Mrs Mols to join Leah Shevin in saving Rangers?

Written by Jim Thornton.

By Jim Thornton:
 
Pictures at an exhibition
 
Leah Shevin, Rangers’ goalie Allan McGregor’s fiancée, has said she would be up for posing in a sexy WAGs calendar to help raise funds for the stricken Ibrox club.  I just hope Mrs Mols doesn’t get to hear of this.

As for Leah, I can never read of her without thinking of Cousin Itt in ‘The Addams Family’.  You remember Cousin Itt – the wee herry wan.
 
I can’t stand up for falling down

Clearly still needled that people are suggesting that his son Dean ‘fell with style’ against St Johnstone the other week, Kilmarnock manager Kenny Shiels wrote in his ‘Daily Record’ column: “I would like to ask if people really appreciate the difference between diving and seeking an unfair advantage.”

Well, Kenny, I think ‘diving’ is cheating, and in my opinion so is ‘seeking an unfair advantage’.  Tell me what the difference is, then.
 

 
TV or not TV, that is the question

If the unthinkable happened and Rangers 2012 (the grandsons of William?) had to start back in the third division of the SFL, this would mean no Old Firm league games on the telly.  Do you think Sky would suddenly start covering the Glasgow Cup?
 
I think, therefore I am … or mibees naw
 
In a piece in ‘The Independent’ last weekend, Ian Herbert suggested that Fernando Torres’ problems were psychological rather than physical.  “He’s always been a deep thinker – he spent six months at university studying business and management …”.

A whole six months!  I’ve seen deeper thinkers in Byres Road at closing time on a Saturday night.
 
Rebel, rebel
 
I see the ‘Rebel Ten’ have met to discuss a strategy to get some concessions to the SPL voting structure/sharing of TV monies etc as part of any deal to allow Rangers back in if they go into liquidation.  But why don’t Rangers join the rebels?

In return for being hit with a reduced scale of ‘punishments’, the bluenoses could agree to cede even more power/monies to the wee diddy teams.  The latter would get more money etc, so they would be happy.  The Gers would get off more lightly than they might otherwise have done, so they would be happy too.  Celtic would lose out, of course, but what could they do about it?   After all, they’d have an 11-1 majority against them, wouldn’t they?

Remember where you heard it first.  © www.ConspiraciesRUs.co.uk.
 
Banjaxed
 
I see Sunderland’s Nicklas Bendtner isn’t going to be charged with vandalising a number of cars in Newcastle city centre.  And, in more good news for the Danish striker, he was also found not guilty of hitting cattle on a Tyneside farm.  He doesn’t get his banjo back, though.
 
Trust me, I’m a Sir
 
Much has been written and spoken about Rangers’ EBT problems, although the focus to date has primarily been on the quantum of the potential debt and how this could frustrate interested parties from making acceptable rescue bids.

Only within the last few days has any real mention been made of the non-disclosure of the EBT deals to the SFA.  And even then, the role of current SFA President and former Rangers’ director Campbell Ogilvie has diverted attention from the real nub of the issue.  Perhaps that’s why Sir David Murray’s mea culpa this week made great play of Ogilvie’s integrity rather than addressed the big question. 
 
Namely, why did Rangers not tell the SFA about the EBT deals?

In an almost passing aside, Sir David Murray assured everyone that the EBT deals were discretionary and not part of the players’ contracts.  They therefore didn’t have to be disclosed to the SFA.
 
‘Discretionary’?  You mean Sir David was sitting in the stand watching a game and suddenly thought: “So-and-so’s playing a blinder – I’m going to give him some extra money even though it’s not part of his contract.”?  Aye right.

If you read the SFA’s rule book, it says: “All payments to be made to a player relating to his playing activities must be clearly recorded upon the relevant contract.  No payments for his playing activities may be made to a player via a third party.”

Is Sir David saying these payments had nothing to do with the players ‘playing activities’?  What were they for, then?

Is he arguing that because the monies were made to a trust they weren’t made to the players? Or that the trust isn’t a ‘third party’?

It all sounds iffy to me, but I know Sir David wouldn’t try to dupe us, would he?
 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Latest from The Away End

All content copyright The Away End 2013. Contact us at editor@theawayend.net. Outsinging the Opposition since 2009. Web Design by Big Front Door