lodmoorhill

I would say it's 50/50 on that one. Any pay off is more than likely linked to a gagging order to ensure the truth of what's going on behind the scenes is suppressed. Because Fatty won't sign a gagging order, I suspect the the board are shitting themselves that he's going to start blabbing the minute he's out the door. They're stuck with him. It looks to me like old Lard Arse has them over a barrel. He knows where the bodies are buried, he knows where the smoking guns are, and he knows who's pulled the triggers. I would bet he's using that knowledge for one of two ends: 1. To negotiate a Super Salary bumper pay off. or: 2. To actually stand up and do the decent thing, i.e. blow the lid on the whole house of cards at the end of his 12 months. By serving the 12 months he'll claim that he stayed to protect Rangers interests in the long term and didn't just "walk away". So, a greedy b*****d, or a self styled "Rangers man"? Time will tell, eh? In the meantime, enjoy the circus.

The SFA, like it's bigger brothers FIFA and UEFA, change the rules all the time to suit specific agendas. Usually for the benefit of the "bigger clubs". There is no better example of this than the "Champions" League, which every year includes many teams that aren't champions, haven't been for a long time and are unlikely to be any time soon. But hey, it's a nice earner for the "big" clubs. There is no absolute proof that the rules were changed for Rangers benefit, but on current form, most people would believe that they were. It's not just possible, it's probable and we all know it. It really is taking the piss when you make out that the SFA is an inscrutable organisation, diligently following rules to make Scottish football a fair and equal playing field. It's not anything of the kind; it's a snakepit ruled by vested interests. And generally, it always has been.

I dread to think what anyone outside of Scotland thinks about our football, if they were ever unfortunate enough to stumble across the two mad mac's blogs. Those blogs are everything that's shameful about our game. Rhetoric inspired by hate and bile, and only filling a void because the mainstream media are utterly useless. A sad state of affairs all round.

I can understand that the bank wanted Murray to offload Rangers. I can understand that Murray had to do it if he wanted to save other businesses. I can understand why they were sold for a pound. I can't understand, and I've seen no explanation, as to why it had to be to Whyte. If the bank wanted the club off their books, then surely it didn't give a flying f**k who it was sold to? It made no difference whatsoever. Murray seems to have had more than enough information that Whyte was utterly unsuitable, but sold it to him anyway. As the free for all over the carcass of Rangers shows, there would have been others willing to chuck a pound at the club. I wouldn't claim any other candidate would have been any better than Whyte, but it does appear that Whyte was the chosen one.

Yet again, it's a case of the ruthless leading the deluded. Surely to god the Rangers fans are going to realise at some point that they hold the key to power at Ibrox. They always did. No income for the club = no club. None of their fans are happy, yet they continue to feed the beast. It's so obvious a three year old could understand the implications. They've been fleeced, continue to be fleeced, and seem happy to be fleeced for the foreseeable future. Whilst the majority of us diddies would shed no tears at the demise of either of the ugly sisters, it's unfeasible that Rangers or Celtic could ever disappear off the face of Scottish football simply because of what they are. However much people loathe them it's inevitable that they will eventually pop up again, albeit in another guise. The Rangers fans simply have to withhold money, support, and ensure a boycott of any corporate sponsors. It's all they have ever had to do. They can easily force the spivs to sell up to a new "messiah". The spivs will sell before the club goes bust, simply because getting a bit of money is preferable to getting f**k all. Without the fans money, the board are a busted flush. The fans could have brought them to their knees a long time ago, and forced a change of ownership. The performance of their supporters clubs throughout the whole debacle has been woeful. If they'd spent less time dicking on about world domination, and "getting back" at the rest of Scottish football, and more time tackling the board head on, they wouldn't be in the position they are now (which is bent over and fucked up the ass). Mind you, it's been a bit of a giggle for everyone else.

Yep, I'm sure Mike Ashley became a multi millionaire by spunking away his time reading a load of mad pish spouted out on obscure facebook pages.

From the 2012 IPO: And that was back in 2012. I imagine Ashley has strengthened his position considerably since then. Looks like an asset stripping frenzy is on the cards.

Just trying to fill the time until the long promised Armageddon arrives.

From the IPO share prospectus: No mention of selling the naming rights. Make off that what you will, but it does seem that a transaction appears to have been made, which wasn't disclosed. I suppose it's all down to what someone thinks the naming rights are actually worth, however, taking a wild stab in the dark, I bet it's worth more than a pound. In fact, I know a few groups of people who would relish the prospect of getting their hands on the naming rights, and they'd certainly pay more than a quid.

As I read this, it appears to have happened around August 2012, when Ashley effectively took control of 49% of Rangers Retail. It also appears to have been done before the completion of the IPO. Surely anyone investing in New Rangers shares should have been informed that the naming rights for the stadium did not belong to the club/company? The implication of this is obvious. Naming rights are a valuable asset, and non ownership could ultimately affect the perceived value of the club/company. The fact this deal has been kept under wraps from shareholders, who ultimately own the club/company makes it seem all the more dubious. A £1??? How on fucking earth can anyone justify a deal of that sort?

I've no doubt that there is an explanation for the £1 naming rights. Wouldn't be surprised though if that explanation involved the words "dodgy", "corrupt", "shambolic", "bizarre", "laughable", "underhand", dubious", "deceitful", or possibly even "Craig Whyte" Going to be a cracking Christmas show down Govan way this year. They appear to have a total monopoly on pantomime villains at the moment.

Recall Arsene Wenger kicking off about this when his team had to play against Everton with Lukaku, when Lukaku wasn't allowed to play against Chelsea due to the fact they were his primary club. Claimed it made it an unfair advantage for Chelsea. On the other side of the coin, I remember an incident last season in the Champions League when Chelsea tried to enact a £4.5M clause if the keeper who they'd loaned to Real Sociadad played against them. UEFA said he could play and that the clause was null and void in the interests of fair play.

You're right again. I condemn all pedophiles, but I accept your right to champion one over the other.

Your right. Mass murder = wrong. Child abuse = wrong. I would lock them all up and throw away the key. However, it's my opinion, and I'm not really going to be convinced that either act is acceptable.

As I've said it's your right to believe kiddy porn or murder isn't so bad. If you're happy with it, then it's your choice. No arguments here.