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

    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.

    Bad Money?
    John Clark 19th July 2019 at 21:55


    John, in what context did McFadden find the 'need' to utter the following in the build up to a Motherwell v Morton match?

    "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."

    I'd be interested to know if he found cause to mention Hearts or Hibs relegations, or Dundee United's, and so on, or was he caught up in a discussion about the relegation of West Coast football clubs like Morton? I'd hazard a guess at no, he didn't and wasn't. I'd even say I am sure there was no link between either of the clubs involved in the broadcast and the apparent link to mentioning 'Rangers' in a way that suggests the current club, that started life in the fourth tier of Scottish football, is one and the same as the one currently languishing in liquidation.

    There can be little doubt, regardless of McFadden's own honesty, that he was working from a script, perhaps a loose one, that the BBC provides it's commentators with to ensure that the word 'Rangers' is always mentioned, either in a positive way or just to push the 'continuity' propaganda. No doubt Celtic were mentioned at some point, too. You know? just to provide that BBC 'balance'.

    Bad Money?
    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!