shuggierip
-
Posts
13 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by shuggierip
-
-
And notice this is a bun free zone.....
Are en@land playing ?
Not only playing, losing.
0 -
The joint bun statement I got emailed (as a devoted poster on follow follow) is hilarious...
All "watp" and bluster, ending with "no option but review our options"
You just have to love the first comment. I hope Dave King buys chuckles' shares Dignity personified right there. Also good stuff from the Union Bears (who?). We dont want chuckles back at any cost. Guilty until proven innocent. Fuckin fannies.
0 -
I've just realised the date today. So, in the interest of harmony.....
http://www.123greetings.com/birthday/milestone/milestone68.html
0 -
I didn't do that so stop making things up. My statement was prosaically simple:
"You're a Celtic fan. Link us to the posts you've made about Celtic this year. "
Now either deliver or f**k off.
Oooft, you're an angry boy aren't you. Perhaps you can point me to the rule where it says that everyone must post about their own team. Or, you could just have responded to the point in case.
0 -
And here's another chunt whose existence on P&B is to post about The Rangers. Oh maybe I'm being harsh. You're a Celtic fan. Link us to the posts you've made about Celtic this year.
Ah, the way of ra peepul. Dont bother dealing with the matter in hand, or the content of the post, just try and portray others as "enemies of ra rangurz".
0 -
Really? Then find your own link. The funniest thing is that 18 months ago no more than 1,000 people in the world had heard about Spartans and now they are being trumpeted as a cause celebre.
It was 1000 more than The Rangers, as they didn't exist 18 months ago. And still has no bearing on the fact that they and others should have been given the chance to apply for league status. Without having to change/bend the rules.
0 -
SFL 3 was the only viable option both in terms of whats right and in our best interests, everything should have worked out fine. Like you i can't understand why the P&Bers are so worked up about this.
No it wasn't. What was right is that a place in the senior set up should have been offered to any existing club wishing to apply for it. Established clubs like Cove or Spartans eg, should have had the chance to claim that place, New clubs, like The Rangers, should not have been allowed to do so. However their friends in high places made sure the then existing rules were bent and broken to accomdate whichever version rose from the ashes of the dead club.
0 -
Captain sensible Irony at its finest. More like captain Birds Eye with the amount of fishing going on.
0 -
Sheff. Unt let me down for a 6/1 fourfold last night. Still at least their keeper never made a total arse of himself by chucking one in. TWAT.
0 -
Gran Torino. Only a couple of semi-humourous lines are worth hearing in this crap. 3/10
Ice Age 3. Does what it says on the tin. Harmless fun and keeps you entertained. 7/10.
0
Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!
in Celtic v Rangers, Rangers v Celtic
Posted
http://videocelts.com/2013/11/blogs/latest-news/celtic-take-shareholders-licence-concerns-straight-to-sfa
Celtic take shareholders licence concerns straight to SFA
Celtic will confront the SFA over shareholder concerns regarding the 2011 licence issued to Rangers despite the club having unpaid social taxes dating back over a decade.
A resolution to debate the issue was scheduled for yesterday’s AGM but dropped from the agenda after discussions between a group of shareholders and the club directors.
At the crux of the matter is the so-called wee tax case involving the Discount Options Scheme used to pay Craig Moore, Tore Andre Flo and Ronald de Boer between 1999 and 2004.
After years of appealing Rangers finally admitted that the scheme was illegal with the final bill coming in at £6m including penalties.
Despite having that outstanding bill the SFA provided Rangers with a licence to play in the 2011/12 season giving Ally McCoist’s side the opportunity to bring in £15m from the Champions League which would more than pay that bill.
Had the SFA applied their own licence rules correctly Rangers would have been denied a licence allowing Celtic to compete in the Champions League qualifiers rather than in the much less lucrative Europa League.
Another take would be that if the SFA had applied pressure the £6m bill would have been paid to HMRC rather than allow McCoist to go on the summer signing spree that saw Allan McGregor, Steven Davis and Steven Whittaker with new contracts as well as scouring the world to recruit talents such as Matt McKay, Lee Wallace, Dorin Goian and Juan Ortiz.
Losing out on the opportunity to earn £15m is clearly a big issue for Celtic shareholders with one poster to Celtic Quick News revealing the detail of talks with the board on the subject.
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 708x668.
Last night the poster explained: “I will prepare a fairly detailed post on Res 12 — but right now I am knackered.
“However, can I just clarify a couple of things some of which will be a repeat of Auldheid’s comments and others won’t.
“First– it became clear that Celtic PLC had questioned various things as far back as 2011.
“Second— these concerns were taken up with the SFA and it was clearly explained that the board were asking questions as a result of enquiries and concerns which came from shareholders.
“Third — The nature of the enquiries were not confined to those matters which were raised by the resolution. Celtic questioned other matters altogether some of which are now of no relevance but others which are not.
“Fourth— The SFA replied and provided various answers. To my knowledge, Celtic at no time said that they were satisfied with that answer and chose to simply remain silent.
“Fifth— Later, as a result of further prompting from shareholders and further information, The Celtic Board made further enquiries– this time on a slightly different point and a different tack– of the SFA.
“Sixth — Once again the SFA responded.
“Seventh—- The board initially took the view that this procedure rendered the resolution unnecessary.
“Eighth — following meetings with some of the requisitioners the Board:
“In turn the requistioners were publicly allowed to formally accept the board’s invitation to engage in further discussion ( and that was noted in the formal minutes) and to formally acknowledge that some of the steps which had already been taken by the board satisfied some of the concerns of the requisitioners— but not all.
“The wording of the chairman and the requistioners was agreed and adjusted late yesterday as the dialogue was ongoing throughout last week.
“The effect of all of this is that resolution 12 is most definitely a live issue.
“Of key importance is that it has been formally adjourned in public meeting.
“Now there are a whole host of key benefits to this not least of which the board were persuaded to depart from their initial negative position.
“They acknowledged that there was merit in at least some of what the requisitioners were about and that the entire issue was worthy of further discussion and examination.
“In addition maintaining a discussion with the requisitioners was in the interest of the club and its supporters.
“If I can add another point just now.
“Of key importance here was getting into a position where the board accepted that they should stop and consider the arguments and points raised by people like Auldheid with regard to compliance and regulation governance.
“That has been achieved.
“They may ultimately not agree or they may ultimately disagree on how to take such an argument forward in terms of a next step. But at least it can be discussed, suggestions made, and a next step agreed.
“However, as far as the SFA and all other football fans are concerned, what happened today was that a group of fans took a formal route asking a member club to hold the SFA to account. The Club concerned, after consideration, decided not simply dispose of that proposal by rejecting it and instead allowed the matter to remain live.
“With regard to secrecy and all that:
“All I can say is this. The main movers of the motion were party to the discussions and documentation was produced which demonstrated all that has been said above.
“A preference was expressed that the documents concerned not be placed in the public domain. Note that it was a request and not an order from on high.
“The benefit of acceding to such a request?
“To be honest, some of the matters raised by the club and the responses, may be germane to legal processes that are still ongoing and possibly yet to start. Nothing in the documents would tend to suggest that Celtic were failing to pursue the SFA for answers to their questions, or failing to represent the interests of the supporters.
“Further– how can I put this?
“When there is a written confidential record of certain matters, I can understand a protective reluctance to make that record public so that others can adjust their stance and position to suit their own ends.
“There are those who have nothing to do with Celtic Football Club who could use such records for their own purposes and try to stir trouble for the club, its shareholders and its fans.
“Best to leave them in the dark.
“Lastly all negotiations and discussions are about achieving the art of the possible. It is not possible to say that this issue is at an end, or has been voted against by Celtic PLC, and it is possible to say that the SFA and their practices formally remain under scrutiny by the shareholders of CELTIC PLC.
“By the way— that was the only vote in the hall today that was truly unanimous!!!!”
To be continued…
CLICK HERE for more detail on the matter