http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/footba...c-deserve-to-be-spl-champions-86908-23806821/ Well said that man. A paragon of dignity I've always said.
I've never really properly understood that argument about the title being "tainted". And even if the title was to be considered tainted, then the question must surely be: who tainted it? It wasn't Celtic, this much seems clear.
Walter: Celtics title win this season won't be tainted Chic: Sir, what about Rangers tainted titles? Walter: If Celtics isn't tainted how can Rangers be? Chic; You heard it here first
Only the most rabid of huns actually believe it's tainted. You ask these idiots: "Well, if it was the other way round would our title be tainted?". Shut the **** up then. Ahm still gonny say it though. Especially up the pub. I prefer the term "gifted title" anyways
The question is simple how many, if any, of Rangers 53 titles have won without been tainted. Traditionally Rangers have had the backing of referees, and the people holding significant positions in control of Scottish football. Over the last 15 years or so not content with the referees etc on their side, they have frauded the British people by non-payment of their due taxes and hence ave played players they couldn't afford. An example of how referee's mind works is the same referee has made these statements. In relation to the penalty Celtic were denied in the cup final he said " it was only slight contact and Stokes went down , so it was a yellow card." A week later re Wallace dive he said " sometimes when a player is running it only takes the slightest touch to cause a man to fall, hence a red card for Cha was correct".
