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

    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.

    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
    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.

    Recent Comments by Allyjambo

    In Whose Interests
    While I prefer to leave direct criticism of non-cheating clubs and/or their successors to supporters of those non-cheating clubs, I'd just like to say how noticeable, and so Sevco supporter like, the plethora of TDs is to posts critical of the Celtic board when gauged against the number of posts (currently zero) challenging anyone posting said criticism. By all means give any post you disagree with a TD if you want, but at least have the guts to justify your TD with a post challenging the poster directly and setting out a counter argument, or just your own thoughts on why such criticism of your club might be wrong.

    We have all been fulsome in our praise, and indeed admiration, for the Resolution 12 guys, so these unsupported TDs for criticism of the very board so obviously blocking its progress are quite strange, to say the least. In fact, this obvious dislike of posts critical, not of Celtic FC itself, but of its board, is so typical of how those not protective of our game's integrity are getting away with it time and time again. It is, I think, an example of the 'tribalism' that those running our game take advantage of to run roughshod over all that they should be respecting, including us, the people who keep the game, and their cushy number, alive.

    A TD without a counter argument is so Morelos like in its fly kick and hide behind the petted lip style.

    PS I do acknowledge there are times when someone will come on and post something that is deserving of nothing more than a TD when to respond would not be in the best interest of the blog, or our sanity.

    In Whose Interests
    StevieBC 6th November 2019 at 22:23 Well, it's taken the SMSM 5 full days… but at last they've sourced an expert to share their opinion on the RIFC financials. Internet Bampots might want to sit down for this explosive, Scottish Sun headline; ======= "IBROX WARNING Rangers could end up in financial turmoil like 2012 if King stops bankrolling club, says footie finance expert" https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/4922995/chris-brady-rangers-dave-king-finance-expert/ ========

    Give the media a chance, Stevie. How long do you think it would take you, or any one of us, to come up with a way of spinning RIFC/TRFC's accounts as a positive for the man who's leadership has cost them so many millions?

    It's still sh*t, of course, but spare a thought for a poor hack who's been waiting for five whole days for a dump..!

    In Whose Interests
    upthehoops 5th November 2019 at 19:47 Allyjambo 5th November 2019 at 17:14 ——————————— Wouldn't a pre-pack mean a 15 point deduction in the league, expulsion from Europe, and quite probably a mutiny from the fans?


    Unless the SFA prove to be even more dishonest than they've previously been, any form of administration for TRFC would mean a 15 point deduction and, I think it is, a 2 years ban from UEFA competitions. The second penalty being a bigger financial impediment than the first, I am sure. 


    In Whose Interests
    Timtim 5th November 2019 at 18:18 @AJ 17.14 I don't think a pre pack is viable , Close have security for their loan and as you mention the footballing debts of 24m would still have to be honoured , not sure what the situation would be with Ashley or even if it would rid them of his retail contract so the debt it would be able to write off would be minimal . They have ran up the wrong type of debt , loans from themselves and to other clubs. Even liquidation may not help with a R3ngers* as to get a licence those pesky football debts would have to be honoured . They have also ran out of Real Rangers* men , who's left to step up that the fans will accept ? They really are between a rock and a hard place , they are dependent on King keeping his word and selling a Galactico for silly money .


    Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that a pre-pack* would be successful (I think that was Whyte's plan and we know how that worked out) I was merely putting it forward as a best case (for TRFC) scenario and pointing out that, even in that best case scenario, there was still a major impediment (football debts) and asking if anyone knew, because the court case hadn't yet delivered a final judgement, if any financial penalty payable to SDI would remain to be paid by RIFC/TRFC post administration. I do think that the football debts scenario, alone, could act as a major impediment to any sort of successful administration unless that long lost sugar daddy is waiting in the wings.

    *I'm referring to a pre-pack because any other administration would require a CVA and, unless he wants to either take over TRFC or set up a great merchandising deal for SDI, I doubt Ashley would allow it to be successful.

    In Whose Interests
    Just a wee thought. What if RIFC/TRFC are aware (or even just King) that admin is just around the corner and are planning a pre-pack administration. Could the SDI uncertainty over the final settlement amount be causing a delay in pulling the trigger? 

    Does anyone have any idea whether or not, should RIFC do a pre-pack, the fact that the SDI case has not been settled lead to it carrying over past an administration? By that, I mean, if they did do a quick in and out admin, screwing their current creditors, then as the SDI case has not been quantified or finalised, would that keep the final debt alive and so continue as a liability of  TRFC? That would, of course, be added to the continuing liability of the football debts and be rather off-putting for a would-be rescuer.