I see the word cheat casually bandied about in the context of Rangers often these days. Talk is of what Rangers cheated Scottish football out of, and how they did it.

No mention at all of whether it is correct to use such a serious term before the final verdict is in, or all of the evidence is presented.

Not that the legal process or evidence matter to these people, however, as it is impossible to see how Rangers cheated Scottish football using a scheme which:

(1) was not illegal during its period of use, and was declared each year.
(2) provided no on-field advantage.

Ignoring the absurdity of retrospective justice (which is another article on its own), one has to stretch the meaning of the word cheat to the point where it is almost unrecognizable in order to attribute it to the present case.

Why, then, is it used?

Easy, to set an agenda, and persuade those who have not paid much attention to the fine details of the case that Rangers did in fact do something seriously wrong. Yes, despite hiding behind a veneer of morality and justice-seeking, the journalists, 'neutral' organizations and fans of other clubs have joined forces once again to become an angry mob, determined to see their version of events become reality.

Yes, this is mob rule; mob rule of the crudest type. Words are their weapons: call Rangers cheats for long enough, and the authorities will cave. The mob struck in 2012, making sure the club was treated as a new applicant, even though it was not. It will strike again.

And the biggest tragedy in this whole sad spectacle, in my opinion, is the utter lack of any real moral fortitude emanating from either the media, or the footballing authorities of the country. It seems that they would rather acquiesce to the fake morality of the baying mob.

Talk is cheap, but it can sure as hell set an agenda.