Comment on One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All by Allyjambo.

    AvatarBanners to the breeze 25th March 2019 at 23:39


    Thanks for the info, Banners, it certainly all points to a deliberate campaign against Gerrard. Too much of a coincidence that it comes after Gerrard's star has fallen so far to be just that, a coincidence. If that story had broken while Gerrard was flying high it would have been swatted away like a dying fly and written up as an example of a manager who brooks no nonsense from unhappy players, and that mention of Morelos is just too neat.

    Has there been any backlash from the bears towards the SP yet for carrying an anti-'Rangers' story, or has it just been accepted, or ignored, by the bulk of the usual angry bears? Their response to such a hatchet job could be quite telling.

    Allyjambo Also Commented

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    StevieBC 1st April 2019 at 18:46

    Morelos has made a public apology via Twitter to his club and fans. Fair enough. No mention though of the guy he assaulted in public view, and in front of countless Police officers.

    Sums him up I suppose…



    I think it sums up TRFC's PR guru more than it does Morelos. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Morelos is unaware that he has made any sort of apology, unless one of his team mates tells him.

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    Not a lover of Scott Brown, he certainly loves to wind up the opposition players and fans, and sometimes gets the reaction he is looking for. Thing is, though opposing players often try to get him back with dodgy tackles and sly digs, I've never seen anything like that Kent punch thrown at him, or at any other player. It certainly was a beauty of the kind thrown in boxing movies, and if it had connected it would have seen Brown counted out and stretchered off.

    Brown was equally good at moving out of the way of the punch which has undoubtedly saved Kent from police action (though he might face it yet), and I'll stick my neck out here and suggest that even the SFA won't be able to ignore it and he must surely face a lengthy ban.

    It was no petulant reaction to an annoying opponent, it was a 100% punch from someone who clearly knows how to throw a knockout blow, and intended to land on the victim's jaw to his severe injury, the pictures, both still and moving, leave little doubt of that.

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    The appointment of Madden to this weekend's Celtic v TRFC match is, at it's very best, crass stupidity, but I suspect it's more to do with a 'get it right up ya' signal to Scottish football (clubs and supporters) that the SFA are in charge and as such cannot make mistakes. That is, they are telling us all that the midden Madden made last time wasn't actually a midden but a display of good refereeing and he is the man to officiate a potential powder keg of a football match.

    Or. It could be a challenge to Celtic daring them to make a complaint before the match to ramp up ill will within the game that the SFA seem intent on creating and multiplying.

    It has to be said, though, that a rod has been made for all concerned in the appointment of Madden, for even if he makes a genuinely honest mistake in favour of the club he supports, the fallout could/should be immense.

    This appointment is in all probability as great an example of crass incompetence/dereliction of duty by the SFA as the appointment of Alex McLeish as Scotland manager was.

    I do hope Celtic are putting in extra training on playing with 10 or less players.

    Recent Comments by Allyjambo

    Bad Money?
    AvatarAuldheid 23rd July 2019 at 13:07  Here is a link to CQN article. https://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/newco-how-long-can-this-phoenix-fly/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


    A very interesting piece, Auldheid, raising a very interesting question – why? Why did TRFC/King set out on road that could only end in disaster? A simple question, but I'd guess we'll never get the answer, or, at least, the true answer.


    Bad Money?
    easyJambo 23rd July 2019 at 12:22 I suspect that most people missed this story yesterday https://spfl.co.uk/news/spfl-board-elected-for-201920 Stewart Robertson was elected to the SPFL Board. Just as Justice Persey observed "Mr Robertson was, in my view, a mouthpiece for Rangers."


    Isn't that the usual function of an SFA official?


    Bad Money?
    Bogs Dollox 23rd July 2019 at 00:20 18.Rangers and SDIR did not have an easy relationship. Sports Direct’s involvement with the Club had its origin in the financial difficulties faced by the Club in 2012. The company that owned the Club was placed into interim liquidation in 2012. The assets and business of the Club were purchased by Rangers on 14 June 2012 following which the parties concluded a shareholders’agreement pursuant to which Rangers undertook to transfer all of its IP rights to RRL. At about the same time, Mr Mike Ashley, Sports Direct’s Chief Executive, subscribed for shares in Rangers in the name of his holding company and took a minority shareholding in the Club ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Cannot believe a learned judge would get this so wrong. "Rangers" or the "Club", are both defined earlier in the agreement as "The Rangers Football Club Ltd". In what way is it possible for the same legal entity to sell assets and the business to itself if it is in liquidation? Mental.


    I think we have to remember that this paragraph is not part of the judgement or anything that formed the basis of the judgement, it is mere background to the dispute. It would be in neither party's interest to dispute what has been put to the judge in this way as both have a commercial interest in the continuance of the big lie. If, say, SDI saw an advantage in correcting this error, then it would have been argued out in court and formed a part of the judgement and lent weight to the argument one way or the other.

    In defence of his lordship, he can only include in his judgement that which has been put before him and has no interest in correcting anything, accepted by both sides, that does not affect the legal arguments of the case, however much we might wish for him to do so.

    The only way we will ever see a definitive judgement in court is if the true identity of the football club is germane to the case, in a way similar to my somewhat tongue in cheek suggestion yesterday that Charles Green might use in his case v TRFC. That is, the deal he struck with SDI was the best a new club might expect.

    Bad Money?
    spikeyheid 22nd July 2019 at 22:32



    Here you go JC https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/SDIR-v-Rangers-April-2019-Trial-Final-Judgment-July-22-2019-1.pdf

    You won't enjoy paragraph 18 I'm afraid.


    Hmm, I wonder if this so obvious error might form the basis for Dave King's now traditional appealcryingangry

    Bad Money?
    Allyjambo 22nd July 2019 at 20:29 "……To go back to another court case, one I believe the club has dropped. The one v Charles Green over the bad deal he'd set up with SDI………." +++++++++++++++ I posted this at the time, Aj, and haven't seen anything since to suggest that the 'motions' were related to the case being dropped. I don't know enough about Court procedure to say whether a litigant has to enrol a motion asking the court's permission before he is allowed to drop his claim, but maybe he can, if he has agreed to meet all expenses without arguing the toss? Have you seen or heard anything that I might have missed? If not, then the 'unopposed' motions' may have related to merely procedural matters, a suggestion by one side that was agreed by the other, without needing to involve the judge. "The following motions were granted, unopposed, on Tuesday 9th July A97/18 Rangers International Football Club Plc v Charles Green Anderson Strathern LLP "


    Your reference might well be what gave me the impression the case had been dropped, and I have no further information on it I'm afraid. I can't imagine, though, that TRFC's counsel will see much point in continuing with the case in light of the mess King & Co have made of their current merchandising deal with SDI, which, even if they'd honoured it, doesn't appear to be any better than the one Green negotiated.

    If the case is continuing then I do hope that what I suggest might be raised, even if only for the devilmentblush It could very well end the big lie if it had to be argued out in court as an acceptable defence for Green, but only if he can show that they are a new club, which they are.

    But could you imagine the panic at Ibrox if Green's counsel did put this forward as a defence, even before the trial stage?