0
    0

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

    Jingso.Jimsie2nd April 2019 at 16:46    

     

    All of that is utterly irrelevant to what we were discussing regarding Brown's unprofessional and unecessarily provocative behaviour.

     

    Why take the ball of the spot? 

    Bogs Dollox Also Commented

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    Cluster One2nd April 2019 at 21:58  

     

    You give the PR machine too much credit. The chatter about Morelos and Brown will have died our by the end of the week. So it won't be a deflection from the court case.

     

    The poor record Gerrard has will be played up by the PR machine with the assistance of the MSM because they want him to go and that may provide the smokescreen whilst the court case runs but I'm sure there will be other squirrels released round about then.


    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    easyJambo2nd April 2019 at 21:33  

    Bogs Dollox 2nd April 2019 at 18:51

    So despite my previous posts condemning the violent conduct of Morelos, Kent etc you can still ask me that question. Poor show on your part but for the avoidance of doubt, of course it's not sufficient provocation. ================================ All good, but why then did you post "……………….. we were discussing regarding Brown's unprofessional and unecessarily provocative behaviour. Why take the ball of the spot?"  My interpretation of what you posted was that you considered Brown was being provocative throughout the game and you linked his taking the ball off the spot as being an example of that. If that is all you meant then I agree with you.

    ===============================

    Yes that is exactly what I meant. At last. I'm merely pointing out that there are two sides to this. And if you want to grade it in some way then the behaviour of the Rangers players was off the scale compared to Brown.

    =================================

     

    However if you view that Brown's antics justified some sort of a response from Rangers players, then I disagree.  If any of the officials saw Brown's "provocation" as anything other than minor, then I would expect them to take action.

    ==============================

    That is not my view and that should have been obvious from my previous posts which is why I got annoyed at your accusation. I can only assume you never read them or didn't grasp what I was saying.

    =================================

      All I pointed out was that the action of delaying a restart is common-place throughout a game.  Celtic had just scored late in the game. It's hardly a surprise that they would do anything thereafter to slow down the game. The reaction was completely disproportionate to Brown's "provocation". Some players do seek to wind up their opponents and provoke a reaction. It is part of the game, sometimes physical like  an "accidental" elbow in the ribs or standing on a player's foot at a set piece, or it can be verbal like slagging off a wife/girlfriend. There are a couple ways to get even. You can do it physically by perhaps leaving a foot in at the next tackle, or much more effectively by demonstrating that you are a better footballer than them. What you don't do is to retaliate at the time. More often than not you will be one that gets done for it.

    ===============================

    Yes I agree players resort to the sort of gamesmanship you describe. It doesn't make it acceptable or in fact within the Laws of the game. There is too much of it from the stuff you describe to diving, faking injury etc

    Anyway I'm pleased we have cleared that one up. Let the barrage of thumbs downs commence.


    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
     easyJambo2nd April 2019 at 18:16   5   0   Rate This Bogs Dollox 2nd April 2019 at 17:10 Jingso.Jimsie2nd April 2019 at 16:46    All of that is utterly irrelevant to what we were discussing regarding Brown's unprofessional and unecessarily provocative behaviour. Why take the ball of the spot?  ================================ I'm certainly no lover of Scott Brown, but are you suggesting that taking the ball of the spot was in some way sufficient provocation for being punched in the face  

    ================

     

    So despite my previous posts condemning the violent conduct of Morelos, Kent etc you can still ask me that question. Poor show on your part but for the avoidance of doubt, of course it's not sufficient provocation.


    Recent Comments by Bogs Dollox

    Bad Money?
    I would also add that

    "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 "

    When? FFS! On what date?

    In what way can an individual subscribe for shares in the name of his holding company? The holding company subscribed for shares not Ashley. They are seperate legal entities. It isn't even his personal holding company if its quoted.


    Bad Money?
    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.

     


    Bad Money?
    John Clark 19th July 2019 at 23:40

     

    Darkbeforedawn 19th July 2019 at 22:50

    '..Off all people McFadden could never be accused of helping our Rangers. '

    +++++++++++++++++

    well, in so far as he (under BBC 'pressure' ?) bows the head and talks sh.t. he helps propagate the nonsense that the original Rangers were merely relegated!

    I have drafted the following letter to the DG of the BBC which touches on the point. I do not say that I will send it, but I may do.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    John – its your old mate Bogs here.

    Don't tar James with the deniers brush just because he appears in the media and said some stuff. Or so the media said.

    I see A Lindsay Herron was on SuperScoopbord tonight on that Clyde 1. Who is he?


    Accountability via Transparency.
    Big Pink 19th June 2019 at 09:45

     

    In football, like everywhere else in the capitalist world, a sale takes place when a commodity is worth more to the buyer than the seller. A football agent’s job is to stimulate the process.
    The Turnbull situation is no different to tens of similar scenarios played out away from the public gaze.
    Turnbull’s labour is probably worth more to others than to Celtic. Nothing unusual there except that the public acceptance of the bid puts pressure on either side.
    The figures being talked about here are (from my information) way over the top – double in fact – but my own advice to any young guy in David Turnbull’s position would be to leave the influence of the the hushed-up sectarianism report, the 5WA, and the pound-shop corruption behind.
    Go to a place where the game is as fair as it can be – and the very best of luck to him wherever he goes.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Hang on a minute. In the first part of your post you explain how the pricing method within a capitalist market works but further on you are surprisingly able to say "The figures being talked about……. are way over the top".

    It is merely the price the market has set for the services of a largely unproven youngster with enormous potential. Norwich were prepared to pay £25k a week. Celtic could only afford £12k. Such is the way of the capitalist market when buying labour. It may be unaffordable for Celtic but its not "over the top" its simply the market rate that DT is able to realise for the sale of his labour.

    I can understand why you are disappointed Celtic lost DT because as a Motherwell fan I'm also disappointed. That disappointment may be tempered slightly because it appears he may be on loan with us until Xmas before flying off to join the Canaries. That makes sense as it gives him time to get more games under his belt. My understanding is that Celtic weren't able to meet that requirement and it was a factor in DT's decsion.

    Anyways good luck to the lad and I look forward to him being Scotlands best player for a generation.

     


    Accountability via Transparency.
    justbecauseyoureparanoid 14th June 2019 at 13:25

    John Clark 14th June 2019 at 12:53

    I can't say for sure but I believe it was felt that such a move would only serve to play into the hands of those who want to undermine the status of the women's game.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    If the proposed change was made it would only have taken goals out of the game. Who wants that?

    And if men are taller now than a 100 years ago when the goal size was set. Is there not a case for making them bigger?

    If only there was a tenacious group who were dedicated to questioning authority to improve the game.