Comment deleted by Site Moderator
McCoist is a wee sneak, who knew full well what he was saying the other day.
Cheeky chappy.
back in yir glass houses bhoys
Just shut football down. The whole thing. Or have a massive cull and get rid of these violent scmbags.
Roles reversed, there would have been fans of Celticnwho would have done the same thing.
No side has a real monopoly of morons.
That said, it becomes different when the manager appears to have incited the morons.
Asking for names isn't "incitement"
as opposed to the club?
Nae bother
But, he asked when he already knew the names and even if it transpires he didn't there was a simple way of finding out the names; asking the director of football.
Asking for the names of people whose decision could 'kill' the club is incitement.
This is Glasgow, remember. At best his comments were naive, and I do not think any of us would accuse Ally of being naive.
DC - ah don't follow. Wouldn't be the first time though.
Publishing the names would be incitement. Asking for clarification and transparency isn't.
Super Ally, the messiah, has history for not taking responsibility for his utterances.
He knew full well what he was instigating, he's been a 'Ger most of his life so knows exactly what would happen.
I think this is an example of people who take someones words and use it to create their own agenda.
For example the hatred against the SFA (marches etc) are laughable as the panel who made the decision is independent of the body, in fact its the SFA who can OVERTURN the decision yet people feel the need to want to find someone to blame...
In this case his comments are stupid and probably a sign of man being worn down with it all.
I think most will agree that the decisions that are coming against celtic in recent weeks are not 'personal' against Neil but the comment was made at the end of a stressful period. Its somewhat hypocritical to try and defend one, yet argue against the other...
He did take responsibility. Have you seen the papers today?
I notice your manager has never taken responsibility for all the times he's questioned officials integrity, which could easily provoke some idiot.
If Ally is guilty of incitement, which I very much dispute, then your own manager is hardly whiter than white in this regard.
I do not even get why Neil Lennon should be brought into this debate.
Finger-pointer Bateman.
Allys had it easy, the whispered weasel words will be revealed soon enough.
Generally I don't have a problem with Ally McCoist He is a good guy, and is working very hard where and when most people would have chucked it by now. But on this one he has not covered himself with glory.
He had no need to make any public demands about the naming of names. Rangers had a representative at the meeting, so the club would have been very well aware who handed down the punishment.
Shame on you Ally, and shame on you for trying to deflect the criticism that has come your way. You should be apologising to this panel for the reaction your words have caused.
Why? Because its a valid comparison.
Generally I don't have a problem with Ally McCoist He is a good guy, and is working very hard where and when most people would have chucked it by now. But on this one he has not covered himself with glory.
He had no need to make any public demands about the naming of names. Rangers had a representative at the meeting, so the club would have been very well aware who handed down the punishment.
----------
My point exactly.
Tim your own club has been guilty of "incitement" for years,thats what I mean. Maybe ally's sjust being as "naive" as the good doctor,lawell,lennon etc
Drysdale on SSN stating he has had no direct threats,a few e-mails registering their disgust aside.
Walter on now,backing Ally
Bateman - why ask a question he already knows the answer to? Rangers and the other 92 Scottish clubs unanimously voted and agreed to be judged by an independent anonymous(to the public) panel, why have objections to this now? All because you dont like the outcome?
He has changed his tune about the investigation somewhat from "Personally, as manager of the club, I would encourage it" to "WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?"
"I’m a Rangers supporter and the Rangers supporters and the Scottish public deserve to know who these people are"
Why when every club in Scotland agreed to this system? Why when the Rangers supporter making the comments knows the names? Using the words "kill" and issuing a war cry that all Rangers supporters should know the names could incite some nutters.
Again davie something your own club has never been shy of doing
IE, you been at the nitrous oxide?
If EVERYBODY KNOWS there are nutters on both sides then why is Ally asking for names of people to be made public when all he had to do was ask one of his colleagues. He knew exactly what he was up to.
Dies anybody know what these 'threats' actually are? I
Sign in if you want to comment
Very good article in the Herald
Page 1 of 5
posted on 26/4/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/4/12
McCoist is a wee sneak, who knew full well what he was saying the other day.
Cheeky chappy.
posted on 26/4/12
back in yir glass houses bhoys
posted on 26/4/12
Just shut football down. The whole thing. Or have a massive cull and get rid of these violent scmbags.
posted on 26/4/12
Roles reversed, there would have been fans of Celticnwho would have done the same thing.
No side has a real monopoly of morons.
That said, it becomes different when the manager appears to have incited the morons.
posted on 26/4/12
Asking for names isn't "incitement"
posted on 26/4/12
as opposed to the club?
Nae bother
posted on 26/4/12
But, he asked when he already knew the names and even if it transpires he didn't there was a simple way of finding out the names; asking the director of football.
posted on 26/4/12
Asking for the names of people whose decision could 'kill' the club is incitement.
This is Glasgow, remember. At best his comments were naive, and I do not think any of us would accuse Ally of being naive.
DC - ah don't follow. Wouldn't be the first time though.
posted on 26/4/12
Publishing the names would be incitement. Asking for clarification and transparency isn't.
posted on 26/4/12
Super Ally, the messiah, has history for not taking responsibility for his utterances.
He knew full well what he was instigating, he's been a 'Ger most of his life so knows exactly what would happen.
posted on 26/4/12
I think this is an example of people who take someones words and use it to create their own agenda.
For example the hatred against the SFA (marches etc) are laughable as the panel who made the decision is independent of the body, in fact its the SFA who can OVERTURN the decision yet people feel the need to want to find someone to blame...
In this case his comments are stupid and probably a sign of man being worn down with it all.
I think most will agree that the decisions that are coming against celtic in recent weeks are not 'personal' against Neil but the comment was made at the end of a stressful period. Its somewhat hypocritical to try and defend one, yet argue against the other...
posted on 26/4/12
He did take responsibility. Have you seen the papers today?
I notice your manager has never taken responsibility for all the times he's questioned officials integrity, which could easily provoke some idiot.
If Ally is guilty of incitement, which I very much dispute, then your own manager is hardly whiter than white in this regard.
posted on 26/4/12
I do not even get why Neil Lennon should be brought into this debate.
posted on 26/4/12
Finger-pointer Bateman.
Allys had it easy, the whispered weasel words will be revealed soon enough.
posted on 26/4/12
Generally I don't have a problem with Ally McCoist He is a good guy, and is working very hard where and when most people would have chucked it by now. But on this one he has not covered himself with glory.
He had no need to make any public demands about the naming of names. Rangers had a representative at the meeting, so the club would have been very well aware who handed down the punishment.
Shame on you Ally, and shame on you for trying to deflect the criticism that has come your way. You should be apologising to this panel for the reaction your words have caused.
posted on 26/4/12
Why? Because its a valid comparison.
posted on 26/4/12
Generally I don't have a problem with Ally McCoist He is a good guy, and is working very hard where and when most people would have chucked it by now. But on this one he has not covered himself with glory.
He had no need to make any public demands about the naming of names. Rangers had a representative at the meeting, so the club would have been very well aware who handed down the punishment.
----------
My point exactly.
posted on 26/4/12
Tim your own club has been guilty of "incitement" for years,thats what I mean. Maybe ally's sjust being as "naive" as the good doctor,lawell,lennon etc
Drysdale on SSN stating he has had no direct threats,a few e-mails registering their disgust aside.
Walter on now,backing Ally
posted on 26/4/12
Bateman - why ask a question he already knows the answer to? Rangers and the other 92 Scottish clubs unanimously voted and agreed to be judged by an independent anonymous(to the public) panel, why have objections to this now? All because you dont like the outcome?
He has changed his tune about the investigation somewhat from "Personally, as manager of the club, I would encourage it" to "WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?"
"I’m a Rangers supporter and the Rangers supporters and the Scottish public deserve to know who these people are"
Why when every club in Scotland agreed to this system? Why when the Rangers supporter making the comments knows the names? Using the words "kill" and issuing a war cry that all Rangers supporters should know the names could incite some nutters.
posted on 26/4/12
Again davie something your own club has never been shy of doing
posted on 26/4/12
Incitement
posted on 26/4/12
IE, you been at the nitrous oxide?
posted on 26/4/12
If EVERYBODY KNOWS there are nutters on both sides then why is Ally asking for names of people to be made public when all he had to do was ask one of his colleagues. He knew exactly what he was up to.
posted on 26/4/12
Dies anybody know what these 'threats' actually are? I
Page 1 of 5