Ken Fitlike Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 1/ WRK admits defeat. 2/ You moved outside your country. True? No? Well not one coont in uniform has died for my country since 20 years afore I was born. Poppies? See Earl Haig, greatest of all English generals.....So that defeats point no 2. 3/ lol, bigot in a fitba ground only then? What the media accused the OF of for decades, 90 min bigot. That is what YOU are OFFS,can you not just post a few 'let's all laff at Rangers' gifs and maintain the vibe of the thread... or offer your views on geology.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 The decision is out with the hands of the SFA to be fair, it lies with an independent panel who have yet to meet to make it's decision. Where the SFA's tactics are superb is that by making you wait until the time for appeal to the CoS expires there is a great cloud of uncertainty over a club looking desperately for investment. That uncertainty could be removed in an instant by giving up your heritage, no disrepute charges, no second contract charges, your new club would be untouchable and justice will have been served. That makes no sense. The SFA's first decision was incompetent. They now haven't a fucking clue what to do. There is no way they are 'playing a blinder'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cutty Old Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I thought we were trying to have a sensible conversation about FIFA law vs Civil Courts. The Hearts guy thought he should introduce religion to the discussion. You now think that it's ok to introduce abusive terms. Why is it impossible for you people to have a sane and sensible conversation without resorting to religion or abuse? I'm up for sensible discussion but before we progress in that direction you, Kincardine, maybe should have a wee look back at some of the posts you've made in the past. I understand that you may be feeling especially sensitive at the moment but if you were consistently reasonable you may experience less confrontation on this forum. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) OFFS,can you not just post a few 'let's all laff at Rangers' gifs and maintain the vibe of the thread... or offer your views on geology.... Well if a 'diddy' spouts shit I ain't gonna leave a stone unturned edit to say WRK was the one who brought up 'people dying for this country'. And the anti-Celtic pish, which has no right in this thread.... Edited June 13, 2012 by wunfellaff 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I thought we were trying to have a sensible conversation about FIFA law vs Civil Courts. The Hearts guy thought he should introduce religion to the discussion. You now think that it's ok to introduce abusive terms. Why is it impossible for you people to have a sane and sensible conversation without resorting to religion or abuse? your fishing trip is just getting more and more ludicrous by the second 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jags4ever Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Wasnt a precedent get with Gretna forming a new company and then being told they couldnt get back in ? Could get messy if that did happen as Cove and Spartans would have decent recourse against any decsion to allow Zombie Rangers back into the SFL 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madeirabhoy Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 That Rangers is sadly no more, so how can a new club which lacks the old clubs history take a suspension meant for the old club. Unless the SFA wants to confirm that our history still stands then ..... nope, i think all of scotland would be quite happy with that. rangers deed and cant cheat again. just strip the titles they cheated in and leave the rest in the museum. new club, by coincidence called rangers, playing in blue, supported by those who want to be up to their knees in ****** blood, starting with 0 titles, in the 3rd division. everyone happy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth_Glasgow Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 That makes no sense. The SFA's first decision was incompetent. They now haven't a fucking clue what to do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madeirabhoy Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Wasnt a precedent get with Gretna forming a new company and then being told they couldnt get back in ? Could get messy if that did happen as Cove and Spartans would have decent recourse against any decsion to allow Zombie Rangers back into the SFL especially since newco hasnt got the 3 years of accounts needed to satisfy SFA criteria..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Is this lovely chap for real? Nice little soundbite - but what part of my post can you actually take issue with? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el Gringo Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 You are intolerant of the currents 'cos of their 'beliefs' I do declare. Bigot. If that's a contraction of "currant buns", you're spelling it wrong. If there's one thing Rangers are NOT, it's "current". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p&b is a disgrace Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Only in your head pal. If the new club with a slightly different name plays in the same shirt at Ibrox ( even in the 3rd div) its the same shower of current buns with their orc fans. Same sh1te different name, like a turd that wont flush for you I agree. And this would also mean that newco will be liable for the outcome of the BTC. Could be the shortest living company in memory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trackdaybob Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 If there's one thing Rangers are NOT, it's "current". :lol: It was worth getting to the end just for that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 If that's a contraction of "currant buns", you're spelling it wrong. If there's one thing Rangers are NOT, it's "current". You tell me of one Rangers fan who today doesn't look like he has had a gazillion volt 'current' up his erse 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
)typically Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 And that is why Rangers should have kept away from the CoS. You can't have it both ways. For what its worth I don't think Rangers should be punished for going to the CoS as they were in administration at the time. If Craig Whyte had done it rather than admit to his failings I would agree that the club should be punished, or if David Murray was responsible for that matter. However in administration Rangers were in a business and legal crisis and gentleman's sporting agreements are, to an extent, no longer applicable. Rangers as a club signed up to these sporting rules, but as a business entity they did not. This is where it gets complicated. How can we say Rangers did this, Rangers did that and then Rangers did the other, when in fact David Murray did this, Craig Whyte did that and then Duff and Duffer did the other. I agree Rangers as a club should be punished and should accept it. However in administration they were being run on the basis of trying to survive and trying to get the best deal for the creditors not what is best in terms of sporting integrity. In that respect the law of the land superseded sporting integrity and the administrators were at liberty to do what they thought was appropriate in terms of the survival of Rangers and creditor recovery. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 That makes no sense. The SFA's first decision was incompetent. They now haven't a fucking clue what to do. There is no way they are 'playing a blinder'. The first decision was not the SFA's, it was an independent judicial panel, the appellate was independent also, both panels were known to Rangers before they sat and no objections raised. If there was incompetence it was by the independent panels, the SFA were duty bound to follow their advice as were Rangers by the fact that all parties agreed to the judicial review of last year. What has happened since is where the game is being played and the SFA are in control, as I've said "Rangers" have a difficult choice to make now, get rid of all the problems they have still niggling at them or lose their phoney stars and start afresh. What is more important the past or the future? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Yer clubs on its knees. Your main priority - ensure you can still have 5 daft stars on the strips. I'd be more worried there was a league to play in! What? Are you on drugs or just insane? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I agree. And this would also mean that newco will be liable for the outcome of the BTC. Could be the shortest living company in memory. Good point p&b - the BTC was written-off as part of the CVA, but that's now rejected - BTC will apply to RFC(IA) and is no longer written-off 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 What? Are you on drugs or just insane? He isn't the one, ahem, with my team : Rangers................ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) For what its worth I don't think Rangers should be punished for going to the CoS as they were in administration at the time. If Craig Whyte had done it rather than admit to his failings I would agree that the club should be punished, or if David Murray was responsible for that matter. However in administration Rangers were in a business and legal crisis and gentleman's sporting agreements are, to an extent, no longer applicable. Rangers as a club signed up to these sporting rules, but as a business entity they did not. This is where it gets complicated. How can we say Rangers did this, Rangers did that and then Rangers did the other, when in fact David Murray did this, Craig Whyte did that and then Duff and Duffer did the other. I agree Rangers as a club should be punished and should accept it. However in administration they were being run on the basis of trying to survive and trying to get the best deal for the creditors not what is best in terms of sporting integrity. In that respect the law of the land superseded sporting integrity and the administrators were at liberty to do what they thought was appropriate in terms of the survival of Rangers and creditor recovery. The people making the decisions at Rangers were, as far as the law of the land is concerned, Rangers. This was shown in the judicial panel's statement after finding Rangers the club guilty of bringing the game into disrepute. Duff and Phelps as you so correctly put it had a duty to ensure the survival of Rangers. No matter how much people try to separate the club and company now when Rangers were in administration Duff and Phelps should have been looking after the footballing side of things as much as the company, the club basically were the company and putting themselves and the SFA in jeopardy through breaching the laws governing the game was incompetent on their behalf, it does not detract from the fact that they were Rangers at the time. Edited June 13, 2012 by stonedsailor 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.