Toonpack

IMO, it's not nearly enough, they're losing around £10 Mill a year where they are now. £20 Mill would get him one year of standing still. They are light years away from the other cheek of the arse (and others now). They lose 10+ of their squad in the summer. I reckon £40-£50 Mill to challenge in the SPFL and even then it'll take time to get there all the while the support dwindles as they are unsuccessful and we know he doesn't do subsidy.

He got it back before they went pop, just not 100% transparently, so he can peddle the I put in £20 mill myth. (he got £11 mill back in 2008 in Saffer Rand from Rangers). He's a criminal and according to a judge "a glib and shameless liar". Wouldn't or certainly shouldn't pass any fit and proper test. The scenes last night were The Rangers at their bigoted horrible best, hope Ashley guts them.

He's getting involved to make money, he already has their retail stitched up via SD (and owns their image rights I believe) if he ends up owning all the assets he can lease/rent them back to the football club and whoever runs that.

A disaster !!!! Only for Rangers, ask any fan of any other club and it's the best thing that's happened for just about ever. It's a myth perpetuated by the Scottish media who are in The Rangers pocket. Hearts, Aberdeen (top of the Premier league) Dundee Utd, Motherwell and a few others are now completely debt free. Rangers became successful due to financial doping with money they didn't have, hence the collapse, the old clubs success was basically based upon cheating and fraud (EBT's). Their crowds are down to around 14-15K The only clubs hurt by Rangers demise are the Huns themselves and Celtic (who's turnover is down £10 Mill a year), everyone else is on the up.

No way they can repay these loans, so yep they'll hang themselves so he'll get to own all the assets etc. he doesn't need to own the football club, he can let some other mug do that and pay him for the privilege, whilst he also owns all the retail etc. SFA etc. can't do anything about it.

He's up in front of the SFA (or The Rangers are) for Ashley having undue influence over The Rangers. He wanted to increase to 29.9% to ensure he could influence everything his way but SFA kyboshed that but even with his 10% holding he's managed to get his grubbies on everything of value, assets, retail and image rights etc. SFA is full of old Rangers men, they won't do anything, anyway it looks like it's too late. Llambias and the new Finance Director (who resigned tens of directorships related to SD prior to taking the position) have nothing to do with Ashley at all and he has no influence on the day to day running of The Rangers

He won't own the football club and won't need to. He's played (playing) a blinder. He will own ALL of the assets (and retail income streams btw) anyone who want's to run a football club out of £1brox will have to pay him for the privilege and he will have no interest or concerns over the costs of running aforesaid football club. It's brilliant !!!!!

Agree to a point, but in the current system the tough decisions are taken down party lines irrespective of how informed every MP is, how often is there a free vote.

Party Politics should be dead, with the modern technology and the internet, why do we need someone, who we likely didn't vote for, to vote "on our behalf" by proxy on anything, we could easily vote ourselves.

It's not particularly graphic tbh, and I don't usually watch anything "gruesome". Bit like the end of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid, how they never shot each other !!! That said, copper who goes into the supermarket alone to flush the fucker out deserves a big medal

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=869_1420833044 Supermarket terrorist takes a bullet or two

Watched this flicking between Sky news, BBC and France24, BBC reported before the assault on the supermarket, they had spoken to a woman who's daughter was inside and a hostage, she'd had a call from her daughter (who was hiding with others in the basement) who said there were more dead than the reported 2 from the very start of the siege, she thought 4 or 5. If that's the case it looks like the assault actually saved all who were still alive by then yet all news agencies seem to be reporting it as if 4 were killed during the assault. BTW - Sky News what a heap of shite, as the story unfolded they were surmising what was going on between the reporters, few minutes later reporting that supposition as fact, absolute bollocks.

Inducing it in defenceless little feathered friends, aye, they are.

They're old hat, M240 is where it's at, either is way too noisy anyway (and expensive), starfish is low effort "fire and forget" and slower acting on the bird killing bastards

Starfish

What about booze ??

Thanks Tom

Best Geetar shop in town ??? I'm assuming Windows ?? Am toying with the idea of getting a Telecaster, just wanna try before I buy (well wor lass buys me it for Christmas) Any recommendations gratefully received.

And 838 p.a. die from poisoning and 1,176 from suffocation or accidental strangulation, in fact 8,684 children (up to age 19 as it's classified over there) die accidentally each year, guns account for 0.2 per 100K of population. It would appear that the stupid folks who would leave guns lying around are hugely outnumbered by those who leave meds, chemicals or plastic bags lying around. Over here around 700 kids die accidentally each year over 10 times less than the USA with or without the gun factor. The problems in the USA is way bigger than just guns (which is the only point I'm trying to make).

It's explained in the second sentence in my last post. Somewhat a moot point, given murder rates in the USA are dropping anyway, even with all the guns lying around. How's that work ?? Weird isn't it, USA = Loads of guns and murder rate dropping, UK banned guns and murder rate grew.

Yes they would, but the murder rate per capita would only remain constant if that population growth was uniform across all demographics. If the demographic that has the inclination to murder more, within the society, grows at a quicker rate than the demographic with the lesser murderous intent then that whole society's murder rate per capita will increase. All that said, murder rates in the US are falling, despite all the guns. Canny read (from 2011): http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304066504576345553135009870 Although I'm not sure about his US v UK robbery etc comparison. Maybe it's not the lead in bullets either: There may also be a medical reason for the decline in crime. For decades, doctors have known that children with lots of lead in their blood are much more likely to be aggressive, violent and delinquent. In 1974, the Environmental Protection Agency required oil companies to stop putting lead in gasoline. At the same time, lead in paint was banned for any new home (though old buildings still have lead paint, which children can absorb). Tests have shown that the amount of lead in Americans' blood fell by four-fifths between 1975 and 1991. A 2007 study by the economist Jessica Wolpaw Reyes contended that the reduction in gasoline lead produced more than half of the decline in violent crime during the 1990s in the U.S. and might bring about greater declines in the future. Another economist, Rick Nevin, has made the same argument for other nations.

Yeah all Americans are idiots, that really stacks up. What are these simplest of points I don't understand ??? Maybe, just maybe, the things you think are absolute just aren't as clear cut as you think. Answer me this, IF guns are the root of all evil, and the primary cause of murder in particular, why didn't the murder rate in dear old blighty fall immediately guns were banned. How could it conceivably have continued to rise, eh? I'd love to know.

Banning (not just controlling) guns had no effect on the murder rate over here. Even after the legislation was passed in the UK murder rates continued to go up, along a growth rate similar to before the legislation, reaching a peak around 2003/4-ish it's now down to about the same as the early 80's (when there were guns). Getting rid of guns is not the magic bullet to reduce murder as most seem to be portraying, there are way deeper issues than just the guns. Take away the guns and the murder rates are still way higher than they are over here. If this country is anything to go by, legislating for guns has no effect on murder rates otherwise why did the murder rate continue to rise, for around 10 years, after the ban over here. Guns undoubtedly turn some situations, which maybe wouldn't be fatal, into murder, but Americans kill other Americans way more than any other western country even discounting the guns. Look at the Swiss, about half the fuckers have a gun and assault rifle or carbine for that matter, their murder rate is bugger all comparatively. Chicago - has some of toughest gun laws and controls in the US and no gun shops, you can't carry them in the street hidden or not etc. yet had 500 homicides in 2012(Detroit has 47.5/100,000 FFS). Houston has roughly the same population as Chicago (around 600K different) and over 1500 places you can buy a gun, with Texas' anyone can have one rules, and you can carry a gun just about anywhere, but Houston only (only!) had 217 murders. Median income between those two places is about the same as well btw. It's way more complicated than just guns. There's huge diversity in the statistics within the US, never mind anywhere else.

I don't own a gun you knob. Given we (in the UK) don't have any guns our murder/violent crime rate is fucking appalling.

Australia has re-armed, as many guns there now as there was before. http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-reloads-as-gun-amnesties-fail-to-cut-arms-20130113-2cnnq.html After the controls robbery etc. went up, has fallen again now. Also it's not being made worse or getting worse, violent crime in the US is as low now as it was mid 70's and continues to drop.