Messages

Some of the Rugby lads have to be on something. The way they come back from injuries, and the changes in body shape over the last 5 years just can't be right.

Absolutely rampant and has been for 10 years or so. I'm continually staggered by their gains with little body fat increases. Steroids are rampant in amateur Welsh Rugby and NZ and they mean to tell us the pro game is clean .

Extensive use over here too- if steroids are being used in every gym in Ireland it's completely illogical to say all field sports including GAA are somehow clean.

If we are testing as per sports council guidelines, how likely is it that a lot of GAA lads are juicing though? I'm involved in the GAA and I certainly haven't seen it, other than lads who have no need of one using an inhaler before a game.

My understanding is that to stay 'ahead' of the testers, you need to be fairly sophisticated and organised, and I'm not sure that level of sophistry is in an amateur game.

In the GAA you have an unbelievably low chance of being tested, never mind being caught. There was a discussion about this on the radio recently - Oisin McConville said he'd been tested once in his whole career. JJ Delaney said he had never been tested.

We were in a bit of trouble when Henderson went off which to me underlined how important he was. Emre Can might become a great player but he looks clueless in that holding role. If Lucas were on the bench he'd have been the man for the job.

Thought Gomez was excellent myself, considering his age and experience. Hardly put a foot wrong.

Next Monday a different prospect altogether though - record at the Emirates is terrible.

Lads, doing the Etape this year and was thinking of squeezing in one or two sessions of altitude training in a local gym. I know generally this would be seen as a good idea but with less than three weeks to go I'm wondering could there be any downsides (i.e. too much exhaustion too close to the event). Any thoughts?

Any recommendations for bike hire in Alp dHuez? Or how i could get my bike there without going down the bike box route.

If you're staying near Bourg D'Oisans then there's a place there called Bike Huez which does bike rental, and seems reasonable too.

Finished the race to truth last nite, terribly written book

The end was good though, basically she makes the point that its verbeougen and co that should be really getting the bans and LA should be brought back in with a reduced ban

That's disappointing - it seems she has completely allowed Lance to nobble her.

He treated her like s**t when she was working against him, and then snooleyed up to her when he could use her to try and regain his reputation.

The more you hear about that fella...

“As Celtic supporters, we regrettably recognise that our club had an association with Rangers (1872) through the collective descriptive term, The Old Firm."

Haha, got a little tickle from this, fair play, a hammering for Sevco Scotland Ltd in the cup semi-final would go down a treat. Maybe all future meetings will be under the banner of The New Firm, regrettably.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/celtic-fans-spark-storm-protest-5040733

Deeply foolish behaviour. I'd compare it to sticking your arm through the bars at the ape enclosure at the zoo - except the apes would be less prone to mindless violence.

So if there's a violent reaction from the Newco we can expect Je Suis Celtic to start trending on Twitter!

See, I think this is factually wrong. Just because a company is in liquidation doesn't mean that there is nothing there to own. You aren't suggesting that the liquidated company - with a decent stadium and training facility - didn't have any assets?

I have difficulty with your logic here as well. If a club changes custodians through a sale (the primary interest of a purchasor being the assets) then that is ok, but if a liquidator is appointed to a company to transfer assets, then that's different. Why is it different?

You've pretty much answered your own question there. They are different, because one involves the sale of the company including the assets, and the other involves just selling the assets.

The assets (mainly the ground) will always belong to the club but never the company, that's the point. Plus a company transfer factors liabilities into price whereas an asset sale in liquidation does not.

Put it this way, if I find out that at any stage the owners of your beloved Liverpool (and mine as it happens) transferred assets away from the company to a third party without transferring the entire company holding the assets, you will accept that Liverpool FC ceased to exist at that point. Is that fair enough?

Not sure that patronising and condescending comment merits a response, but I'll accede in this instance.

Point - if my point here isn't already clear to you then that's a personal issue. Others seem to have taken the debate on knowing full well what my point is and without accusing me of having an agenda.

Mission? I have no agenda here. I'm merely pointing out that the whole Sevco joke is a little jaded and a little disingenuous. I have no deliberate intention of linking everything Celtic does with Rangers. I was asking people if the situation was reversed would you be so hung up on legalities and clinical on such issues?

Seriously Lynchboy - what's your take on the game coming up against Rangers? Completely new club and Celtic have had no previous games or dealings with them at all? I am genuinely interested in your answer.

you original point wasn't clear.
it was not apparent whether you believed rangers were no longer in existence
or rangers were the same club as before

you seemed to be trying to tie in Celtic to rangers under the 'old firm' thing which many Celtic fans for over a decade have been trying to distance themselves from , as Celtic are not a 'green' version of rangers.
the supporters and their behaviour can demonstrate that straight away.
the behaviour of the clubs commercial operations also demonstrate that.

your comments
"Isn't it funny how people see their own favoured club as something with a unique culture, sacred places, indellible memories and a special status that can't be reduced to mere legal entity, and yet when it comes to rival clubs they can be reduced to documents lodged in Companies House and sets of property deeds."

are very wide of the mark to say the least.
so what were you saying.
others commented but made statements rather than answers imo

anyhow
I actually posed the question to you asking what your point was. it was not intended to be patronising or condescending.
I genuinely was unclear what you were trying to say.

my response to your question is
it might be a 'new' rangers commercially in the company registrations office - but they still have the same fans, colours and as far as I know , there has been no official comment on stripping rangers as they were,  of their titles won in the 'questionable dozen years of financial irregularity ' or setting their title count back to zero- by the sfa or whatever they are called these days.
that's because they want this to blow over and people will de facto assume its the same rangers and have the same titles and so on, as they are the establishment club and t would be easier (and more palatable) for them in the long run.

so while I detest that people call it the old firm - let alone new firm (theres no fecking firm at all)  - to me I still see rangers.
yes they shouldn't exist, and the rules have been bent out of shape. but I cant see how it isn't rangers.

I would have loved the club to be wound up and get rid of their naked and unabated sectarianism.
but these low lifes (they aren't all like this btw) will find some other anti social aggressive sectarian outlet instead and I don't think Scottish society want that either.

while many clubs miss rangers for the money element, many fans don't miss the aggro and hassle (from what im told by Dundee, Dundee utd, hibs and Aberdeen fans for example).

imo

Christ, right. Start at the top I suppose.

I wasn't trying to tie Celtic in with them. I wasn't even talking about Celtic. I did use them as a comparitor to prove a point but if I had been talking about, let's say, United and Liverpool, I don't think the fans from the other side would have gotten so defensive and accused me of dragging their favoured club into this. I think most reasonable people would see this.

My point couldn't have been more clear that I see Rangers are the same club as before. I used comedic irony to ask questions that a fair and honest answer would expose the hypocrisy of the situation.

At least you have acknowledged that it is the same Rangers, and for that you deserve some credit.

In summation I go back to my previous comment - football clubs and companies are not synonymous terms and it's idle to pretend that they are.

People are free to think what they like. St Pat's still claim they won the 2001/2 League of Ireland because they accumulated more points on the pitch than Shelbourne, and who is to say they are wrong? Well, I am, because they had 15 points deducted for fielding an ineligible player. Rangers fans can claim that the club that plays out of Ibrox is exactly the same club as the one founded in 1872. They would be wrong, because ownership did not change as it might have done on previous occasions or in other scenarios. Once liquidation had taken place, there was nothing left to own.

See, I think this is factually wrong. Just because a company is in liquidation doesn't mean that there is nothing there to own. You aren't suggesting that the liquidated company - with a decent stadium and training facility - didn't have any assets?

I have difficulty with your logic here as well. If a club changes custodians through a sale (the primary interest of a purchasor being the assets) then that is ok, but if a liquidator is appointed to a company to transfer assets, then that's different. Why is it different?

A bit of an existential question I suppose, but what is a 'Club'? If you take the view that the club is an ideal, or concept, made up of the fans, the players, the history, the traditions and the identity then I think any incarnation of 'Rangers' is the same club.

If your contention is that the club is the legal entity, then all new incarnations are evidently several different clubs.

My own take on it is that the legal entity is simply a vehicle for the money to flow in and out, and the club, the essence of the club, is held in the fanbase, the colours, the history and the traditions. I think that persists even as legal entities come and go.

That is the point I'm getting at. A club is a collective, a movement and ultimately it's the fans who decide what that is. It cannot be confined to legal documents. Company structure, directors and shareholders change all the time - all of which is no consequence to the club..

How does everyone here define their own GAA club? Do people say it's a club, a trust, a joint venture? Do we have any incorporated GAA clubs (is that even allowed)?

All of which leads me to believe that it is disingenuous to say that Celtic have played their last game against Rangers and will never play them again. I'd take a guess that this game will attract a big crowd. Probably a few banners in the crowd or taunts referring to previous experiences between themselves. All of which doesn't make sense, giving that they're playing a three year old club from the second tier in the league cup, with whom they have no previous history.

But that's not really the case.

There are a number of rules about football competitions, some regarding the playing of the games, some about the organization of the competition and some about the business side of the teams. Rangers broke the business rules very seriously and were punished by being expelled from the competition they were in. They were readmitted to a lower level of the competition with the same manager and many of the same players, the same fans and playing at the same stadium with the same name and same blue white and red colour scheme for their strip.

They are the same club.

I direct you to my reply above. Rangers were not demoted or expelled or anything like that. They went out of existence quite independently of any punishment they may have received from the SFA or SPL. And if they were 'readmitted', how do you explain Oldco getting to vote on Newco's application to the SPL?

Obviously my argument here is that they didn't go 'out of existence'. The company in question was liquidated. Therefore Rangers we're readmitted having been taken over by a new corporate structure.

As for Oldco voting for the Newco - they're both from the one club and therefore have the same interests. They weren't voting for something completely independent of themselves.

Company and club is not a synonymous term.

Isn't it funny how people see their own favoured club as something with a unique culture, sacred places, indelible memories and a special status that can't be reduced to mere legal entity, and yet when it comes to rival clubs they can be reduced to documents lodged in Companies House and sets of property deeds.

Rangers were the ugly beast that got their comeuppance and I've no sympathy for them however if the company now operating Celtic FC were liquidated don't even pretend that you would accept that the new club is completely distinct and separate from the history, traditions and culture of the old club.

That was funny when the whole Sevco thing first started but has become a little tiresome, IMO.

I'm sure cities like Manchester will miss those traditions

Can we be serious for a second. Not that I don't have a sense of humour  but just for a second to consider this.

The "new" Rangers play at Ibrox, train at Murray Park, they have a predominantly blue kit with white togs, they have the same fans, the badge - if not identical - is very similar to the old rangers badge, and they worship the same men that supporters of the "old" club did. What's the difference then between the "old" club and the "new" club then?

Don't be giving me companies, shareholders and directors. Sure SH's and Directors change all the time and a club can change holding company as and when it suits them. No one's going to tell me that Liverpool are a distinct and separate football club from the one that existed under Kop Holdings Limited under Hicks and Gillett. No sane person would argue that, because it's BS.

What about this Old Firm Derby coming up - first time these two clubs have ever met or first time in a few seasons? Give us a break.

All very well but the one thing you are missing is that it was the club which was liquidated, not a holding company. So the club did not simply transfer holding companies, a new company and a new club were both formed in order to continue milking the blue pound.

You cannot liquidate a club. You can liquidate a company.

Can we be serious for a second. Not that I don't have a sense of humour  but just for a second to consider this.

The "new" Rangers play at Ibrox, train at Murray Park, they have a predominantly blue kit with white togs, they have the same fans, the badge - if not identical - is very similar to the old rangers badge, and they worship the same men that supporters of the "old" club did. What's the difference then between the "old" club and the "new" club then?

Don't be giving me companies, shareholders and directors. Sure SH's and Directors change all the time and a club can change holding company as and when it suits them. No one's going to tell me that Liverpool are a distinct and separate football club from the one that existed under Kop Holdings Limited under Hicks and Gillett. No sane person would argue that, because it's BS.

What about this Old Firm Derby coming up - first time these two clubs have ever met or first time in a few seasons? Give us a break.

I am serious about this (I'm not a Celtic fan). If it's the same club and all that happened was the owners changed as happened with Liverpool - that isn't what happened with Rangers, the company was liquidated, but let's put that aside for a moment - then why did the club that finished 2nd in the top tier in Scottish football in 2012 start the following season in the fourth tier? If you can explain that in a football context then I will accept that it is the same club. Otherwise, the logical conclusion to draw is that the old club ceased to exist and a new club emerged in the fourth tier. It may be draped in all the finery of the old club, and that does matter. But it is still a new club.

I accept your sincerity.

My take on that is that the club had to be punished and be seen to be punished, particularly given that Scottish clubs so often run into financial difficulties. If Rangers had simply been allowed to get back into the SPL then it would set an awful precedent and leave the SFA very vulnerable to legal challenges by other clubs who go under. If I remember correctly there was a vote on this and the majority of SFA members voted for Rangers to start again in Division 4. I am of course open to correction on this. Juventus were sent packing to the 4th Division a few years ago (although I accept the scenarios are different - merely making the point that Rangers had to be punished).

I note that you didn't address the Old Firm question.

Isn't it funny how people see their own favoured club as something with a unique culture, sacred places, indelible memories and a special status that can't be reduced to mere legal entity, and yet when it comes to rival clubs they can be reduced to documents lodged in Companies House and sets of property deeds.

Rangers were the ugly beast that got their comeuppance and I've no sympathy for them however if the company now operating Celtic FC were liquidated don't even pretend that you would accept that the new club is completely distinct and separate from the history, traditions and culture of the old club.

That was funny when the whole Sevco thing first started but has become a little tiresome, IMO.

I'm sure cities like Manchester will miss those traditions

Can we be serious for a second. Not that I don't have a sense of humour  but just for a second to consider this.

The "new" Rangers play at Ibrox, train at Murray Park, they have a predominantly blue kit with white togs, they have the same fans, the badge - if not identical - is very similar to the old rangers badge, and they worship the same men that supporters of the "old" club did. What's the difference then between the "old" club and the "new" club then?

Don't be giving me companies, shareholders and directors. Sure SH's and Directors change all the time and a club can change holding company as and when it suits them. No one's going to tell me that Liverpool are a distinct and separate football club from the one that existed under Kop Holdings Limited under Hicks and Gillett. No sane person would argue that, because it's BS.

What about this Old Firm Derby coming up - first time these two clubs have ever met or first time in a few seasons? Give us a break.

Do you have a point to make with these posts of yours?

Or is your mission to attempt to indelibly links Celtic with rangers ( old or new or whatever)

If it is
You are failing miserably

If it isn't
Then your point isn't clear

Not sure that patronising and condescending comment merits a response, but I'll accede in this instance.

Point - if my point here isn't already clear to you then that's a personal issue. Others seem to have taken the debate on knowing full well what my point is and without accusing me of having an agenda.

Mission? I have no agenda here. I'm merely pointing out that the whole Sevco joke is a little jaded and a little disingenuous. I have no deliberate intention of linking everything Celtic does with Rangers. I was asking people if the situation was reversed would you be so hung up on legalities and clinical on such issues?

Seriously Lynchboy - what's your take on the game coming up against Rangers? Completely new club and Celtic have had no previous games or dealings with them at all? I am genuinely interested in your answer.

Isn't it funny how people see their own favoured club as something with a unique culture, sacred places, indelible memories and a special status that can't be reduced to mere legal entity, and yet when it comes to rival clubs they can be reduced to documents lodged in Companies House and sets of property deeds.

Rangers were the ugly beast that got their comeuppance and I've no sympathy for them however if the company now operating Celtic FC were liquidated don't even pretend that you would accept that the new club is completely distinct and separate from the history, traditions and culture of the old club.

That was funny when the whole Sevco thing first started but has become a little tiresome, IMO.

I'm sure cities like Manchester will miss those traditions

Can we be serious for a second. Not that I don't have a sense of humour  but just for a second to consider this.

The "new" Rangers play at Ibrox, train at Murray Park, they have a predominantly blue kit with white togs, they have the same fans, the badge - if not identical - is very similar to the old rangers badge, and they worship the same men that supporters of the "old" club did. What's the difference then between the "old" club and the "new" club then?

Don't be giving me companies, shareholders and directors. Sure SH's and Directors change all the time and a club can change holding company as and when it suits them. No one's going to tell me that Liverpool are a distinct and separate football club from the one that existed under Kop Holdings Limited under Hicks and Gillett. No sane person would argue that, because it's BS.

What about this Old Firm Derby coming up - first time these two clubs have ever met or first time in a few seasons? Give us a break.

[Any other club would have been wound up long ago]

It was wound up.  Rangers FC is nae more.   They just started a new club in the same ground and pretended it was the old one!

maybe in the the company registration
but is the newco nothing to do with the oldco?

this vile collection that's trying to pass for a club should be finshed off and put out of its (our) misery.

Isn't it funny how people see their own favoured club as something with a unique culture, sacred places, indellible memories and a special status that can't be reduced to mere legal entity, and yet when it comes to rival clubs they can be reduced to documents lodged in Companies House and sets of property deeds.

Rangers were the ugly beast that got their comeuppance and I've no sympathy for them however if the company now operating Celtic FC were liquidated don't even pretend that you would accept that the new club is completely distinct and separate from the history, traditions and culture of the old club.

That was funny when the whole Sevco thing first started but has become a little tiresome, IMO.

Just finished Night Games by Anna Krien - got the William Hill Sports Book of the Year so I thought I'd give it a go. Very engaging read and I trashed it out in three sittings.

It shines a terrible light on sports and male sportsmen in Australia. Some of the stuff that went/goes on is beyond the pale. Even aside from the 'Night Games' the attitudes towards women is truly shocking.

Our old friend Ricky Nixon features prominently in one chapter - doesn't cover himself in any glory at all.

No one wants to see anyone lose their home

Not sure Willie would extend us all the same courtesy, however there is always a home for willie, its the big one on the right hand side on the Loughgall Rd coming out of Armagh.

You'll need to explain that for us non-locals? 

I got 3-1 on a psych hospital.

Maith thú Gallsman, not a bit of wonder you made it to Trinity