0
    0

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

    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.

    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 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.


    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    Finnmccool2nd April 2019 at 16:49   

     

    Your comment that you don't care what Brown merely demonstrates your bias and inability to look at two sides of an incident. At no point btw have I failed to condemn the physical violence of the Rangers players.However, Brown is in no way innocent in all this – he kicked an opponent off the ball! But you choose to ignore that.

     

    Your final comment about me somehow meeting out physical violence to you is childish and deeply insulting and I would like an apology. 

    Are you making the false assumption that I'm a Rangers fan and therefore automatically capable of it. Im not a Rangers fan.

     However, your slur is hardly fair to the many sensible non violent Rangers fans. One of whom came on here recently and made some reasonable points but as usual received a barrel load of thumbs down probably just because he's a Rangers fan.

     

     

     

     


    Recent Comments by Bogs Dollox

    In Whose Interests
    Some time ago I took on the onerous task of having my ears assaulted by SuperscrotesBoard on Clyde 1.

    This was because nobody else on here actually listened to it except J. Clark Esq who listens to everything that is going on in Scotchlandshire be it on the radio, in the courts or in the shareholders shenanigans.

    But be that as it is my underlying and solemn promise was to report back to the Bams with any juicy titbits that I may have gleaned from ClydeScroteBoard.

    Well tonight I heard Shug Keevins talk about a Rangers player called Murray Loss. I thought to mysef – well Shug code it as you must but it is received and understood. Nice one. He said it again. And I thought he had actually grown a pair.

    Third time though after the break he had been corrected and he pronounced the name with the Spanish "th" on the end.

    Otherwise the show was a great big suck up to the Old Firm and at times I thought I would vomit.

    However, I did learn from Craig Beattie that as an angry young player at Hibs Scott Brown once stood on Neil Lennons foot.


    In Whose Interests
    Timtim 1st November 2019 at 11:21

    I think there would be serious issues for Directors of RIFC if they knew  the accounts would not be signed off yet were arranging for club 1872 to invest 500k , it really depends how desperate they are or if they believe they could spin their way out of it .

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

    I agree that there could be serious issues but I doubt they are the type where spin would get you out of it.

    In the same vein there must be the same question mark over the reliability of the half year to Dec 2018 numbers if the full year results produce substantial losses.

    An investor could have seen the reported half year profit and the upbeat message for the full year and thought: "you know what I'm going to get on the blower to that matched bargains geezer and see if I can't scoop up some shares in the holding company of the engine room subsidiary". Imagine his disappointment when the results for the full year are released!


    In Whose Interests
    upthehoops30th October 2019 at 10:06

    John Clark 30th October 2019 at 09:12

    ==========

    At times Sportsound might as well be recorded in a Rangers supporters club. I no longer listen. 

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

    If you think that's bad spare a thought for the Superscoreboard listeners on Clyde 1. It's gone completely downhill ever since Big Deek Johnstone "retired".

     


    In Whose Interests
    Timtim29th October 2019 at 15:29

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

    There are three factors that will be troubling the Auditors:

    Continued substantial losses

    An established liability to SD believed to be around £8m

    Future committments to pay transfer and loan fees

    The Auditors would need to convince themselves that the company is a viable going concern for 12 months after the balance sheet date and will have to consider cashflow analysis.

    If there are guarantees from Directors or others that they will provide funds to enable the company to continue trading none of the above issues would result in the accounts being qualified.

    If given the guarantees will need to be verifiable by the Auditors and not accepted on a nod and a wink given the precarious state of the company and what might happen next.

    That I believe is the difficulty. Hence the scramble for 1872 cash.


    In Whose Interests
    StevieBC 29th October 2019 at 09:38

    On the face of it, the people running Club 1872 are sailing close to the wind with this investment advice / demand, IMO.

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

    Relax you worry too much.

    I'm pretty sure the razor sharp legal mind of Jimbo Blair will have been all over every clause, sub clause, warranty, comma and full stop of the entire agreement and investment advice from top to bottom and back again!