Thursday was a glorious day for Rangers. First of all the Pinsent Masons independent Report confirmed that there were no links between Mr Whyte and Mr Green – at least if you read the headlines to the media reports!
Then Malcolm Murray stepped down as Chairman, to be replaced by Walter Smith.
All was well in the Ibrox garden – the lion would lay down with the lamb – and all of the bears would be united!
And surely season ticket sales will start imminently!
But there needs to be a curmudgeon somewhere … and I am he.
Some questions – what are Mr Smith’s qualifications for being non-executive Chairman of a PLC?
Why did Mr Smith turn down the Chairman’s job last summer, only to take it now?
Have his wishes for the “new Rangers Football Club” been fulfilled so far?
Why did he refer to the “new” Rangers Football Club?
Why is he at the head of the PLC and not the “football company”?
Can he even be described properly as an “independent” Chairman?
I will offer some thoughts on these below.
——————————————————
First of all the statement announcing the change …
The Rangers International Football Club plc today announced that Walter Smith has been appointed Non-Executive Chairman of the Board. Walter Smith is widely acknowledged as the Club’s most successful manager. Under his leadership, the Club enjoyed two immensely productive spells and he is one of the most highly regarded figures in British football.
He succeeds Malcolm Murray, who agreed to step down as Chairman, and Walter Smith’s appointment was a unanimous decision of the Board.
The Board believes that the new Chairman will bring stability, experience and a wealth of knowledge to the Club.
——————————————————
What factors should a PLC consider when appointing a non-executive Chairman?
Various documents have been issued by and on behalf of the Stock Exchange answering that very question. So, for example, we read the following:-
In considering the selection of the Chairman …, two factors should be taken into account.
First, prospective directors will need commercial experience that is relevant to the company’s business and wider operating environment.
Second, they will need the right functional experience to fulfil all necessary board and committee roles.
Prior experience
The Chairman:
- is likely to be an experienced UK plc NED
- may have a successful track record as a Chairman who has built and led professional and effective boards, although prior experience as a Chairman is not an absolute requirement for the role
- will need to be well respected by the investor community, and will show a clear understanding of the requirements of institutional investors.
It may also be an advantage if the Chairman has experience in corporate finance, mergers and acquisitions, and bid defence.
In practice, to fulfil these criteria, the Chairman is most likely to have:
- prior experience within a listed company as a chief executive or CFO.
- previous responsibility for a business equivalent to, or larger in scale than, the company for which the candidate is being considered. Candidates from alternative backgrounds will usually need to bring a demonstrable record of success, coupled with extensive experience as a NED, to be considered qualified for the Chairman role.
(NB – all emphases added.)
Now these are NOT statutory requirements. They are guidelines. It is made clear that companies can consider factors outwith those mentioned, but following the Stock Exchange’s guidance on “corporate governance” would never seem to be a bad idea.
Does Mr Smith posess the desired qualifications, experience or attributes?
The main factors mentioned are, I think, as follows:-
- Commercial experience relevant to the company’s business
- The right functional experience to fulfil all necessary board and committee roles.
- Be an experienced UK plc NED
- Will need to be well respected by the investor community
- Will show a clear understanding of the requirements of institutional investors.
- Experience in corporate finance, mergers and acquisitions, and bid defence.
- Prior experience within a listed company as a chief executive or CFO.
- Previous responsibility for a business equivalent to, or larger in scale than, the company for which the candidate is being considered.
- Demonstrable record of success, coupled with extensive experience as a NED
The Chairman’s role in a PLC is much more than in a private limited company. He is there to represent the interests of shareholders and investors, and sometimes to act as a brake on the executive directors. His role is not the day to day running of the business – that would make him an executive, but an overarching supervisory position.
Mr Smith has a great track record of success in football. He has had limited commercial involvement in business outside football.
As he himself acknowledged in an interview in the Scotsman:-
“I don’t particularly see myself as a long-term Chairman, in the sense that I would always think the job would be for someone who has far more business acumen than I have got.
“But we have been going through a ropey period, even after the club going on the stock market last December and everyone thinking it would settle down. That hasn’t been the case. There has been a wee bit of turmoil.
“So hopefully we can get the club settled down again. If we can do that, then I think that will be the initial phase of what we try to do. We will see what happens after that. But I certainly don’t see myself as being in the position for a long, long time.
“It is obviously a departure for me. When I was asked by Charles Green to go on to the board as a non-executive director last November, I thought ‘Well, that’s a change’.
“So this is something I never expected to happen. I didn’t particularly look for it either. But due to a whole set of circumstances it has come around. For anybody, it is an honour – albeit a surprising one.
“To be quite honest, I don’t think there was anyone else on the board prepared to do it! It’s as simple as that and I can include myself in that a bit.
“When you are asked to become manager, you obviously think you have got the background and credentials to do the job. But when you are asked to be the Chairman, you are never sure, because I’ve never been a business person and I was never really a member of the board before.
“So it will be a completely new departure for me. But we have got other experienced people on the board, so hopefully over the next period we will get together and try to take the club forward.”
Mr Smith’s frankness is admirable.
On the other hand, he effectively is admitting that he does not know what the role entails and will rely on other board members to help, which is a derogation from the role of a PLC Chairman.
One also wonders what he means by saying “I was never really a member of the board before.” Does he mean before November? Or is he saying that his involvement in the last six months has not been “real”?
Perhaps though I am being unkind to Mr Smith regarding his business acumen, and he is being too modest. (I should also say, before anyone else does, that I am not claiming that my own business skills are better than Mr Smith’s, but then I am not the Chairman of a PLC).
Roosternet Global LLP
After all, Mr Smith was, for some years, a partner in a business engaged in “Acquisition and exploitation of the rights to the roosternet software technology within the world excluding Israel and the countries forming the European economic area.”
Mr Smith, along with other names not initially known for their business expertise, such as David James, former England goalkeeper; Mauricio Taricco, former Spurs player; Gus Poyet, Brighton manager and former Spurs player; Goran Bunjevcevic, former Spurs player; Paulo Wanchope, former Derby and Manchester City player; Archie Knox, former football manager and assistant manager; Glenn Hoddle, former Spurs player and former England manager and Duncan Ferguson, well-known pigeon fancier, were al partners in Roosternet Global LLP.
That business is now closed, but the limited public information available suggests that it had assets of around £50 million and debts of half that, so clearly it was a major operation.
Maybe Mr Smith has skills he can bring from his involvement in the exploitation of roosternet technologies to the benefit of Rangers.
Alternatively, it may simply be that, back in April 2004 when Mr Smith became a partner, this was seen as a suitable, appropriate and entirely legal method of tax-efficient investing. And, after all, it should not be forgotten that Mr Smith was not, from information made available publicly, a beneficiary of any of Rangers’ notorious (although, as matters presently stand, generally legitimate – apart from a few of them where the paperwork was wrong) EBT schemes.
Might Mr Smith’s knowledge an interest in Roosternet technology have persuaded him not to take the EBT route?
Maybe someone could ask him?
So, to conclude this section, Mr Smith, apart from his frolic into Roosternet Global LLC, seems to be without any of the business experience, proven expertise and connections desirable (although not obligatory) in a PLC Chairman. He seems therefore to be there as a figurehead – a sign that all is well – a sign of unity.
What about Last Summer When Mr Green Offered Mr Smith the Role of Chairman?
Readers might recall that, last summer, Walter Smith appeared at literally the last minute with an offer from a consortium of Rangers-supporting businessmen to buy the assets from under the nose of Sevco 5088 Ltd to whom the administrators had a binding agreement to sell Sevco Scotland Ltd.
However both Duff and Phelps and Mr Green rejected this. However Mr Green offered Mr Smith the role of Chairman at that point.
Mr Smith declined, saying last June:-
“I would like to clarify the background to the offer of £6m for the assets of the club which I announced on Thursday.
“The offer was made to the administrators before the Charles Green consortium had concluded their transaction to acquire the assets. We felt it necessary to have a fall-back position to secure the club’s future. We have since made the same offer of £6m to the Green consortium through Zeus Capital.
“Our offer has been rejected and they have made a counter-offer inviting us to join their consortium.
“However, the current business plan is not in accord with our understanding of the present circumstances of the club and the way forward, but we would prefer to leave them to proceed in their own way and we wish them good luck in their endeavours.
“Members of our consortium had met with Charles Green and Zeus Capital prior to the CVA (company voluntary agreement) meeting and it had been agreed that we would be provided with significant information which would give us comfort as to the identity of the consortium members, their strategy and their funding capacity.
“This information had not been forthcoming by the date of our offer.
“We are therefore withdrawing completely from the process to enable Charles Green and his consortium to move forward.
“We very much hope the verbal assurances they provided to us – and the public statements made – are adhered to and that the club will therefore be financed and managed with appropriate governance and can go forward in a sustainable manner.
“We wish the new Rangers Football Club every good fortune.“
Maybe someone will ask the new Chairman how the business plan changed. In what way did the Green bid NOT protect the club’s future?
What did he mean by saying that he wished the “new” Rangers Football Club every good fortune? In what way was this a “new” club? Are we now at the position where both the Chairman and the Director of Communications have publicly stated that the present Rangers is a “new” club? Yes – we are.
Why Chairman of the PLC, and Not of the Football Board?
Back in June 2012, Mr Green’s offer to Mr Smith was, according to STV, to be Chairman of the football board. As the structure now is, there would be nothing at all wrong with that. The football company is NOT a PLC. Accordingly the strictures described above do not apply.
In addition it would be far more appropriate for the Chairman of the football board to provide active support to the manager of the football team than for the PLC Chairman to do so.
Mr Smith rejected the chance to take up such a role last summer. Now, cynical observers might say that his consortium could have been hoping that Mr Green’s takeover would fail, and thus allow the Park/McColl group to pick up the pieces. The successful share issue prevented that happening.
It would be ungracious therefore to ask Mr Smith why he decided not to add his expertise to the “new Rangers Football Club” when he had the chance last summer.
Is Mr Smith “Independent” Enough to be the Independent Chairman?
Here again the Corporate Governance Code provides some help. As the guide states:
The Code makes a distinction between non-executives who are independent and those who are not. To qualify for the former category, an individual must not only have the necessary independence of character and judgment but also be free of any connections that may lead to conflicts of interest.
The Code makes it clear that someone will not normally be considered independent if:
- they have been an employee of the group within the previous five years;
- they have a ‘material business relationship’ with the company or have had one within the previous three years, including an indirect relationship as a partner, director, senior employee or shareholder of an adviser or major customer or supplier (this would catch a partner from, for example, the company’s audit firm moving on to the board after retirement);
- they receive remuneration from the company in addition to director’s fees or they participate in the company’s share option or performance-related pay schemes or they are members of the pension scheme;
- they have close family ties with any of the company’s advisers, directors or senior employees;
- they hold cross-directorships or have significant links with other directors through involvement in other companies or bodies (this works against the ‘old boys’ club’ method of appointing non-executives: George is finance director at company A and sits as a non-executive on the board of company B; Harry is chief executive at company B and sits as a non-executive at company A);
- they represent a significant shareholder;
- they have served on the board for more than nine years.
Now Mr Smith was an employee within the last five years. He is inextricably linked to Rangers, proudly boasting of being a “Rangers man” and a life-long Rangers fan.
Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone with those attributes being a director. I am not saying that. However, this is a PLC. The Chairman’s role, as independent protector of investor interests, is NOT necessarily the same as protecting the interests of the “Club”.
Take a simple example. Let’s imagine that, in a couple of years, one of Rangers’ young star players is bought by Manchester United for £10 million. The Rangers fan would want that money to be spent on new players, or on high wages for free agents, even where there might be sufficient quality in the existing team to achieve the targets set for it. The financial investor, as opposed to the sentimental investor, might want the money to be kept in the company to be paid out in dividends. This is a very simplistic dilemma but one which faces football clubs regularly (although not always over a £10 million transfer!)
No groups of fans ever chant about their team’s balance sheet. Rarely will a Chief Executive be praised for debt reduction. Instead the constant refrain is “why are we not buying better players?”
How does Mr Smith propose to deal with these conflicts? I think it is almost impossible that he would take the investors’ side rather than the fans’.
Even if Mr Smith was a member of a Rangers Pension Fund, this would not compromise him, as it related to the now liquidated company and thus could have no bearing on his role in the newco.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that, based on his past experience and indeed on his own comments, Mr Smith does not fit the expected mould for a PLC non-executive and independent Chairman.
Does that mean that he cannot be Chairman? Of course not.
However, especially in a situation where major investors seem potentially to be in conflict with each other and regarding the make-up of the Board going forward, is he the right man to resolve these issues?
If Mr Green has gone, along with Mr Ahmad, what about the shareholding of, for example, Richard Hughes – top man in Zeus Capital? If he has lost two of his three men at the heart of Ibrox in the circumstances we are all well aware of over the last few months, does this affect his commitment to his investment?
The Easdale brothers want their place on the Board. They want to expand their interest in Rangers. Do they want to play an executive role, or do they see a seat at the Blue Room table as recognition of their standing in Scottish society, and a gesture of defiance to those who unfairly question their business ethics.
And one wonders how Mr Smith would deal with the question, should it arise, of Mr McCoist’s future?
Most football management careers end in failure. Mr McCoist is Mr Smith’s protégé. Should the manager’s future be at issue, could Mr Smith agree with the CEO wielding the axe?
Is his appointment, at the end of the day, the 2013 equivalent of Mr McCoist welcoming the Green consortium in 2012, just in time for the fans to overcome reluctance to buy season tickets?
Posted by Paul McConville
Random Thoughts Re Scots Law by Paul McConville 
Debate is to be welcome. Humour is to be welcome. If you can combine both then so much the better. Some individuals, however, see fit to use child abuse and Catholicism as material for point scoring. Child abuse has a devastating impact on victims but it should not be used to score points on this blog. I am not anti-Protestant – my wife is Protestant – or for that matter anti any other religion or against those with no religion. I could not see myself writing in a mocking way about someone else’s religion because I know what they believe they do so with sincere conviction.
Niall, you have a short history on this blog wherein you have managed to use a soldier’s death, child abuse and Catholicism to score points; Cam, you are not a bigot and you can produce some fine work but your recent flippant denigration of someone else’s religion, in this case Catholicism, is not your proudest moment.
@John
” Niall, you have a short history on this blog wherein you have managed to use a soldier’s death, child abuse and Catholicism to score points; ”
John, my short history on here has taught me one thing, you will resort to any amount of fabrication and exaggeration to demonize a poster who swats you like a flea, and I refuse to waste any time defending your lies.
So if you wish to prove me wrong then put up any of my posts in their context and support your claims, or retract your accusations,
For your information, you do not dictate what is or isn’t suitable for point scoring, and this includes religion, you vomit out religious point scoring about Rangers and their fans on a daily basis.
You reek of hypocrisy.
Niall, there was a post that Monti made, reporting the death of a young soldier. Someone chastised Monti for his belated post and you then cracked a joke, related to those posts, at Monti’s expense. That is not a fabrication. I was taken aback by your post and believed it to be wholly inapproriate. I commented accordingly at the time.
You admitted yourself that you deliberately and explicitly used the issue of child abuse and Catholicism. Are you now saying that was a fabrication? You are right – it is not for me to dictate what is discussed. However, I am personally uncomfortable with these topics on a blog to do with Walter Smith’s suitability to be a Rangers chairman. You think differently. The word “disgusting” was inappropriate and you did not merit that comment. You see fit to introduce these topics and that is your choice.
I do not point score about the religion of those who support Rangers. My issue is with the anti-Catholic history associated with Rangers, resurfacing in some quarters eg singing at games. You call it vomit – I call it reality. The way for you to handle that criticism would have been to say how you think Rangers are moving forward and/or commenting on previous pro-IRA singing at Celtic Park.
Niall, you say that I lie and demonise people and will do anything to do so. Your comments are offensive and wrong. I ask you not to repeat them. We are adults and should accept that posts get heated. For the record I do not think you are a demon. I disagree with some posters and try, for the most part, to use humour, not always successfully, to undermine “opponents”. At other times, posts get heated, mine included. Sometimes people go overboard, shake hands and move on (Cam’s a good example of moving on). I do not expect you to defend anything, Niall, but resorting to “I can easily swat you..” talk is not a strategy designed to move forward.
Now, lastly, you know that I am good at English, as are you, so can we both drop the pretence of knowing how to write a sentence better than the other?
@Wee Paul
i’ve gotta go to work now but we will continue our space exploration at a later date.My spacesuit is on an my shields are up.There is still no atmosphere in your posts or on the moon but the good news is that the boot on your bahookey that i will administer shall propel you skywards and you shall have a soft landing.
I’m off to ponder the terminal velocity of a cooncil van and the mass/inertia calculations required to flatten Parkhead.
Major Cam out!
Major cam
is that a threat or do you say that to everybody?Do you mean celtic Park or parkhead in general.
I am convinced John and Paul are illiterate, I clearly identified the points I was making, and child abuse in of itself was not one of them.
But since you have offended me with your lies I will further elaborate, it is not the child abuse that is relevant to my points, it is the covering up and enabling of child abuse that is the real smoking gun, the failure to protect children from known child abusers, it is a conspiracy that involves the entire church, one where many were willing to keep quiet to save money and protect their church.
Ireland is a prime example of a state failing to protect its citizens out of religious deference and is a prime example of the dangers of theocratic influence.
” In November 2009, Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse reported its findings in which it concluded that: “the Dublin Archdiocese’s pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State”
Since liquidation is a popular topic on here there have been 8 dioceses declared bankrupt due to sex abuse cases and 5 American dioceses were given protection under Bankruptcy laws, so far $3 billion has been paid out and the list is growing.
Here is a conspiracy theory, why did a Pope resign from his post, the first in 600 years, maybe because if he landed in certain countries he would be arrested and indicted for instructing his ” employees ” not to report these heinous crimes to the relevant authorities, and he cannot retire to his native Germany but will reside in the Vatican city safe from prosecution.
I don’t care if the institution is Catholic, Protestant or Hindu, if it protects child abusers from the full force of the law then they are complicit in these crimes.
Now if this offends the convictions of some then they need locked up.
Yeah well if you’re that concerned volunteer at childline or raise money for some victim support charity.
@eastside,
” Yeah well if you’re that concerned “….
….sorry, lets get back to the Israelis being the silent proxy behind Sevco ( Scotland).
@John
I laughed at Bill winding up Monti about being 6 hours late with news, the laughter was about his lateness not the news, Monti took offense and I apologized, end of story.
The sex abuse link to the Catholic Church is not about sex abuse, it is about The Catholic Churches response to sex abuse, and I have outlined this in my latest post.
The point I alluded to was this, I do not demonize all Catholics or Catholicism for the attitudes of the institution nor the actions of individuals, and it has nothing to do with deference, it is to do with reason, hating in plurals is unreasonable and unfair.
Niall, cool.
At the risk of upsetting you, I only stated that you inferred child abuse but you specifically corrected me: “Let me correct your atrocious comprehension of the English language, I did not allude to child abuse and the Catholic Church, I clearly mentioned it explicitly…” That said, I actually agree with many of your points about child abuse, particularly your concluding comment, which is laudable:
“I don’t care if the institution is Catholic, Protestant or Hindu, if it protects child abusers from the full force of the law then they are complicit in these crimes.”
Now, can we stop the lying nonsense and get back to slagging off one another’s position?
@John
” and get back to slagging off one another’s position? ”
Yep, rant over.
My rant’s over too.
I make mention of a “shameful episode” in a certain club’s history, and immediately a ‘lockdown’ ensues, which I ironically only discover when my subsequent post (clarifying said topic is of no interest to me and one i prefer to avoid due its sickening exploitation by bigots to abuse decent people) is blocked from view “in moderation”.
Very odd.
AD Bryce
You raised a topic of no interest to you and one you prefer to avoid due to it’s sickening exploitation by bigots to abuse decent people.
I think I saw the post and to be honest I put it down as exploitation; and if the source was not a bigot they were at least very insensitive. It arrived with no context.
I never really thought that the topic was of interest to you in any sinister sense, I thought you treated it far too lightly by trying to score a cheap point (inyour own mind). What is more sickening is the crime itself.
Are you trying to say that the moderation is somehow the problem ?
Could the problem be your post?
Back to my chosen field of interest…
A wee quiz question.
Portsmouth Football Club – how old is this League 2 club?
Is it..
a.1898
or
b.2010
(This might be helpful to some in answering..http://tiny.cc/8cq6xw)
🙂
I go with answer C. Older than Norman Bates’ Mother FC.
@ A D Bryce.
a.1898.
The Pompey Supporters Trust (PST) and other investors helped Portsmouth from going into liquidation.
If your supporters club had done the same then maybe the WATP motto would`ve been fitting.
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=portsmouth%20fc&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&ved=0CFgQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Ffootball%2F2013%2Fapr%2F09%2Fhigh-court-case-portsmouth-fc-fratton-park&ei=mNuvUYmqHcmllAX-1IDgBg&usg=AFQjCNGpBFrJqaD3q8bea6CP_X8g3oxuvQ&bvm=bv.47534661,d.dGI
Portsmouth exited administration on 19 April 2013 when the Pompey Supporters’ Trust’s deal to buy the club was completed.
A D you missed your chance and your defunct club is gone.
@ A D Bryce.
2. BACKGROUND
rangers are In Liquidation 2012.
@AD Bryce
Gee I love a pub quiz. Here’s a question for you. Which football club collapsed owing £35m to creditors, and yet, perversely, still lays claim to an unbroken history? I’ll give you a clue – this club had a shameful sectarian employment policy right up to 1989 and gave us Britain’s worst football riots in 30 years?
@Ed
It was £55m excluding the big tax case
Any chance of engaging in some original thought, placing the Rangers-hating to one side for a minute or two, and answering my question about Portsmouth Football Club/the little extract I’ve provided?
Your sacrifice is appreciated.
🙂
Portsmouth won their case against the HMRC,and were granted a cva.
The cva entitles them to be the same club IMO,as they were prior to 2010.
@ A D.
My reply is above. ^^^^^^^^^
Child abuse is a horrendous crime against the individual – whether perpetrated systematically or by the individual.
However, using child abuse as some kind of point-scoring exercise is bloody horrendous and the endless repetition of it, sometimes here and regularly on MacBigot, is a transparent case of this. What is it that is causing certain posters to highlight this alarming crime – is it down to social conscience – or might it just be that it can be used as a backlash because people feel humiliated that their football club went down the tubes and will resort to this to strike back to get at individual posters who, in all likelihood, have never been involved in such a thing? I can understand anyone being concerned by this but it really has just become – if ever it was anything else – a patently hollow excuse to offend people when legitimate answers cannot be offered with regards an insolvency case. As ‘whitabootery’ goes this really has reached the lowest point in the scale of the human mind.
@sairfecht
” What is it that is causing certain posters to highlight this alarming crime ”
I cannot speak for all posters but in my case it was to highlight the unreasonable nature of demonizing the many for the actions of a few, a principle some on here need constant reminding of.
Sairfecht,
“SairFecht
June 5, 2013 at 10:50 pm
“However, using child abuse as some kind of point-scoring exercise is bloody horrendous”
well said.
i wish people would consider the real pain involved in this (and other) issues before they casually throw it in to a point scoring exercise with anonymous people.
All I can say is that i have been lucky enough to have had a family and see them grow up healthy and well protected. It hurts me to think of how some others, equally deserving, are hurt and exploited and it disgusts me that people can post on the topic with so little thought.
Anyone who has raised the topic under any pretext on here should look at themselves.
I have only made one personal remark (mild by most standards but heartfelt) to a poster and it was when he tried to introduce the topic, have never responded to him since.
One small point, I have seen the subject referred to by some Celtic minded people who post on here not just the Rangers ones. it is equally base whatever the source.
Let’s be clear it is only a few people who are responsible, I would like to think they will desist but not sure they will.
Celtic, where we all have the little bit of the Rebel in us.
Sevco, apart from paying tax, well they are the club of the Establishment, the loyal and patriotic mob
I WILL NOT REBEL OR STAND UP AGAINST ANY AUTHORITY
I WILL KEEP CONSUMING ENDLESSLY
I WILL CONSUME EVEN MORE IN A RECESSION BECAUSE I AM TOLD I NEED TO GET THE ECONOMY BACK ON TRACK
I WILL CONTINUE TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING THE MEDIA PORTRAYS
I WILL OBEY AND ACCEPT ALL POLITICAL REGULATIONS EVEN THOUGH I DIDN’T VOTE FOR THEM
I WILL CONTINUE TO PAY EVER HIGHER DOMESTIC BILLS
I WILL CONTINUE TO BE BRAINWASHED BY THE FALSE NEEDS THAT ADVERTISING PRESENTS ME (endorsed by the ASA)
I WILL NOT PROTEST IN ANY FORM
I WILL CONTINUE TO ACCEPT WARS AND POVERTY
I WILL CONTINUE TO BE GOVERNED BY A RICH MINORITY AND WILL ACCEPT CORRUPTION
I WILL CONTINUE TO BELIEVE I CANNOT MAKE A CHANGE
I WILL NOT STAND UP FOR WHAT I KNOW IS RIGHT
I WILL CONTINUE TO ARGUE THAT IS JUST THE WAY IT IS
I WILL CONTINUE TO DO WHAT I’M TOLD
SIGNED : Cam, & Niall, Willy, A.D
Aye. But you and your kind are very good at singing the praises at football matches of those who did not.
You know, the ones who the civilised world recognise as terrorists ?
They haven’t gone away, you know, to quote one of them.
Nelson mandela is a convicted terrorist who committed terrible acts against those he disagreed with.
Now he is a hero.
Every side has a hero and a villain, usually the victor writes the history.
One man’s freedom fighter,
Civilised, what the fuck is Civilised about the British Army that occupies other countries without the consent of the people.
Was Bloody Sunday civilised ?
the day the British army murdered innocent civilians was the biggest recruiting tool hand out to the “enemy”
@coatbrig
Lot of deduction based on little evidence, and the victimhood roundabout just keeps on spinning.
Nay,i shall always protest and rebel against falsehoods.
The Bible alone, not the Pope, as the sole rule of Faith and Practice;
Faith alone, not works, as the only instrument of salvation;
Christ’s Sacrifice alone, not the mass, as the only sacrifice for sins;
The precious Blood of Christ, not the sacraments, as the only power to cleanse away sins;
Grace alone, not human merits, the only basis of acceptance with God;
Christ alone, not the Pope, the sole Head of the Christian Church;
@cam
” Christ alone, not the Pope, the sole Head of the Christian Church;2
Jesus was Jewish, how can he be the head of a church based on a different belief from his own ?
As usual Hypocritical to the very bitter end.
Is leaving creditors high and dry a moral sin ??
Sleep tight.
Mr McConville
Please change the subject.
Think paul must have more important things to deal with,and no matter what the post starts off as,it always comes down to yer clubs deid naw it’s no,aye it is,coz he said this,naw it’s no coz he’s a bigot,who’s a bigot ya fud,you are ya bam and so on and so forth.
So it’s good night from me,and good night from him.
Good night
Jimmy Bee
I think all of us should have more important things to deal with, I am certainly being selective with the posts i read.
It is very predictable, very few worthwhile comments, the blogs are always worth a read.
The funny bit is that is that after all the “bigoted fud” name calling, there is the old respect thing and “I could have a pint with you nae bother ******.
“However, using child abuse as some kind of point-scoring exercise is bloody horrendous”
Agreed, however child abuse was not used in this case for point scoring, just as the 9/11 discussion was not using the deaths of 3,000 innocent victims for point scoring.I despair at the abilities of some on here to understand their native tongue.
Niall,
The trouble with our native tongue, probably all of them in fact, is that it can be genuinely misunderstood no matter how clearly it is expressed. In the course of debate misunderstanding can be very deliberate, you will know that at as debater..
i didn’t read any posts where you alluded to the subject and didn’t have you in mind when I agreed with Sairfecht, because I hadn’t seen it.
I have read others where there was clear intention to introduce the subject and they were just making cheap jibes.
Can;t comment any more on your input as it would mean trawling back over hundreds of pointless posts and I couldn’t face that.
Pingback: Walter Smith, Rangers and “Dignified Silence” | Random Thoughts Re Scots Law by Paul McConville