• Announcements

    • Admin4

      TAMB CLOSURE ANNOUNCEMENT   09/06/2017

      Following diminishing numbers of visitors to TAMB and the subsequent reduction in TAMB income, it is the intention for TAMB to close definitively from 1st November 2017. TAMB can no longer generate enough advertising revenue to cover the costs of around £300/month to pay for the dedicated server that hosts the TAMB software.  The dedicated server is also older equipment and no longer maintainable, so at some point it would be necessary to migrate the TAMB to a new cloud-based platform. This is quite a large job and would take some time to do. We feel it wouldn't be a worthwhile task given the reduction in traffic and usage of TAMB.  It is the opinion of the TAMB Team that the days of messageboards have largely gone, being overtaken by other platforms. Thank you to all users of the TAMB over the years, and we look forward to seeing you on some other online forums in the future. Since announcing the closure, a number of questions have been asked.

      This is not a "boot in the arse" to Board members to increase traffic.

      It’s worth pointing out to any people wanting to take on the TAMB that they will quickly outstrip any “free” message board system. That’s what happened with the pre-2003 TAMB and also happened during the “current TAMB” in 2003 – 2004. 
      It’s all about the number of concurrent users online. At a point yesterday there were about 150 users online – Invision would be charging $130 per month for that. (https://invisioncommunity.com/buy)

      We would be prepared to do a handover of the domain names that we currently hold to non-profit making group who seriously wants to organise a new TAMB and has the skills and numbers to do it. This would not include existing software or server. We are especially keen that the platform or the name do not fall into the hands of what we can only call bawbags. We need not mention names, but I'm sure members can think of a few. Any new group would have to start from scratch and give TAMB a complete bottom up ‘makeover’ and make themselves financially viable.   We have a couple of people who are willing to offer advice to any serious players. The TAMB Team
    • Admin4

      Further to the Closure Announcement   09/07/2017

      Since announcing the closure, a number of questions have been asked.

      This is not a "boot in the arse" to Board members to increase traffic.

      It’s worth pointing out to any people wanting to take on the TAMB that they will quickly outstrip any “free” message board system. That’s what happened with the pre-2003 TAMB and also happened during the “current TAMB” in 2003 – 2004. hence the "high" cost of keeping the Board going.
      It’s all about the number of concurrent users online. At a point yesterday there were about 150 users online – Invision would be charging $130 per month for that. (https://invisioncommunity.com/buy)

      We would be prepared to do a handover of the domain names that we currently hold to a non-profit making group which seriously wants to organise a new TAMB and has the skills and numbers to do it. This would not include existing software or server. We are especially keen that the platform or the name do not fall into the hands of what we can only call bawbags. We need not mention names, but I'm sure members can think of a few. Any new group would have to start from scratch and give TAMB a complete bottom up ‘makeover’ and make themselves financially viable. We have a couple of people who are willing to offer advice to any serious players. The TAMB Team

Diamond Scot

Member
  • Content count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Diamond Scot

  • Birthday 10/05/1983

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Dumbarton
  • Interests
    Watching the mighty Airdrie and following my one true love.
  1. Still game theme. Simple, fun, recognisable and Scottish.
  2. From memory the side letters were found to show that Rangers breached the rule to declare all earnings of players to the SPL. This was a breach but its a breach that the authorities have already dealt with. Nothing new has changed since then in terms of that rule. Its all very well people wanting punishment and saying no precedent is required but the SPFL and SFA need to follow their own rules. Despite what people think they cant make it up as they go along.
  3. Im not ignoring it. For what its worth I think its clearly wrong what has happened. I was just pointing out that there is no basis in law. The sporting advantage thing has already been ruled on by the authorities. Thats all I am saying here.
  4. Feel free to point out how. In particular please point out where the basis for stripping titles in law is. Based on facts, process and law. Not on opinion. Any route that the authorities could have went down has been closed off. Ie they didnt rule on non disclosure of the scheme in a way that opened the door to the stripping of titles. No court has made a judgement about illegal behaviour.
  5. Unlawful is different from illegal as you have pointed out. I have no strong opinion on the case. I just think that it weakens peoples arguments when they use incorrect terms. Rangers used a scheme that meant they could sign players they otherwise couldnt afford. I am saying that in real terms this is no different from clubs using money they dont have to sign players they cant afford. If Rangers had the money to pay back the EBTs after the authorities decided that tax should have been paid on it then they would have done so. As other clubs have done who used the same scheme. The problem here is that Rangers didnt have the money and subsequently went into admin and went bust. The authorities have already punished them for that. (Regardless of the severity of the punishment) There is no basis to strip Rangers of titles in law.
  6. There's a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion in terms of legality. Saying a scheme should have and is subject to tax is not the same as saying its illegal. Effectively the courts have ruled by saying the money should have been and must be repaid. There has been no ruling as far as im aware and I stand corrected if wrong to say anybody has acted illegally. So with reference to the original statement there is no real term difference to using EBTs than to running up huge debts. Both are operating outside the clubs means. For example if Rangers didnt go bust and this tax ruling happened today then Rangers would just have to pay the money back.
  7. I think thats the plan with the formation but Rangers tend to have the wingers very wide or deep. If you compare with Celtic who on paper have the same formation. Armstrong plays the attacking mid and gets into the box more. Sinclair plays more narrow aswell which probably is a factor on the number of goals he scores. Rangers seem setup for crosses but dont have bodies in the box for either the original cross or the knock down / 2nd ball.
  8. Rangers problem last night was the same as last season. They play with 2 holding midfielders and an attacking midfielder who drops deep so therefore doesnt get into the box. They dominate possession but teams get men behind the ball and hit them on the counter. They have attacking full backs and wingers who get into good positions but when the ball comes into the box only the centre forward is in there. Against the majority of teams Rangers dont need 2 holding mids. They could have 1 holding and Nico dropping to be a playmaker. Then either play an attacking mid who gets into the box or a 2nd forward.
  9. Based on previous records at Chelsea he has a chance of becoming an elite footballer. At Rangers he does not. He will also earn multiple times the money at Chelsea and have access to the best coaching and facilities. Again something he would not get at Rangers. This concept of getting first team football is a red herring. For a start he wouldnt at Rangers and even if he did it would be in a lesser league. If first team football is so important why not encourage him to go to Livingston or somewhere that he would play every week from day 1.
  10. The original comment was about Burke not making the bench. The debate has then been argued on why he shouldnt be starting. The bench for international matches is huge. No reason why Burke shouldnt have been given a place on the bench. Even if it wasnt the intention of playing him at any point it gives him experience and also gives the manager the option of bringing him on if the game dictated it. Ie if they played a really high line and we wanted pace to go in behind. We named 2 keepers on the bench. Can anybody give me a reason why you would have a 3rd gk rather than another outfield option? Most countrys in the world recognise young talent and bring them through accordingly. Wales for example had the likes of Ramsay and Bale in at a younger age and were getting humped all the time. They did so because they knew that in the years to come both players would be key for them and when that day came they would have loads of experience. We have a player who has the physical assets to be a top top player. He has moved for a Scottish transfer record fee, is getting game time albeit limited in one of the top 4 leagues at at team who are 2nd top of that league. What do we do with this player? Treat him with utter contempt. Send him home mid way through an international week and then dont let him get stripped for another, instead having a 3rd gk on the bench.
  11. No because it can include players bought from abroad. ie Van Dyke for Celtic. The thought came from a comment made in the Southampton game about what kind of team they could have had if they didnt sell. I think Hibs might have a very strong team. Was Hibs Griffiths first Scottish team? If so you would have Scott Brown in centre mid with Griffith and Miller up front. Not sure if they have ever had a decent GK though.
  12. Bored so thought id put this out there. What is the best team that your club could put out based on current or past players who are still playing. Standard of player to be judged on how they are now, not at any time in their career. ie Celtic could have Van Dyke as he is playing now. Rules are that if another SPFL sold a player first then that club has the player not yours. ie Craig Gordon is Hearts. Scott Brown is Hibs. Kenny Miller is Hibs etc What club would have the best team?
  13. If thats the case would you expect Stoke and West Brom to be bidding for Armstrong and Rogic in January? Or any other EPL clubs ir even Championship clubs Both could be picked up for 5m each which is nothing to either of these clubs. We are kidding ourselves if we think EPL players wouldnt walk into any team in Scotland.
  14. People list the faults of players such ad Fletcher, Adam, Morrison etc however they are all still playing at a higher level. If they were as bad as people suggest they wouldnt be getting a game at that level. Likewise if Armstrong or any other scottish based player was as good as people say they would be playing at that level. They arent, why? because no manager in the EPL or championship agrees. If they did then they would have been bought. Its a pretty simple rule that the best players play in the best leagues. There is the odd exception but as a rule its true. Why dont we pick players from the likes of Livingston etc. They are flying atm and some players look fantastic. Answer. Its all about levels. Adam, Fletcher and Morrison would all walk into every single team in Scotland. For me its not about slagging off individual players. I actually like Armstrong both on and off the pitch. Its about recognising that he is playing at a much lesser level and realising that nomatter how good he looks playing there that it holds less weight.
  15. Not having a go at you but I feel this is where we go wrong as a country football wise. We constantly think players playing well in Scotland means that they are good without taking into account the standard of opposition. Almost every player over the past 10 years who has been held up as a Scotland starter that has moved to England or abroad has failed to make an impact. Surely the best team comes from players who play week in week out at the highest level because A) they are used to playing against better opposition and they are being picked to play at that higher level. Armstrong is a prospect, no better and should be nowhere near the starting 11 until he plays at a higher level every week than the other options in the squad. McArthur, Fletcher, Morrison, Adam in EPL, then you have the likes of Bannan and others in the Championship. Griffiths is another classic example. He scores goals for the best team in the league against defenders who would be lucky to get a game in league 1 yet we think that justifys him a starting spot.