Rangers Banter Archive September 12 2013

 

Use our rumours form to send us rangers transfer rumours.


12 Sep 2013 22:37:56
Fire ian black now save wages and sign sam kelly for a 3rd of the wages black was on good deal all round


HAMILTON LADD

Believable0 Unbelievable0

Good call OP- the young lad is one for the future and has a cultured left foot

Agree0 Disagree0

Why fire him, wait and sell him in january.

Agree0 Disagree0

13 Sep 2013 01:06:29
Any player who bets against Rangers does not desereve to wear the famus jersey again. Especially one who backs us not to beat a team of brickies and plumbers. Shame on you Ian Black. Ally has no choice but to get rid.

Agree0 Disagree0

4)
Can you imagine John Greig or Billy McNeil in the dressing room with Black after he admitted to betting on the opposition?


I noticed Lee Wallace being quoted that " As long as he is playing well he will get our full support".


I don't know if I should feel sad, angry or just disapointed - a new low for Scottish Football.

Agree0 Disagree0

Who won?

Agree0 Disagree0

Rangers won't get rid of Black at most the club will fine him

Agree0 Disagree0

13 Sep 2013 09:44:20
I totally agree. Disgusting and bewildering leniency by the sfa in this case, an insult to any paying fan who wants to be safe in the knowledge that the game's governing body will robustly deal with anything that might suggest corruption and lack of integrity in match results. Question- How does this fit with those initial outburts amongst some bears that this was more proof of an anti-rangers bias at the sfa? It now looks like quite the opposite - sfa have been forced to act when the disgraceful extent of black's betting was brought to their attention, but they have refused to deal with it in a properly serious manner. Looks pro-rangers to me if anything? (And don't trot out the old "half the players in scotland do it" line - that suggests that all the betting companies are "against us" as well. Now that's stretching things beyond all credibility. )

Agree0 Disagree0

@7, the reason for the apparent leniency is simple, CAN OF WORMS. A bit of digging (not a lot) and we could be watching our football with very very few players we recognise on the field.

Agree0 Disagree0

@7, nobody except you has come up with all the betting companies against us, simply on this occassion someone (can guess allegiance) has decided to say something, do not think it will be the last, could we have tit for tat for some time.

Agree0 Disagree0

7. )?

What are the regulations regarding fines and punishment when it comes to betting?

Agree0 Disagree0

Hamilton Lad? You be a be a lad, as that was a vile post.

Shame on you?

Agree0 Disagree0

Ian black bet on rangers to draw not to get beaten. In that game he was a sub but came on and scored. Rangers won the game 3-2. No harm done. I think we all nedd to get a grip I will "bet " there are hundreds of players betting every week. The rules are clear no one can bet, so cannot wait for every one of them to be banned. Does not matter how many bets are made one or 160 he should appeal until all culprits are suspended. One rule for one etc. etc.

Agree0 Disagree0

13 Sep 2013 11:45:02
2. Know for a fact we tryed to punt Black and Shiels during the transfer window, nobody was interested.

Agree0 Disagree0

How much do you think black and shields would fetch if sold?
Baring in mind none of them done very well in the 4th teir of Scottish football

Agree0 Disagree0

13. ) You have tryed and lost.

Have never ever heard that Rangers tried to sell Black nor Shiels.

That would have been a biggie.

Agree0 Disagree0

Think you missed my point Trueblue, I meant that part of the terms of sanctions should have been part of his/others rehabilitation/help. They should have made it part of the sanction/fine etc. Just like a court would do? drug rehab etc? they then have to be seen to be willing to work? on thier affliction?
As for Sandaza he wanted to play at start or woudnt have signed unless it was for the money?mmm think that may be most the players we have taken on board unfortunatly as we are, after all paying them large amounts of money to play. seems to be no brainer that that's why most coming to Ibrox in the twilight of their playing carears including Black. Players like Muculloch are few and far between theses days at Ibrox, most in it for themselves and their families.

Agree0 Disagree0

SFA Disciplinary Rule 22, which prohibits players from betting "in any way on a football match" - no matter where it takes place.
That may help

Agree0 Disagree0

16. ) He would be doing whatever his lawyers advised him to do. Perhaps they advised that he say only the minimum, and plead guilty.

We can only go on what is being said, and that is that Rangers, Mathers and Ally are standing by him. That says it all, I would think.

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Sep 2013 18:48:50
Well fellow bears! Where do we go from here, it now looks like a deal has been done and we the fans will not find out much about it due to Irvine and the politburo.

What kind of deal could have been made that would allow the requisitioners to withdraw the EGM claim?

How will it impact on the current board members and will Mather and Stockbridge eventually get the boot!

Will the club ask for the additional board members to be added as previously intimated by Mather?

Where do we the fans go from here in respect to possible boycotts or petitions on the current board members?

Will this announcement today change anything? Apart from allowing Mather and Stockbridge to continue with the "great stadium robbery" and keep the accounts hidden and foil any chance we had of finding out how much is actually "missing"

I think we should step up the pressure with all fans voicing their concerns.

This gang are continuing to line their pockets and their friends pockets by vast amounts every single day and we are powerless at the moment to change that (hopefully not for long)

If the AGM does go ahead as required by the announcement today then the only thing I can think may happen is the "great stadium robbers" will not be re elected by the shareholders? Is this the plan now?

Your thoughts

RR

Believable0 Unbelievable0

@op in all honesty we don't actually know Mather has done anything wrong the only one we know for sure that's done wrong is Stockbridge he is the only constant thing in this whole saga Mather only came in on April so we can't really point the finger at him also their will be an agm the accounts will be released soon so in all honesty we can't do anything until we see wer the money's went and plus the requisitioners have got ther men on the board so maybe they know what's going on and their happy with the way the board are going about sorting it

Agree0 Disagree0

I think you will find that it is a case of closing the gate after the horse has bolted. In other words '' the assets are gone. '' What you are seeing is a clear case of muddying the waters.
Listen to Dave King, who in my opinion, is the only one that can take us forward.
billyb

Agree0 Disagree0

@1 a web sitesound reporting the requisitioners might be walking away. Chico finding this hard to believe and something might happen at the AGM but at this moment in time the rebels do not have any of their men on the board. I hope you are right and a deal has been done but that is not what is being reported

Agree0 Disagree0

Wake up. The spivs now have around six weeks to get a sale and leaseback deal on Ibrox and Murray Park and no one can do anything about it. It's that or admin, the black hole in the financials Millar spoke about is too big.

Agree0 Disagree0

@3 Mather said those men put forward by the requisitioners to be put on board and also I seem a post somewer saying there couldn't be any changes or additions to the board until the end of October

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Sep 2013 18:17:29
Fact. Ian Black played in front of his own hard working and paying fans, having bet AGAINST a win. He had influence over the result.

He has shown disdain to every Rangers Fan.

He should never pull on the Blue Jersey again.

Can you imagine Gough, Greig or Butcher finding out one of the players sharing the honour of the strip ever sharing a dressing room again?. we all know what these men would have done to this disgrace of a man.

Believable0 Unbelievable0

Good time to bury some bad news regarding no change to the Rangers board untl the end of October at the earliest.

P. S. Hope Ally comes down very hard on Black. In fact on his wages I wouldn't mind him being shown the door. I'll never forget the fact he betted against his own team.

Agree0 Disagree0

Good title for a book about the club.
The men who sold, walked away, jumped ship, shamed and betted against the jersey.

Can anyone name them all?

Agree0 Disagree0

Was his bet not for rangers to win by a certain amount of goals against Albion rovers, three, and did he not score as well? Where has it been reported it was for rangers to lose.
Living in a country of high integrity I now expect all bookies to report any players who have an account now, ate right! PB

Agree0 Disagree0

@1. different debate ( already settled BTW. Trophies are STILL in the cabinet)

Point I was making was. No fan should have a player betting against his team. Neither Greig nor Bill McNeil would let him back thru the door.

Agree0 Disagree0

@4. Official report as part of verdict. One bet was for his team " not to win"

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Sep 2013 19:42:09
i find this hard to understand, particularly as he actually scored in one of the games mentioned, I gamble every single day, and I know thousands of sportsmen do, but own team? no sory can't stomach it, but i'm still amazed he actually played to win in that game, and crucially therisnt a shred of evidence to suggest he didn't play to win in all the games, strange
Tommyblue

Agree0 Disagree0

How do fellow footballers feel running out with a 'teammate' who betted against them? Never mind fans.

Agree0 Disagree0

To number 1 heard that pacific shelf was interested in black 3 years ago

Agree0 Disagree0

@ all who are going on about black betting against his own team his three bets against his club was hearts nothing to do with rangers so pipe down as ally said there's plenty of players betting and it's a sorry day that a bookie who has been happy to take his money for years feels the need to then stick him into the sfa and then we'll start on the sfa it's sheer hypocrisy that our main national cup competition is sponsored by a bookies black has vilified for a simple moral issue of backing his team to lose which was hearts so in all honesty there was a decent chance it would have been games that they probably had no chance of winning so get off the guys back {Ed001's Note - sorry but the guy is lucky, if it wasn't a team sport, betting against yourself is the same as fixing. It is only because it is a team sport, so you can't fix a game on your own, that he is not being banned for much longer, or for good. The fact that other players gamble should be irrelevant, it is time that football sorted itself out, because betting against your team is just one step along the road from match fixing. It is gambling syndicates that arrange matches for a reason.}

Agree0 Disagree0

Ed andy goram has already said he used to send the sfa officials to the bookies to place football bets why didn't the sfa investigate then {Ed001's Note - what has that got to do with anything? What Goram did has no bearing on this case at all.}

Agree0 Disagree0

Who is too say that IAN Black hasn't got an addiction to betting, a lot of our fans have had it in for him from last reason blaming the guy for the poor football we played last reason forgetting that a team consists of 11 players, so give the guy a break we mighy not have heard the whole facts of why he did it, again maybe he has an addiction too betting.

Agree0 Disagree0

@ ed fair point but at the end of the day the bookies wer happy to take all bets which he placed and then go and stick him in to the sfa so what was there reasoning behind that was it his bets wer coming in or are ther other agendas to this also it's not taken the bookies 7 years to figure out it was black and would this have been as big an issue if he didn't play for rangers also the bookie was quick to give details on the bets he was putting on ie betting against his own team why not give details on the amount he was betting at the end of the day those bets could have been on a coupon and not single bets all we get is part of the story and we are to quick to jump to conclusions also the bets couldn't have been for much or the punishment would have been more severe {Ed001's Note - I don't see that the bookies actions are of any relevance, other than they should have mentioned it sooner. Other than that, I really don't see your problem with them all.}

Agree0 Disagree0

Firstly for every one of the roasters who wrote "betted" a slap should accompany their post.

@3) It's official, Ian black bet against his own team on 3 different occasions and he has admitted it.

@9) He bet against Rangers. Its official and admitted. Basically his bet on the outcome of the match was opposition or draw (double chance).

@12) Awwww so it's the bookies fault now. Massive shock to my system seeing someone going down that road. I think if you take the blue tinted specs off and think it through you will realise there's only one person to blame here. I think its clear the bookies have been sitting on this for a while and when recently for a 3rd time Ian Black has committed the cardinal sin of betting against his own team again, now at an even higher profile club they had to report it. The thing is what have the bookies gaining from this? They have had to publically reveal to all there customers that there information and betting is monitored. It's not a disaster but its definitely not good for business and I think anyone suggesting this particular bookies has an agenda against Rangers needs help.

Personally I think he should be facing a 12 month ban from football. 6 months at least. If I was running Rangers I would take this opportunity to sack him for gross misconduct as the guy has disgraced himself and the jersey.

Agree0 Disagree0

I would have bet agaist Gough likin it doggie style down the St Vincent street toilets,, mind would have lost that same way Gough lost his medals. george

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Sep 2013 18:07:10
Now the SFA have ruled on Mr Black what will The Rangers own internal disciplinary procedures rule?

Believable0 Unbelievable0

According to the BBC Scotland it was a game against East Stirling which we won, also Black came on as sub and scored.
I do not want Black as a Rangers player in the future as he has no class, but this is a bloody whitchunt.
Can it be proven he throw a game for finacial gain?
NO!
He is just proven to be a mug gambler just like many of us fans.
Only problem now he wares a Rangers jersey.
When did the SFA find out aboit the other games ie for Hearts?
Dounebear

Agree0 Disagree0

Ally has come out to his defence with his list of 100 players who bet etc,. Accusing SFA of not managing the rules correctly.
Hope he's embarrassed as Black ADMITTED all charges.

Agree0 Disagree0

Manky mob will be out the gutters over this 1. Ally has no decision on whether the club sack black or not. Ally has no questions to answer. If the board decide to keep black, then mccoist can play him however he wishes.

Gaz.

Agree0 Disagree0

Black is doing what half the players in scotland are doin

Agree0 Disagree0

@1 the three games he betted against his team wer all hearts nothing to do with rangers and ther will be no internal investigation because its nothing more than a moral issue with betting against his own team look at it this way what's worse a player betting on his team to lose or a bookie who's been happily taking his money for years and then sticking the player in to the sfa {Ed001's Note - a player betting against his team is clearly worse!}

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Sep 2013 20:47:32
@2 think you lost the plot kiddo, why embarrassed? Ally never once said black wasnt guilty did he?, he simply said he wasnt alone,! felling a bit of a silly sausage now aren't we? any more gems?

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Sep 2013 21:32:57
@5 read the reports and listen to all the radio commentary 1 of the bets was for Rangers ( his employer) to lose a game. stop trying to defend the indefensible. JohnnyG. get over it. HE BET AGAINST HIS OWN TEAM. disgraceful

Agree0 Disagree0

@ 6 did ally say he new of any other players that bet on games they wer involved in.
It's a witch hunt ha paranoia

Agree0 Disagree0

@7 mate av seen it reported on all channels and none of them said anything about him betting against rangers infact they said the 3 games wer for hearts also going by n1 post the bbc aye cause they always report the right facts when it comes to rangers also why would he bet on rangers to lose to east Stirling when if you look at the result from last season we won and this is the team who we had our biggest wins against

Agree0 Disagree0

@8 it's not a witch hunt but there is some other agenda here because it definitely didn't take the bookies 7 year to figure out it was black also this wouldn't be that big a story if he didn't play for rangers

Agree0 Disagree0

@10 maybe the bookie was a celtic fan n when he signed for The Rangers he thought, opportunity!.
That only makes the bookie a tit doesn't change the fact that betting on a match your directly involved in is completely wrong and he should have been hammered for it, not a 3 Mach ban and 7 if he does something of that nature again.
If Ally has a list of 100 players that bet on games there involved in then should he not b saying who they are, after all he "demanded" to know who was on a panel that chose a punishment for rangers.

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Sep 2013 17:21:39
According to tv black admitted to all charges, betting against his own team was one.
10 games and one weeks wage of £7, 500 lol isn't nearly enough

Believable0 Unbelievable0

Get your facts right its only 3 games

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Sep 2013 18:19:43
Disgusted with Black betting against Rangers even if it was only a fairly wee bet.

Wish he's have been fined more than only a week's wage.

Agree0 Disagree0

N1 it was 10 game ban with 7 of the 10 games suspended

Agree0 Disagree0

He is on £30,000 a month? god that's more of an issue than his betting statistics. We are paying this player £360,000 a year in divisions where the average wage is around £200. What the heck? what's the wage going to be in top flight? I give up. seems we never learn

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Sep 2013 16:35:26
Ian Black banned for 10 games with seven games suspended for breaching betting rules! Source ssn. What do bears thin about the punishment? Harsh too harsh not harsh enough? Comments would be very welcome to see what everybody or most people think? I personally think its a bit harsh considering the amount of other players that put on a bet but don't get stuck in by a bookie to the s. f. a

Believable0 Unbelievable0

We sacked sandaza for less.

Agree0 Disagree0

If that's all he done betting on other teams then its harsh, if he betted on even one game he was involved in then it ain't harsh enough.

Agree0 Disagree0

He bet on his own registered club 3 times to lose. He bet a further 10 times on his own registered club. He broke the rules 160 times. Gunning got the same punishment ( 3 match ban ) for a wild swing at an opposing player. Should be ashamed of himself for betting against his own team. DH

Agree0 Disagree0

It doesn't say which club he was with

Agree0 Disagree0

@4 on news says 2 hearts games and
1 Rangers game v e. stiring were he
bet on his teams not to win doesn't
say he bet them to lose, the
thing is we won 3-2 black played and.
scored
billy h

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Sep 2013 19:50:19
@1, Sandaza was guilty of Gross misconduct, end off, we didn't sack him for less, he let it be known what his club pays in wages etc, his contract was busted, why do you think he ain't going to court,? he accepted a payoff because he had no guarantee of winning, Black may well be disciplined by Rangers, I hope so, but something about a bookie reporting one single player, after all these years is mindboggling, Personal? maybe, vindictive,? most definitley, have the spfa asked the same bookmaking company for a full list of pro footballers customers? tommyblue

Agree0 Disagree0

£7, 500 fine for Ian Black is totally wrong, as far as I'm concerned. it's too high! If a player, say from East Stirlingshire, had been given such a fine then how could he possibly be asked to pay it back. All fines should be across the board whether you earn £200 per week or £20,000 per week. Don't get me wrong here, no player should be allowed to gamble on matches in the country where they apply their trade. Gers survived, never died and overall title No56 is coming next.

Agree0 Disagree0

N6 tb ide put a heavy wager on it being vindictive

Agree0 Disagree0

He didn't bet on his own team to lose 3 times

The Rangers game last season he bet a draw, came off the bench and scored to make it 3-2

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Sep 2013 21:10:18
@7 - I would disagree. Fines across the board would not work if it was laid down as an amount. If you fined a player from say Annan £7500 he would never manage to repay it. but if you fined Black £200 it would make a mockery of the system. It is being reported that it is a weeks salary for Black (although I don't know how accurate that is) so a fairer system is that every fine for said offence should be a weeks salary, therefore making it relative.

Agree0 Disagree0

@7, are you for real, fines have to be related to ability to repay, if you fine someone who's earning £3000 a week, £7500, it will take him a shorter time to repay and be less off a punishment than if you did the same thing to someone whos earning £10,000 a YEAR.

Agree0 Disagree0

Look up the story of Pete Rose

Perhaps the best switch hitter in The history of baseball

3 World Series
1 MVP
2 Gold Gloves
17 All Star games (best players over a season selected)
Rookie of the year

Soon after retiring allegations surfaced that he had bet on games - including his own team (although never bet them to lose)

An enquiry found him guilty and his punishment was

1 Permanent Ban - can't even go to a game

2 His team was not allowed to retire his No14 shirt

3 Denied entry to the Baseball Hall of Fame

This amounts to a ritual public humiliation of a guy that would - in football terms - be part of the Best Team in the World selection

Please compare

Agree0 Disagree0

@6 are you seriously trying to say what sandaza done was worse than betting against your teammates? Have a word with yourself.

Agree0 Disagree0

No (6) Blacks wages now known. is that gross mis-conduct too? and the matches he betted on during time with us is that mis-conduct, as for Sandaza I think you will find he didn't go to court because we paid him a large amount of money not to?as we had no gaurantee of winning.
As for reporting the issue would you be happier they didnt? and one day a player loses us an important game in his need for money? Then we we be up in arms saying things like, its a conspiracy etc they kept it quiete, covered it all up because they have an agenda against us. let's get real for god sake. footballers like everyone else make mistakes be it talkng to wrong people or having a flutter etc. the point on both players is. they know the rules so stick to them.

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Sep 2013 16:35:15
Ian black to serve 10 match ban with 7 suspended for betting on matches involving registered team. Not a bad outcome considering. Probably just put rangers on his coupon.

Mcfly.

Believable0 Unbelievable0

One of the bets was on celtic to beat juventus in cl and you know what happened

Agree0 Disagree0

He bet against hearts twice while with the club and once against rangers and played the match the guys an person at best and a cheat at worse probably should be shown the door rangers need links to match fixing on top of everything else like a hole in the heed

Agree0 Disagree0

Lets get away from this vindictive nonsense could it not be that the employee from the bookies was actually a Rangers fan who had kept quiet about Blacks betting until he placed the bet for Rangers to lose and rightly so felt it was so disgusting that he stuck him in.

Agree0 Disagree0

@3 no it couldn't have been your average rangers supporting employee because it was to detailed for it not to have been under investigation for quite a long period I just don't understand why it's taking the bookie to come when they did

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Sep 2013 16:06:36
10 match ban for Black. Shocking!

Believable0 Unbelievable0

Maybe not a popular opinion but he broke the rules so what's the problem? It's not anyone else's responsibility to check that all players are aware of the rules, the responsibility lies with the players themselves. Granted he maybe didn't realise that betting on football of any kind was against the rules but I'm sure an educated guess would've told him that betting on games you're involved in is a no no? He's not that daft surely? Also, the excuse that everyone is doing it is just pathetic to be honest. Maybe he is unlucky to be the one being made an example of but them's the breaks I'm afraid. He chose to take the gamble (excuse the pun) and he's been pulled up for it. Nobodies fault other than his own. I sincerely hope that we're now not going to descend into more ridiculous conspiracy chat. Absolutely sick of living in a blame culture society. Time folk were prepared to take responsibility for their actions and stopped passing the buck. At least this sorts one of Allys selection headaches.

Apologies for the soap box rant, not had one in a while.

Agree0 Disagree0

I no should have been at least double that

Agree0 Disagree0

How's it shocking? He broke the rules and got a ban 10 games 7 suspended

Agree0 Disagree0

Why is it shocking what if a rangers game is 1 1 with 1min to go and he missed a open goal and u later find out he had a draw on. can we normal punters sue him for costing us money no we can't if u ask me it should have been a lot more than 10 games

Agree0 Disagree0

3 match ban.
7 suspended.
get your facts right.

Agree0 Disagree0

What does it mean by 7 are suspended

SM {Ed001's Note - means they are only served in the event of him doing something else wrong. So he serves a 3 match ban, but another bit of trouble and he will have that 7 match ban on top of a further punishment.}

Agree0 Disagree0

It means if he calls Jim Goodwin a fanny he'll be made to serve the other 7

Agree0 Disagree0

He's doing what the rest off the world is doing f. s. Granted he shouldn't be betting on the games he is playing in and maybe for that the punishment fits the crime. going to be a very interesting couple of weeks a great big can off worms have just been opened and I don't think Black is the only one that had a few bets on. But then again that's just my opinion.

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Sep 2013 19:54:47
Ed, he will only serve the other 7 games if he fell foul of the same regulation, of which there are 2 parts, ie, 22, 23, not for any other misdemeaner, soz for putting my oar in boss, tommyblue,
ps baybear, don't u find it incredible that after 5o yrs of players gambling, a bookies employee found the need to report a guy who was gambling in fiver coupons? think about it? why now? {Ed001's Note - sorry mate, I should have made that clear, you are totally correct in that respect.}

Agree0 Disagree0

@7 According to Mr Delahunt, he would only serve the rest, if he get's caught gambling again
Tam

Agree0 Disagree0

It got me wondering are jockeys allowed to bet for or against them winning a race {Ed001's Note - no.}

Agree0 Disagree0

@6) if he was stupid enough to break rules 22 or 23 again relating to betting the 7match suspension would kick in on top off any other punishment for breaking such rules. Everybody has their own opinion on betting on this site and others but let's see how many other players are pulled up by the sfa or are we to believe only Black in the whole of Scottish Football placed bets.

Agree0 Disagree0

@9 Honestly mate, nah I don't find it incredible at all. If he hadn't been betting there would've been nothing to grass on him for would there? I'm not buying into the whole 'anti Rangers agenda' nonsense; although I won't dispute that some bookie felt the need to get it up him. However that could be for any reason. It's not like Black has a great reputation is it? before he signed for us the majority of us would have agreed he came across like a bit of a c0ck and some kind of pseudo hard man on the park. Maybe he had bumped a betting tab? maybe he acts like billy big b011ock5 in the bookies and someone wanted to take him down a peg or two? Hey, maybe the bookie is a fellow bear who was disgusted at him betting against his own? or a Hibee with a memory? who knows? All I know is he's a big boy who should have known better and he admitted to all the charges, end of. Hell, even if the bookie is a Tim it doesn't matter. Rightly or wrongly Blacks actions have put a massive question mark against him in terms of trust.
Anyway, why even bother trying to justify his actions. He's pash and lucky to wear the blue of Rangers at all. He should have more respect for his club, his team mates and the fans. Disappointed in Allys stance anaw (again). His paper waving "I've got names" nonsense is no way for a Rangers manager to behave. He should have had enough decorum to simply say I have no comment to make at this time until I hear more evidence and the case is clear. Instead he descended yet again ito a childish "ah but it's no fair" routine.
FFS Ally, man up and represent our club with dignity or bu99er off.

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Sep 2013 20:57:18
a jockey betting on horseracing is a serious nono, nowadays they would probably be warned off, but there is a big difference in what Black was doing, racing is a one man sport,

Agree0 Disagree0

@10 so why did Lennon serve his suspended sentence for calling another player a Fanny during a game, didn't know he had been done for using offensive language before

Agree0 Disagree0

Cant'nt understand why any Rangers supporter is supporting Black, I am not a Rangers supporter, but I was amazed by some of the results last year, Icould have made a small fortune betting on some of the results they had, I bet now and again, and with different booky accounts, how do you know Black didn't do the same as me, and you all stand by him because he's a Rangers player

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Sep 2013 14:43:36
Macleod the next Barry Ferguson? next Baxter?

Believable0 Unbelievable0

The boy has a big future if he keeps his head down

Agree0 Disagree0

So what is it the next Barry Ferguson or Jim Baxter? because there is a million miles between the two players.

Personally I think your talking out your ar*e with that Baxter comment when you consider the boy has been playing 3rd and 4th tier football. From what i've seen though he could maybe go on to be a better footballer than Ferguson. He needs to be playing better opposition though to push him on.

Agree0 Disagree0

@2 the level of opposition has got nothing to do with the skill or quality any player has it's how they deal with it John fleck has plenty of skill but doesn't possess the brain or mindset to become a star because he was a wee billy bighead so if McLeod doesn't get to big for his boots then he will become a star

Agree0 Disagree0

Do not know how good the lad will be, but PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT MENTION FERGUSON IN ANY COMPARABLE WAY TO BAXTER.

Agree0 Disagree0

Guys let's not overdo the hype. I'm old enough to remember John MacDonald.

Agree0 Disagree0

Barry Ferguson could not lace Jim Baxter's boots.

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Sep 2013 19:57:46
@5 John Mcdonald helped to carry a very poor gers team thru a good few yrs m8, scoring weekly, gr8 wee striker, remember him in Drybrough cup final, Sandy, Coop and wee Polaris, brilliant
tommyblue, and I don't understand how some people don't apreciate barry?

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Sep 2013 11:07:47
how many of the new boys do you guys think will start against abroath i'd play bell monshi law daly think foster peralta clark and smith might have to wait also think mcculoch might get bench just because he hasn't looked great at cb and daly looks the more effective big str thoughts

Believable0 Unbelievable0

Daly and Clark upfront, Moshni and McCulloch at Centre back, Foster at RB and Peralta and Law in midfield.

Agree0 Disagree0

@1 what's Faure, McAusland & McLeod done wrong because I'm sure as Feck Black won't be dropped out of Midfield.

Larky Bear

Agree0 Disagree0

Are we still waiting for international clearance for peralta? If so think black will still be in midfield with law. Daly and Clark definitely up front though. Agree with larky faure and the others mentioned have played reasonably well and to just drop them would be harsh. We have said all all along though September will see ally's team of choice, so who knows. Good to have the right kind of selection problems now and not last seasons. PB

Agree0 Disagree0

@3 Black may be suspended

Agree0 Disagree0

If he is theyl have to suspend half the players in scotland where I live the local team are in the bookies betting on football all the time

Agree0 Disagree0

@5 agreed but your local team isn't up in front of the SFA at Hampden today

Agree0 Disagree0

Faure, cribari and black all had their chances and failed badly last year, hope they are all dropped when new boys are in, if Macleod gets dropped its a disgrace.

Agree0 Disagree0

@2. agree that the players that have played have not let us down, but Ally has not signed 8 new players to warm the bench, or sit in the stand.
McAusland might start at RB, and MacLeod will play right midfield.
Ally has a few selection options unlike last season.
What would be your starting eleven for Saturday.?

Agree0 Disagree0

N6 n5 I agree but I wonder if n5s booky is a season ticket holder at his local teams ground lol

Agree0 Disagree0

I look a right fud saying Black won't get dropped then he gets suspended.
@8 that's fine mate I agree they are not there to warm the bench but they can't all play & they won't all play so for me 4 of them would start this week & my team would be as follows.
Bell
Mcausland Faure Moshni Wallace
McLeod Law McCulloch Templeton
Daly Clark if Littles not fit. didn't have the heart to drop Jig after his Hat Trick.

Larky Bear

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Sep 2013 10:56:07
Looking forward to all our new players being available for the game tomorrow. It's been very difficult over the last 2yrs but finally the transfer ban is gone. I only hope that there is good news tomorrow if the EGM goes ahead and we see the removal of Stockbridge and his like. Coisty09

Believable0 Unbelievable0

 
Change Consent