ribzanelli Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Bernard Thompson @bernietho @StewartRegan As it stands, you're saying RFC can keep going to a civil court until it gets a decision it likes then the SFA will accept it Details Reply Retweet Favorite Stewart M. Regan @StewartRegan @bernietho no, the Appeal body will have to select a sanction from the identified list without being able to be pragmatic. Good news? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpudNuts Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 In other words suspension and not a f**k will be given to the consequences for rangers. Nice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Border Reiver Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 There is no 'Even' about it What punishment do you think would be acceptable? Never have I read such blinkered pish. Your refusal to live in reality No8 borders on the psychotic, Perhaps caused by childhood trauma. Did Jim Torbett turn you down? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 "We are in consultation with FIFA at present." 'Ok, ok, try this then...you know England?...You know where Newcastle is?...yep, Alan Shearer, thats right...well we're north of there...' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cutty Old Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Sorry, but I've had to rise to our pet menstruating sow. Obvious but too simplistic is: It's only since this CoS decision that No. 8's true inner turmoil is laid bare as he appears to truly believes that the second scenario is happening, when the rest of us can see that the first is actually the case. To address a few of his points, it has taken multiple posters to show him pictures of the Pope wearing a big hat or a bear having a crap in a forest before he will stop spouting his pish. Not admitting to being wrong, note. Just moving on to lash out in another direction. A few nuggets for him to pick over.... 1. It is extremely rich for anyone following a club with over 100 years of discriminatory employment policy to accuse anyone else of this, especially as in this case no discrimination is evident towards the employees. 2. With every piece of evidence uncovered against rangers, claims are made that it was him, him or them, never rangers. As the SFA tribunal noted, knowledge of malpractice and inaction concerning same damns directors over decades with implicit guilt. 3. Any other club in rangers' situation would be scrabbling like hell to make friends, pull in favours, do anything to SURVIVE, at any level of the game. This mob expect all other clubs to weaken their own position to help them COMPETE FOR THE TITLE. Arrogance is never attractive. In this case it is completely repulsive. 4. Had rangers accepted the - basically irrelevant - registration ban, they would have been able to start rebuilding and look to the future. By refusing to accept the SFA's decision, they brought this affair to the attention of UEFA and FIFA. In so doing, they have put the whole of Scottish football at risk, with the attendant damage to communities and loss of jobs throughout the country. Their attitude is we don't care - we are rangers and we don't need the diddies". So..... who will they be playing against? 5. Perusal of the timeline of this thread will show a gradual deterioration in the sympathy and support rangers are receiving from their peers. The rest of football is losing patience with these arrogant criminals, and SPL chairmen are beginning to speak in terms of doing the right thing. (One glaring omission, BTW, MJ - might be time to jump on the bandwagon and join the new order). In summary, then, I would suggest to No. 8 that he bugger off to RM or FF, where he would no doubt find greenies (bluies?) for his hatstand statements. As a favour to the rest of us, could I suggest that cammy35, Kincardine, bearwithme, and bennett join him. Five of the rangers posters try their best to be "reasonable", or five examples of how important it is to cleanse Scottish football, and Scottish society, of this vile institution? No longer are sanctions enough. This cancer in our midst must be cut out and disposed of. Full remission, no newco" zombie club rising like a new tumour for the trogs to rally round. Scotland owes it to itself to take this opportunity and rid itself of these horrible people. Forever. Don't you just love these Kilmarnock supporters ? Green dot well deserved ! Big hugs for one of my best pals. Lets start the Ayr / Kilmarnock love-in. I know.............too far ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Wutherspoon Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Burkey_78 @StewartRegan in simple terms what reason did judge give 4 panel not being allowed to determine punishment as allowed in art. of ass. StewartRegan @Burkey_78 The tariff of sanctions for bringing the game into disrepute is specific and should be adhered to rigidly. I read that, along with his previous post about not being able to be pragmatic, as a large rule book about to be chucked forcefully at the big hoose. Personally I'd suspend their license for a year. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 @StewartRegan the Appeal body will have to select a sanction from the identified list without being able to be pragmatic. since pragmatism can't override the rules. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Outrage in Reykjavik and Nicosia. Iceland isn't part of the EU.. here we go again 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Well,apparently the cockwomble is not happy with certain people on here,and has made his feelings be known. source? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fasda Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 It's hard to predict what the SFA will come up with as an alternative to a transfer embargo. If they want to actually move the issue along they might think about suspension until certain criteria are met. e.g. 1. Agreement with HMRC on way forward on post Whyte taxes and NI, whether or not they pay their tax over a period or not at all the issue should be to get them compliant with the tax authorities. 2. I imagine they will want Whyte off the scene as he was specifically named as "bringing the game into disrepute". 3. CVA or whatever they could insist on RFC producing an independent "fit and proper" review of whoever owns them. This is the responsibility of any company in any business so this would just be a formalised review on pre agreed terms. The first might be difficult but it is the stalemate at the moment. The second two are chicken shit. Either that or expulsion. Could keep them going until the BTC and dual contracts come along. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 FIFA>SFA>The Cockwomble. Glorious developments, quite frankly. So can we now fast forward through the next 100 pages of obfuscation to see No.8's breakdown when the SFA boot the cheats out? And seeing as that's on the all/non-important list under legal argument: they're going to be utterly, utterly fucked. I'm ordering in a fresh batch of ice-cream. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I'm pleased to see that 5 days after adding it, my Duff and Phelps amendment to their Wiki page has stood the test of time and avoided the wrath of the editors! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duff_%26_Phelps 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 'Ok, ok, try this then...you know England?...You know where Newcastle is?...yep, Alan Shearer, thats right...well we're north of there...' Ok, ok, try this then...you know England?...You know where Newcastle is?...yep, Boumsong and Souey , thats right...well we're north of there...' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 At least No8 comes here and gives his opinion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Wutherspoon Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 since pragmatism can't override the rules. Yep, I thnk what he's saying is they've tried to be pragmatic and not dish out the full punishment but that got flung back in their face. So now, punishment will be without pragmatism. And the offences they're guilty of, they've already said, are considered second only to match fixing. Here's what the rules say specifically about punishment. "123. The Board shall have the power to fine, suspend or expel any recognised football body, club, official, player, referee or other person under the jurisdiction of the Association who in its opinion, in any way brings the game into disrepute" They've already imposed a fine... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Dunno. If i'm led to believe that exclusion from the scottish cup is too lenient, then its got to be suspension or expulsion from the league. My thoughts are it will be suspension for a year. Like someone else mentioned. Rangers will just go play glamour friendlies in that time, to recoup the costs. Against who, though? If they aren't members of the SFA, and by extension under the UEFA and FIFA umbrella, no club which IS so affiliated would be ALLOWED to play them. This is one of the reasons so many charity/commemorative matches feature "Man Utd Legends" or "Celtic XI". Or so I believe, anyway - feel free to correct me. Oh, and feel free to explain to me which clubs would find the slightest soupcon of "glamour" in a match against a proudly sectarian club which has cheated its home association and fellow clubs for decades? Whose attitude since their behaviour became known has shown not an iota of regret or intention to atone for their crimes, but have shown a breathtaking sense of entitlement at every opportunity. Oh yes, and whose "fans" will sing songs of religious and racial hatred, use public streets as urinals, and visit extreme physical violence on anyone who dares to suggest that "The Peepul" should behave like human beings? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Click Click Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18288091?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=sportsound "but any player sales, under Duff & Phelps' proposal of a company voluntary arrangement, would go to the company for the benefit of Green's Sevco takeover vehicle, rather than to creditors." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Iceland isn't part of the EU.. Did he say EU or Europe? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeGeeOneHamer Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Against who, though? If they aren't members of the SFA, and by extension under the UEFA and FIFA umbrella, no club which IS so affiliated would be ALLOWED to play them. This is one of the reasons so many charity/commemorative matches feature "Man Utd Legends" or "Celtic XI". Or so I believe, anyway - feel free to correct me. Oh, and feel free to explain to me which clubs would find the slightest soupcon of "glamour" in a match against a proudly sectarian club which has cheated its home association and fellow clubs for decades? Whose attitude since their behaviour became known has shown not an iota of regret or intention to atone for their crimes, but have shown a breathtaking sense of entitlement at every opportunity. Oh yes, and whose "fans" will sing songs of religious and racial hatred, use public streets as urinals, and visit extreme physical violence on anyone who dares to suggest that "The Peepul" should behave like human beings? Linfield and Celtic 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Rangers will take the punishment as long as it is legal and within the SFA rule book. What punishment do you think is fair. Try as I might, I can't find JPegs showing the entire Rangers administrative and coaching staff being sentenced to ten years porridge in HMP Barlinnie; Fifty thousand grief-stricken Buns sobbing into their steak bakes or Ibrox being demolished by bulldozers. Never mind, though - give it eighteen months, and I'll be able to cut them off the front page of the Daily Record. 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.