http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/21st-century-rules-applied-rangers/1302 I’ve waited a day or two to write this. And I write on the train from Amsterdam to The Hague to witness the first ever head of state receiving sentence for war crimes. So everything’s relative. Even Rangers… And from outwith Glasgow the perspective’s glaring. Faced with a judicial process at the Scottish Football Association and a due appeal process (active now)*to be heard before a retired judge or QC – faced with all that, what does the Rangers manager Ally McCoist do? Bide his time? Seek appeal advice? Reserve comment on an obviously sub-judicial procedure? No – he suddenly demands on Rangers TV on Tuesday that the Scottish Football Association panel which imposed a 12 month ban on the club buying players be identified in public. As an act of*such irresponsibility in the current climate beggars belief. Like so many in this drama Mr McCoist goes “public” in an environment where I doubt he’ll never be properly questioned. Far from letting due process happen and preparing the case for appeal, Mr McCoist chooses a lynch mob approach*potentially putting*the safety of these people at risk. It’s an action redolent of the lack of reality, prudence, judgement and moral decency which has characterised so much of a club that’s brought the game into deep disrepute. Moreover, some might observe that Mr McCoist’s inflammatory tantrum is in itself likely to bring the club and himself into disrepute. Will Mr McCoist be equally “public” in facing up to the responsibility of what he’s done? Given the cowardice of his initial act, you have to say it’s doubtful. Mr McCoist and Rangers need another reminder that even Glasgow football is now living in the 21st century. Rules get applied – even to Rangers. Outside Glasgow football where else would anyone in normal public life question the independence of the panel as he did – then call for them to he named for the mob? Yet the sheer and obvious outrage his actions should provoke raises little adverse comment in the city. No – so much attention remains focused on the astounding fact that a club that broke rules got punished. Doh! Small wonder it leaves SFA chief executive saying the rules will be applied without fear or favour. But why should he have to? In any normal world this is a given and accepted. In Glasgow football the man imposing the rules has to say he’ll do his job as if it’s news. Meanwhile, if I get time in the small matter of a war crimes court, I shall ask the SFA if they intend charging Ally McCoist with bringing the game into dispute for questioning the SFA’s motives, independence and arguably, putting the safety of its independent panel at risk. Meanwhile… Charles Taylor… Sierra Leone… mass rape… child soldiers… death by machete… and a city and a court where yes, they apply the rules without fear or favour and they don’t feel the need to say so.
Here is the statement from McCoist. There is one word missing from it. "Sorry". I would like to make quite clear my position in relation to the decision by the SFA's judicial panel which earlier this week imposed sanctions against Rangers which have far reaching consequences for our club and Scottish football. "I firmly believe that decisions of this magnitude should be fully transparent and everyone should have confidence in the system that has been created to deliver such a finding. "When I called for full transparency on Tuesday I took the view that the decision by the judicial panel should be subject to proper scrutiny. It is unthinkable in any walk of life that such a significant punishment would be meted out without full transparency. "I fully understand that there are difficult decisions to be taken in football and they will never suit everyone but in this day and age clarity and transparency are surely of paramount importance. "That said, I would not for one moment want anyone to interpret my remarks as a signal to engage in any form of threatening behaviour. Such activity disgusts me and anyone who engages in it does Rangers Football Club nothing but harm. No Rangers supporter should get themselves involved in it - not now nor at any time. "Our focus has got to be firmly on ensuring that the Club's case in appealing the sanctions imposed on us is put forward robustly and in the appropriate manner. "Rangers Football Club was a victim of what happened during the tenure of Craig Whyte. The Club was not an accomplice, a co-conspirator nor a perpetrator of wrongdoing. "We suffered from it and still are. I hope that our appeal can be dealt with by the SFA as quickly as possible as the situation for the Club and the possible ramifications for Scottish football are very serious."
Spot on , remember Mccoist outburst after the Aluko hearing , imagine if Lennon had said these things , he would probably be heading for the jail !!!
On another thread I wrote a paragraph or two on McCoist and this " naming and shaming" episode of his ; I now feel this was unneccessarily lengthy and should have been condensed into the following short statement ; McCoist is a fat ****.
I can't believe I was so naive. I don't know what he said to make Lennon lose it, so I never blamed McCoist. I could put the Aluko **** down to defending his players and looking for a reaction from them. I was wrong. You are right. He is a fat ****.
McCoist's outburst was ridiculous, Leggo-esque in fact. Tom English in today's scotsman has it pretty spot on imo, if a little toned down compared to Thomson. "Rangers wanted the tribunal to factor-in all sorts of external issues that really didnât have anything to do with the specific rights or wrongs of the case they were asked to deal with. It was like a guilty man awaiting sentencing entering a plea for leniency on the basis that his life might fall apart if the judge goes heavy on him. Emotionally, it might sound good, but it shouldnât really have any bearing on the punishment meted out." http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footb...f-emotion-from-melodramatic-mccoist-1-2256036
Meanwhile⦠Charles Taylor⦠Sierra Leone⦠mass rape⦠child soldiers⦠death by machete⦠and a city and a court where yes, they apply the rules without fear or favour and they donât feel the need to say so. Two points. This comparison is utter bollocks. Rangers were not found guilty by a court of law and therefore punishment without 'fear or favour' is in question. In a court of law, those responsible for passing sentence are not anonymous. McCoist will undoubtedly be asked to explain his comments before the SFA. He should not have said it. For the first time in the whole fiasco he let his guard down and as a club manager spoke without first engaging his brain. That should sound familiar to all the yahoos out there.
Those responsible for determining guilt in a court of law are anonymous. Should the accused then demand that jurors names be made public? Regardless, the rules of these tribunals were agreed by all clubs including Rangers at the start of the season. It's beyond arrogant to now demand they be changed because you don't like the verdict and sentence.
I don't think anyone is demanding the rules be changed. They are appealing the verdict. Stop banging the war drum, timmy
Fat ****. Fat bitter ****. ****y ****ity fat ****pig ****. What a greasy, fat ****ing overweight ****ity ****fuck.
Firstly its not a comparison of rangers and this maniac, its on respect and temperament shown to a judicial panel no matter the charges Secondly McCoist is a fat ****
Two points. It is absolutely valid. Rangers were found guilty by the organisation that holds jurisdiction over them. Rangers were aware of who was passing the sentence. As for questioning the impartiality of the panel, why would you question that? What possible reason do you have to suggest this? McCoist's interview was 12 minutes long. It was produced, edited and broadcast on Rangers TV. It went out because Rangers wanted it out there. So you are telling us that not one single Hun involved in getting this interview out there had their brain engaged? Or are they all just thick ****s? That should sound familiar to all the Huns out there.
The guilty verdict? Which of the offences in particular are they appealing. I have heard a lot about boycotts, little about what it is for.
Sorry, no, I didn't mean they were appealing the verdict. The rules were broken. They are appealing the punishment. But you knew that you pedantic ****
Rangers knew who the three men on the panel were before the verdict was even given so that is total bullshit. What McCoist did was calculated. Why else would he pretend not to know who the men were when he actually did?
All we want from the SFA is transparency and a level playing field. If Lenny wants answers from them, godammit he should get them. Tim O'Ppressed 2011 Anonymity of the SFA's tribunal should be respected and if McCoist questions the SFA then he is a fat ****. Noone should question the SFA's impartiality. Tim O'Ppressed 2012
We could well have been kicked out the SPL, and probably should have been. The fine doesn't mean much to a club millions in debt. As for the transfer embargo (I can't see where the cash to buy any players would come from anyway), and I can't see us holding onto our best players, we'd effectively be a boys club playing in the SPL. Hardly extremely lenient.
Yep, it was reported that a Rangers representative was present, so it is highly likely he knew who they were. Was it a calculated war cry to the nutters? I hardly think so. Was it beyond irresponsible, misjudged, and stupid to go on an angry petulant rant? Very much so.
