IrishBhoy Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 II have gave up trying to read this thread now. Just dipping in and out every 30 pages or so. By the time I have read a page there is another 2 added :-D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 What folk need to remember about Stewart Gilmour is that he is a die-hard St. Mirren supporter. He has been all his life. His connections with the club go back almost a 100 years. His grandfather was chairman of the club in the 1920s. His uncle was a director and was also chief scout, responsible for bringing many of the greats to Love Street. He will hate Rangers with an absolute passion. His mates will all hate Rangers with a passion. He hates the Old Firm. My main concern was that he might want to protect the value of his shares that he is trying to sell. However, I don't think the value of his shares is reliant on Rangers survival as its a supporters buy out. Indeed, the death of Rangers might encourage more fans to join in. I have faith that Stewart Gilmour will be ready to stick the boot into Rangers. Unlike Lawwell, Reid & Co at Celtic Park who are desperate to keep Rangers alive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 The one thing proven by this whole thing is that Ally McCoist is a class A w****r. The thing I'm suprised about is that its taken so many folk to realise it. McCoist is filth. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 If I were to put a bet on, I'd bet that the SFA panel will suspend Rangers for a year. has anyone worked out what that equates to yet 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismcarab Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 After today's developments, tomorrow looks like being even better if these emails live up to the billing. What I love about the timings being released at midnight: Daly is making all the other hacks have to wait before they can even begin to write their shite for the next day, it leaves them little or no time to take his stuff and twist it into a MSM friendly version due to print deadlines etc. I think thats perhaps another reason why we're beginning to see the media coverage turn ever so slightly.....IMHO 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuntoiRab Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 What folk need to remember about Stewart Gilmour is that he is a die-hard St. Mirren supporter. He has been all his life. His connections with the club go back almost a 100 years. His grandfather was chairman of the club in the 1920s. His uncle was a director and was also chief scout, responsible for bringing many of the greats to Love Street. He will hate Rangers with an absolute passion. His mates will all hate Rangers with a passion. He hates the Old Firm. My main concern was that he might want to protect the value of his shares that he is trying to sell. However, I don't think the value of his shares is reliant on Rangers survival as its a supporters buy out. Indeed, the death of Rangers might encourage more fans to join in. I have faith that Stewart Gilmour will be ready to stick the boot into Rangers. Unlike Lawwell, Reid & Co at Celtic Park who are desperate to keep Rangers alive. Whit, I thought you were against the supporter buy out! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 1. A contract does not need to be in writing to be a contract. Also the inability to produce contracts does not mean contracts don't exist - this is quite important as the main source of obtaining any such contracts is the body who will be punished if such contracts are produced. 2. If the amounts paid were not contractual but purely discretionary consider what that means. It means players (and their agents) agreed a financial remuneration package over which they had no control. In other words player X agrees to be paid, say, £5k a week through his normal contract, the one that is registered with the SPL. He then agrees that he will be paid a further amount through the EBT but has no say over how much that amount will be. Is there any sensible, logical people who could argue that the scenario outlined in '2' above really existed. well the government and hmrc obviously thought scenario 2 was perfectly possible or they would never have signed off on EBTs in the first place...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepitsafe Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 He's away to count the beans for season 2014/2015. It's just how he is. Cheers m8. Just wondered. Sure you'll keep us informed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor the tractor Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I think the SFA will tell Rangers that they either accept the transfer ban or they'll be suspended. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Whit, I thought you were against the supporter buy out! I am / was. Its like the lunatics taking over the asylum. However, if it helps to bring about the death of Rangers then I'm all for it! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustyarabnuts Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 has anyone worked out what that equates to yet think it would(as was said earlier) usher in league reconstruction in record time, rangers suspended, season2012-2013 no relegation and winners of 1st div promoted 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 What folk need to remember about Stewart Gilmour is that he is a die-hard St. Mirren supporter. He has been all his life. His connections with the club go back almost a 100 years. His grandfather was chairman of the club in the 1920s. His uncle was a director and was also chief scout, responsible for bringing many of the greats to Love Street. He will hate Rangers with an absolute passion. His mates will all hate Rangers with a passion. He hates the Old Firm. My main concern was that he might want to protect the value of his shares that he is trying to sell. However, I don't think the value of his shares is reliant on Rangers survival as its a supporters buy out. Indeed, the death of Rangers might encourage more fans to join in. I have faith that Stewart Gilmour will be ready to stick the boot into Rangers. Unlike Lawwell, Reid & Co at Celtic Park who are desperate to keep Rangers alive. Just a shame he didn't remove his foot from his mouth before speaking. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cutty Old Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I suspect that FIFA may be telling the SFA to make their rules conform to FIFA rules and don't let it happen again. So, do you believe that Rangers will escape punishment for their indiscretion in taking the SFA to court ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Let me get this straight. The transfer ban was overturned because that punishment wasn't one of the sanctions listed in the SFA's rule book. However, the rule books do state that Rangers cannot go to a court of law to challenge an SFA decision. Can the SFA therefore not go to court to get the courts decision overturned on the basis that Rangers should not have gone to court in the first place? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Just a shame he didn't remove his foot from his mouth before speaking. He's keeping his foot ready o boot Rangers out of football! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 So, do you believe that Rangers will escape punishment for their indiscretion in taking the SFA to court ? Yes. The SFA disciplinary process does not conform to the FIFA rules for such matters. As such, it left Rangers with no other possible avenue for appeal. This was noted by Lord Glennie himself when rejecting the SFA's argument that he was not competent to hear the case. Specifically ... Article 64.3 of the Fifa statutes reads “disputes shall be taken to an independent and duly constituted arbitration tribunal recognised under the rules of the association or confederation or to CAS”. The SFA chose to make their Judicial Panel the body which hears such disputes and not CAS, which is entirely legitimate under Fifa rules. The problem is that the SFA Judicial panel is neither 'independent' (because it is appointed by the SFA) nor is it a 'duly constituted arbitration tribunal'. That said, it would be entirely consistent of the SFA to try to punish Rangers for going to court when it was their own failing that provoked it. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Let me get this straight. The transfer ban was overturned because that punishment wasn't one of the sanctions listed in the SFA's rule book. However, the rule books do state that Rangers cannot go to a court of law to challenge an SFA decision. Can the SFA therefore not go to court to get the courts decision overturned on the basis that Rangers should not have gone to court in the first place? FIFA Article 64 para 3 is the Rosetta Stone on this. FIFA / UEFA don't want football clubs reverting to Civil Courts. They should be going to CAS for appeals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Let me get this straight. The transfer ban was overturned because that punishment wasn't one of the sanctions listed in the SFA's rule book. However, the rule books do state that Rangers cannot go to a court of law to challenge an SFA decision. Can the SFA therefore not go to court to get the courts decision overturned on the basis that Rangers should not have gone to court in the first place? everyone has the right to go to court. no one can take that away from you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Let me get this straight. The transfer ban was overturned because that punishment wasn't one of the sanctions listed in the SFA's rule book. However, the rule books do state that Rangers cannot go to a court of law to challenge an SFA decision. Can the SFA therefore not go to court to get the courts decision overturned on the basis that Rangers should not have gone to court in the first place? The court ruled that the clause that allowed the tribunal to set any punishment was illegal since it gives unlimited powers of punishment. I' sure a court would find a clause that precludes going to court also illegal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flood Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Let me get this straight. The transfer ban was overturned because that punishment wasn't one of the sanctions listed in the SFA's rule book. However, the rule books do state that Rangers cannot go to a court of law to challenge an SFA decision. Can the SFA therefore not go to court to get the courts decision overturned on the basis that Rangers should not have gone to court in the first place? Does going to court when you know should not have, also be classed as bringing the game into disrepute? That would double up the charges on them and the SFA should just put exclude them from the SFA 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.