Rangers FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2012/2013

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Yes I celebrated the days when we had success under his leadership the problem is and this is the last time I am going to say it to you as you seem unable to take it into your brain the ordinary fan had no idea what was going on until it was to late even then we could have done sweet feck all.

Now I hope that's clear enough for you

It was a tongue in cheek comment but just you just cant resist having a go :rolleyes:

If Celtic had to do a £57m share issue to service a £80m debt at any time in our history, we would have to be living under a rock not to know about it or be very concerned about how the club is being run.

Tongue in cheek give me a break all you have done on here recently is have a go so why should I think that one is any different

Of course when it came out about the share issue we asked questions but we could do nothing due to him having total control of the club unlike Celtic who are a PLC but then again nearly landed in tha crap when it was the old guard that owned you. Let's face it that wasn't a nice time to be a tic fan and contrary to popular belief many many Rangers fans did not relish the thought of Celtic going under

dartbhoy

Well,well,well the SFA are full of surprises! I seriously thought there was no hope of Aluko getting a ban for the diving incident especially after Hibs player O'Connor been cleared of a similar offence but lo and behold they have upheld the 2 match ban on Aluko!

I think it's a good thing to bring in bans for diving and play acting but the SFA have left themselves wide open to criticism with today's judgement after leaving off O'Connor for the same offence. However the SFA are very inconsistent with their bans as we have seen over the years with some of their baffling decisions to say the least! I can understand why some rangers fans are upset over this.

And to give Dunfermline manager Jim McIntyre a 2 match ban for commenting on the ref is another joke decision!

lubo_moravcik

Jelle1880 wrote: »

2 match ban for Aluko upheld.
For what is in general a yellow card offence.

Joke of a decision.
Not to mention that O'Connor got off free.

He dived, he cheated, he gained an advantage which ultimately led to a goal which won you the match, he has been punished.
O'Connor's dive was disgraceful too and he should also be punished. 2 wrongs don't make a right though, because he wasn't punished does that mean that Aluko shouldn't be punished??

You can go on about double standards, but if it was anyone else you'd agree it was a dive and he should pay for it (Aluko did pay to play :rolleyes:)

Eirebear

It's all about consistency though isnt it?

O'Connor gets his overturned on appeal, Aluko doesnt. Samaras rolls around like he's been attacked by a lion against ICT, no one at the SFA bats an eyelid, despite overturning the ICT players Red Card.

I said this all the time last year while Celtic where going loopy over Dougie-gate and the like, the standards in Scotland are attrocious - at all levels, and it affects all clubs.

RoryMac

Eirebear wrote: »

It's all about consistency though isnt it?

O'Connor gets his overturned on appeal, Aluko doesnt. Samaras rolls around like he's been attacked by a lion against ICT, no one at the SFA bats an eyelid, despite overturning the ICT players Red Card.

I said this all the time last year while Celtic where going loopy over Dougie-gate and the like, the standards in Scotland are attrocious - at all levels, and it affects all clubs.

Trying to compare the Aluko incident with Samaras at ICT is sh1te TBF, Aluko cheated, wasn't touched and dived for a penalty. Samaras was fouled but the ref incorrectly thought the ICT player led with his arm.

There is no comparison unless it's in the poor standard of refs but your description of Samaras rolling "around like he's been attacked by a lion" suggest otherwise.

Aluko deserves his 2 match ban and so did O'Connor, yes there needs to be consistency but that doesn't take from the fact Aluko cheated!

Broxi_Bear_Eire

RoryMac wrote: »

Eirebear wrote: »

It's all about consistency though isnt it?

O'Connor gets his overturned on appeal, Aluko doesnt. Samaras rolls around like he's been attacked by a lion against ICT, no one at the SFA bats an eyelid, despite overturning the ICT players Red Card.

I said this all the time last year while Celtic where going loopy over Dougie-gate and the like, the standards in Scotland are attrocious - at all levels, and it affects all clubs.

Trying to compare the Aluko incident with Samaras at ICT is sh1te TBF, Aluko cheated, wasn't touched and dived for a penalty. Samaras was fouled but the ref incorrectly thought the ICT player led with his arm.

There is no comparison unless it's in the poor standard of refs but your description of Samaras rolling "around like he's been attacked by a lion" suggest otherwise.

Aluko deserves his 2 match ban and so did O'Connor, yes there needs to be consistency but that doesn't take from the fact Aluko cheated!

Sorry Samaras cheated as much as anyone he went down as though he had been shot in the face when in actual fact contact was minimal in some ways his is actualy worse than O'Connors or Aluko as he collaborated in a player gettin wrongly sent off a pretty low thing to do to a fellow professional IMO

As for the other two they both deserve bans this just shows up the inconsistency of the SFA once again especially when they admit on Aluko's case there was some contact

Jelle1880

I still can't see how a yellow card offence warrants a 2 match ban.

dartbhoy

Denial is the main word again on this thread as per usual! Aluko gets banned and now rangers fans are up in arms about Samaras! FFS this pure childish sh*te on this thread! Aluko was deservedly banned but what I brought up was the inconsistency with the way the SFA do their business as regards suspensions and I can understand why some rangers fans are unhappy about this.

However to try and compare the Samaras situation as been far worse than Aluko is really very bitter! I could go on about past situations but I'm not going to divulge into that matter because no doubt I'll be accused of stirring the s*it pot! Rangers fans need to get their head around the fact that Aluko's dive possibly cost Dunfermline a valuable point away in their battle to stay up.

RoryMac

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Sorry Samaras cheated as much as anyone he went down as though he had been shot in the face when in actual fact contact was minimal in some ways his is actualy worse than O'Connors or Aluko as he collaborated in a player gettin wrongly sent off a pretty low thing to do to a fellow professional IMO

As for the other two they both deserve bans this just shows up the inconsistency of the SFA once again especially when they admit on Aluko's case there was some contact

I reckon your first paragraph is a wind up so I won't even respond to that.

Nobody is denying a lack of consistency and I would like to see the SFA make a statement about how they justify Aluko's ban being upheld but not O'Connor's. But isn't that what Celtic fans were calling for last year and being ridiculed for by Rangers fans? Have you forgotten Diouf & Bougherra's 'punishment' for the Celtic/Rangers game last year?

RoryMac

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I still can't see how a yellow card offence warrants a 2 match ban.

Stewart Regan answered your point in the article below

“If a referee makes a decision that has an impact on a game, because of simulation, then that is why it is not just a yellow card.”

Oh and Ally throws his toys out of the pram!

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/mccoist_ridicules_sfa_system_and_attacks_ex_referee_after_aluko_ban_upheld_1_2000019?

Eirebear

dartbhoy wrote: »

Denial is the main word again on this thread as per usual! Aluko gets banned and now rangers fans are up in arms about Samaras! FFS this pure childish sh*te on this thread! Aluko was deservedly banned but what I brought up was the inconsistency with the way the SFA do their business as regards suspensions and I can understand why some rangers fans are unhappy about this.

However to try and compare the Samaras situation as been far worse than Aluko is really very bitter! I could go on about past situations but I'm not going to divulge into that matter because no doubt I'll be accused of stirring the s*it pot! Rangers fans need to get their head around the fact that Aluko's dive possibly cost Dunfermline a valuable point away in their battle to stay up.

Yeah, your right. It seems that once again the Celtic fans who post in this thread are very much in denial.

Samaras got a fellow proffesional sent off, it's every bit as bad as Aluko's dive and O'Connors dive - yet only one play has been punished for it.
Read my post again, all you'll see is that i'm asking for consitency when it comes to retroactive punishments.

Aluko was rightly punished, but the system is quite obviously not working.

Tiocfaidh Armani

Eirebear wrote: »

Samaras got a fellow proffesional sent off

Oh deary, deary me:rolleyes:

Eirebear

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Oh deary, deary me:rolleyes:

I don't have the time or the patience to find a video of it to be honest, but are you seriously suggesting that Samaras was hit hard enough to roll around the ground in percieved agony?

To paraphrase another poster "If that had happened in an old firm game, we'd never hear the end of it."

Tiocfaidh Armani

Eirebear wrote: »

I don't have the time or the patience to find a video of it to be honest, but are you seriously suggesting that Samaras was hit hard enough to roll around the ground in percieved agony?

To paraphrase another poster "If that had happened in an old firm game, we'd never hear the end of it."

As Gordon Strachan said if I poke you in the eye how will you like it? He got sent off because the referee deemed he jumped in leading with his elbow. Don't be over-dramatic to defend scumbag cheating and blatant at that.

When you see how you all defended that cretin Diouf and now this it just sums you all up. Sums you all up just rightly...

Broxi_Bear_Eire

RoryMac wrote: »

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Sorry Samaras cheated as much as anyone he went down as though he had been shot in the face when in actual fact contact was minimal in some ways his is actualy worse than O'Connors or Aluko as he collaborated in a player gettin wrongly sent off a pretty low thing to do to a fellow professional IMO

As for the other two they both deserve bans this just shows up the inconsistency of the SFA once again especially when they admit on Aluko's case there was some contact

I reckon your first paragraph is a wind up so I won't even respond to that.

Nobody is denying a lack of consistency and I would like to see the SFA make a statement about how they justify Aluko's ban being upheld but not O'Connor's. But isn't that what Celtic fans were calling for last year and being ridiculed for by Rangers fans? Have you forgotten Diouf & Bougherra's 'punishment' for the Celtic/Rangers game last year?

Dear me if we are going to start that i could bring up loovens for example and we could go on all day the simple reason O'Connor is getting mentioned is that those two instances are comparable we also have the fact it's different people on the panel each time do right away you have that inconsistentcy we are talking about.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

dartbhoy wrote: »

Denial is the main word again on this thread as per usual! Aluko gets banned and now rangers fans are up in arms about Samaras! FFS this pure childish sh*te on this thread! Aluko was deservedly banned but what I brought up was the inconsistency with the way the SFA do their business as regards suspensions and I can understand why some rangers fans are unhappy about this.

However to try and compare the Samaras situation as been far worse than Aluko is really very bitter! I could go on about past situations but I'm not going to divulge into that matter because no doubt I'll be accused of stirring the s*it pot! Rangers fans need to get their head around the fact that Aluko's dive possibly cost Dunfermline a valuable point away in their battle to stay up.

Oh get over yourself I see one Rangers fan disagreeing with the ban
You know if your not happy about what Rangers fans say on a Rangers thread there is an easy answer I really don't see why you are getting so worked up as I always say these discussions are about matters on the park that's football

Eirebear

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

As Gordon Strachan said if I poke you in the eye how will you like it? He got sent off because the referee deemed he jumped in leading with his elbow. Don't be over-dramatic to defend scumbag cheating and blatant at that.

When you see how you all defended that cretin Diouf and now this it just sums you all up. Sums you all up just rightly...

Jesus H Christ - where have i defended Aluko? And what does Diouf have to do with anything?

There's obviously no point in discussion with you, so lets leave it at that.

RoryMac

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Dear me if we are going to start that i could bring up loovens for example and we could go on all day the simple reason O'Connor is getting mentioned is that those two instances are comparable we also have the fact it's different people on the panel each time do right away you have that inconsistentcy we are talking about.

Eh it was Eirebear and yourself that started with the incomparable Samaras sh!te. Nobody has denied the inconsistencies in the SFA rulings but it seems you only see them when it suits.

I've no interest in another round of whataboutery TBH

bamboozle

Eirebear wrote: »

Yeah, your right. It seems that once again the Celtic fans who post in this thread are very much in denial.

Samaras got a fellow proffesional sent off, it's every bit as bad as Aluko's dive and O'Connors dive - yet only one play has been punished for it.
Read my post again, all you'll see is that i'm asking for consitency when it comes to retroactive punishments.

Aluko was rightly punished, but the system is quite obviously not working.

much as i agre with a lot of what you're saying, Samaras did what 90% of soccer players do, roll around after the slightest touch. There's a bit of a difference between over exagerating a foul and blatant diving which is what Aluko was guilty of.

Once again though the inconsistencies of the SFA are exposed.

Jelle1880

bamboozle wrote: »

Samaras did what 90% of soccer players do, roll around after the slightest touch.

There was also contact with Aluko, so what's the difference ?
Hell, the panel even confirmed this.
That it led to a penalty ? Samaras got another player sent off, surely that's also a huge disadvantage for the opposition ?

And if this 'sums us all up' TA then I suggest you keep to the Celtic thread.
No idea what defending Diouf has anything to do with it, he didn't do anything wrong in his time here and behaved perfectly, despite a huge media-campaign to demonise him.

Tiocfaidh Armani

Jelle1880 wrote: »

And if this 'sums us all up' TA then I suggest you keep to the Celtic thread.
No idea what defending Diouf has anything to do with it, he didn't do anything wrong in his time here and behaved perfectly, despite a huge media-campaign to demonise him.

He is a scumbag and you welcomed with open arms for spitting at someone. What does that say about the Rangers support.

The media didn't demonise him, he demonised himself.

Tiocfaidh Armani

Rangers FC have agreed to settle a £300,000 compensation claim for damages brought by the football club's former finance director.

Donald McIntyre initiated legal proceedings against the Ibrox club to court after owner Craig Whyte took over in May.

Both Mr McIntyre and former chief executive Martin Bain had a total of £780,000 of Rangers' assets frozen as they sue the club.

On Friday, Mr McIntyre’s counsel, Jonathan Brown, told Lord Hodge at the Court of Session in Edinburgh: "I am pleased to say parties have reached, somewhat surprisingly, an agreement."

At an earlier court hearing, Lord Hodge arrested £300,000 of assets at Ibrox for Mr McIntyre’s claim where the former director’s lawyers had set out his contractual entitlements and made a prima facie case in favour of a claim for damage to his reputation.

The terms of the settlement of the action were not disclosed after the brief hearing and Mr McIntyre, who was in court, declined to comment afterwards.

Mr Brown asked the judge for a continuation in the action and explained: "There are certain documentary requirements of a settlement of this nature that have to be thrashed out. It is just not feasible to get that document worked out this morning."

The judge agreed to a continuation for a week but said that if the parties lodged a document settling the action ahead of it the hearing would be discharged.

Lord Hodge was previously told in October that chartered accountant Mr McIntyre was "kept on the hook" following his five-month suspension at Rangers after the club was taken over by venture capitalist Craig Whyte from Sir David Murray.

He resigned as a director after treating his contract as having been repudiated and raised a damages action. His contract had provided for a £120,000 a year salary plus bonuses and other provisions.

During the previous hearing at which Rangers were not represented the court heard that it was Mr McIntyre's position that there was not and never had been a basis for his suspension and it was maintained that it had not carried out disciplinary procedures in his case.

His counsel at that hearing, Stuart Buchanan, said: "This is a professional man who has been suspended as finance director who has made every effort to co-operate with Mr Whyte and every effort has been rebuffed." He said he had been kept hanging for five months waiting for some sort of progress to be made to clear his name.

Mr Buchanan added: "What is important to Mr McIntyre is the question of his reputation and his maintaining his professional status." The counsel said the only communication, if it could be called that, was through press reports that Mr McIntyre had picked up while suspended.

The Ibrox club is also being sued by its former chief executive, Martin Bain, who has raised a claim for £1.3m alleging that Rangers repudiated his contract of employment.

Lord Hodge had already ruled in the arrestment proceedings brought by Mr Bain that there was "a real and substantial risk" of insolvency at Rangers if they lost an appeal against a £49m tax and penalties bill owed to HM Revenue and Customs. The tax case is scheduled for more hearings in Edinburgh next month.

In his first TV interview since taking over the club, Mr Whyte told STV News the club suspended Mr McIntyre and Mr Bain as they were being "investigated".

He added: "We will fight the court cases. These are people who have taken a lot of money out of Rangers over the years and maybe haven’t done the best of jobs in running the business. And I think they have a cheek in saying some of the things they say, in suing Rangers for even more money."

Jelle1880

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

He is a scumbag and you welcomed with open arms for spitting at someone. What does that say about the Rangers support.

The media didn't demonise him, he demonised himself.

Open arms ?
I assume you just choose to forget the countless Rangers fans that didn't feel so good about this transfer, exactly because he had a bad reputation ?
But no, rather simplify it and make it look as we all love him because he spat at one of you lot.
I assume you hate Viduka, Sutton,... too ?

There's only one thing that matters:



And the fact that you will forever hate him for it is brilliant.

Tiocfaidh Armani

No I hated him long before that for being a despicable human being. For what he did on the pitch? You mean while he was actually on it?:D He was a flop, hence why he's at Doncaster just now:D

I know the vast majority lapped up his signing. Like I said it sums up the shame of Western Europe.

Dempsey

Did the referee cite Samaras's reaction as the reason to sending Tansey off?

Jelle1880

Shame of Western Europe ?

Ah well, you're not worth getting a ban over.

Tiocfaidh Armani

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Shame of Western Europe ?

Ah well, you're not worth getting a ban over.

A club who employed a sectarian signing policy to rival the Aparteid regime in South Africa to begin with. I could go on. I won't.

But if you wanna try and compare how fans act in each other stadiums don't make me laugh. I don't know any away support that breaking hundreds, actual HUNDREDS, of seats in acts of hooliganism.

Jelle1880

I do.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/c/celtic/6640523.stm

Did you read that correct ?

1500 seats.
Oh no, wait.
That was due to 'celebrating'.

Manchester:





Killmarnock on another occasion, after the visit of the jolly craicsters:

Dempsey

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Manchester:

You forget about the riot in the city?? FFS!

KeithAFC

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

A club who employed a sectarian signing policy to rival the Aparteid regime in South Africa to begin with. I could go on. I won't.

But if you wanna try and compare how fans act in each other stadiums don't make me laugh. I don't know any away support that breaking hundreds, actual HUNDREDS, of seats in acts of hooliganism.

Stop going over the some old nonsense time and time again. We aren't interested. All that matters is we are the champions.

Eirebear

Dempsey wrote: »

You forget about the riot in the city?? FFS!

lol - I'm fairly sure the question was about broken seats no?

Today has been very typical of a conversation with certain Celtic fans.

Rangers Fan: I disagree with your point, and here is a reasoned argument as to why.
Celtic Fan: Aye...but you lot signed Diouf!
Celtic fan: Your fans damaged Parkhead, can you point to where celtic fans have done similar things?
Rangers fan: Yes, and here is pictorial evidence to back it up.
Celtic fan: Aye...but Manchester!

Seriously, it's impossible to have a reasoned debate with some of you people. it really is.

Dempsey

Eirebear wrote: »

lol - I'm fairly sure the question was about broken seats no?

No, it was about being the shame of Western Europe.

Tiocfaidh Armani

We won the league, people were standing on the seats. I was there. I actually broke one. Jumping up and down on the fecker after Naka scored and nearly broke my neck because of their crappy seats:D

Eirebear

Dempsey wrote: »

No, it was about being the shame of Western Europe.

Learn to read pal.

But if you wanna try and compare how fans act in each other stadiums don't make me laugh. I don't know any away support that breaking hundreds, actual HUNDREDS, of seats in acts of hooliganism.

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

We won the league, people were standing on the seats. I was there. I actually broke one. Jumping up and down on the fecker after Naka scored and nearly broke my neck because of their crappy seats:D

Irony.

Dempsey

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

No I hated him long before that for being a despicable human being. For what he did on the pitch? You mean while he was actually on it?:D He was a flop, hence why he's at Doncaster just now:D

I know the vast majority lapped up his signing. Like I said it sums up the shame of Western Europe.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Shame of Western Europe ?

Ah well, you're not worth getting a ban over.

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

A club who employed a sectarian signing policy to rival the Aparteid regime in South Africa to begin with. I could go on. I won't.

But if you wanna try and compare how fans act in each other stadiums don't make me laugh. I don't know any away support that breaking hundreds, actual HUNDREDS, of seats in acts of hooliganism.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I do.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/c/celtic/6640523.stm

Did you read that correct ?

1500 seats.
Oh no, wait.
That was due to 'celebrating'.

Manchester:





Killmarnock on another occasion, after the visit of the jolly craicsters:

Eirebear wrote: »

Learn to read pal.

But if you wanna try and compare how fans act in each other stadiums don't make me laugh. I don't know any away support that breaking hundreds, actual HUNDREDS, of seats in acts of hooliganism.



Irony.

You need to learn how to read threads. The irony of your post!

Tiocfaidh Armani

Eirebear wrote: »

Learn to read pal.

But if you wanna try and compare how fans act in each other stadiums don't make me laugh. I don't know any away support that breaking hundreds, actual HUNDREDS, of seats in acts of hooliganism.



Irony.

People dancing on seats out of sheer delight of winning the league in the last minute of injury time is not an act of hooliganism. Look at what you quote. The devil is in the detail, my friend!

Eirebear

Dempsey wrote: »

You need to learn how to read threads. The irony of your post!

Obviously your basic skills in comprehension are entirely out of whack with the rest of the english speaking world Dempsey.

The whole thing boils down to the last sentence
"But if you wann compare how fans act in others stadiums..."
Jelles reply was equally as clear.
"I do"

Youre making yourself look rather silly now.

Eirebear

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

People dancing on seats out of sheer delight of winning the league in the last minute of injury time is not an act of hooliganism. Look at what you quote. The devil is in the detail, my friend!

Ah, sorry i broke your seats, it was just a bit of craic eh?

Aye, right.

Dempsey

Eirebear wrote: »

Obviously your basic skills in comprehension are entirely out of whack with the rest of the english speaking world Dempsey.

The whole thing boils down to the last sentence
"But if you wann compare how fans act in others stadiums..."
Jelles reply was equally as clear.
"I do"

Youre making yourself look rather silly now.

Its abit rich to compare damaged seats in a stadium that a fullscale citywide riot happened outside in an argument that started over being called the shame of western europe. A pissing contest over broken seats within that argument doesnt change the argument.

You've had blinkers on all week. Why would you take them off today? :rolleyes:

Eirebear

Aaaaaand we're back to the stock answer.

Rangers Fan : here is the point you rose, and a reasoned argument to counter that
Celtic Fan: Aye but Manchester! And Diouf! Manchester!

Same old, same old.

EDIT: As for Blinkers -

Aluko was rightly punished

Sums you up really doesnt it?

KeithAFC

Dempsey wrote: »

Its abit rich to compare damaged seats in a stadium that a fullscale citywide riot happened outside in an argument that started over being called the shame of western europe. A pissing contest over broken seats within that argument doesnt change the argument.

You've had blinkers on all week. Why would you take them off today? :rolleyes:

Why would any celtic fan come onto the Rangers thread and call our club the shame of Western Europe and not expect us to defend our great club? A reality check is required.

Dempsey

Eirebear wrote: »

Aaaaaand we're back to the stock answer.

Rangers Fan : here is the point you rose, and a reasoned argument to counter that
Celtic Fan: Aye but Manchester! And Diouf! Manchester!

Same old, same old.

EDIT: As for Blinkers -


Sums you up really doesnt it?

The punishment for him was spot on, should have been more games, imo

The problem is the consistency of the SPL/SFA. What were you all saying when Celtic challenged them last season over consistency? Remind me, please!

KeithAFC wrote: »

Why would any celtic fan come onto the Rangers thread and call our club the shame of Western Europe and not expect us to defend our great club? A reality check is required.

I expect you to defend yourselves when being called the shame of western europe but using broken seats in Manchester when most of your fans were wrecking the entire city makes me

PHB

Tiocfaidh Armani banned for one week for consistent abuse on thread.

Eirebear

Dempsey wrote: »

The problem is the consistency of the SPL/SFA. What were you all saying when Celtic challenged them last season over consistency? Remind me, please!

If you care to check you'll find i said something along the lines of - Celtic are carrying on as if this is just about them, when it quite clearly isnt. The standard of refereeing is a mess and affects everyone is Scotland.

When i have 5 minutes i'll find it for ya.

Anything else?

Dempsey

Eirebear wrote: »

If you care to check you'll find i said something along the lines of - Celtic are carrying on as if this is just about them, when it quite clearly isnt. The standard of refereeing is a mess and affects everyone is Scotland.

When i have 5 minutes i'll find it for ya.

Anything else?

Dont bother cherry picking what you said tbh, I referred to all of the rangers fans that passed comment on it being unfair on Aluko. They were playing a different tune last year when it wasnt Rangers in the dock.

EDIT

I do remember you saying something like that alright

Eirebear

Dempsey wrote: »

Dont bother cherry picking what you said tbh, I referred to all of the rangers fans that passed comment on it being unfair on Aluko. They were playing a different tune last year when it wasnt Rangers in the dock

Of course - it's easier for you to make statements like that if we tar everyone with the same brush.

You directly accused me of having blinkers on - when i quite clearly stated that Aluko was rightly punished.
Your petty nonsense doesnt work with me Dempsey.

Edit - I see your edit, and fair enough.

Dempsey

Eirebear wrote: »

Of course - it's easier for you to make statements like that if we tar everyone with the same brush.

You directly accused me of having blinkers on - when i quite clearly stated that Aluko was rightly punished.
Your petty nonsense doesnt work with me Dempsey.

The statement is true then, isnt it? No point arguing with it for the sake of it.

The blinkers comment wasnt in reference to your stance on the Aluko ban.

I said you had blinkers on over the Celtic japan tour, season extension shíte earlier in the week and I said it again in reference to you ignoring the context of the argument between jelle1880 & Tiocfaidh Armani.

TheBuilder

What a lot of ****e this thread has turned into! Is there any debate that can happen without the usual suspects bringing up Diouf and Manchester?

Aluko dived, and deserved to be punished. The problem is Garry O'Connor got away with something the exact same 6 weeks ago so McCoist, Aluko and Rangers fans have every right to feel aggrieved by it.

Its not hard to fathom that little bit of information, but as usual people read what they want to read.

Dempsey

TheBuilder wrote: »

What a lot of ****e this thread has turned into! Is there any debate that can happen without the usual suspects bringing up Diouf and Manchester?

Aluko dived, and deserved to be punished. The problem is Garry O'Connor got away with something the exact same 6 weeks ago so McCoist, Aluko and Rangers fans have every right to feel aggrieved by it.

Its not hard to fathom that little bit of information, but as usual people read what they want to read.

The idea think that Aluko's ban should be reduced, as suggested earlier in this thread, in light of the inconsistency from the SFA is ludicrous thinking though.

TheBuilder

Dempsey wrote: »

The idea think that Aluko's ban should be reduced, as suggested earlier in this thread, in light of the inconsistency from the SFA is ludicrous thinking though.

The SPL have to be consistent with their punishments or it makes a mockery (even more so) of the organisation. In terms of past punishments then it should've been reduced, that doesn't make it right, but it should've been.