WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 All this "leaked information" they had, how come none of these bloggers knew it would go in rangers favour then ? And how come so many (sevco fans) on here claim they knew it would ?, Makes you wonder who actually had the "leaked info". NIce, Beermonkey. Very nice. It's been a while since we had a good conspiracy to get our teeth into. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) serious question. Could you point to one that dissects the FTTT decision and talks about potential ramifications with regards to the SPL inquiry? Serious answer .... I am not aware of any detailed analysis from a Rangers point of view (other than my own) but I haven't looked either. The blogs that I read take the view that the FTT verdict stands on its own and does not need to be dissected. The ramifications with regard to the SPL inquiry has been looked at by a number of non-Rangers sources. The most interesting one that I have found is that of STV. But there is a twist to all this. The position of Charles Green is that the 'new' Rangers are not members of the SPL and are not subject to their jurisdiction. He also maintains that he 'owns' the titles and that the SPL cannot take away his property. His position was never based on the FTT outcome. I am told that Green's lawyers feel that he has a very strong position in law. While the FTT verdict seriously weakens the SPL view that EBTs and their associated side-letters constituted a second or dual contract will anyone actually get into that argument with them? In the event that Rangers choose to ignore the inquiry (as intimated by Green a while ago) will the 'independent commission' (no laughing at the back) test the strength of the SPL's argument? Then there is the question of the SPL's resolve. No doubt that their position has been weakened by the FTT verdict. There has also been a noticeable change in media attitudes towards Rangers. A general feeling of enough is enough. The SPL might feel that there is nothing to gain either from negative publicity or being dragged through the courts by Green. In that event, look for a 'not proven' verdict in January with the hope that it will all go away quietly. Edited November 24, 2012 by Paquis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 All this "leaked information" they had, how come none of these bloggers knew it would go in rangers favour then ? And how come so many (sevco fans) on here claim they knew it would ?, Makes you wonder who actually had the "leaked info". Because the 'leaked' information would appear to have come from HMRC. When your information is coming from just one of the parties then it is going to tend towards their version of reality. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Serious answer .... I am not aware of any detailed analysis from a Rangers point of view (other than my own) but I haven't looked either. The blogs that I read take the view that the FTT verdict stands on its own and does not need to be dissected. The ramifications with regard to the SPL inquiry has been looked at by a number of non-Rangers sources. The most interesting one that I have found is that of STV. But there is a twist to all this. The position of Charles Green is that the 'new' Rangers are not members of the SPL and are not subject to their jurisdiction. He also maintains that he 'owns' the titles and that the SPL cannot take away his property. His position was never based on the FTT outcome. I am told that Green's lawyers feel that he has a very strong position in law. While the FTT verdict seriously weakens the SPL view that EBTs and their associated side-letters constituted a second or dual contract will anyone actually get into that argument with them? In the event that Rangers choose to ignore the inquiry (as intimated by Green a while ago) will the 'independent commission' (no laughing at the back) test the strength of the SPL's argument? Then there is the question of the SPL's resolve. No doubt that their position has been weakened by the FTT verdict. There has also been a noticeable change in media attitudes towards Rangers. A general feeling of enough is enough. The SPL might feel that there is nothing to gain either from negative publicity or being dragged through the courts by Green. In that event, look for a 'not proven' verdict in January with the hope that it will all go away quietly. I know this will sound emotive, and for that i'm sorry, but i don't know how else to put it: Receiving stolen property is a crime - even if you buy it from a mate in the pub. Now, the trophies may not have been 'stolen' but if it is proved (and I have no idea if it will be) that they were won by breaking the rules, they will be stripped - no matter who 'owns' them. They were awarded to a club and can be taken away *if* it is proved that they were wrongly awarded. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I know this will sound emotive, and for that i'm sorry, but i don't know how else to put it: Receiving stolen property is a crime - even if you buy it from a mate in the pub. Now, the trophies may not have been 'stolen' but if it is proved (and I have no idea if it will be) that they were won by breaking the rules, they will be stripped - no matter who 'owns' them. They were awarded to a club and can be taken away *if* it is proved that they were wrongly awarded. That is a point of view. Charles Green and his lawyers will disagree with you. Remains to be seen if Green changes tack or if the SPL choose to back off. Otherwise, chances are that this will end up in the Court of Session and I don't think that serves anyone's interests. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 That is a point of view. Charles Green and his lawyers will disagree with you. Remains to be seen if Green changes tack or if the SPL choose to back off. Otherwise, chances are that this will end up in the Court of Session and I don't think that serves anyone's interests. I think your previous post is close to what will happen - a not proven, finger wagging, don't do it again, nothing to see here, move it along. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 That is a point of view. Charles Green and his lawyers will disagree with you. Remains to be seen if Green changes tack or if the SPL choose to back off. Otherwise, chances are that this will end up in the Court of Session and I don't think that serves anyone's interests. Let's hope for his sake they're better versed in this situation than they were in TUPE regulations, then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliche Guevara Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) Serious answer .... I am not aware of any detailed analysis from a Rangers point of view (other than my own) but I haven't looked either. The blogs that I read take the view that the FTT verdict stands on its own and does not need to be dissected. The ramifications with regard to the SPL inquiry has been looked at by a number of non-Rangers sources. The most interesting one that I have found is that of STV. But there is a twist to all this. The position of Charles Green is that the 'new' Rangers are not members of the SPL and are not subject to their jurisdiction. He also maintains that he 'owns' the titles and that the SPL cannot take away his property. His position was never based on the FTT outcome. I am told that Green's lawyers feel that he has a very strong position in law. While the FTT verdict seriously weakens the SPL view that EBTs and their associated side-letters constituted a second or dual contract will anyone actually get into that argument with them? In the event that Rangers choose to ignore the inquiry (as intimated by Green a while ago) will the 'independent commission' (no laughing at the back) test the strength of the SPL's argument? Then there is the question of the SPL's resolve. No doubt that their position has been weakened by the FTT verdict. There has also been a noticeable change in media attitudes towards Rangers. A general feeling of enough is enough. The SPL might feel that there is nothing to gain either from negative publicity or being dragged through the courts by Green. In that event, look for a 'not proven' verdict in January with the hope that it will all go away quietly. Now, talk of starting with a conclusion then grasping at an argument to support it. The comment regarding titles is madness, and you must know that. Competition successes are not 'owned' by anyone and can not be bought and sold. I don't even know how anyone could even begin to try and convince someone, that an abstract concept could be owned. If titles are stripped by the authorised body then they are stripped. Anyone who thinks this can be resisted is worryingly deluded - and I know you are better than that. The rest is wishful thinking and speculate on your part (no crime in that) Edited November 24, 2012 by Cliche Guevara 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Now, talk of starting with a conclusion then grasping at an argument to support it. The comment regarding titles is madness, and you must know that. Competition successes are not 'owned' by anyone and can not be bought and sold. I don't even know how anyone could even begin to try and convince someone, that an absract concept could be owned. The rest is wishful thinking and speculate on your part (no crime in that) I did think about arguing that one (again), but it's getting dull. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 They are only interested in the death of Rangers Sorted that for you! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mason Boyne Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 About to get the suit on for a charity boxing match/dinner thing this evening. I'll be around tomorrow though, so if there's any of this intelligent, perceptive analysis of the FTT from a Rangers perspective around, I'll be delighted to catch up with it then. So you don't go ? Easy question 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 That is a point of view. Charles Green and his lawyers will disagree with you. Charles Green and his lawyers don't give a flying fuck about the titles or the Rangers fans. They want to get back the Ticketus cash. Charles Green is laughing at you! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Sell out saturdays and all that Celtic gates are down & The Rangers are in the 3rd Division. The rest of the SPL gates are up. Scottish football needs the Old Firm and all that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 So you don't go ? Easy question What game are you today? Easy question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnforever1992 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Lest we forget. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mason Boyne Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 What game are you today? Easy question. What game am I ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Now, talk of starting with a conclusion then grasping at an argument to support it. The comment regarding titles is madness, and you must know that. Competition successes are not 'owned' by anyone and can not be bought and sold. I don't even know how anyone could even begin to try and convince someone, that an abstract concept could be owned. If titles are stripped by the authorised body then they are stripped. Anyone who thinks this can be resisted is worryingly deluded - and I know you are better than that. The rest is wishful thinking and speculate on your part (no crime in that) It's a bit like me buying the title of King of Scotland from the Stuarts. I could put the plaque up in the lounge and it would make an interesting talking point for guests, but i don't think that her maj would be impressed if I tried to set up court at Edinburgh Castle 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 What game am I ? Clue(less)do? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 What game am I ? I thought you said it was an easy question? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mason Boyne Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I thought you said it was an easy question? You asked what game am I ? Trying reading your post 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.