Comment on Bad Money? by Allyjambo.

    More p*sh from Ibrox facing media.

    'Steven Gerrard Rejects Approach To Manage Newcastle And Rebuffs Mike Ashley To Stay At Rangers'

    That's a headline in the Daily Mail. Now anyone who thinks Mike Ashley would put himself in a position to be rebuffed by anyone at Ibrox hasn't been paying attention. No details, of course, and the Mail does cover itself by 'crediting' the Mirror for the story. But…with Sky Sports in full Ibrox PR mode, making it sound like 'Rangers' are awash with cash, it's all becoming rather wearisome. Oh, and the smiles on the Sky Sports' pundits whenever they mention 'Rangers' or Gerrard…they look like they're on a bonus for saying the words!

    Allyjambo Also Commented

    Bad Money?
    John Clark 21st July 2019 at 14:29 



    Allyjambo 21st July 2019 at 09:59

    '…that no action can be taken against a dead club..'


    Oh, I don't know about that, Aj.

    The history books could/should show that Rangers FC of 1872 died an utterly dishonourable death, not occasioned by the run-of-the-mill  business failure that even perfectly honest businesses can suffer but a death caused by its serial cheating both of the Football Authorities and of HMRC over  a number of years.

    Post-mortem expulsion from Scottish Football is entirely possible and appropriate.

    And of course the absurd pretence that TRFC Ltd is the same club as that monstrous cheat of a club should be forthwith abandoned, and Scottish Football put back on the path of Sporting truth.


    Which kind of backs up what I was saying, JC. The 'club' will be unaffected, just as the vile Jimmy Saville was/is by his post mortem revelations (pardon my distasteful analogy, but it's the most lucid one I could come up with). The supporters, of course, won't be unaffected by such things as change of history, but they're not what those blocking Resolution 12 are concerned with (other than in some cases being supporters of the deceased club, but still more concerned about their own part in the deception and/or cover-up).

    In short, I believe those involved in blocking a proper investigation/inquiry are solely concerned with the effects the revelations might have on them, such as job loss, reputation loss, jail time?, and even own club revenue.

    They are, each and every one of them, self-serving barstewards.


    Bad Money?
    JC and Auldheid.

    Isn't it so disappointing. depressing even, that we now know that those charged with running our clubs are prepared to use underhand methods to defeat their own supporters and shareholders in an effort to prevent an investigation into the likely wrongdoing of, not only of one member club (now defunct), but the SFA as well?

    I very much doubt that the clubs and SFA are worried about the effect an investigation would have on Rangers(IL), they know, after all, that no action can be taken against a dead club and the current club is protected by the very fact it is a different club. It is, particularly in the case of the SFA, the fear of what might come out about their own, personal, actions and blind eye turning that causes this reluctance to seek justice. That and the realisation that a proper, fully publicised, investigation would blow the continuation myth right out the water as an explanation would have to be made as to why the current club is not responsible for the actions of the club we know is dead but those running the game wish to pretend is still living and playing at Ibrox.

    Of course, anyone involved at Rangers at the time the (potential) fraud took place might feel the effects of any fallout, maybe even a criminal investigation.

    Bad Money?
    Darkbeforedawn 19th July 2019 at 22:50

    20 minutes or so before the M'well v Morton kick-off, I heard James McFadden come out with the 'when Rangers dropped down the divisions' observation.

    Off all people McFadden could never be accused of helping our Rangers. He has despised us for as long as he has been a player. At times there are folk who just don’t get involved or see it as either being pro or against new club idea. It’s a case of “if it smells like Rangers and looks like Rangers then it it’s rangers”. And there are a large large number of Celtic fans who are the same. There will always be a large number who will never accept it, but likewise a large number who don’t get involved or care. I don’t think it’s fair to assume every person who states what you proclaim as a lie is in some sort of conspiracy. I’ll stick up for Fad for as much as I know he hates Rangers I will never forget the memories of that night in Paris.


    I'd suggest your comments, highlighted in bold, while probably true, are as a direct result of the lying propaganda pushed by the SMSM and, in particular, the BBC, that John has just written about.

    Continually publish a lie and more and more people will accept it as the truth, or, at least, stop pushing against the lie. And the continuous and unremitting need to repeat the lie, particularly when there is no obvious cause to mention it, is proof that it is, indeed, a lie.

    Recent Comments by Allyjambo

    Accountability via Transparency.
    On the VAR and penalties debate. It's not the rule that says the keeper must stay on his line that irks me, it is, in fact, a good rule, it's the fact that a movement, so insignificant that no one notices it with the naked eye, can lead to a save being denied and now the keeper booked. 

    It's not as though there's been a significant number of penalties saved where keepers have been striding out from the line, not in an effort to gain purchase for their dive, but to narrow the angles and put the penalty taker off (something they were doing to great effect in the 70s until it was clamped down on). So why has this tightening of an existing rule been introduced? I suspect it's been introduced solely on the grounds of 'we have the technology, now let's find something more to use it for'.

    This yellow card part doesn't half rub salt into the wound, though, with a save denied and the keeper booked for something that is much less serious than, say, a non-violent foul which can lead to serious injury. I wonder how long it will be before a keeper is sent off for making two penalty saves, or for saving a penalty when already on a yellow! And what's it going to be like when it comes to a penalty shoot-out?

    Accountability via Transparency.
    wottpi 20th June 2019 at 14:34

    Won't be long now till we have the cheerleaders coming onto the pitch to entertain us while we wait on decisions on whether or not a player stole a yard at a throw in.

    A years ago we were discussing (well, I wasn't, actually) the merits of introducing goal-line technology, but here we are discussing whether or not an involuntary movement (so slight no one noticed it in play) of a foot by a goalkeeper facing a penalty should result in a save being nullified and the keeper being booked.

    Remember, in football, even handball is the subject of 'did he mean it? Was he seeking to gain an advantage?' I'd suggest the 'advantage' of a foot 12 inches or less from the goal line in preparation for a dive equals zero advantage, other than in giving a better foundation for an intended dive.

    As I said, it was just goal-line technology a year ago, and now we have television, not only deciding when a game will kick off, but the result of the game, itself. When will it end? How long until technology takes over the game itself?

    Accountability via Transparency.
    Auldheid 20th June 2019 at 11:47  Allyjambo I was making the same point about removal of spontaneity from the game. It will kill it. Another issue for me is that it seemed to be replacing the referee in the WWC rather than assisting, thus removing the need for a referee. Did the refs ask for a view or did the VAR guys say you missed a hand ball under the new rules which themselves add to the controversy? Clarity is required but it's fair to say VAR did not once help the women's team, although no excuse for surrendering a 3 goal lead.


    To me, any more than deciding whether or not the ball was over the line (the line doesn't move and the ball doesn't 'simulate') is a step too far, but if they must go further, I think they should take a lead from cricket, where the Decision Review System sticks with the umpire's on-field decision unless it is clearly wrong – and clearly wrong wouldn't take the length of time it took to decide that it was a penalty in last night's game.

    Then, from last night's evidence, they are taking skills out of the game by penalising keepers for making movements that are more or less imperceptible to the human eye, which will make it almost impossible to save a penalty as the keepers will be afraid to move – until it's too late. This won't only make it near impossible to save a penalty, it will make scoring one so easy that the skills employed will be reduced to just ensuring the ball's not hit straight at the keeper or past the woodwork. 'Sending the keeper the wrong way' will become a thing of the past.

    Another thing, it would appear that every penalty 'save' will be under scrutiny with the keeper getting booked if he moves too early; so what goalkeeper is going to risk a sending off in the event he has to face more than one penalty in a match or has already been booked? I wonder how long it will be until, as a protest, a keeper stands with his back to the ball (as it's probably the only way to avoid instinctive movements) or walks out of the goals? 


    PS I'm not questioning the existing rule that says a keeper must not move forward until the ball is kicked, just saying that when that movement can only be caught by technology, the movement is hardly more than the keeper setting himself (herself) to dive and is not seeking an unfair advantage.

    PPS From memory, the rule used to be that a goalkeeper could neither move forward nor sideways before the ball was kicked, and the penalty taker couldn't 'dummy' or hesitate when taking the penalty. But over the years keepers started to 'narrow the angle' by stepping out quite far just before the ball was kicked and this became more obvious with the introduction of action replays on TV so the rules were changed slightly. Some were moving forward distances measure in feet, not inches, and so something had to be done. The changes meant that the keeper was allowed to move sideways before the ball was kicked, and the taker was allowed to 'dummy' or hesitate when taking the penalty, but the movement forward continued to be outlawed. 

    Accountability via Transparency.
    wottpi 20th June 2019 at 10:35


    Or another question is, if you are living hand to mouth, why sign up for a multi-million pound project that should really be low down on your list of priorities.



    Could the answer be that you need to keep your club/business relevant and in the news with multi-million pound purchases while continuing to have an over-inflated opinion of yourself and your club/business? Could it be that without this kind of subterfuge, you won't be able to maintain a level of income that comes close to that required, however far 'close' might actually be from the required amount? Could it be that, in this case, the plan was never to go ahead with the project but you allowed it to progress past the critical stage in the negotiations, or, as seems to have happened in the current case v Ashley/SDI, you haven't read the contract properly in the first place?

    Could it be all of the above?mail

    I'd hazard a guess at probably.indecision

    Accountability via Transparency.
    After watching Scotland Ladies last night I have to conclude that football is becoming a video game, with VAR becoming a bigger and bigger part of it (probably because someone is making a nice little earner from it).

    I've never really bought into technology in the game, preferring to accept that (genuine) mistakes are part and parcel of the game, but was happy to accept 'goal-line technology' to decide what is, after all, the most important part of the game. But now it appears FIFA are determined to push it into every aspect of the game, with longer and longer delays, destroying that which makes football the greatest sport there's ever been, it's sudden bursts of excitement that is a goal, something that cannot be replicated in any other sport.

    A goal is scored, you look to the ref and linesman to see if it stands, and your heart bursts with excitement (or despair), but now, you have to wait to see if the game restarts before you know.

    What a wonderful moment of theatre that was when the Scotland goalie saved that penalty, only to be wiped out by a ludicrous technicality – a technicality so inconsequential that the only way to spot it as happening was with this overuse of technology.

    With FIFA's record, someone within their ranks has to be making money from VAR, either through kickbacks or a share in the copyright of the technology.