I’ve Annoyed Some People By Writing About What Mr McCoist Said, So Here I Explain Why I Do

I see that, once again, one of my pieces has attracted some comment upon a Rangers fan website. It appears that it is seen as somehow inappropriate to question anything said by Mr McCoist (or at least for me to do so).

Some commenters here have also wondered why, every so often, I will point out the apparent errors in what the Rangers manager has to say. Partly this comes about because some of the comments seem so blatantly designed to help sell tickets rather than, for example, to actually explain what is happening, that I think it does no harm to point that out. In an echo too of “succulent lamb-ism” there rarely appears to be anyone in the media who points out the issues.

So, for example, in the SFL, unlike the SPL, “roster construction” is important. For most SFL teams (and probably for every one of them) the 22 player limit (for those 22 or over) is irrelevant. Even for teams relegated from the SPL the economic cutbacks needed mean that their player numbers would fall below that level.

In fact Rangers might be the only team where it has been an issue in recent years.

In American sport (and I can speak about baseball and American football) “roster construction” is a major skill. The only time it applies in club football in Europe is when picking the squad for European football, and in internationals, when choosing the players for World Cup Finals or European Championship Finals.

So it ought to be of no great surprise that a manager of a Scottish football team might not think at all about the issue – but someone should be thinking about it!

There was speculation that Mr McCoist was looking to bring in ten new players. On the basis that these would all be 21 or over, then where was he going to fit them in?

Signing players, whether by purchasing them from other teams or contracting with them as free agents, costs money. Every business, even one as cash-rich as Rangers, being the most financially stable club in the UK, needs to watch the money.

It would be a terrible and wasteful error for Rangers to sign more players than it would be allowed to register!

So the point of my piece about Rangers player numbers was not to ridicule Mr McCoist, who, after all, remains Rangers all-time leading goalscorer, nor to suggest that there would be some evil conspiracy to allow the rules to be circumvented, but simply that I had not seen any press coverage of the player limit, even when Mr McCoist’s player acquisition plans were being discussed, dating back indeed to last year when 9 or 10 players were reputed to be coming on loan from Newcastle.

(That story of course, which emanated from Mr Green rather than from Mr McCoist, to be fair, was patently and demonstrably nonsense from the first day it appeared.

SFL Rule 123.2.5 states:-

“The (SFL) Board shall not during a season approve more than four temporary transfers to any one club at any one time. Of these, no more than one such transfer at any one time shall involve a player who has reached the age of 21 years on 1st January of the appropriate year. The maximum number of temporary transfers allowed to any club in a season shall not exceed five, of which not more than two shall involve players who have reached the age of 21 years on 1st January of the appropriate year.”

So only four players can be at an SFL club on loan at one time, only five over the course of a season, and only one 21 year old or older at a time.)

Why then not pick up on what other teams say, or on what legal issues relate to other teams?

Frankly no other team in Scotland – not Celtic, Hearts, Hibs, Aberdeen or even Albion Rovers – has had anything like the number of legal issues surrounding Rangers. Equally the number of statements issued which seem to have little or no bearing on reality seems comparatively small at other clubs, or else, as with Neil Lennon’s comments about the SPFA Awards, there is public dissection and criticism of his views. Kenny Sheils, for example, is clearly a far more authoritative commentator on Scottish football matters than I am.

If someone can show me another business (never mind a football team) which has had the following list of legal issues over the last three years (and this list is illustrative and not exhaustive) then I will happily write about them!

Share Flotation

Stock Market Listing

Legal Disputes about Sale of a Company

Sheriff Officer Action to Enforce Payment of Debt

Administration

Liquidation

Unfair Dismissal

TUPE

Corporate Governance

Corporate Structures

Trust Law

Cross-Border Acquisition

Jurisdictional Issues

Payment Actions

Family Law Disputes

Mortgage Re-possession

Floating Charges

Standard Securities

Dispositions of Heritable Property

Appointment and Removal of Company Directors

VAT Law

PAYE Law

Income Tax Law

Employee Benefit Trusts

Tax Appeal Procedures

Judicial Overseeing of Conduct of Administrators

Conflict of Interest

The Nature of Legal Entities

Gratuitous Alienations

Defamation

Libel

Slander

Court Actions by Lawyers to Recover Fees

Sequestration

Enforcement of Debts Abroad

Criminal Law

Sporting Law

Interpretation of Disciplinary Codes

Judicial Review

Ultra Vires Actions

Fiduciary Duties to Shareholders

The list goes on and on…

As I said, can anyone point me in the direction of one company, business or person who has been involved in all of those issues in recent years?

It is not a joke to say that one could almost create an entire and comprehensive syllabus for a law degree using only issues connected to Rangers over the last couple of years!

And so, that hopefully explains to some of the kind posters on the Rangers fan site I mentioned, why I keep writing about these issues.

However, I suspect that some of the posters there have either not read my post about which they are unhappy, or have not understood it.

In addition, there now seems to be an acceptance there as fact that I am employed by the BBC to offer legal opinions! That might well be very nice, but it is not the case!

I love the logic of one commenter who states that, as I have written only a handful of posts regarding Celtic, but hundreds about Rangers, I must be a Celtic supporter.

There is also repeated reference to Catholic education, or should I say “the state funded apartheid education system”.

Mr Davymcrfc1 is clearly not a fan – “That prick should meet an untimely death anytime soon”.

Neither is Mr RR Ger, although his logic defeats me – “Calling everyone Mr? Bent shot “.

Bizarrely, of over 50 comments, there are far more indulging in ad hominen attacks on me than actually address the issue in the post!

If they had read some of my posts, they might have noticed that in January I said that the Nimmo Smith Commission would not strip titles from Rangers; that back last June I said that “Rangers” under Sevco/Green was the same club as under Mr Whyte; that I never “prejudged” the Big Tax Case and that I have repeatedly and genuinely praised Mr Green for his outstanding business sense and his ability to identify a legitimate profit-making opportunity when others far closer to the issue were prepared to sit back and do nothing.

And it might seem a trifle ironic that the views expressed by me, and by others, about Mr Whyte’s business dealings, based not on blind prejudice, but on facts, have turned out now to have been accepted (though too late) by Rangers fans and that views expressed here about Mr Green too seem now to be in the process of adoption by some, though not all, of the Rangers faithful.

As I have said before, if people want to comment on what I write, I am happy for them to do so, even where I disagree. The fact that people like to comment on what they think or assume I have said, rather than what I have actually said, is rather different. To avoid falling into the same trap, I try where possible to quote the words of people about whom I am writing and to give the source, rather than assuming something second or third hand.

When Mr McMurdo, the excellent Rangers writer, called on me to explain why I “hated” Rangers, and indeed suggested he would find it more honest for me to admit that I did, rather than pretended I didn’t, I asked him and his readers to identify a single instance of something I had written which evidenced “hatred”. I am still waiting.

The bottom line is that I like writing about stuff connected, directly or tangentially, to the law and will continue to do so. It is usually the case that every single day there is something worthy of comment coming from Ibrox or those connected with it.

Put it this way, even if “obsessed”, if there is nothing to write about, then I won’t write about it!

However, I will have a piece up regarding Mr Brown’s various comments this week, and how they relate to another statement by Mr McCoist on the official Rangers website! (I know – I can’t help myself!) 🙂

Posted by Paul McConville

Advertisements

47 Comments

Filed under Blogging, Rangers

47 responses to “I’ve Annoyed Some People By Writing About What Mr McCoist Said, So Here I Explain Why I Do

  1. Logic, in life and in football, is often difficult to accept. Keep writing, it’s most illuminating, and let’s face it, save a lot of your readers doing the work!

    Congrats on one of the best blogs out there!

  2. mick

    paul what they don’t understand is constructive criticism if they had listened last year and done a fans buy out we would not be here now the sfa and walter and sally knew of whytes involvement in sevco green has fleeced them and they are on there knees again, its mad and the media are as compliant as ever , via this blog laymen men like myself can see the truth and have a good understanding of the business world jargon also it has proven how diverse football is and proven that debate is the key to solving issues that arise ,the alternative media is now as big as msm and has made the nation cleverer no 1 believes what the papers sport sections say is true ,any1 offering constructive critism is bullied and made out mad all this can be laid at jabba the propagandist for the spivs

  3. Paul the situation at Ibrox as we have so often commented here with your Blog and the mainly informative and constructive comments, has been exposed time and time again and in the main the accruracy of the comments has been spot on. This time last year we were discussing the “sudden” emergance of the green angel and how it came about. I along with other regulars stated that it had been a fit up by craig Whyte and that he had manouvered the situation as it is my own personal belief that murray has always been the ultimate puppet master in all this. this with the exception of the murray link has been shown to be the truth as is now evident to even the most blue tinted glassed observer.

    the fact of the matter is that here and some other places the ongoings both visible and behind the scenes affect all of Scottish football, unfortunately, and despite all the effort you and others put into this blog and elsewhere the truth of the matter is on the whole ignored by both MSM and in general the mass of bears out there.

    it seems they are totally incapable of standing up and questioning the matter and just want to accept whatever anyone tells them, because its what they want to hear…………orange strips next year on their way. Just pathetic really.

  4. mick

    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/publish-the-five-way-agreement/

    at point of post 10 sigs to go to 2500 please sign and foward to friends and family and ask them to do same there is hide name botton to so no 1 sees your name check the sfa quote lol

  5. Ed Paisley

    I left a reply on the McMurdo blog some time ago. The blog topic was largely the legality of the Rangers EBT scheme. I said that I was proud of Brian Quinn for cancelling the Juninho EBT and paying all the tax and NIC that was due. I also questioned the morality of a club facilitating millionaire footballers avoiding their tax obligations. I thought they were reasonable points, but the disgusting diatribe that came my way really shocked me. This blog is an oasis of civility compared to others and the power machinations at Rangers are fascinating – especially when Paul presents the legal implications in an uncomplicated way that I can readily understand. Thanks Paul. Please don’t ever………stop!

  6. @gortchomhor

    Paul, this — I think — is the best article I have read from you. I look forward to the article on Brown you mentioned.

    I think the attitude of Rangers fans is and has been intrinsic to this story from the start. By that, I mean their desire/demands for success on the pitch (almost at any cost), their deference to establishmental/authority figures involved in the running of the club, their gullibility in regard to that leadership, their unhealthy narrow-mindedness when it comes to digesting and imbibing information from what they perceive to be unreliable sources, etc.

    All of these traits taken together have actually had a bearing on developments in terms of how decision-makers at Ibrox and the wider footballing and no- footballing community have responded to developments.

    They make it very easy to say “they deserve all they get” and I haven’t even mentioned their song sheet or sectarianism, still major problems for them.

  7. Budweiser

    Paul.— And now it looks like the Easdales are trying to get 29.9%. Who will stand up to them if they get it?

    • Here we go again. Another convicted criminal enters the scene. Why is it that this club seems to attract undesirables? My stance is simple. I am boycotting their buses.

  8. ecojon

    @Paul

    They can be taught how to read but that doesn’t mean they will let alone form an objective judgement.

    I was interested in some quotes from Mather in this morning’s Daily Telegraph which puts succulent lamb back on the menu Big Style.

    However this bit interested me: And the possible future – for Rangers and Mather? “We need to be the proverbial swan again – the lake is placid but his legs are going like the devil under the surface. For me that was the traditional Rangers,” he said.

    “They didn’t air their washing in public. They went about things professionally, methodically and in a calculated fashion. That’s the Rangers of old. I want to get back to that.
    ==============================================

    OK we know that Mather attended one Old Firm game as a child. But how does he know what the traditional Rangers Way is? Who has told him this? Was it the same people that explained it to Green?

    And, more importantly, does this mean a retreat from Green’s all out in the open policy – even if 90% of it was hot air – to doing business behind closed doors and the Bears being kept in the dark as they were for so long under David Murray.

    Sounds suspiciously like it to me. If I actually thought that Mather had a clue what the ‘Rangers of old’ actually was like in terms of secrecy then I would be worried about him. But it’s probably just a continuation of hot air and moonbeams.

  9. @gortchomhor

    I take back what I said about this being your best article, I read a couple last night from last year concerning the Sevco 5088 / Sevco Scotland confusion and you were way ahead of the curve on that question.

    Funny that articles you wrote almost a year ago could be cut and paste today, word for word, and they’d feel so relevant that nobody would guess they were a year old… Possibly a little experiment in there for someone.

  10. The logic of your post is unarguable Paul, but you’re pissing into the wind trying to educate the bears who frequent sites like the one you refer to.

    Thinking is not their strong point.

    Sh-tting in the woods is more their style.

    And in the streets of Manchester.

  11. Monti

    Paul your work is of the highest quality, keep at them, it’s making me very happy & knowledgeable at the same time, now do you want two or three scoops in your bowl 😀

  12. joratim

    Hi Paul

    Just a brief comment (maybe 2)

    1) I would be very annoyed if you did not continue to do what you are doing.

    2) So long as you continue to do what you are doing, they will really be annoyed, because they have nio answers.

    Can assure you that I will always be here to back you.

    HH

    Joratim

    • Maggie

      @Paul
      Oh dear,hear we go again.Will these “peepul” never learn.Despite everything that they were warned about last year coming to pass,they still refused to believe that they were going to die.You’d think this time the adage “once bitten twice shy” would penetrate their thick skulls…
      “Mmmm that rhabid,Papish etc and his cohorts were right last year,all the information was out there and they had it,maybe we should listen to them this time.” What do you do about people SO dense ? Well Paul,exactly what we do here,laugh,long and loud at them,and then get busy stocking up on ice cream and jelly for this year’s “partay”
      Now to the issue of Mc Coist.I bow to no one in my intense dislike of the man….that’s still allowed in Britain,isn’t it ? We are still free to be critical of those in the public eye,especially when the media is sycophantic to the point of inducing nausea,and worse,in the reading,viewing and listening public.You are of course aware of my habit of using the honorific HRH when posting about “Walter.” Like many of my fellow Celtic supporters,the adoration in voice and deed by the MSM towards the NED of The Rangers/Sevco(s) could not have been more obvious if they had knelt before him and kissed his brown brogues.
      I noticed Adam’s comment in the last blog saying he doesn’t rate Mc Coist’s managerial skills ( hell,who does ) ,and
      didn’t want him as manager of the new Rangers,but referenced his charity work and friendship with Tommy Burns…….that was always a mystery to me,what could that good man possibly have in common with
      the Sleekit Whisperer.Tommy Burns was a man of principle,faith,family and fidelity.Oh and btw,why do the apologists and defenders continually reference this friendship? Ok I’ll answer my own question 🙂 It’s because of the reputation of Tommy Burns as an outstanding human being,so ergo Sally becomes one,just by being his friend…AS IF!!!!!!!
      Last night I had the misfortune to see Mc Coist on the Scottish news and hear his “buying 10 players” spiel ( HA! ) and a much quoted phrase by Coco Chanel sprung to mind “At 50 you get the face you deserve.”
      I post this quote without comment Paul,make of it what you will 🙂
      Ps I hope you’ve reported the commenter wishing you dead to the proper authorities.

      • celtic2001

        It would be interesting to read your thoughts on whether Mr Davymcrfc1’s comments amounted to the offence of threatening communications under the less mentioned part of the offensive behsviour act.

  13. mcfc

    Paul

    Lashing out at anyone who comments on ones predicament seems to be a primary symptom of Rangersitis.

    Keep up the great work.- it is greatly valued by those who want to think about what is happening.

  14. Ed Paisley

    @gortchom
    That is a tremendous point about the deference indeed reverence of the Rangers fans towards their authority figures. These guys revel in their “loyalty” but we call it forelock tugging. They need to get off their knees and start cultivating a healthy suspicion of the people who run their club.

  15. Paul I find it disgusting that so called human beings can react as some have to your writing. I hope you remain safe and continue with your ever enlightening blog.
    Many thanks

  16. Stevie Mac

    Paul,
    I have to say I really enjoy your blog. As a mature law student I find your commentary on the legal situation regarding Rangers very informative. I have recently completed my dissertation relating to the corporate veil and have found the situation at Ibrox to be a wonderful means of applying academic knowledge to real life situations.
    I feel the trouble some individuals appear to have with your commentary is that it touches something they appear to be allergic to. That allergy is the TRUTH.
    I have no axe to grind with football supporters who have an allegiance to any football club, nor do I purport to be an aficionado of all things football. However when the stark reality of the situation now facing the Ibrox club is conveyed in factual, legal, terms then certain sections of the football community attempt to defend their stance, not upon legal reasoning, but upon emotional attachments they have to that club.
    This attachment clouds all reasoning , which inevitably results in anyone expressing legal opinion as being a “RANGERS HATER”
    I do not hate Rangers or anyone for that matter,but I do know this.
    If Rangers fans and directors do not look back at the wreckage of their past and address the problems in a humble fashion then they will never move forward.
    It is maybe better that they look at the root cause of their demise rather than attempting to lay blame on others.
    There is an immutable law of the universe which goes something like this :
    If you always do what you have always done , you will always get what you always got.

    Change is painless, the pain arises from the resistance to that change.

    I sincerely hope that the required changes are made and that a once proud club can take its place again in Scottish football

    • cam

      I can’t really think of something offensive or peurile in response Steven, and as a fellow law student(my dissertation involves illegal melon farming) i do value your mutual quest for the truth.
      Monti himself is on a slightly different quest,he is searching for the tooth,the whole tooth and nothing but the tooth and is employing his perfectly formed hands(complete with the normal amount of thumbs) to do so.
      I like laws Steven and i’ve always talked rubbish and annoyed folk,and i intend to keep doing so.In return i’ve always been laughing and i’m expecting to be laughing even more.
      Now that i’ve said the peurile nonsense that i couldn’t think of,i’ll finish off by maybe suggesting that lots of folk in football say questionable things, and if Paul cast his gaze just slighly wider and brought balance to his blogs then his image as a Rangers hating obsessive may alter.
      I do like his work and it makes me laugh so that’s a good thing.
      Ok,back to the books,,,,now then purchase tax,i can’t get a grip on it!

      • Arb urns

        Now why would a ranger be studying tax cam….. U gonna tell em down the brox that it exists….or perhaps u tilting at billy n squint wig perception that not paying the dam stuff can’t possibly give a football club a sporting advantage……..or even studying how the next tax avoiding owner of trfc made his off the radars…..or and I think this unlikely … U developing a guilty cons at all Betty’s bills that have been avoided down your way… The queens x1 indeed!!

    • Budweiser

      Stevie Mac.
      ‘ a once proud club ‘ ——— Pride comes before the downfall !

  17. lennieslions1967

    who owns murray park and ibrox anybody know?
    HH

    • cam

      Oh indeeds i do!

    • @gortchomhor

      Good honest question this. Simple too. I cant answer but here’s a funny thing. Im thinking out loud here so please no nasty stuff…

      Go to a business dictionary and look up the definition of the word liquidation. You should find something along the lines of this: a process whereby the free assets of a company are sold in order to pay creditors. Note the use of the word ‘free’ before assets, and note the word ‘creditors’ isn’t preceded by the word ‘secured’. Now go into your mind and think about the Rangers liquidation…

      Most people seem to have assumed — myself included — that all Rangers assets were being sold and the money raised would be going towards paying what was owed to all the creditors. Not so though, necessarily, go back to the definition. It suggests the secured creditors kept the secured assets; that includes properties with a floating charge; everything else sold or liquified and proceeds to the unsecured creditors.

      Note that to violate the principle of security on an asset would be tantamount to theft, and that our financial and legal system would cease to function in any recognisable way if such violations were to be normalised. In other words, the system we have would cease to be if this principle of security on assets was flouted or seriously undermined.

      Newtz posts on this are worth reading here on this website. My advice is have some aspirin handy if you plan on reading them though.

      Hope I helped clarify the question you asked even if my answer is iffy;)

  18. Fra

    @lennieslions1967….Wee Craigie boy. That’s what Bomber was on about and that’s why Chuckles has done a runner. They cannot show the truth because the hordes would turn on them

    Paul McC… More power to your pen Sir.

  19. cam

    Recently with Lenny’s swearing charge,subsequent ban and promise to sweetie wife about other managers,there was scope for a blog regards freedom of speech,the law relating to football tribunals,the reporting of offensive language in the workplace and being in possession of an angry face in public,,,did i miss it?
    The recent call by Mr Lawwell to have mucho Magners flowing at Celtic park relates to the Criminal Justice Act Scotland 1980,perhaps there is a blog post in the incubator?

    • ektim

      Neil Lennon’s swearing charge was a petty and vindictive reaction to him (rightly) criticizing referee Bobby Maddens totally abysmal performance at New St Mirren Park, two weeks ago in such a way he couldn’t be pulled up for those remarks. As Matt McGlone says in “Alternative View” there is “some wee shallow brained person at the SFA wallowing in” .. being able to do this! That guy at the SFA is still living in the 17th century!

      And as for the angry face photos, these are selectively and dare I say vindictively used by the MSM regardless if its a “happy Lenny” story or an “angry Lenny” story. Do the media not have pictures of Lennon smiling? The editors want to look at themselves in the mirror and realise they need to accept a large chunk of responsibility for some of the mindless attacks on Neil Lennon.

      • cam

        Thanks for updating me on Mr McGlones balanced and enlightening opinion,,,just gotta go to the toilet,,,i’ll be back soon.

    • Jim

      Cam,
      The point Paul is making is that stories like your two examples ARE discussed and dissected in the public forum, and appropriate questions are asked. But almost all of the stuff that has come from Rangers is ignored and not questioned except in places like Paul’s blog.

      It is difficult to argue that if the MSM or the Ranger’s fans had asked the difficult questions, then a lot of the mess of the last 2 (13?) years could have been avoided.

  20. Elsie Thedancer

    More power to your keyboard Paul … Keep writing!

  21. Paul,
    Don’t bother yir bahookie! The people annoyed by you writing about Sevco, don’t deserve or merit an explanation from you. These are the same clowns who, in a wee while will be saying “Naebdy tellt me!”
    I have to be honest and admit to looking forward to your article on Bomber, It would be even better if he banged up a few replies. Guaranteed anoninimity.! But just so we know it is him, nudge nudge wink wink, he could use the name IAMRANGERS. I believe it is now vacant and available for posession.

  22. ektim

    Paul its back to Freud’s Psychological Projection, Denial, Distortion and Repression.

    To put the key thrust of Psychological Projection (PP) as a defence mechanism into the Sevco perspective, the fact is that certain extreme elements of the Sevco support actually do HATE Celtic, Catholics, Neil Lennon, the Irish, and anything associated with The Republic of Ireland.

    They then project their own hatred onto anyone who either criticises Sevco or makes comments about Sevco which they don’t like, even when these comments (like yours) are based on established fact or legal statute.

    It’s medically accepted that reasoning with those afflicted Psychological projectors doesn’t work, so with these Sevco commentators you wont ever win.

    I am sure there are similar cases of PP in other sections of the population.

    Please keep up the good work!

  23. jimmy white

    What they don’t like is the truth being aired, the head in the sand scenario show no signs of relaxing, a bit like a child I suppose, “go away stop talkin aboot it”, “no a dinnae wanna nah”, “wits it tae dae wi yoo” and of course their non flinching loyalty to those who must be obeyed, believed, in an over the top ancient subservient manner, because if not then what? Only they can say. A completely out of date character and who could/would believe the supporters of the two biggest clubs in Scotland and from the same city could be so different, no other city shows this, these traits in such a way, I’m not talking of the divide either.

  24. PaulThePostie

    I’ve watched the bomber speech and listened to the radio interview last week. The question i ask answers itself. Why aren’t The(Sevco)Rangers fans thanking (Mr.)bomber for telling the truth? Then again (Mr.)Ally didn’t thank him either,come to think of it neither did (Mr.)Walter. What’s your favourite (Mr.)Dylan song? Mines is Dignity.

  25. Excellent article Paul.
    They can’t handle the truth especially from someone who isn’t beating a big orange drum and telling them how to think.

    Poor fish!

  26. Tam McCondie

    Mr McConville, there is nothing wrong with writing about The Troubles: the Sevco/dodo ones that is, but please have the decency to give them 27 days notice.

  27. Mr.Green

    Oh dear, paul. You and the other pesky bloggers really rub them up the wrong way. Your crime, expressing an opinion that differs from their baffled logic. Keep on telling it how it is. You and the other bloggers on t’internet are doing a grand job, keep up the good work. They don’t want to hear the truth, because they can’t handle the truth.

  28. Tarnowo

    It seems to be that anyone who raises issues around the goings on in Ibrox over the last 18 months is branded a “Rangers hater” . If nothing else, events have shown what can be achieved operating at the limits of current business legislation, unfortunately fans of the Ibrox club have bought into the fictions peddled by both Messrs Green and Whyte , without asking the obvious question , how is it being paid for. Pointing out to Mr McCoist rules that he is possibly unaware of ( lets be honest he never thought to ask the Oldco representative who were the members of the SFA tribunal , before demanding to know who these people are ) , can only be a good thing as he is perhaps not the most observant of people . It also helps to highlight to the SFA that the rule book is potentially not as flexible as they would have us believe ……..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s