The DA Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 That's just the opinions of some nutjob/s DA, not facts - just someone with a fair few chips on his shoulder. So what have the SFA done or not done to deserve that tirade? Just read it, ya slacker. It'll take less time than arguing back and forth. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Do you dispute any of the TOG facts, Kinky? The TOG article was particularly entertaining. Wrt Ogilvie and LNS their reasoning was: CO denied knowledge of x. We have proof, PROOF, that he knew about y so therefore he lied ergo we need to reopen the whole LNS enquiry This is the epitome of grey and green logic and the language of every conspiracy theorist I've ever read: Discuss something peripheral to the matter in hand, shout about it and cry foul. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 The TOG article was particularly entertaining. Wrt Ogilvie and LNS their reasoning was: CO denied knowledge of x. We have proof, PROOF, that he knew about y so therefore he lied ergo we need to reopen the whole LNS enquiry This is the epitome of grey and green logic and the language of every conspiracy theorist I've ever read: Discuss something peripheral to the matter in hand, shout about it and cry foul. Ogilvie's signature at the bottom of a document relating to Craig Moore's DOS EBT would suggest that TOG do have proof that Ogilvie was aware of the illegality of DOS schemes and, in his capacity as a representative of the SPL, 'decided' not to let the inquiry know. If that evidence is dodgy, I'm sure Ogilvie will sue. However, your summary is incorrect. They're not recommending the reopening of the LNS enquiry. They're saying that an inquiry is needed into the SFA's role and partiality in this case with a view to preventing future recurrences. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Ogilvie's signature at the bottom of a document relating to Craig Moore's DOS EBT would suggest that TOG do have proof that Ogilvie was aware of the illegality of DOS schemes and, in his capacity as a representative of the SPL, 'decided' not to let the inquiry know. If that evidence is dodgy, I'm sure Ogilvie will sue. However, your summary is incorrect. They're not recommending the reopening of the LNS enquiry. They're saying that an inquiry is needed into the SFA's role and partiality in this case with a view to preventing future recurrences. Knowing about The DOS isn't the same as knowing about the ramifications of EBTs as claimed by TOG and need not call CO's evidence in to question. They are, of course, using that logic flaw to discredit both CO and the LNS enquiry and we both know how The Plastics respond when they feel they have been slighted. That's you're doing their work for them is slightly disappointing but then most Celtic posters on The Big Thread have no capacity for debate or discourse so have to use the likes of you and monkey as their mouthpieces. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 This is like when every guy and his dug was demanding that Charlotte fakes was listened too, his stuff was dynamite apparently. Similar with yon dodgy lawyer, Phil white, rtc/Rangers monitor etc. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 (edited) That's you're doing their work for them is slightly disappointing but then most Celtic posters on The Big Thread have no capacity for debate or discourse so have to use the likes of you and monkey as their mouthpieces.Piss off, eh?I'm many things, but a mouthpiece for Celtic isn't one of them. I resent that the narrowness of your mind leads you to jump to such a wildly wrong conclusion about me. Keep your fucking nasty wee prejudices to yourself. Edited May 7, 2016 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Knowing about The DOS isn't the same as knowing about the ramifications of EBTs as claimed by TOG and need not call CO's evidence in to question. They are, of course, using that logic flaw to discredit both CO and the LNS enquiry and we both know how The Plastics respond when they feel they have been slighted. That's you're doing their work for them is slightly disappointing but then most Celtic posters on The Big Thread have no capacity for debate or discourse so have to use the likes of you and monkey as their mouthpieces. Why do you need to bring Celtic into this? The TOG report admits that Ogilvie might not have known the ramifications of EBTs - although they're sceptical because he knew that DOS EBTs had been declared improper/illegal by HMRC and, as such, were in a different category from the debated vanilla EBTs. He did however say 'Nothing to do with the contributions being made to the Trust fell within the scope of my remit at Rangers' which his signature on that letter would tend to discredit. Ignoring all of that, if you read the report, you'll see that they're not questioning Ogilvie's role, but are saying it was the SFA who were remiss in their duties. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 This is like when every guy and his dug was demanding that Charlotte fakes was listened too, his stuff was dynamite apparently. Similar with yon dodgy lawyer, Phil white, rtc/Rangers monitor etc. At least then we had a couple of Sellick fans to have a ding dong with around the issues. All we have now is Lawwell's Lickspitles who try but don't have the same vested interest. The Big Thread needs a strong QC or, at least, a poster with an 'h' in his user name who can string a sentence together. These plastic plastics ar pretty rubbish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 At least then we had a couple of Sellick fans to have a ding dong with around the issues. All we have now is Lawwell's Lickspitles who try but don't have the same vested interest. The Big Thread needs a strong QC or, at least, a poster with an 'h' in his user name who can string a sentence together. These plastic plastics ar pretty rubbish. Oh oh, the Billy Big Baws are back in town. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 (edited) Oh oh, the Billy Big Baws are back in town. Not really. The SPL/LNS enquiry was robust and credible. The whole Sellick fans' Resolution 12/SFA/Conspiracy idiocy is supported by dolts and is an embarrassment. Not even the Celtic board will touch this. That you're trying to justify inane jottings on both makes you part of the problem. Edited May 7, 2016 by The_Kincardine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Whose problem, Kinky? Not mine. I'll continue to query the LNS enquiry and especially the SFA's role in it. It would appear that it didn't have all the facts at its disposal at the time, possibly because Ogilvie didn't volunteer said info and possibly because he wasn't asked properly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 So much for accepting the LNS enquiry verdict, it seems that Celtic fans are going to keep on kicking and screaming/threatening to boycott until they can bully the authorities into doing their bidding. They really expect Celtic Peter to take SFA Peter to task over this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 I'll continue to query the LNS enquiry and especially the SFA's role in it. It would appear that it didn't have all the facts at its disposal at the time, possibly because Ogilvie didn't volunteer said info and possibly because he wasn't asked properly. Then that is, of course, your prerogative. Note 1. Absolutely no one with connected synapses question LNS. Note 2. The SFA/Resolution 12 is is supported by folk who can barely pen a sentence. Note 3. The Sellick fans 'on here' have abandoned all debate on this. Mind you, why should they be arsed when they have MT and you as stool pigeons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Then that is, of course, your prerogative. Note 1. Absolutely no one with connected synapses question LNS. Note 2. The SFA/Resolution 12 is is supported by folk who can barely pen a sentence. Note 3. The Sellick fans 'on here' have abandoned all debate on this. Mind you, why should they be arsed when they have MT and you as stool pigeons. You really do lack class at times, you know that? You yourself have already said that the EBTs were operated in order to provide Rangers with a competitive advantage. That would suggest a questioning of LNS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Then that is, of course, your prerogative. Note 1. Absolutely no one with connected synapses question LNS. Note 2. The SFA/Resolution 12 is is supported by folk who can barely pen a sentence. Note 3. The Sellick fans 'on here' have abandoned all debate on this. Mind you, why should they be arsed when they have MT and you as stool pigeons. Who mentioned Resolution 12? I have absolutely no interest in Resolution 12 - as I understand it, this is in connection with Rangers'license to play in Europe in season 2011/2. Zero interest, nada, nil, zip. I am interested in the SFA's apparent partiality to Rangers which seems to have manifested in collusion to withhold, or prevent discussion of, the full facts in the LNS enquiry. We all know that if United had been found to be using EBTs and side-letters in 83, we'd not have held on to our one title. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Piss off, eh? I'm many things, but a mouthpiece for Celtic isn't one of them. I resent that the narrowness of your mind leads you to jump to such a wildly wrong conclusion about me. Keep your fucking nasty wee prejudices to yourself. There's no point in resenting it, MT. You might as well blame a virus for giving you the cold. Unfortunately, even in the twenty-first century Scotland and its National game are rife with such morons. Green, blue, they're all incapable of understanding the disdain that decent people hold them in - the only explanation their stunted intellects can produce is that holding one in contempt indicates a preference for the other. Perhaps a valid view, if one could also express a preference between lung cancer and bowel cancer. A plague on both their houses, say I. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 stool pigeons. There's no point in resenting it, MT. You might as well blame a virus for giving you the cold. Speaking of stool pigeons, here's Norman breenging in. So quick summary: The Sellick fans have jumped ship. A few diddies, who took the Lawwell shilling, are still flying the tricolour. The only folk who are sensible and objective on The Big Thread are we handsome and even-handed Bears. Seems reasonable? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRuffian Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Piss off, eh? I'm many things, but a mouthpiece for Celtic isn't one of them. I resent that the narrowness of your mind leads you to jump to such a wildly wrong conclusion about me. Keep your fucking nasty wee prejudices to yourself. Calm down Mhanky Tennis, jeez. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Bears a bit rhattled by the TOG article. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weirdcal Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 This is like when every guy and his dug was demanding that Charlotte fakes was listened too, his stuff was dynamite apparently. Similar with yon dodgy lawyer, Phil white, rtc/Rangers monitor etc. I thought the Charlotte fakes stuff was regarding the take over by whyte more than anything else? I think that one still alive in court? I dont think i would trust ogilvie regarding evidence as he would be trying to distance himself from any impropriety in an act of self preservation. The more interesting one is article 12. As it currently stands a club cant have outstanding debts with tax authorities. Would any claims to continuation be a hindrance with historical tax case (ie oldco) maybe ruling out an appearance in europe should you win our Scottish cup? Or are we going to see the current malleable version of continuity being applied - ie claiming the titles etc whilst also claiming the tax due from salaries wasnt them. (Current court rulings applied in this scenario) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.