WhiteRoseKillie 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 There's very little point in carrying this on, is there? Now I know why I'm not a Primary teacher. I may not agree with another's views or opinions, but I believe in his inalienable right to hold those views. A sporting occasion is not an appropriate venue for the airing of such views: even without the attendant threats and/or actual violence which invariably follow. Now, off you go, cocoa's waiting. It is a school night, after all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 He isn't the one, ahem, with my team : Rangers................ You must be the brains of this outfit ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 'Clumsy' is a funny word if you keep repeating it................................ I find that "Rangers" is quite a funny word and is the source on much giggling/sniggering in pubs 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 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in administration Rangers were in a business and legal crisis and gentleman's sporting agreements are, to an extent, no longer applicable.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. that's a novel interpretation.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 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. So, to clarify... If Whyte did it, it wisnae' Rangers. If Minty did it, it wisnae' Whyte's fault. Rangers shouldn't be punished for anything Whyte did, but if Minty did it, then neither Whyte nor Rangers are accountable. If Green did it, fcuk all to do with anyone, cannae' punish us for that. The business, the club, the Minty, the courts. Now - this is where it gets complicated... In administration, we urnae' Rangers, we urnae' Minty - but we are still the people. In liquidation we can forget sporting gentleman's agreements. Take every cnut to court - unless Whyte did it, in which case Whyte should.... Am I getting warm? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine 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 Why is it ludicrous to ask that we don't introduce religion or abusive terms? Why do you feel the need to do this? This part of the thread was about FIFA law vs Civil Courts. Surely you can express an opion about this without talking about Orcs or the Hearts guy mentioning religion? My view is simple. Scottish clubs should be able to appeal to Scottish courts regarding decisions made be their country's FA. This doesn't undermine the laws of the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
)typically Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 So, to clarify... If Whyte did it, it wisnae' Rangers. If Minty did it, it wisnae' Whyte's fault. Rangers shouldn't be punished for anything Whyte did, but if Minty did it, then neither Whyte nor Rangers are accountable. If Green did it, fcuk all to do with anyone, cannae' punish us for that. The business, the club, the Minty, the courts. Now - this is where it gets complicated... In administration, we urnae' Rangers, we urnae' Minty - but we are still the people. In liquidation we can forget sporting gentleman's agreements. Take every cnut to court - unless Whyte did it, in which case Whyte should.... Am I getting warm? Not in trying to understand my point, maybe a bit under the collar though 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 There's very little point in carrying this on, is there? Now I know why I'm not a Primary teacher. I may not agree with another's views or opinions, but I believe in his inalienable right to hold those views. A sporting occasion is not an appropriate venue for the airing of such views: even without the attendant threats and/or actual violence which invariably follow. Now, off you go, cocoa's waiting. It is a school night, after all. Lol, I'm probably older than you..... Btw 'inalienable right to hold those views' and 'appropriate venue for the airing of such views' makes you seem a bigot Seriously, you are saying someone can hold whatever views they deem right, yet not air them ? I was wrong, a Fascist, not bigot. Are you 'sure' you are happy to see your big team die? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I have expressed the opinion Kinkardine - Rangers signed to the articles of Association then willfully broke them - it's not a difficult concept. I do agree to your point that they should stick to the letter of the laws and expel Rangers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Brilliant Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Why is it ludicrous to ask that we don't introduce religion or abusive terms? Why do you feel the need to do this? Religious, fair enough. You can't get too upset about 'orcs' if it's in direct reference to moronic behaviour by those labelled! My view is simple. Scottish clubs should be able to appeal to Scottish courts regarding decisions made be their country's FA. This doesn't undermine the laws of the game. It might be simple but it doesn't make sense: It doesn't undermine the governing body/bodies to go outside of the sport to appeal any application of the rules you don't fancy? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 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. Aesop's fable's? Ladybird? Jackanory? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Taking The SFA to the Court of Session is about the only right thing we've done during this whole debacle. Sure it may well bite us in the arse but FIFA's notion that clubs set themselves apart from 'normal' law is utterly wrong-headed. I posted earlier, I think on this thread, saying that FIFA only care about the politicisation/legalisation of football when it happens in liberal democracies with a functional civil society. In that sense, I agree with you. It's pretty stupid and analogous to saying that FIFA have a style of 'canon law' that the rest of society can't weigh in on. On the other hand, Rangers have quite happily adhered to these judgements for decades. It is quite rich for them to pretend that this is now a point of legal principle. Looking back on it, it looks like they were playing to the fanbase, and it's almost certainly going to backfire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 You must be the brains of this outfit ... Code name ''Whyte'' Or ''Green'' Theres twa shovels, take your pick 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lithgierose Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 kincardine gonna follow follow cammy and change yer league from SPL ( no more) to third division regular 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I'm a nurse and a first time poster With a tourettes repetitive syndrome? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Why is it ludicrous to ask that we don't introduce religion or abusive terms? Why do you feel the need to do this? This part of the thread was about FIFA law vs Civil Courts. Surely you can express an opion about this without talking about Orcs or the Hearts guy mentioning religion? My view is simple. Scottish clubs should be able to appeal to Scottish courts regarding decisions made be their country's FA. This doesn't undermine the laws of the game. As much as I agreed with you previously, these arguments are either spurious or ill-defined: 1) Can they also appeal to European courts and global courts? If so, why not use the CAS, since that's what it's there for? 2) The Laws of the Game have virtually nothing to say about what goes on off the pitch. Those are instead matters for the local associations and, by extension, continental and global governing bodies. These rules are mainly set by the members, and it has been a matter of agreement among most of them that it undermines their own internal rules. If we take this "only the Laws of the Game" matter" idea to its conclusion, there will be no rules about transfers, registration, association etc. at all. Some people may favour that. But I don't think the fans or prospective owners of newco Rangers would be among them. Clubs in weaker leagues have absolutely everything to lose if football's ruleset becomes unraveled, which is why I don't think Rangers are sincere in their challenging it. I personally don't think football would be half the sport it is if it were not treated differently to other businesses. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
)typically Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Aesop's fable's? Ladybird? Jackanory? I would argue with you but there is a decent game of football on and I cant be bothered. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) My view is simple. Scottish clubs should be able to appeal to Scottish courts regarding decisions made be their country's FA. This doesn't undermine the laws of the game. Next thing will be players going to the courts appealing against a fine which they got for turning up to training late. "But I was only 10 mins late 'cause of the traffic, it's no fair of them to dock a week's wages. I need that money to pay off a mortgage by the end of next week so I went to the SFA too and they said GTF as well. Help me! " Edited June 13, 2012 by Hedgecutter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
)typically Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 As much as I agreed with you previously, these arguments are either spurious or ill-defined: 1) Can they also appeal to European courts and global courts? If so, why not use the CAS, since that's what it's there for? 2) The Laws of the Game have virtually nothing to say about what goes on off the pitch. Those are instead matters for the local associations and, by extension, continental and global governing bodies. These rules are mainly set by the members, and it has been a matter of agreement among most of them that it undermines their own internal rules. If we take this "only the Laws of the Game" matter" idea to its conclusion, there will be no rules about transfers, registration, association etc. at all. Some people may favour that. But I don't think the fans or prospective owners of newco Rangers would be among them. Clubs in weaker leagues have absolutely everything to lose if football's ruleset becomes unraveled, which is why I don't think Rangers are sincere in their challenging it. I personally don't think football would be half the sport it is if it were not treated differently to other businesses. I believe they went to the CoS rather than the CAS for a quicker decision, due to the time pressure they were under at the time. Not certain of this though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Oh sorry.. have never posted on a forum before.. excuse my mistake Super - and your point is? 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.