Didn't see that coming....Quote:
Originally Posted by Radium
Printable View
Didn't see that coming....Quote:
Originally Posted by Radium
Waitwaitwait. The record is describing this M*ngolian guy as a striker, while transfermarkt suggests he's a left-back (4 goals in 58 appearances) with a market value of about €100K whose career consisted entirely of being a free agent (he's 26 years old) until about 2 years ago. That's the guy that Beijing went with instead of spending £6 or 7 or 8 million on Morelos? I've no idea about how good this guy is, but they hardly sound like drop-in replacements for each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Radium
The Daily Record seems to want us to believe that football clubs in China are so mysterious and inscrutable that they'd be happy to go out shopping for a Ferrari and come back with a combine harvester.
There is a second guy mentioned - some Chinese midfielder who has been shipped from Metz B to some Luxembourg team (the only place he's had significant game time) to some team in the Portuguese 2nd Division on free transfers. Hardly seems like the guy that'll be eating into this £7 million they were due to spend on Morelos either.
SFM @TheSFMonitor17m17 minutes ago
Lord Davidson arguing for Dave King. Lords Carloway, Glennie & Drummond-Young hearing appeal.—————
SFM @TheSFMonitor16m16 minutes ago
Davidson’s pitch basically is that the Bannatyne went too far, too fast in making decision. Should have asked for more info on NOAL and King’s finances.
—————
SFM @TheSFMonitor13s14 seconds ago
David Johnston QC for ToP arguing along the lines of Lord Bannatyne in the CoS. Lord Glennie demonstrating a firm grasp of matters. Adjourned until 2pm.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
King’s appeal rejected
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So, practically what does this mean? He needs to pony up cash he doesnt have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
To comply with the ruling he needs to offer all other NewHun shareholders 20p/share which means he has to have £11M (I think) ready to go. You wouldn't imagine they'd all take him up on it but ...Quote:
Originally Posted by green day
In practical terms I think it's more likely the Good (!) ship Sevco will sail on with the King pushed overboard. :na na:
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...a435edbdb8.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radium
Who is the *****lian the Chinese are signing ?
Attilla the Hun ! :greengrin
Their two signingsQuote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/nizamdin/profil/spieler/425173
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/chu-wang/profil/spieler/235976
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...b2e02bf255.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As posted by Easyjambo on the SFM website.
—————————
Lords Carloway, Glennie and Drummond-Young heard the appeal.
King was represented as before by Lord Davidson QC and TOP by David Johnston QC.
LD set out six points he wished to raise with the Court as his ground for appeal.
1, That the Court had discretion to do what they wanted rather than just seek compliance
2. The impecunious position of King
3. The reliance of the Lord Ordinary (Bannatyne) on it being in the public interest.
4. That Lord Banatyne went to far and too fast in coming to his conclusion based on the information available to him and that other avenues were open to him.
5. Enforcement served no practical purpose if the individual was unable to comply.
6. That the enforcement action should be dismissed (although he had a fallback position of asking that the matter be referred back to the Lord Ordinary for further proofs)
The above entailed highlighting the same arguments that he placed in front of Lord Bannatyne. He sought to obfuscate matters arguing on the basis of the meaning of words, e.g. “causing” NOAL to do some thing wasn’t the same as having “control”. He even described his own submissions as “excessively linguistic”
Lord Glennie in particular was quick to interject on a number of points, not least that there was no challenge made to the TOP and TAB findings themselves, only Lord Bannatyne’s decision.
In response David Johnston’s arguments were basically a reiteration of Lord Banantyne’s decision. He accepted a suggestion from Lord Carloway that the interlocutor should be amended to allow King or NOAL to make the offer, if the Court was so minded.
Proceedings ended just after lunch when Lord Davidson revealed that King had sent an email to the RIFC Board at 10:15 this morning to advise them that NOAL would make the share purchase offer if the decision went against him.
Lord Glennie immediately responded that such an offer would suggest that the impecunious argument was wrong.
TOP’s Counsel had nothing to add, so the three Lords entered a huddle for 30 seconds, before announcing the the reclaiming motion (appeal) was rejected and the interlocutor(as amended) would stand.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
30 seconds! Well, at least they gave it all the fullest consideration it deserved.
Three Lords entering a Huddle Surprised King hasn't made an issue of this [emoji849]Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Who’s paying for all these costs
A hurdle ? Tim Lords at work. LolQuote:
Originally Posted by Ronniekirk
King will be paying his own although I’m sure he will find a way to pass on to the sevconians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
30 seconds!!!
and it can take 5 minutes for VAR to decide on a decision.....
Frivolous appeal anyone? Should financial penalty be imposed for wasting the courts time? I don't imagine such an august gathering of lords, even in this gig economy, would come cheap.
https://twitter.com/bbcdouglasf/stat...755826177?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-43231582
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"Lawyers for the South African had argued that a judge went "too far" in ruling against him." Love the arrogance of the man but my favourite bit is "Lord Bannatyne held that Mr King's argument that he does not have the funds to make the offer was "irrelevant"."Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Can you remind me how much the Directors loans are?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/0...ing-and-sevco/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The rule of thumb is that the loser pays the entire costs of the case regardless of the loser's ability to pay. It is a matter for the Judges who have a modicum of discretion however the costs are a contest between the parties in dispute and the loser pays. Its one of the reasons why so few folk without resources are able to seek justice as costs are an enormous hurdle for them when taking the decision to pursue a case. If you can't obtain legal aid or no win no lose representation its impossible to win a case going forward as a Party Litigant which is the terminology for folk pursuing a case by themselves. Party Litigants often find themselves entering bankruptcy in order to avoid later costs as the establishment do not like Party Litigants and I've yet to hear of any Party Litigant having success as the Court of Session does not keep records on this highly contentious issue. Its a closed shop in reality. Its a feat in itself merely having the nous to provide the necessary substantial mostly complex paperwork that the vast majority of ordinary folk would have great difficulty in understanding never mind completing to a competent standard but that's exactly how they want it to be as they prefer the well spoken educated Counsel to doff their caps to the Lords who are mostly out of touch and elitist establishment snobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
I'd be very surprised if the TP doesn't lodge a motion for costs to be awarded against King or they may already have at the bar just prior to the hearing which might not have been reported or they've been reserved for the time being until King decides whether to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court which is his prerogative to do so or not.
King would have to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court as he cannot appeal to the Supreme Court directly without firstly seeking the permission from the Court of Session which is an anomaly for if he's refused permission he can then appeal directly to them in any case. The Court of Session will refuse permission in my opinion based on their unambiguous judgement's thus far.
The losing party normally pays the winning side's costs.
Its also used as a weapon against ordinary folk who cannot obtain representation and who manage to have their cases heard in the first place.
However, very clearly King wasn't the impecunious person of little means fighting to have their case heard and should deservedly of course have the costs awarded against him. He is without doubt a chancer compared to the folk I'm referring to above.
mon the cabbage!!!
The accounts don't show Directors' Loans separately, but in November "investor loans" were £15.9m.Quote:
Originally Posted by Is It On....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Is It On....
Seems the ‘glib and shameless liar’ lacks a little credibility with judges?
These same Judges would in all likelihood have sided with King if the pursuing petitioning party hadn't been an authority themselves in my opinion. They're really not worthy of praise as in my experiences with them I know them to be a self serving bunch of elitist snobs who almost always side with fellow authorities. That's how I was able to voice my opinion many pages ago on this thread that they would certainly side with the TP.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomo
No doubt King is a glib and shameless liar, however, so are the vast majority of those in positions of authority in my experience and opinion.
mon the cabbage!!!
There's always the possibility they are interpreting the law as it was intended here, and following precedents.Quote:
Originally Posted by lgnsh70
Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
I fully appreciate there will be folk who may wish to disagree with my comments or give an entirely different outlook. I've given my honest opinion wholly based on my experiences with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
:aok:
mon the cabbage!!!
[emoji106]Quote:
Originally Posted by lgnsh70
Probably doesn't help the appellant that he has the reputation he has........
Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
His bluff has certainly now been called. Popcorn time as the saying goes as to how this will play out. Will he now pony up or is an administration event on the cards may just be the most apt questions at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
mon the cabbage!!!
I'm happy, with limited first hand experience, to support your view.Quote:
Originally Posted by lgnsh70
Does this mean trouble ahead for der Hun? I don't pretend to understand any of this or care about King being a bell end, all I really care about is if that disgusting cesspit at Ibrox is in trouble again or not
Not immediately.Quote:
Originally Posted by weecounty hibby
This is all about DK, or his company.
He may try and force administration, as a way of avoiding having to pay up.... but I'm not convinced that would work.
Not half as exciting as I'd hoped. Still, I suppose it makes them look stupid again which is never a bad thing. I was really hoping for another admin episode as well, maybe next time when the January spending catches up with themQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
According to their annual report, King's family trust fund was on the hook to provide £7M shortfall in funding over this season and next. Rumours abound that other funding sources (the 3 bears etc) are tapped oot and King is failing to fill the gap, hence the Close Bros "overdraft". If he now has to keep £11M + costs aside for this, it's only going to make it worse (or better for us :wink:).Quote:
Originally Posted by weecounty hibby
And yet they didn't want the £9.5m for morelos...........Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I think administration is a likely outcome if he doesn't pony up for it might appear the only way to clear the decks and start afresh so to speak as far as the club is concerned with new owners starting from scratch. As for King he'd have to take the consequences whatever form they would take.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I'm merely speculating though but administration might just be the only way out to clear up the mess brought about by King and give some clarity. Its certainly chaos and flux unless he does the unexpected and actually ponies up although that appears unlikely as to his being a gasl.
:greengrin
mon the cabbage!!!
It's not as simple as just clearing the decks. For one thing, I reckon DK would still have to make the share offer to the administrator.Quote:
Originally Posted by lgnsh70
For another, there are securities over the training ground (to the Sports Council) and now to Close Brothers for the car park and Edmiston House. These didn't exist last time.
What if DK gets bumped out of Sevco (as a director I mean, I'm not expecting anyone to actually buy his shares)? If DK then fails to make the offer, does the company stay clear of any ramifications or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
You know much more than I do regarding the ins and outs of administration events that's for certain. I'm merely speculating as to how this may evolve if King refuses to comply. Of course if the share issue proceeds as his Counsel indicated it would then I think talk of administration may have ended. If no compliance then nothings off the table so to speak with administration a likely outcome in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
mon the cabbage!!!
Remind me, what’s the points penalty for administration this seasonQuote:
Originally Posted by lgnsh70
I honestly don't know. Some say 15 some say 25 possibly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
25 sounds better of the two possibilities though :greengrin.
mon the cabbage!!!
Not sure TBH. It could be argued that the affair happened whilst he was involved with RFC.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
However.... and I have only heard this, haven't actually seen it.... DK is alleged to have emailed the RFC Board to say that, if the case goes against him, his company would pay whatever is needed for the share offer. So, if that's to be believed.....:rolleyes::rolleyes:.... the offer will be made and RFC will be clear of any action.
They'd get -15 points this season and -5 next.Quote:
Originally Posted by lgnsh70
Definitely 15. It's more than 5 years since the last one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
Cheers mate :aok:.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
mon the cabbage!!!
There's no -5.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
From the SPFL site:-
E1 Subject to Rule E5, where a Club suffers or is subject to an Insolvency Event that
Club shall be deducted 15 points in the League.
E2 Where an Insolvency Event occurs during a Season, the 15 points deduction shall be
applied immediately to take effect in the current Season.
E3 Where an Insolvency Event occurs during the Close Season the 15 points deduction
shall apply in respect of the immediately following Season, such that the relevant
Club starts that immediately following Season in the relevant Division on minus 15
points.
E4 Where an Insolvency Event or in the event that such Insolvency Event is part of an
Insolvency Process that process, continues and/or is subsisting during a second or
later Season then, for each such second or later Season, during the whole or part of
which such Insolvency Event or Insolvency Process is continuing and/or subsisting,
the Club concerned shall be deducted 15 points and shall start each such second or
later Season in the relevant Division on minus 15 points.
E5 Where a Club, whether owned and operated by the same or a different Member,
suffers or is subject to an Insolvency Event which results in a deduction of points in
terms of these Rules and within 5 years of the date of such Insolvency Event suffers
or is subject to a further Insolvency Event which is not part of the same Insolvency
Process as the Insolvency Event then suffered, the points deduction applicable in
terms of Rules E1 in respect of that second or further Insolvency Event, shall be 25
points with the 15 points in Rules E2 and E3 being 25 Points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzywuzzy
Ha-ha-ha - couldn't believe it when I read that - even their own knuckle-draggers are embarassed !!
And if it’s in the close season, is it back or forward applied?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
See above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
They start the new season on -15, as Hearts did.
Ta, can’t see them wanting to start on -15, at the start of the 10 in the year row for CelticQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Here's a wee possible scenario to cheer you all up.
King gets p1ssed off about the latest ruling, especially as he just doesn't have the required 11M+. He decides the most sensible thing to do is to leg it back to South Africa.
Problem is, he has a few million tied to T'Rangers in the shape of loans and wants that back pronto. The Clumpany, as most of us suspect, just don't have the money.
He instructs his lawyers to take all available action to retrieve the money... which results in Administration for RIFC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/32436839
Have they changed it again? :rolleyes:
If they do it this season, the likelihood is no Europe next season.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
(My bold)Quote:
E1 Where a Club takes, suffers or is subject to a Deductible Insolvency Event that Club
shall, subject to Rule E4, be deducted 15 points and 5 points in the League in
consecutive Seasons in terms of Rule E2 or Rule E3.
E2 Where a Club takes, suffers or is subject to a Deductible Insolvency Event during a
Season the 15 points deduction shall be applied immediately to take effect in that
Season, with the 5 points deduction being applied in the immediately following
Season such that the relevant Club shall commence that immediately following
Season in the relevant Division on minus 5 points.
E3 Where a Club takes, suffers or is subject to a Deductible Insolvency Event during a
Close Season the 15 points deduction shall be applied in the immediately following
Season, such that the relevant Club shall commence that immediately following
Season in the relevant Division on minus 15 points, with the 5 points deduction
being applied in the Season next following the immediately following Season, such
that the relevant Club shall commence that next following Season in the relevant
Division on minus 5 points.
https://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__rul...1518083042.pdf
19 points ahead of 5th placed HeartsQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
If one of the current top 3 win the Cup, 4th would get a Euro spot
Right here’s a question that’s bugging me.
Can a team get into Europe under administration??
The rangers have 58 points at present IF they did go into admin and loose 15 points that would take them down to 43 points and into 4th place. Would they as previously asked get a place in Europe in admin if fourth place is good enough to get there? Or alternatively, can they get a place in Europe if after the season finishes they go into admin before European games start?
One last question how will it make the SFA look if they say they are financially sound ( the Rangers ) to the powers that be in Europe for them to then go into admin? Will the SFA actually take the chance on this happening??
GGTTH
Nice one :) Have they changed that?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I see yours are dated January 18. Can't see a date on mine.
If they have, I don't remember them announcing it.
It would be a daft move IMO. He's got more chance of getting his money back if the company was able to continue trading. If it goes into admin, he will rank behind the secured creditors, including the pie racks. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Keekaboo
There is absolutely no chance of rangers going into admin before next season unfortunately. People have millions invested and the only way for them to get any return at all is to qualify for europe. I’m sure craig whyte went tits up when they didn’t qualify and that’s what caused the previous liquidation. If they don’t make Europe and the chance of millions then it will collapse. No way they will go through another year without the income generated by European football and they already borrowing from last resort lenders.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It’s all or bust I think depending on qualifying.
They shouldn’t get a license however it’s Rangers and the SFA we are talking about and they got one before so history suggests they’ll be ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by southern hibby
Starting on -15 provides them with an excuse for failing to stop Celtc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
So they can use a summer administration to dodge their current debt but still keep the European income when it arrives?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Has he actually lent any of his own money, or the family trust, into the running costs of the club?Quote:
Originally Posted by Keekaboo
Smoke and mirrors I suspect. If this enormously wealthy trust really was sinking it's "untold wealth" into sevco why would they be swimming with the sharks at Close Brothers and mortgaging of assets that are important to their odious culture?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
At best, finishing 4th means entry into an early qualifying round, and a whole host of tricky ties to reach the Europa League group stages.
You’d have to be either mad or glib and shameless to bet on that outcome.
He might be a secured creditor.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
According to the accounts, none of the soft loans were secured at November.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
Other than the Sports Council and Close Brothers, there are no other securities recorded.
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
Finishing fourth is no different from finishing second (or third). Either means entry at the First Qualifying Round of the Europa League. Winning the Scottish Cup means entry at Second Qualifying Round.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomo
Now that King has lost his court case re the TOP ruling It would seem likely that we can expect a concerted media campaign pushing the line that the shares are worth more than 20p and that anyone selling would be a mug.
Would the media outlets responsible be considered as giving financial advice or are there ways of dressing it up to avoid this. E.g. Quotes from individuals etc.
Why don't they say "because it's our club"? :dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by Carheenlea
"We can't forget the past" :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Carheenlea
https://mobile.twitter.com/gibbygibb...576320/video/1
[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks. So he has to put another £11m in escrow for a formal bid to the minority shareholders (which itself will cost about £500k). Best case is nobody tenders any shares so can then go ahead with an "emergency" rights issue so any money raised will only go to pay off the loans. The first part works for him but his shareholding is massively diluted.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
So I would say that his power is massively diluted and The Rangers still don't have any money to invest and will also still be loss making. I can't see how they get out of this mess unless they are able to transfer a player for a huge sum of money which will paper over the problems for another season.
Pity they turned down£11m for Morelos then 🤣Quote:
Originally Posted by Is It On....
Unless there is something that nobody yet knows about, they really need to be massively lucky and make a fortune in Europe next year. This again is just papering over the monetary advantage that their Glasgow cousins have by virtue of the revenue 10,000 extra fans bring at every home game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tynie01011973
I like your name.. according to my dad (who was actually there) he said it was before segregation and that they were in a mixed group. He said he had to calm down one of his Hibs friends who was getting "a bit carried away" 😂😂
I was too. There were loads of fans couldn't get in as the turnstyles were mobbed. A Jambo relative of mine was still trying to get in when the word got outside it was 5-0 to Hibs. He didn't bother waiting at the turnstyles and just turned and went home. We were behind the north goals (where the two 2nd half goals were scored). TBH, I can't recall if it was a mixed support around us or not. I remember feeling totally unthreatened so there must have been a lot of Hibbies nearby.Quote:
Originally Posted by Is It On....
Happy day. :greengrin
Never felt any worries in a Hibs-Hearts crowd in those days, surrounded or not. Huns and Celtc a different matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by snooky
Never been to a Rangers v Celtic Derby, and no intention of ever goingQuote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Meant at Hibs-Huns and Hibs-Celtc. Don't recall any bad feeling of any sort between Hibs and Hearts fans at that time. Huns were always poisonous. Always.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
I can remember constant battles both at Easter Rd and Tynie in the respective "Sheds" from the late 60s well into the 70s till segregation happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
I’d say he’s referring to when Huns or Celtic came to Easter Road it was very different. The Derby was a game you could comfortably go along to with mates supporting each side. No problem. If you wanted a bit of handbags you could get that in the shed. There was a line of polis down the middle and people threw abuse and the odd piss filled can at each other. Not pleasant but not scary violence either. Personally I chose to go and watch the game like most people did those days. God I wish it was still like that but also happy with the way ER is howQuote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
Hertz fans went crazy at the PS 5 o'clock goal an rushed the celebrating Hibby's. Lots of trouble and continued on the way home. bTW Iain Munro was a part time teacher at my school and all we wanted to do was hear about that goal.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Sorry, yeah always more poisonous v Huns. At celtic Park we leave the ground together, absolutely no hassleQuote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Was there proper trouble at the 7-0 game? I never really noticed any. Certainly not on the scale of May 2016 anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by linlithgowhibbie
Was in terracing (now the Wheatfield) around halfway line with group of 5 Hibees and 2 Hertz (one was Brother in Law) and never saw any problems. most of the Yams had left early 😂Quote:
I like your name.. according to my dad (who was actually there) he said it was before segregation and that they were in a mixed group. He said he had to calm down one of his Hibs friends who was getting "a bit carried away" 😂😂
Went back to my Sisters flat in Harrison Park after game with family.
Plenty leg pulling for the B-I-L that night I can tell you 🤣🤣🤣
I was in the school end and wasn’t any bother but most hearts fans were away by half time anyway, but use to have loads of trouble at Easter road . Hearts fans were really bad lot back then only changed in the eighties with the hibs casuals .Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Don’t remember any trouble until after 1973 and certainly not in the 1960s.I was in the enclosure level with the penalty box at the end we scored five.It was the usual mixed bunch.It’s interesting that if the number of Hibs supporters who have claimed to be at the game had actually been there there then the attendance would have been 80000.I’ve got at least six pals who now say they were there but weren’t.I ended up Billy Nomates and went on my own.
My father was there ( disclaimer he’s not mine as my mother was on the game when I was conceived, well I’d rather have that than a Jambo as a dad ). He told me he went with a Hibs mate and they had a half bottle each with them and had a bet which was whoever scored owed the other person a drink.
Said by the time the seventh went in he didn’t give a hoots as he was mince on his mates bottle. Said there was lots of banter and pizz taking but no trouble.
GGTTH
Me too, to be fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
I do recall the Glesgie polis being totally nonplussed before the ... :shhhsh!: ... 5-1 game. They couldn't understand how both sets of fans were integrating so freely and being so friendly to each other. Alien to them I suppose.
Ok you are Keith Jackson and I claim my £19.02Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
I remember it well.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
We did the usual new year day game arrangement. A dozen of us, probs 8 Hibbys and 4 Jambos each with a half bottle in the inside pocket of our coats/combat jackets.
We were standing about level with 18 yard line at the Gorgie end on the main terracing in the first half. The only trouble was the Jambo's refused to pass round their bottles after the 4th goal went in and moved away from us Hibby's at half time. :greengrin
We never attended a NYD game together after that.
My Grandad's mate, a Hearts Fan, didn't know the game was on at 2pm and turned up shortly before 3, only to be met by thousands of fellow Fans on their way home.
Needless to say he decided to join them when he found out the score :-)
I stood around the same area having entered through the Wheatfield entrance with 5 Jambos and another 2 Hibbys. We all had hip flasks/half bottles in our pockets and from memory there had been a recent history of no scoring draws in the previous games between the two clubs and we jokingly said that we would have a drink each time a goal was scored. I was a goner by halftime but I don’t remember any crowd trouble where we stood but there was certainly plenty banter.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Anyone seen the Rangers meltdown thread? I'm sure I left it around here somewhere :dunno:
Absolutely no trouble at the 7-0 game. I would say the McLeod St end was 90% Hibs, Gorgie Rd & Wheatfield about 70% Yams, until half time anyway. Funny thing is we were about 18 yard line at McLeod St end in Wheatfield, pretty much where there nutters congregate now. We were all Hibs but there were plenty Yams nearby but no problems at all. We had several half bottles with us to take to my pal's house after the game. We saved him one nip!
That is brilliant..is it real??Quote:
Originally Posted by hibees 7062