forever_blue Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Why are you putting quote marks around that first bit? Because we are Glasgow rangers , we do what we want 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 flipping heck! If players remuneration contracts were not fully lodged with the SFA / SPL - as were Old Dead Rangers squads - then they were ineligible to play for about 10 consecutive seasons. But you know that..... There's no double speak here. This issue was fully investigated by an independent commission which ruled that the players were eligible to play. Had the commission ruled otherwise then our punishment would have been greater. Where are the double standards? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 There's no double speak here. This issue was fully investigated by an independent commission which ruled that the players were eligible to play. Had the commission ruled otherwise then our punishment would have been greater. Where are the double standards? But but but . Sevco ... Zombie ... Cheaturs .... Grrrr 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grass Is Greener. Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 But but but . Sevco ... Zombie ... Cheaturs .... Grrrr *The Rangers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 *The Rangers We have always been the rangers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Where are the double standards? Why are you comparing a situation where players weren't eligible to play versus one where they were? The decision that the Rangers players were eligible to play is beyond logic and beyond parody. 'Imperfectly registered', my arse. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 The decision that the Rangers players were eligible to play is beyond logic and beyond parody. 'Imperfectly registered', my arse. Doon you go pal Cheerybye xx 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 (edited) Where are the double standards? Why are you comparing a situation where players weren't eligible to play versus one where they were?Because the 'were eligible to play' judgement is massively contentious. It's reliant on a technicality in SPL regulations, to do with the capacity for retrospective reading. Bizarrely too, the decision was reached against a backdrop of Rangers' EBT use being deemed legitimate. At present, that's not the position, yet the titles remain in place on the former premise.If you really want your club to retain a few trophies among dozens of others on that basis, then I suppose that's up to you. It strikes me as extraordinary though. Edited June 5, 2016 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 The decision that the Rangers players were eligible to play is beyond logic and beyond parody. The conclusions of the Smith commission were well documented and published. You may disagree with those conclusions but the process was transparent and its integrity unimpeachable. So for Ken to talk about 'double standards' and you to say it was 'beyond parody' smacks of sour grapes to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Fb really is like the kid in a kilt at a wedding who slides around the floor during the buffet. Ultimately irrelevant enough to be harmless, but still a bit irritating. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 The conclusions of the Smith commission were well documented and published. You may disagree with those conclusions but the process was transparent and its integrity unimpeachable. So for Ken to talk about 'double standards' and you to say it was 'beyond parody' smacks of sour grapes to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Bizarrely too, the decision was reached against a backdrop of Rangers' EBT use being legitimate. That's entirely immaterial. The terms of reference given to the commission was to proceed whether our use of EBTs was deemed to be within HMRC guidelines or not - which the commission duly did. Again, you may not like its conclusions but you can't call an enquiry 'bizarre' for acting according to its remit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 The conclusions of the Smith commission were well documented and published. You may disagree with those conclusions but the process was transparent and its integrity unimpeachable. So for Ken to talk about 'double standards' and you to say it was 'beyond parody' smacks of sour grapes to me. In your heart of hearts, do you not have a wee moral twinge about this? Your club/company suspected that their use of side letters might be contentious so, to prevent the tax man getting wind of things, you elected not to tell the football authorities either, deliberately breaking their rules. According to the LNS commission, they couldn't backdate ineligibility, so they let results stand with a wee slap on the wrist fine that was never going to be paid. If the side-letters had come to light at the time, any impacted player would have been ineligible and all results voided. LNS may have decided there's a statute of limitations for imposing punishments but that doesn't mean the offence didn't take place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erskjne Bridge Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 God help us with these scumbags in the Premiership next season. Still, once a cheat, always a cheat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 This is wonderful, the BRALT may or may not be gone tomorrow but Ra diddies seem desperate to give us another day of laughing at their mopery. Has one man ever been the cause of so much deserved pain and suffering? What a beautiful b*****d 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 God help us with these scumbags in the Premiership next season. Still, once a cheat, always a cheat. ^^^^ mrs pumped by a bear type post IMO 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 In your heart of hearts, do you not have a wee moral twinge about this? Absolutely we had a moral case to answer. We overspent and we used an imprudent remuneration plan. The consequence of being skint and of being chased by HMRC was administration which was absolutely our own fault and a fair moral judgement. So LNS dealt with the legal case and the bailiffs dealt with the moral one so I say we've had our just deserts. Time for The Diddies to agree with me and move on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erskjne Bridge Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 ^^^^ mrs pumped by a bear type post IMO Lol. Usual thick bigot reply. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Absolutely we had a moral case to answer. We overspent and we used an imprudent remuneration plan. The consequence of being skint and of being chased by HMRC was administration which was absolutely our own fault and a fair moral judgement. So LNS dealt with the legal case and the bailiffs dealt with the moral one so I say we've had our just deserts. Time for The Diddies to agree with me and move on. And do you think LNS dealt with it satisfactorily? Was his 'too long ago, can't do anything about it now' approach fair? Do you think Rangers got off lightly? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 And do you think LNS dealt with it satisfactorily? Was his 'too long ago, can't do anything about it now' approach fair? Do you think Rangers got off lightly? I was more than a little sceptical about The LNS enquiry as I suspected it could be a bit of a set up. However, his lordship conducted himself with aplomb and was fair, reasonable and even-handed. Above all, he was transparent. Anyone who questions the enquiry clearly has an axe to grind. 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.