DETTY29]

He did offer to meet any group, but whether any (other than this lot) took him up on that and requested a meeting, I don't know.

That was an open press release invitation to contact him

 

There is a post on SFM that the Celtic guys have been sending some heavy duty correspondence to Doncaster.

 

It's fair to assume he's been a bit note proactive in arranging the meeting to try and put them off taking things further

[alicante jambo]

I heard martin tyler the other night while watching the celtic game.Demise of the old rangers lol at least 1 of them arent afraid to admit it on telly.

[Footballfirst]

The RTC blogger has written a post, for the first time in many months, highlighting the odd cases of Souness and Smith receiving an EBT while employed by other clubs.

 

https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2017/08/21/a-history-of-unusual-payments-at-ibrox/

[RobNox]

The RTC blogger has written a post, for the first time in many months, highlighting the odd cases of Souness and Smith receiving an EBT while employed by other clubs.

 

https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2017/08/21/a-history-of-unusual-payments-at-ibrox/

The timing of those payments is interesting, or rather the timing the trusts were likely to have been set up, as opposed to the timing they were first used.  Definitely something very dodgy about this, but the SFA doesn't seem to be concerned.

[reaths17]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41012278

 

 

The Pensions Regulator is to prosecute Dominic Chappell, the former boss of retail chain BHS.

He is charged with failing to provide information and documents the regulator requested during its investigation into the sale of BHS.

Chappell's Retail Acquisitions (RAL) bought BHS for just ?1 in 2015 from billionaire retailer Sir Philip Green.

The collapse of BHS led to the loss of 11,000 jobs and a pension deficit of ?571m.

RAL was put into liquidation earlier this year.

 

Mr Chappell has been summonsed to appear at Brighton Magistrates' Court on 20 September to face three charges of neglecting or refusing to provide information and documents, without a reasonable excuse.

Warning notices were sent out to Sir Philip and Mr Chappell in November last year, setting out the arguments and evidence as to why the regulator believed they should support the BHS pension schemes.

In February, Sir Philip Green agreed in a settlement with the Pensions Regulator to hand over ?363m in cash to the BHS pension scheme.

The investigation into Dominic Chappell is continuing.

 

doesn't this all sound familiar, right down to a mr green being involved. I'm still baffled as to why murray hasn't been charged with breaking some form of corporate law.

[buzzbomb1958]

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41012278

 

 

The Pensions Regulator is to prosecute Dominic Chappell, the former boss of retail chain BHS.

He is charged with failing to provide information and documents the regulator requested during its investigation into the sale of BHS.

Chappell's Retail Acquisitions (RAL) bought BHS for just ?1 in 2015 from billionaire retailer Sir Philip Green.

The collapse of BHS led to the loss of 11,000 jobs and a pension deficit of ?571m.

RAL was put into liquidation earlier this year.

 

 

Mr Chappell has been summonsed to appear at Brighton Magistrates' Court on 20 September to face three charges of neglecting or refusing to provide information and documents, without a reasonable excuse.

Warning notices were sent out to Sir Philip and Mr Chappell in November last year, setting out the arguments and evidence as to why the regulator believed they should support the BHS pension schemes.

In February, Sir Philip Green agreed in a settlement with the Pensions Regulator to hand over ?363m in cash to the BHS pension scheme.

The investigation into Dominic Chappell is continuing.

 

doesn't this all sound familiar, right down to a mr green being involved. I'm still baffled as to why murray hasn't been charged with breaking some form of corporate law.

Won't happen all the wagons have been circled to protect him and all the other little piggies who had their noses in the troughs and they say crime doesn't pay,absolute bull

[Footballfirst]

This was lifted from SFM, but originated from a Celtic forum.  It provides more meat on the bones about what was discussed by the Celtic Supporters Association in their meeting with Doncaster and McKenzie.  It's worth sharing to get a feel of the individuals stance on a number topics.  I'm afraid that it's a long post.

 

 

In the meeting Neil Doncaster (ND) was more willing to engage than Rod McKenzie (RM), who we found to be obtrusive, pedantic and continually picking out where one word did not fit with his narrow, technical legal definitions.

 
He was most argumentative in those areas that would be up for debate and where it was felt they were not speaking from strong, justified position. At times McKenzie?s meandering answers seemed to take the question asked, towards his preferred answer.

 

RM and ND insisted the legality of EBTs was irrelevant to the SPFL as prior to 2011 they had no specific rules on how clubs carried out their tax affairs. This excused the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission (LNS) from regarding the five cases of guilt accepted during FTT, or the accepted liability for the Wee Tax Case. The lawfulness of tax affairs had not been considered by the football authorities as the SPFL believed Rangers simply misunderstood their tax position, not that they were illegal.

 

McKenzie said Rangers believed their tax should have been one figure; HMRC went to court to establish it should have been higher. He further added that many clubs have gone into administration without paying the full amount of due tax, so Rangers were not an exception. ND pointed out that Craig Whyte had been charged by the SFA for non-payment of taxes, yet no charge has ever been laid against RFC by the SFA for a much larger non payment of tax.

 

The SPLs only interest was in player registration. LNS punished Rangers for this and for failure to pay tax on such a scale.

 

The SPL set up an investigation from 1 July 1998; this was not the initial advertised date of the LNS Commission. McKenzie carried out the investigation but Rangers failed to provide documents asked for prior to November 2000, so he could only address the subsequent period to LNS. The administrators of Rangers said the earlier documents were held by Murray Group and that they were unable to acquire them. McKenzie prevaricated when asked what steps he took to acquire the documents.

 

RM asserted that the WTC was dealt with in the LNS Commission as 3 players; Ronald De Boer, Flo and Moore were all addressed in the Commission. De Boer, Flo and Moore had both DOS and EBTs. The earliest was from 2000 during the operation of the Discounted Options Scheme. No distinction was drawn between the ?Big? and ?Wee? tax cases as ND & RM continually asserted that LNS was not about tax. It was all about the player registration. Those 5 EBT cases where guilt was admitted, were similarly not treated differently by LNS.

 

Most of his (RM) information for the Commission was taken from the BBC documentary. Rangers only provided him with 29 almost identical documents, with names and other information redacted. He was given documents from another source but would not state what this was. It was only during the enquiry that Duff and Phelps confirmed the redacted documents. All initial enquiries were passed by them to MIH and their lawyers who would not forward the documents requested.

 

RM pointed out that they were charged by LNS for non cooperation with the enquiry (Issue 4 addressed by LNS)). For this they were merely admonished. (For information the relevant part of the adjudication is below).

 

?Failure to respond timeously to legitimate requests for the provision of information is a serious breach of the rules. If the football authorities are to perform their functions effectively, such requests by them must be met. In the present case, at the time that the initial request was made, and throughout the subsequent period, Oldco was in administration and the administrators were acting as its agents. The administrators had the responsibility of discharging Oldco?s obligations, including those to the football authorities. They did not do so, and thus caused Oldco to be in breach of the Rules. We have decided, however, without wishing to detract from the gravity of the breach, that no separate financial penalty should be imposed on Oldco in this regard. Instead, we shall impose an admonition.?

 

They were asked if the SPFL would work against or block a Judicial Review. After a bit of conversation both said they wouldn?t be obstructive. When they were asked if they would be willing to have a preliminary meeting with counsel, at the same moment that Neil Doncaster said yes, McKenzie answered, ?Depends on who it is?. On the subject of a Judicial Review, McKenzie was doubtful that it would get standing. Neil Doncaster said that would ultimately be a matter for the clubs to decide if the SPFL would contest the right of fans to have a review,

 

McKenzie suggested a Judicial Review could only look at two items:
1. The conclusion by the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission that Rangers did not play ineligible players.
2. The level of penalty arrived at by the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission was insufficient.

 

Point 1 goes to Sandy Bryson?s evidence. When it was stated that Sandy Bryson interpreted registration rules in a way that came as a surprise to most in Scottish Football, McKenzie commented ? ?It was an interpretation that came as a surprise to me too.?

 

On more than one occasion an attempt was made to discuss LNS and the legality position but McKenzie adopted a defensive, argumentative position, saying that LNS did not and could not review the issue of non payment of tax, dismissing comments around the potential view of Nimmo Smith around the ultimate alternative opinion of the Supreme Court.

 

McKenzie?s view was that LNS only looked into player registration and not tax. LNS decided that side contracts did not provide competitive advantage but were a breach of rules and therefore they imposed a ?250,000 fine. (Nb they confirmed that the?250,000 LNS fine was ultimately deducted from money due to Newco. As well as this, costs were also deducted.)

 

It was suggested in the meeting that one of the reasons RFC did not provide contracts was because they felt it COULD have had a bearing on whether these ?loans? were classed as remuneration. Therefore using side letters helped to hide the payments from HMRC and allowing them to keep using the scheme, and potentially providing an advantage but McKenzie was adamant that the verdict of the Supreme Court or FTT had no bearing on LNS as the Commission was not looking at tax issues.

 

They were also asked about the new club issue. RM said they were same club because ultimately they (the SPFL) wrote the rules. They were dismissive about even debating the issues ?We?d never agree? and treated it as a debating point rather than a fundamental belief of many fans. When asked for a description that could be written down and would stand up in court, they talked about it being ?a feel? an ?emotional attachment?. When pointed out this ?feeling? would not stand up in court, RM responded ? ?Anyway this is not really relevant to the discussion?

 

ND repeated previous public assertions that he came from a ?different football culture? where newcos were ?normal? and ?accepted?. RM gave a number of examples in Scottish football where tax liability was ditched e.g. Hearts, Dundee, Gretna. It was pointed out to RM that none of the other Scottish cases he cited, pointed to deliberate concealment of tax liability over a sustained period of time.

 

ND cited the cases of Leeds, Bristol City etc. in England. It was put to him that despite the evidence that non payment of tax was on the increase both here and in England there was no explanation offered as to why this specific issue wasn?t in the SPL Rules prior to 2011(and before the time of Neil Doncaster).

 

When asked when they were first made aware of the looming RFC admin RM responded,? the day before they filed for administration?. (February 2012). Both Neil Doncaster and Rod McKenzie denied specifically knowing any earlier than this beyond rumours in Scottish Football.

 

They were specifically asked about the SPL board meeting of 31st October2011 and a reconvened board meeting in Mid/late November that year where the SPL/Fans TV deal being discussed. When it was suggested to Neil Doncaster that the exploration of an SPL TV deal was dropped due to ?changed circumstances in Scottish football? he denied that this was because of meetings or contact with Rangers FC officials about their intention to enter administration. They continually denied any advance knowledge even when it was put to them that there are documents in the public domain which suggest the contrary.

 

At one point ND asked, ?Where are you going with this??

 

It was suggested to them that some in Scottish Football would want to lend a helping hand to RFC to prevent them from defaulting early in the Season (and ahead of the transfer window). An example was provided of Dunfermline who were one match away from being unable to meet their fixture obligations ? (v Falkirk in 2013) and defaulting on their fixtures. Their case was treated very differently

 

Neil Doncaster disputed this as a potential scenario, as an earlier Administration of RFC (less 3 months of PAYE/NI) would have meant HMRC not being the preferred creditor, able to block the CVA. It was commented on by those in the meeting, that he had an impressive grasp of these potential HMRC CVA blocking percentages from that period in late 2011 (prior to admin in 2012).

 

When the prospect of SPFL board minutes being opened up to a transparent investigative enquiry were discussed, they expressed unhappiness at this given the nature of some of the sensitive (including commercial) discussions which take place. Where they to be asked for specific information they may provide it (potentially redacted) but there would be no willingness to provide general access to SPFL documents from that period. This again suggested the need to ask specific legal questions rather than provide full transparency. Those at the meeting were given the impression that the full transparency fans have asked for was in question even from the SPFL. There would potentially be no obligation of anyone to co-operate with an enquiry.

 

A discussion also took place about the SFL. Both ND and RM asserted that the SFL?s record keeping was poor and would not provide much for an inquiry. When the issue of potential title stripping was discussed, it was revealed that the decision to recognise Newco?s claim to RFC?s titles, was taken by the SFL board including David Longmuir and Jim Ballantyne, when they decided to invite Newco into the SFL 3rd Division.

 

When it was suggested to ND that Jim Ballantyne?s documented shareholding in Rangers RFC could have created a conflict of interest in this decision, ND agreed that this potentially could be looked at by an inquiry but that there would be no obligation by anyone including Jim Ballantyne to co-operate with the inquiry. He did not question our understanding that Ballantyne did have a shareholding in Rangers as documented by a Channel 4 investigation.

https://www.channel4.com/news/by/al?al-conflicts-interest-heart-scottish-football

 

Given their assertion that the SFL?s record keeping was poor, their view was that it was unlikely that a record or a minute of the decision to recognise Newco?s claim to Rangers historical titles, would be available however this issue could potentially be re-examined in the future by an enquiry. The SPFL bore no responsibility for this state of affairs of the organisation they merged with. Their view on the potential lack of co-operation by figures still active in Scottish football was noted.

 

At the time of the meeting, there has been no response so far by the SFA to the SPFL call for an inquiry. Both ND and RM were of the view that the SFA needed time to consult the various stakeholders but it transpired that the SFA hasn?t been written to yet by the SPFL but that they have been sent a copy of the press release instead. ND agreed that a letter would be formally sent if no response received. They did not suggest a time frame for this.

 

Some of those still active in Scottish football, who were directly involved in the administration of Rangers FC during the EBT years, were discussed, with a view to ascertaining the view on how suitable it was for them to be still intrinsically involved in the running of the game, including on SFA committees.

 

They both seemed surprised that a Rangers official was on the Club Licensing Committee of the SFA in the year that Rangers were cleared to play in Europe despite their admitted tax liability in the Wee Tax Case. They were also unaware of the official?s current role at the SFA or even the workings of the SFA Committee he now serves on. RM was of the opinion that some officials were less important in the administration than others and made the point that it is the only the SFA who can rule on who is Fit and Proper. RM was also of the view that it is only Directors of a club/company (???) who can be charged with disrepute. They accepted that there were a number of directors of Newco this could potentially apply to.

 

Both were also of the belief that David Murray would not be welcomed back into Scottish Football.

 

The meeting concluded. It was initially requested for the purposes of accurate record keeping, not broadcast that a recording be made of the meeting. The SPFL representatives did not agree to this but stated that everything was ?on the record? unless directed otherwise. No such direction was given.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Footballfirst

[jambovambo]

https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/08/23/signs-of-the-times/

[Hearts First]

Phil McSillymadeupirishname is an absolute slaver. Why any non-Mhank would want to read his obsessive nonsense is beyond me. In fact, there are many Mhanks don't even bother reading his rubbish.

[Fandango]

.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Phil McSillymadeupirishname is an absolute slaver. Why any non-Mhank would want to read his obsessive nonsense is beyond me. In fact, there are many Mhanks don't even bother reading his rubbish.

 

Ibrox being in dire need of repairs has been well documented for the last 3 years or longer, so what is it that you think McThreenames is slavering about?

 

Mhank, interesting choice of word for a Hearts fan to use.

[Hearts First]

Ibrox being in dire need of repairs has been well documented for the last 3 years or longer, so what is it that you think McThreenames is slavering about?

 

Mhank, interesting choice of word for a Hearts fan to use.

Is it? Plenty of non-mhanks use it. As for Phil the failed social worker, if you are relying on him for info then words fail me. Plenty of others will provide the same info without his obsessive add-ons.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Is it? Plenty of non-mhanks use it. As for Phil the failed social worker, if you are relying on him for info then words fail me. Plenty of others will provide the same info without his obsessive add-ons.

Can you supply us with a more reliable source, please? It would be very helpful if you let us know who it is you rely on, so that we can all be as well informed as you. Ta.

[Hearts First]

Can you supply us with a more reliable source, please? It would be very helpful if you let us know who it is you rely on, so that we can all be as well informed as you. Ta.

Sorry. But I don't obsess over other clubs or read blogs from crackpot fans of other clubs. Ta.

[CJGJ]

Can you supply us with a more reliable source, please? It would be very helpful if you let us know who it is you rely on, so that we can all be as well informed as you. Ta.

So you are claiming he is a reliable source,,,,god help you if that's what you rely upon

[buzzbomb1958]

Probably put the hap up on the staircase to keep the rain out can't afford a glazier

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

So you are claiming he is a reliable source,,,,god help you if that's what you rely upon

Where did I say that I rely on anybody, or that I consider PMGB to be a reliable source?

 

I asked someone, who seemed to think he knows a good, or a bad, source when he sees one, who it is he relies on. Clearly, as you were unable to understand something as simple as that in a post of a mere two sentences, then it is highly unlikely that you will be able to recognise a reliable source should one ever come your way.

[CJGJ]

Where did I say that I rely on anybody, or that I consider PMGB to be a reliable source?

 

I asked someone, who seemed to think he knows a good, or a bad, source when he sees one, who it is he relies on. Clearly, as you were unable to understand something as simple as that in a post of a mere two sentences, then it is highly unlikely that you will be able to recognise a reliable source should one ever come your way.

Ouch I'm running scared now from someone who soaks up information from such sources then when challenged tries to pretend he was not inferring the Philwhateverhisname is a source of his information

Try to broaden your horizons, think for yourself and stop acting like a sheep in following some of the posters on here..........or in your case 'bloggers' who spout nonsense but seem in your mind to be delivering the truth.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Is it? Plenty of non-mhanks use it. As for Phil the failed social worker, if you are relying on him for info then words fail me. Plenty of others will provide the same info without his obsessive add-ons.

 

Never relied upon him for any form of info, indeed only ever read what he has to say when links are posted on here, and even then take what he has to say with a pinch of salt, often a large pinch.

 

As I said it has been well documented that Ibrox is in dire need of repair, indeed even the lying King intimated it so.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Ouch I'm running scared now from someone who soaks up information from such sources then when challenged tries to pretend he was not inferring the Philwhateverhisname is a source of his information

Try to broaden your horizons, think for yourself and stop acting like a sheep in following some of the posters on here..........or in your case 'bloggers' who spout nonsense but seem in your mind to be delivering the truth.

Seem to have touched a nerve, I think.

 

As I intimated earlier, someone who would misunderstand a post of only two sentences is hardly the type of person to give out advice about who best to use as a source of information. As for 'broadening horizons', the poster who you seem to think is worthy of your support clearly has horizons limited by his dislike for all things Celtic, while your continued support and excuse making for the Ibrox clubs has always seemed to suggest something similar for yourself. However reliable PMGB, or any other blogger, might be, won't change the facts in any way, and there is no doubt that Rangers cheated the taxman and all of Scottish, and much of European, football. Their successor club continues to struggle financially while maintaining all the old vile bigotry of the old club. Nothing anyone says is going to change that either, so it's a rather moot point whether anyone believes what any blogger says on the matter anyway. I tend not to 'believe' anything I am told, about any subject, without evidence to back it up, and I am fully aware that I am just a susceptible as the next man to enjoying stories that intimate something that I would hope to see come to pass, but I don't consider it as fact until I see evidence that it has come to pass. At the same time I don't believe something was a lie or wrong just because the evidence of it doesn't come into the public domain, I just file it under maybe, or maybe not.

 

Well, there's more than two sentences in that post, I wonder which part of it you'll choose to misrepresent this time. Cheers

[redjambo]

Seem to have touched a nerve, I think.

 

As I intimated earlier, someone who would misunderstand a post of only two sentences is hardly the type of person to give out advice about who best to use as a source of information. As for 'broadening horizons', the poster who you seem to think is worthy of your support clearly has horizons limited by his dislike for all things Celtic, while your continued support and excuse making for the Ibrox clubs has always seemed to suggest something similar for yourself. However reliable PMGB, or any other blogger, might be, won't change the facts in any way, and there is no doubt that Rangers cheated the taxman and all of Scottish, and much of European, football. Their successor club continues to struggle financially while maintaining all the old vile bigotry of the old club. Nothing anyone says is going to change that either, so it's a rather moot point whether anyone believes what any blogger says on the matter anyway. I tend not to 'believe' anything I am told, about any subject, without evidence to back it up, and I am fully aware that I am just a susceptible as the next man to enjoying stories that intimate something that I would hope to see come to pass, but I don't consider it as fact until I see evidence that it has come to pass. At the same time I don't believe something was a lie or wrong just because the evidence of it doesn't come into the public domain, I just file it under maybe, or maybe not.

 

Well, there's more than two sentences in that post, I wonder which part of it you'll choose to misrepresent this time. Cheers

 

As it should be.

 

Personally, I read PMG's blog from time to time (only the Rangers-related stuff, steering well clear of the political and Celtic content) and find it interesting. That's all.

 

What does irritate me though is posters on here calling him Phil McThreeNames, Phil the failed social worker etc. Why? Because those are ad hominem attacks and the sign of folk with very weak argumentative skills. Frankly, I don't understand why people have such an issue with the name Mac Giolla Bh?in. It's a perfectly normal Irish surname. If someone is going to have a go at that, they may as well have a crack at all the Gaelic names we have in Scotland. Sheer stupidity, imo.

[Brick Tamland]

Seem to have touched a nerve, I think.

 

As I intimated earlier, someone who would misunderstand a post of only two sentences is hardly the type of person to give out advice about who best to use as a source of information. As for 'broadening horizons', the poster who you seem to think is worthy of your support clearly has horizons limited by his dislike for all things Celtic, while your continued support and excuse making for the Ibrox clubs has always seemed to suggest something similar for yourself. However reliable PMGB, or any other blogger, might be, won't change the facts in any way, and there is no doubt that Rangers cheated the taxman and all of Scottish, and much of European, football. Their successor club continues to struggle financially while maintaining all the old vile bigotry of the old club. Nothing anyone says is going to change that either, so it's a rather moot point whether anyone believes what any blogger says on the matter anyway. I tend not to 'believe' anything I am told, about any subject, without evidence to back it up, and I am fully aware that I am just a susceptible as the next man to enjoying stories that intimate something that I would hope to see come to pass, but I don't consider it as fact until I see evidence that it has come to pass. At the same time I don't believe something was a lie or wrong just because the evidence of it doesn't come into the public domain, I just file it under maybe, or maybe not.

 

Well, there's more than two sentences in that post, I wonder which part of it you'll choose to misrepresent this time. Cheers

 

Well said

[Hearts First]

Is it his birth surname?

[Mikey1874]

Thanks to FF for that meeting summary

 

Rangers got away with being obstructive in the non disclosure of information

 

Whereas normally that is viewed badly in judicial circles

 

They got away with that

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

As it should be.

 

Personally, I read PMG's blog from time to time (only the Rangers-related stuff, steering well clear of the political and Celtic content) and find it interesting. That's all.

 

What does irritate me though is posters on here calling him Phil McThreeNames, Phil the failed social worker etc. Why? Because those are ad hominem attacks and the sign of folk with very weak argumentative skills. Frankly, I don't understand why people have such an issue with the name Mac Giolla Bh?in. It's a perfectly normal Irish surname. If someone is going to have a go at that, they may as well have a crack at all the Gaelic names we have in Scotland. Sheer stupidity, imo.

I think there is an assumption (deliberate?) by the Rangers apologists, here and in the wider mainstream and social media, that anyone not critical of PMGB and other Celtic bloggers, is somehow enthralled by their writings. I am certainly not enthralled by anyone's writings, on any subject, not just football related, and view PMGB's blogs with a good helping of scepticism, while bearing in mind, that, accurate or not, without his input, and that of a number of other Celtic minded writers, there would be no voice, whatsoever, to counter the unquestioning and complicit minds of our mainstream media who will publish anything the Ibrox PR machine, Level5, tells them to. 

 

There is one thing that's extremely obvious about the PMGB claims, perhaps more obvious than with the claims of other critics of both Ibrox clubs, and that is that he has rattled the current club's board on more than one occasion, but other than to denigrate him - in a way similar to his critics on here, they have consistently failed to counter the things he's said with evidenced ripostes. We don't know how well informed he is on things like, say, the repairs required to the stand roofs, but that, for me, is filed in the 'maybe' folder, but, in the meantime, TRFC have all but admitted that at least one stairwell has serious water ingress that they can't afford to repair, and the Rangers tweeter/poster who seems to have broken the story, has also posted that a figure of ?7m is required to cover more stadium repairs.

 

So, it's a 'maybe' for PMGB on the roofs, but it's another 'maybe', closing in on a definite, from a source not 'tainted' by Irishness, again not countered by TRFC, despite the fact that it has been covered by the SMSM, so it's reasonable to assume that there are major structural repairs required at Ibrox, and that the club can't afford to carry them out. These structural problems may, or may not, be health and safety issues, though wet stairways certainly are, but we know that any repairs not tackled timeously only get worse and more costly to repair, so the potential bill is rising.

 

Still, the question remains, if we do not use PMGB as a source of information, or, as, what he should be looked on here, a source for a discussion point, who should we use? Or should we, as everyone involved with the Ibrox clubs and the game's governance, not to mention the SMSM, would like us to do, just stop talking about it and 'move on'?

 

Again, I ask, if we don't use 'sources' such as PMGB, who should we use? And who, or what, is the source that the likes of CJGJ uses that convinces him that everything 'the Irish Blogger' says is false? He should let us know, for instantly all TRFC's problems will be over, and Rangers can rest in peace having cheated no one!

[corryjambo]

Wonder what Albion Rover's punishment will be for fielding an ineligible player in Challenge Cup game they won recently v Spartans

 

Don't know if it has been posted before but here is your answer.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41038340

 

What is the point of the ?2,000 fine. That will be a lot of money to a club like Albion Rovers.

Edited August 25, 2017 by corryjambo

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I think there is an assumption (deliberate?) by the Rangers apologists, here and in the wider mainstream and social media, that anyone not critical of PMGB and other Celtic bloggers, is somehow enthralled by their writings. I am certainly not enthralled by anyone's writings, on any subject, not just football related, and view PMGB's blogs with a good helping of scepticism, while bearing in mind, that, accurate or not, without his input, and that of a number of other Celtic minded writers, there would be no voice, whatsoever, to counter the unquestioning and complicit minds of our mainstream media who will publish anything the Ibrox PR machine, Level5, tells them to.

 

There is one thing that's extremely obvious about the PMGB claims, perhaps more obvious than with the claims of other critics of both Ibrox clubs, and that is that he has rattled the current club's board on more than one occasion, but other than to denigrate him - in a way similar to his critics on here, they have consistently failed to counter the things he's said with evidenced ripostes. We don't know how well informed he is on things like, say, the repairs required to the stand roofs, but that, for me, is filed in the 'maybe' folder, but, in the meantime, TRFC have all but admitted that at least one stairwell has serious water ingress that they can't afford to repair, and the Rangers tweeter/poster who seems to have broken the story, has also posted that a figure of ?7m is required to cover more stadium repairs.

 

So, it's a 'maybe' for PMGB on the roofs, but it's another 'maybe', closing in on a definite, from a source not 'tainted' by Irishness, again not countered by TRFC, despite the fact that it has been covered by the SMSM, so it's reasonable to assume that there are major structural repairs required at Ibrox, and that the club can't afford to carry them out. These structural problems may, or may not, be health and safety issues, though wet stairways certainly are, but we know that any repairs not tackled timeously only get worse and more costly to repair, so the potential bill is rising.

 

Still, the question remains, if we do not use PMGB as a source of information, or, as, what he should be looked on here, a source for a discussion point, who should we use? Or should we, as everyone involved with the Ibrox clubs and the game's governance, not to mention the SMSM, would like us to do, just stop talking about it and 'move on'?

 

Again, I ask, if we don't use 'sources' such as PMGB, who should we use? And who, or what, is the source that the likes of CJGJ uses that convinces him that everything 'the Irish Blogger' says is false? He should let us know, for instantly all TRFC's problems will be over, and Rangers can rest in peace having cheated no one!

Read Three Names all you want but given his track record of exclusives is about the same as Greenginger's on our new stand, excuse me if I laugh at anyone taking him seriously.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Read Three Names all you want but given his track record of exclusives is about the same as Greenginger's on our new stand, excuse me if I laugh at anyone taking him seriously.

Read the post again and tell me where you see me saying I take him seriously, or say that anyone else should! Feel free to ignore the words of people who don't fit your world view, in the meantime, the rest of us are free to read and assimilate whatever information is available to us to form an opinion on what's happening at ibrox, the home of a club that cheated us all and now the home of it's rather unsavoury replacement club. It is, after all, only an opinion, and not some life threatening disease we are forming

 

As I said previously, it matters not what the content of accurate/inaccurate information is in his blogs, it won't change the facts one little bit, but it does keep us, and a lot of other people, talking about the goings on at that home of cheats, helping to prevent the 'Rangers' protectors at Hampden and the SMSM succeeding in their attempts to have us all just 'move on'.

[jamboy1982]

Read the post again and tell me where you see me saying I take him seriously, or say that anyone else should! Feel free to ignore the words of people who don't fit your world view, in the meantime, the rest of us are free to read and assimilate whatever information is available to us to form an opinion on what's happening at ibrox, the home of a club that cheated us all and now the home of it's rather unsavoury replacement club. It is, after all, only an opinion, and not some life threatening disease we are forming

 

As I said previously, it matters not what the content of accurate/inaccurate information is in his blogs, it won't change the facts one little bit, but it does keep us, and a lot of other people, talking about the goings on at that home of cheats, helping to prevent the 'Rangers' protectors at Hampden and the SMSM succeeding in their attempts to have us all just 'move on'.

This post and your previous post are excellent.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Read the post again and tell me where you see me saying I take him seriously, or say that anyone else should! Feel free to ignore the words of people who don't fit your world view, in the meantime, the rest of us are free to read and assimilate whatever information is available to us to form an opinion on what's happening at ibrox, the home of a club that cheated us all and now the home of it's rather unsavoury replacement club. It is, after all, only an opinion, and not some life threatening disease we are forming

 

As I said previously, it matters not what the content of accurate/inaccurate information is in his blogs, it won't change the facts one little bit, but it does keep us, and a lot of other people, talking about the goings on at that home of cheats, helping to prevent the 'Rangers' protectors at Hampden and the SMSM succeeding in their attempts to have us all just 'move on'.

That's the difference. You and your SFM mates are as obsessed with all things Sevco as you are with the bigger issue of corruption in the game. If they have a stand problem, so bloody what? We have seating problems with ours FFS!

[Boris]

That's the difference. You and your SFM mates are as obsessed with all things Sevco as you are with the bigger issue of corruption in the game. If they have a stand problem, so bloody what? We have seating problems with ours FFS!

 

Yeah, but it boils down to things like conivance with the powers that be to strip them of safety certs etc.

 

The only similarities with us and them is that there are stand issues.  Ours isn't finished yet, theirs accommodate c50k people!

[Unknown user]

That's the difference. You and your SFM mates are as obsessed with all things Sevco as you are with the bigger issue of corruption in the game. If they have a stand problem, so bloody what? We have seating problems with ours FFS!

So bloody what? So it's worth bloody mentioning on a thread specifically about the rangers and their travails!

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Yeah, but it boils down to things like conivance with the powers that be to strip them of safety certs etc.

 

The only similarities with us and them is that there are stand issues. Ours isn't finished yet, theirs accommodate c50k people!

Wow! Akin to the vermin calling our old stand a "deathtrap".

 

The only people they could "connive" with on a stand would be Glasgow City council. Not sure how the football authorities are "conniving" here.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

So bloody what? So it's worth bloody mentioning on a thread specifically about the rangers and their travails!

Is it?

[Boris]

Wow! Akin to the vermin calling our old stand a "deathtrap".

 

The only people they could "connive" with on a stand would be Glasgow City council. Not sure how the football authorities are "conniving" here.

 

Who mentioned the footballing authorities?  I said the powers that be.  In relation to H&S  it could well be the council!

[XB52]

Read the post again and tell me where you see me saying I take him seriously, or say that anyone else should! Feel free to ignore the words of people who don't fit your world view, in the meantime, the rest of us are free to read and assimilate whatever information is available to us to form an opinion on what's happening at ibrox, the home of a club that cheated us all and now the home of it's rather unsavoury replacement club. It is, after all, only an opinion, and not some life threatening disease we are forming

 

As I said previously, it matters not what the content of accurate/inaccurate information is in his blogs, it won't change the facts one little bit, but it does keep us, and a lot of other people, talking about the goings on at that home of cheats, helping to prevent the 'Rangers' protectors at Hampden and the SMSM succeeding in their attempts to have us all just 'move on'.

some great posts from you lately and very interesting that not one of our sevco minded posters has managed to counter anything you said Edited August 25, 2017 by Dipped Flake

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Who mentioned the footballing authorities? I said the powers that be. In relation to H&S it could well be the council!

The point is that the reason the thread exists is for a tad more important reason than their stands and repairs to them.

[reaths17]

Wow! Akin to the vermin calling our old stand a "deathtrap".

 

The only people they could "connive" with on a stand would be Glasgow City council. Not sure how the football authorities are "conniving" here.

its not akin to anything my club has done. its well known ibrox needs repaired and at this moment my club dont have a stand, where's the akin bit ?

[Unknown user]

Is it?

Well yes, it's on topic and people are talking about it. It seems to fit the criteria for worth mentioning imo.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Well yes, it's on topic and people are talking about it. It seems to fit the criteria for worth mentioning imo.

I'm comparing and contrasting to things like the Bryson defence. If a rumour about a leaky stand is now the currency then it would suggest the thread has seen better days.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

its not akin to anything my club has done. its well known ibrox needs repaired and at this moment my club dont have a stand, where's the akin bit ?

Just get a dictionary. It will help.

[Unknown user]

I'm comparing and contrasting to things like the Bryson defence. If a rumour about a leaky stand is now the currency then it would suggest the thread has seen better days.

Well I'm sure we all appreciate your efforts to improve it!

[Boris]

I'm comparing and contrasting to things like the Bryson defence. If a rumour about a leaky stand is now the currency then it would suggest the thread has seen better days.

 

Or, it could be another point in the dismal existance of The Rangers.  Is it possible that there becomes a critical mass where they can no longer function?

[jambovambo]

I read the guy's blogs because he has been proven right in the past (not always, of course), and actually I desperately want what he says is happening / will happen to be true.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

some great posts from you lately and very interesting that not one of our sevco minded posters has managed to counter anything you said

Thanks for that, DF, and I am still waiting for someone to suggest a source of information much better than PMGB (I'm not saying none exist). For anyone to be so certain that he talks utter nonsense, they, themselves, must have a source that is far better than him. 

 

Oh, and one more thing; Rangers cheated us, why would anyone be upset by anything anyone said against them? Why would any Hearts supporter not want Rangers, or any club that claims to be them, to suffer until they've paid, in full, for that cheating? If the Ibrox stands need expensive repairs, then good, that's a lot less money they've got to offer the Jamie Walkers of this world, or even to pretend they have available, just to disrupt a player, or his club!

 

And, in case there's any doubt in anyone's mind, if it had been Celtic that had cheated us with the use of EBTs, if they had obtained a Euro license fraudulently, been liquidated and started up again claiming to be the same club, in short, done all the harm to our game that Rangers did, then they, too, would be the object of my ire, and I am certain that that would be unanimously repeated throughout JKB and every other place that football is discussed! Maybe, though, we'd see a number over on Eejits.net lending similar support to them as we see here giving succour to Rangers.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

I read the guy's blogs because he has been proven right in the past (not always, of course), and actually I desperately want what he says is happening / will happen to be true.

 

Pretty much how I feel too.