Rangers Rumours Member Posts


Gazo's Profile

Current Avatar:
No Avatar image uploaded
Correct Score Competition:

Not entered
Correct Score Competition
Flat Out Racing:

Not played Flat Out Racing

No Profile Picture uploaded


Where from:

Favourite player:

Best team moment:



Gazo's Posts and Other Poster's Replies To Gazo's Posts



To Gazo's last 5 banter posts


To Gazo's last 5 banter replies


Gazo has no Rumours Posts



Gazo's banter posts with other poster's replies to Gazo's banter posts


15 Oct 2017 08:58:36
All this talk of wanting to ban Celtic fans from Ibrox is really interesting. We have one of the great rivalries in football. One that goes far beyond Scottish players, the Larsson's and Von Bronckhorst's of the world rate it higher than anything else they have experienced and they have saw their share of derbies and big games.

Is it because of the amazing quality of the game? No. Is it because of the vast array of talent on the park? No. Is it because of the nip and tuck competitive nature of the game? Currently, no. It is because no matter which of three stadiums you have this fixture in it has an atmosphere SECOND TO NONE. The perfect example of this is 25,000 fans each at Hampden but the games at Ibrox and Celtic Park still have an electric atmosphere because 7,500 away fans give or take a few hundred can still and do make a sizeable noise. They unquestionably add to the overall atmosphere.

I have heard Rangers fans at Celtic Park every bit as much as you have heard Celtic fans at Ibrox and it makes it unique compared to some of the other great rivalries, Real Madrid and Barcelona give each other a token fraction of the tickets we exchange and it is clearly that away fan contribution to the game that the aforementioned players rate over El Classico. Lose that away support we lose it's one and only real selling point.

Now that I've covered why it is rated can I suggest why this current upsurge in reducing away fans is illogical. Firstly I don't think the SPFL and even BT/ Sky would encourage it. It is its unique selling point, sure every club is within its right to segregate as it sees fit but behind closed doors I think it would be suggested that this notion gets kicked into the long grass.

It is, let's face it, this league's one big fixture, played out domestically and abroad four times a season. Without that tie, as was proved when Rangers were in the lower divisions, the league isn't worth a whole lot in TV revenue. Now without stating the obvious, Rangers revenue of £34m I believe on recent figures is a bit more dependent on SPL cash plus 3rd place prize money than Celtic's £90m revenue is on SPL cash and 1st place prize cash. Does that make sense? The TV companies may have more influence here than you appreciate.

The next reason is far more obvious, looking at the shapes and structures of both grounds the natural segregation points inside and outside the stadiums seem to suggest "start at one blocked off point and work across" The main stands at both grounds are a natural segregation point. Giving us half the Broomloan might work but again there is segregation issues outside possibly or indeed within it in the stairwells. Getting the corner every other club gets is a missed revenue opportunity as you only need one segregation line as is.

You are in no position to be turning your nose up at revenue on a fan whim. Half the Broomloan or the corner would need more external policing too, another expenditure you don't need. Bear in mind those 7,500 away fans at all four games are paying top dollar for these tickets (£49 each) you are not going to get the same revenue from Hearts/ Hibs/ Aberdeen in a corner. It loses you money and like I said you need it more than we do.

So there are logistical, financial and possibly TV reasons why it shouldn't/ won't happen but let's be honest, let's look at the real reason some of you want it. It is nothing to do with Celtic's song sheet or the behaviour of our fans, Rangers have no figurative stones to be casting there. It is all to do with dominance on the park and you being sick off us lording it over you at Ibrox, I get that but at least admit that's the reason.

I equally get you not liking seeing 7,500 of us up front and centre going crazy rather than in a corner but again, size and shape of the stadiums and best practical segregation dictates that more than your board being masochistic by giving us the whole of behind one goal. Would I feel the same way in your shoes? No, because I've saw you win at Celtic Park a good number of times and it never crossed my mind once.

So in finishing and I know you won't like it but as is, your club makes more money, the alternative costs more, the powers that be probably won't encourage it, the segregation would be poorer and what glamour and drawing power this game now has would diminish further. My advice would be simple, man up and take these thrashings like adults not whimpering kids. Told you you wouldn't like it. :)


1.) 15 Oct 2017 09:22:46
Didn't even realise this was a talking point. But if it is then i agree with most of what you say. Calm it with the thrashing patter though lol we've not been that bad and we'll soon be a hell of a lot better.

2.) 15 Oct 2017 12:16:38
I agree as it goes both ways we ban them then none of us allowed in the piggery. It is about rivals in sport let's remember that. They may be better than us just now but I want them present when we are back on top, and that means putting up with them for the now. All this banning them is the kind of desperation we used to here from them. It is very unsettling to think decent rangers fans can become a paranoid and desperate, please get a grip and respect yourself.

3.) 15 Oct 2017 12:40:03
Hearts used to give us the whole stand behind the goal then realised they could sell the tickets to their own fans and cut us back to less than half the stand, what's wrong with that? Nothing? well that's all I want us to do, sell the tickets to Rangers fans, once again, what's WRONG WITH THAT?

4.) 15 Oct 2017 13:13:03
Yeah Pappy that was a good result on Friday night, go into the Celtic posts page there are two threads about it, also I think there is some funding page for it online too, I'll thought out madness but there you go. Apologies for Von instead of Van, I was sure there was a C in Bronckhorst and even checked if it was horst or hurst but screwed up Van lol.

5.) 15 Oct 2017 12:57:22
Well said gary75. ive said this on countless posts. they've had the Broomloan stand as far back as i can remember and we've never moaned about it but now we've had a few doings and there fans/ players lap it up we can't take it. its getting embarrassing to moan about something like that.1 poster even said last wk"why should our goalie have to put up with abuse from them". god get a grip, just build a team that does the business on the park and everything else takes care of itself.

6.) 15 Oct 2017 18:19:18
I agree with you gazo. The atmosphere is everything in an old firm. The format works so don't change it. Take the sore ones on the chin and the victories will be sweeter. Much better hammering into 7000 celtic fans when we're winning rather than 1000 stuck in a corner :)

7.) 15 Oct 2017 20:22:30
a full blown monologue extolling the virtues of our great rivalry.

what rivalry - your lot keep saying we’re deid?

make your mind up would you the contradictions are getting a bit tedious.

8.) 15 Oct 2017 21:01:34
The fair thing to do is determine ticket allocation as a percentage of capacity.
It is not fair given us the same amount of tickets as we give to them when they hold approximately 10,000 more at their home ground.
Should be allocated as (for example) 5% each of whatever each stadium holds.

9.) 15 Oct 2017 21:14:17
To be honest I absolutely hate them having a whole stand.
Ticket allocation should be determined as a percentage of the ground capacity.
It is not fair allocating us the same amount of tickets as we do them, (7,500 or whatever it is) when their ground holds approximately 10,000 more than ours.
Should be, for example, ticket allocation of 5% of the stadium capacity each. That would be fair.

10.) 16 Oct 2017 08:46:58
Jyf your argument has been in place for years, it's not like Rangers have suddenly found a support that could fill more of the Broomloan, why now? Secondly it will cost more to police or reduce revenue, answer those claims.

11.) 16 Oct 2017 08:56:18
SG34. Agreed!

12.) 16 Oct 2017 12:37:58
SG34. Spot on, Its absolutely embarressing some of the excuses people use. Build a winning team and there will be no problems.

13.) 16 Oct 2017 12:42:07
OK gazo, when we went down to the 4th tier all bets were off we owed nothing to any spl team we sold season tickets that got us into EVERY home league match,5 years down the line we give our seats up for one team and one team only, a disgrace and one which Rangers should be ashamed of. Secondly, reduced revenue? how? No seats to fix, catering staff that can go home with out having suffered abuse and that have sold burgers etc. And are you saying that 2000 tims are harder for the police to control than 2000 sheep?

14.) 16 Oct 2017 13:32:47
Trev, you seem to be the person extolling things, exaggeration and generalisation. First off, the rivalry was one of 5 reasons I gave why it shouldn't happen, hardly a monologue. Secondly where have you saw me post anything about sevco or a new club? Answer, nowhere. So please stop with your assumptions, it is becoming a bit tedious.

15.) 16 Oct 2017 13:33:51
WeAreRangers, both grounds, the fixture and anything to do with football are better off for your non-inclusion, with you I'd make the exception 7,499 is fine!

16.) 16 Oct 2017 16:37:18
Shocking statement WEARERANGERS. Gazo apologies for that moron.

17.) 17 Oct 2017 10:30:26
Jyf you must have ignored the bit where I said Rangers can't be casting any stones on fans behaviour, you wrecked our toilets last year, we left scented candles in yours, or does that not fit the profile? Seemingly last season was your record uptake of season tickets and it was still only 43,000 or so for that very reason, sure folk get moved but so do Celtic fans when you come.

I don't know what age you are but I recall the days of terracing when both clubs gave each other roughly 20,000 tickets, where were your moans then? Where were your moans pre 2012? Only one thing has changed since pre 2012, we are winning at Ibrox handsomely and some of you can't deal with it.

18.) 17 Oct 2017 10:33:18
Cheers Coldo every team has them and WeAreRangers is certainly nothing for you to apologise for.

19.) 18 Oct 2017 06:31:53
gazo, why i'm justifying myself to you I don't know but you said we would lose revinue if we just gave you the corner I asked you how stating that we would have less seats to fix less damage to the toilets ect. I also stated that we would make more money on the catering, merch ect.
My profile? Are you saying that no damage is done at Ibrox by your moranic supporters or was I right?
Secondly, you made my point for me we could only sell 43000 season tickets because we have to give you lot 7500, WHY?
Gers v Stirling A 50000,approx 49500 bears Gers v you lot 50000 only 42500 bears WHY?

20.) 19 Oct 2017 01:39:18
Okay, I'll explain this slowly for you Jyf, if we go into the corner you have 2 segregation points - less seats therefore. Of course you can get 50,000 but it is why you only accept 43,000 ST's ask your board about that. Don't we eat and drink? Catering wouldn't be impacted, it costs you more money based on last season paying us for damage at Celtic Park than we do back, behave yourselves - that might save you money. We get charged £49 for Ibrox, that would mean charging non-St's £49, they might pay but similarly they might think hang on ST folk (on avg) are getting in here for less. All I'm asking and you aren't answering, is why now?

21.) 19 Oct 2017 06:43:04
I have answered "why now" so I will say it slowly for YOU. We sat in our seats for 5 years with out having to move for any one any agreement we had over ticket allocation went out the window when we went down to the fourth tier, we watched crap for five years from the Broomloan then for our rivals we have to move. Ill say it again we police the aberdeen fans just fine thank you who sit in the corner. Aberdeen fans ar as bad as you lot at Ibrox trust me! Once again gazo, am I going slow enough for you, the £49 includes a surcharge to pay for the damage that WILL be done therefor we will not have to charge that to our own fans. No yous don't generally eat
at Ibrox or buy programmes have you ever been to an OF game at Ibrox?
Im writing this bit as slow as I can, all I want is for more Rangers fans to be able to watch their own tean at Ibrox and i'm asking YOU, what's WRONG WITH THAT?



20 Feb 2017 12:31:00
Apologies in advance as this may be quite long.

Cyclical seems to be the phrase of the moment regards the Old Firm, a blind, almost palpable belief that what goes around comes around and as sure as night follows day, Rangers dominance will follow Celtic dominance. It happened before right, so it's sure to happen again?

We have two nine in a row periods to base this assumption on, in both cases I believe there was maybe some cause for optimism as the dominated team, had something, however small, that gave cause for seeing "light at the end of the tunnel".

From 1966-1975 I think two things were of significance in keeping Rangers fans "encouraged" during that time period. Firstly Rangers were a very good team, as well as still winning a number of domestic cups they appeared in two European finals during this time, winning one of them.

Secondly, if memory serves from mid to late 70's stats Ibrox capacity was 75,000, Celtic Park was 67,000. Revenue figures I'd imagine were not incomparable and even a run in the European Cup wasn't necessarily more lucrative than a CWC or UEFA cup run, indeed more often than not who you played would have been of more significance than what tournament. For all this Celtic dominance it most likely wasn't reflected in revenue.

You would have needed a microscope to have saw Celtic's chink of daylight from 1989-1998 from the average fans perspective. The team was rotten and contrary to Joscro's sketchy recall of a few months back the team was by no means "formidable". I honestly laughed at that. They were runners up in the league twice, TWICE! Aberdeen were by far Rangers keenest rivals during that time, Celtic finally showing some appetite for the fight in the last two of the nine.

Financially the gap was just as big "For every fiver Celtic spend we will spend a tenner. " said the bragging David Murray. Of course it turns out "we" meant the Bank of Scotland as "living within your means" was just something other clubs, other businesses, had to do.

Celtic's light at the end of the tunnel certainly wasn't coming from either of these two avenues, on the park, in the piggy bank, we were miles behind it seemed. It took foresight and vision to see where Celtic's underlying asset was. And it took a wee Scots/ Canadian to put it into practise. In short, we were underdeveloped, dare I say a sleeping giant, closer to comatose it felt at the time but nonetheless underachieving was the byword of the day. Sound investment, Fergus promised, would see the club on a good footing and for his efforts in the middle term he would leave with a tidy profit and to this day his legacy endures.

Sure the team could have been improved a bit more, it was only actually good about once in his five years, but as every new stand emerged you saw a dream become a reality, the club was investable with solid foundations and not the basket case it had been under the Kellys, Whites, and the like. And his enduring legacy? Making Celtic Park 10,000 seats bigger than Ibrox.

This season an Old Firm ticket costs on average £49, those 20,000 extra seats we have over those two games net Celtic near a million pounds more than Rangers earn from the two corresponding Ibrox fixtures, indeed since 1999 in league games Rangers have had a higher average attendance higher than Celtic's in two seasons, Mowbray's and the shambles that was last year under Ronni.

Our underachieving and underdeveloped stadium was our sellable asset remarkably, Rangers had did all this some time before which maybe lay the groundwork for the dominance that followed but McCann breathed live into the club with a legacy that pays off to this very day.

And so to the current void between the two clubs and the potential for a cyclical return. In a recent interview Warburton mentioned the word unprecedented and he was bang on, this is completely uncharted waters regards this rivalry, regards Scottish football. The gap on the field has never been bigger, 30 points after 25 games, unheard of. The value of both squads is a vast chasm, either Dembele or Tierney might in time be worth the entire Rangers squad, honestly I don't think that's bravado or exaggeration on my part.

The revenue gap is every bit as one sided and unlike the Celtic nine in a row of the 60's and 70's the tournament you are in regards Europe plays heavily on a club's finances. Celtic announcing mid season profits of £16.1m while Rangers require another soft loan to see the season out, there is no financial cause for optimism anywhere, I'm not saying it to gloat it is simply the hard cold reality of the situation.

In 2011 Rangers had Ibrox, Murray Park, a squad worth maybe £25m-£30m, European football guaranteed, a huge fan base and much stronger control of their merchandise and WERE STILL SOLD FOR ONE POUND. When those millions of assets yield you a solitary pound the game is up. And you haven't made one step forward since, overspend after overspend, rotten boards, rotten managers, rotten players. In 2011 winning Scottish Division 3 netted the winners £30,000, the next season your manager was on £825,000 and he bought Templeton for £750,000! To this day I think Bill Miller was the most honest person who even looked at Rangers during this whole shambles, remember him? "Yank go home" and he said you had a £30m black hole and that was probably the most honest financial assessment anyone has gave you since the Bank of Scotland signed off on that first loan.

But as mentioned earlier Celtic's on the park and financial plight during Rangers nine in a row should give you optimism right? Well actually no, because we know Rangers were playing with the banks money, we know UEFA Financial Fair Play will look into every nook and cranny of expenditure and investment, the minute you play in Europe next season you are under their microscope and if losses aren't absorbed into stock by these creditors (and seemingly £11.3m of the soft loans are due payable in November) then you are in trouble and even then you have to get the losses down by millions to even pass their most rudimentary controls. This all impacts the quality of the squad, the management team, everything. And finally, unlike Celtic pre McCann, you are kind of "maxed out". There isn't an underdeveloped stadium nor a top of the range training facility to be built, there is nothing that your "honest" investor would see as a potential money spinner. As the old airline joke goes "What do you call a billionaire with an airline? " - "A millionaire. " Anybody putting money into Rangers in the short term does so for the love of the club and with the full knowledge this cash isn't coming back, if you get someone good luck to you but any recovery and genuine challenge to Celtic won't be based on anything cyclical from previous periods of dominance that's for sure.


1.) 20 Feb 2017 12:57:44
That arrogance may come back to bite you though. Time will tell.

2.) 20 Feb 2017 13:18:38
What arrogance? I referenced perhaps the reasons why it was cyclical before and explained why in my opinion they don't apply this time round, that isn't arrogance, that's an appreciation of things currently. The fact that you shot none of it down speaks volumes for that. I don't expect you or any Rangers fan to like it or agree with it but at least call it what it is and it isn't arrogance.

3.) 20 Feb 2017 13:47:22
Gazo, that is quite a post. One of the best written I've come across and your argument can't be faulted. To compound matters for us of course is the 7 year notice period on the retail deal with Ashley and this represents a huge financial blow to the club.

4.) 20 Feb 2017 14:13:57
The small part I skim read reeked of arrogance to me. Perhaps come off the pedestal next time. All empires die, just remember that.

5.) 20 Feb 2017 14:25:40
Thanks kfraser I appreciate it. Yeah that one costs seemingly £4m-£6m a season and his ability to block the resolution on a new share issue does you no favours either. That's the thing about arrogance, it suggests in a sporting context that you either dismissed or ignored your opponents qualities and abilities, with regards the dysfunction at Ibrox I was spoiled for choice in what was hamstringing the club most hence me being amused by Cullins interpretation of it.

King is as transparent as Johnny Tightlips in the Simpsons, you need a nomad, need to get that resolution passed and get the shameful McCoist to vote for it this time, the stadium needs sizeable repairs, I think the D. O. F announcement effectively paints the club into a corner and rules out any number of good managers, need a scouting system, top to bottom root and branch clear out required and right now we don't need to be that good for it to continue for some time, if Celtic give Rodgers carte blanche for the next few years we are off the sunset before Rangers their infrastructure right, there just seem to be too many variables weighing Rangers down right now.

6.) 20 Feb 2017 14:35:41
Ha it is funny you mention that Cullin, I was going to say the same thing, formerly an environment with two powerhouses now reduced to one. I was going to mention Rome and Carthage, so its nice to know you have a historical appreciation. Now I'm presuming you have the modicum of sense required to appreciate your empire is a damn sight closer to death than mine right now, yes? Skim reading small parts is maybe your problem, did you skim read "wealth off the radar" about Craig Whyte and think "Whew nothing to concern me here then? " I think its that lack of detail that has lead to your head being firmly ensconced in sand.

7.) 20 Feb 2017 16:04:01
Well Gazo, verbal diarrhoea indeed! No sensible Rangers fan, and I have been won for 53 years, would deny that the gross overspending and financial mismanagement of the 90s in particular led eventually to the downfall of our great club but who could of foreseen crooks like Whyte and Green? The Ashley deal is bad and is again as a result of the crooks previously in charge.

Fact is Celtic were lucky in 1994 when McCann came to the rescue at the last minute. Our knight in shining armour ended up being Craig Whyte! I think it was cruel that Rangers were consigned to the bottom tier of Scottish football - you just imagine that happening to Arsenal or Man Utd in the English leagues.

Celtic have also been rather fortunate that Rangers were dumped thus as we were about to win four titles in a row when the bubble burst. There has been no competition for them at all and the regular money from European football has allowed Celtic to build sizeable reserves of cash. Rangers must try and attract major investment very soon and get back in to Europe.

So don't get too smug just yet. Rodgers has also landed lucky - had he taken over five years ago he would have struggled. Scottish football needs a successful and powerful Old Firm and there would be no glory in Celtic winning 10, 11 or 12 titles in a row.

Empty successes. Rangers will fight back, on and off the field so enjoy your 'success' while you can. If getting pumped out of Europe at an early stage every year for the next 10 years is your idea of success, how sad!

8.) 20 Feb 2017 16:16:27
Gazo, you have reverted to type. Please don't start to assume you know my thoughts though. I couldn't have been concentrating over the last 5 years or so.

9.) 20 Feb 2017 16:35:31
Doiger. Celtic went 4 points clear before administration. You can compare Celtics 4 titles to that of rangers from 89 till 93 as celtic were pants and Aberdeen and the rest were no better.

Brendan Rodgers has been lucky?
Qualified for Cl won league cup 24 points clear, over a 100 goals scored and it's only Feb. It was only 6 month ago the going for 55 banner and a new 2 year deal was handed out to the best thing to happen to rangers for years.

10.) 20 Feb 2017 16:43:05
Doiger it may have escaped your attention but prior to the ten point deduction in the 2011/ 2012 season Rangers had blown a substantial lead by New Year but read it as "we were about to" if it keeps your delusion going. It's amazing that at every turn we are just lucky and you are the constant poor victim, despite buying en masse into White - In Craig We Trust, ring a bell with any of you?

In signing off on Green despite Dave Bassett telling you every which way he was going to rip you off and now finally you have the glib and shameless liar, saved from jail simply due to the depths of his pockets. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, I dunno if there is one for buying into a third consecutive dodgy regimes nonsense but I think more than luck plays a part, blind insane obedience perhaps.

Two more points Doiger, did you give one monkeys about the competitiveness of the SPL from 1989-1998, you know, when Celtic were second only twice? And secondly I question your validity as a "sensible fan" as you claim you've been WON for 53 years. And yet you spell diarrhoea correctly, good old predictive text eh?

11.) 20 Feb 2017 16:58:29
Cullin when you described me as being arrogant weren't you making assumptions? A claim all the more derisible as it came after a small skim read, behave yourself or jog on. If you want to seriously debate any points I made, make any claims of arrogance, read the whole thing and get back to me, if you don't want to then clamp up.

12.) 20 Feb 2017 17:25:35
Gazo. WON was a Freudian slip and yes I can spell. I can also spell delusional and arrogant, two words that I'd think apply to you. And predictive text doesn't work on my laptop. It may have escaped your notice that ordinary, sensible fans don't have much say in who buys their club do they?

Nobody asked for Whyte or Green or Ashley to get involved. They didn't actually conduct a ballot to ask us fans what we thought. You are right that I didn't care about the other teams during our 11 title wins in 12 years from 1989 to 2000 and I couldn't care less about Celtic now either other than that we catch them sooner rather than later.

In season 2011/ 12 the financial woes started to raise their head and undoubtedly led to McCoist and some players taking their eye off the ball, causing the slump in form. Enjoy your worthless spell while you can and keep taking the pills.

13.) 20 Feb 2017 17:34:59
Many points noted above are accurate. But I would like to add a few of my own.

Rangers were not sold for £1! They were sold for £18 as I mentioned on another post since this was the agreement on receiving the assets for a nominal fee if £1.

Rangers last financial year made an operating loss of around £3M. This was stated after depreciation which totalled nearly £1.5M. This is not a real cost and is not allowable for tax purposes. £1.5M loss with no retail, European or substantial TV money is not a bad result.

We have no external debt. The only debts held are convertible loans which will eventually be converted to shares.

Celtic to use your example now have a stadium at capacity, training ground and every piece of income available to them at the minute but have yet been to achieve total domestic dominance and win the treble. Add to this a dismal attempt at the champions league they really don't have much else going for them.

Rangers still have a fair bit of climbing to do from rock bottom and we WILL take our place back where we belong at the summit of Scottish football.

14.) 20 Feb 2017 17:53:42
Doiger I would genuinely buy into you being a sensible fan if your thoughts on anything Celtic related could be passed off as more than simple luck and all the other garbage you wrote, while I appreciate you couldn't care less about Celtic at least have the decency to familiarise yourself with some facts about them when you ramble on about them, for example those early European exits you are hoping for, you are aware that Celtic have still been in Europe after Christmas in 2 seasons of the last 5, you do know that right? Which in Scottish terms is generally accepted as a decent season Europe wise.

I'm presuming you also know Rangers have won 1 game in Europe in their last 22. And of course fans can't be blamed for boards etc but there is no need to blindly support them and dismiss all outward criticism either but if you want to delude yourself further regards the collapse in 2012 you knock yourself out but take a few of those self prescribed pills first I'm sure they may be required for the amount of garbage you are trying to swallow in one go. "Worthless", how very childish, my ball and nobody is playing till I win, 53 years a fan and 5 minutes spent as an adult.

15.) 20 Feb 2017 18:01:47
Gaze: Can't actually remember calling Celtic formidable, maybe that they had fairly decent players during some of that spell, but I didn't go back a few months to refresh my memory, that actually makes me laugh.

16.) 20 Feb 2017 18:14:55
Where did they dig this one up from? And he says he isn't arrogant. Time to move on Gazo. A lot of people knew the financial problems at Rangers before you came out with your newsflash. Now you are just looking to argue with anyone who doesn't bow down to your perceived superiority. Move on, getting very tedious.

17.) 20 Feb 2017 18:23:15
Gazo thank you for a contribution that is not tainted by bitterness and hatred. Much of what you say makes sense however I think you are missing one key item. In my view there is a ceiling which a club in Scotland can reach before they come back down towards the others, and I think Celtic are getting pretty close to that. In that sense it is cyclical, I just cannot see a scenario where domination is infinite.

18.) 20 Feb 2017 18:24:09
BigBear if I'm right the debt to Lloyds was £85m at one point, why sell when it's at £18m then? And the reason is it wasn't £18m it was that PLUS the elephant in the room, the big tax case which as history has proven was never going to go away quickly, that is the reason only a charlatan like Whyte would be attracted any fit and competent investor wouldn't touch Rangers with a 10 foot pole till it was settled let's face it.

Sure £1.5m ain't bad but if I'm right you are allowed £3.4m over three years, right now your debt (in UEFA's eyes) will stand at that £1.5m plus the previous two years, come the next set of accounts the oldest one falls off obviously but short of getting that resolution passed, as I suggested, then that debt gets added. Rangers are within the amount that can be converted which is good news for them.

I'd look at Celtic's lack of dominance in another way, sure we have been poor in some of the cups the past 5 years but you'd imagine the second biggest spending club might have won a few due to our dismal efforts, how has that worked out for ya? :)

19.) 20 Feb 2017 18:26:43
Scrojo I have no idea how to look back through the site, it stood out because it was so insanely nonsense, the fact that I recalled your name tells you how memorably bad it was but maybe saying Celtic were crap then didn't meet your point, so you just told a wee porkie, a lot of that happens in here. :)

20.) 20 Feb 2017 18:37:19
Cullin I was known as Gaz in here years ago, I was on this site in February 2012 on the very day Whyte went to court asking some of you why you were celebrating Whyte getting his choice of administrator chosen. It seemed madness to me. So I'm not exactly new to the site or the issues.

21.) 20 Feb 2017 18:41:41
The big tax case amount was a provision for the potential debt which never came to fruition. The company was sold when the debt stood at £18M because the the bank put Murray under pressure to do so following on from the financial crisis. This was the only obligation upon purchasing the assets which had to be fulfilled with the whole ticketus fiasco.

Here we are with the 2nd biggest budget garbage. If money win trophies the Next Celtic would have had a treble every season for the last 5 years. How has that worked out for you?

22.) 20 Feb 2017 18:47:41
Cheers Cannon, I have no idea how long it will last and I intentionally didn't pick a number and your ceiling point is a valid one but I just can't see it doing the usual turnaround with the chasms being as they are on so many fronts. Of course Rangers will still win trophies but dominance and a duopoly is maybe a way away. I didn't know this till this week but the team that has won the Scottish Cup the third most after the Old Firm is Queens Park, they won the last of their ten the year after Celtic won their first and the year before Rangers did the same, who would have saw that coming back then, things change, dynamics change, that's all I'm saying. Cheers again Cannon.

23.) 20 Feb 2017 18:48:52
Well said gazo great posts my friend

24.) 20 Feb 2017 18:49:33
Like your insane nonsense Gaz, maybe not quite.

25.) 20 Feb 2017 19:09:14
BigBear only one person was getting left with the debt if it ever did come to fruition, Whyte, and he wasn't bothered admin was his game plan all along, wipe the debts out asset strip the good bits, move on. Only thing he didn't foresee was Green shafting him.

Yup we weren't great in those cups, but then again 1 challenge cup in four efforts given the financial advantage is frankly scandalous. But of course money doesn't guarantee victory, you prove that on a near weekly basis.

26.) 20 Feb 2017 19:15:00
Cheers agent C, joscro I use facts and check details, maybe that's where we differ? :)

27.) 20 Feb 2017 19:34:35
So you kind of just shat over your previous reply to me then. Well done!

28.) 20 Feb 2017 19:40:42
Maybe, your facts ain't great.

29.) 20 Feb 2017 19:48:29
BigBear in your first post you said they haven't won the treble as yet, I replied saying yes we were poor but I look at it differently I'd expect 2nd biggest budget to win some when we fail, you then said should have won 5 trebles in a row (I'd already said we were poor, so I'm at a loss as to why you are getting your knickers in a twist) I then said (AGAIN) ) that we weren't great in those cups, pointed out Rangers less than magnificent challenge cup record to prove neither club has covered themselves in cup glory of late and then further acknowledged that your recent league failings are proof positive that budgets guarantee bugger all. I fail to see how I shat over my previous answer but enlighten me if you will.

30.) 20 Feb 2017 19:54:14
If that's the extent of your retort Joscro just give up. Look, it's no biggie, nobody picked you up on it at the time, well done, you got by with a bluff, but it was a bluff. ;)

31.) 20 Feb 2017 20:49:24
Gaza, are you sure you didn't use the name GordoRFC before? A very similar style to yourself. He did pretend to be a Rangers fan, and made a fool of himself a few times. LSE maybe?

32.) 20 Feb 2017 21:32:12
Funny that even after everything we've went thru and how completely awful we've been for 5 years we're still your benchmark. We're still all you care about being better than and are blind to your own failings and shortcomings at a time when we should be a complete irrelevance, but still all you can do is gloat and dress it up aa something else!

33.) 20 Feb 2017 22:11:06
Coolerking dressing something up as something else, have just found another way of saying "No I have nothing positive to say in defense of my club, I won't engage with the debate but your obsessed. " Well done if it was, do you know Cannon is the only person to actually say maybe not and here's why, Cullin couldn't get by whether it was arrogant or not, Doiger presumes all Celtic success is down to luck, BigBlue agreed with some of it but then got tied up in the fineries of both teams cup successes which I said time and again weren't up to scratch.

I'm just putting it out there that I think the sands have shifted and the endless talk of cyclical and back where we belong might be harder to achieve than some think, agree, disagree coolerking, make counterpoints if you want, it must be easy with these shortcomings and failings you talk of but right now you are the benchmark for nothing, that's the point, don't you get that?

I couldn't care less who we win the league against per se and it is maybe a good thing if it is not the Old Firm game, that said both sets behaved impeccably at New Year but if that's not to be as things stand it is Aberdeen who will determine that so you are by no means a benchmark for anything.

34.) 20 Feb 2017 22:14:11
Somebody asked if I was an Aberdeen fan in here before Cullin but Billy B and other folk have been about since when I was last on. But a covert Ger, nah that's a new one on me.

35.) 20 Feb 2017 22:50:30
Gazo. You are getting more personal with every post. It is a sign of someone who is losing an argument.

36.) 20 Feb 2017 22:55:45
It isn't arrogant, it's just completely unnecessary. Your gloating and smirking from your own backside my friend. You write well I will give you that. However like all Celtic fans I think your energy is best served elsewhere.

Do you think we should feel grateful for your insightful splutter? because if not then I am confused by the point of your comments. You leave Rangers worries and issues to us Rangers fans. If your bored of your current position in Scottish football ( I was when we were pumping everything in front of us) then I will give you some advice.

Soak it all up, as much as you can and enjoy, sincerely, enjoy it because what us Rangers fans have and are currently learning is that it doesn't last forever, nothing does. So whilst you think it will I can guarantee from history ; it won't.

37.) 20 Feb 2017 23:04:51
Apart from Rangers eh Cullin they demote!? lol

38.) 20 Feb 2017 23:20:04
Well said Doiger. Some people have way way way too much to say about a club that's not even theirs. Suddenly everybody's a corporate lawyer, financial expert and human resources guru all rolled into one. With the references to Rome and Carthage I thought I'd stumbled across a Simon Scarrow novel.

39.) 20 Feb 2017 23:44:16
Doiger it's worth pointing out that during celtics bad financial days, they still had better turnover, and didn't make the loses that Rangers continued to make throughout murrays time.
Murray was portrayed as a wonderful business man, but the reality is he was another chancer, who had some fine banker friends from Edinburgh,

40.) 21 Feb 2017 00:42:05
A history of Glasgow Rangers
Author: GAZO
Available in all Celtic FC superstores now for the fantastic price £18.88.
Roll up all obsessed Celtic fans.
Now there's a way your lot could increase the financial gulf Gazo. I want a cut of the millions you make from it though 👍

41.) 21 Feb 2017 07:57:13
Seeker. Rather than Rome and Carthage, in Septic's case it should be Sodom and Gomorrah. LOL.

42.) 22 Feb 2017 08:20:35
Good one Doiger lol




Gazo has no Rumour Replies



Gazo's banter replies


Click To View This Thread

09 Jul 2018 13:43:34
G Unit, you don't recognise the term "False dawn" as a fair representation of many parts of the last six years, really? I could probably list about thirty times when you have all thought it was changing for the better.




Click To View This Thread

08 Jul 2018 19:41:36
This is nothing to do with how rich Serie A is, it is all to do with Parma not thinking he is worth his current wage and Rangers presumably paying over the odds for him in the first place.




Click To View This Thread

16 Jan 2018 17:54:09
What does it matter what Kilmarnock paid? If he's under contract they have a right to ask what they want for him, you then have the difficulty of actually meeting that figure, clearly there isn't a million to spare at Ibrox given other failed signings lately.




Click To View This Thread

06 Jan 2018 13:31:20
I'm well aware of their finances blueberry and you're correct they are poor but they are one step away from the domestic promised land, you are in ours and still see no financial improvement. Another thing I noticed about their finances was their banker is RBS if I remember correctly, who is Rangers again? Remember the bank of Three Bears isn't a recognised financial institution. An obsessed reference, wow isn't that played out yet? Is there any chance of a modicum of originality from some of you?




Click To View This Thread

05 Jan 2018 13:16:04
QPR's turnover last season was £41.9m, Rangers was about £30m. So in that respect they are a bigger club. This is how Rangers are viewed these days, no bank willing to offer you credit, losses year after year, the because decision to be enforced on King and even if all that works and you get a NOMAD and have an IPO then surely the conversion of debt to shares puts any of the creditors (three bears) in the concert party scenario again and lo and behold another order from TAP to buy the whole thing reappears, oh and if not you fall foul of FFP at UEFA. You have a big stadium, massive support, loads of trophies and a rich history but financially you are a diddy team (or basket case, take your pick. )

And before anyone pipes in, I have always said you are one and the same Rangers, so I'll just nip that deflection in the bud here and now.