WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Would Whyte have failed the FAPP test when he first bought Rangers? According to the SFA's Articles of Association, a person is not a FAPP if they fail to meet one of the following: bankrupt - not then, he wasn't. unsound mind - avoiding the obvious jokes, probably not. under suspension - not then. member of another club - nope. player of another club - nope. has an endorsed Disclosure - nope. disqualified as a director within the last 5 years - nope (mebees back in 2000). convicted/corruption.fraud - not aware of any suspended by any other Association - nope director of any insolvent club So, why would the SFA have found him not to be a FAPP? Now this I like - the rule as to be applied, and the hoops which have to be jumped through. Craig appears to be eligible. As, to be fair, would some pretty unsavoury characters of my acquaintance (makes no reference to residency in the Queens Hotel for non-financial matters, as far as I can see.) Over to Tedi - this really should be outstanding. The meltdown to end them all? And a week or so before the cheating verdict as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Rangers Football club, it says it right here. http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/club/rangers/ Waaheeyy! Tedi's brought his link back! Have No. 8's pills worn off, then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) 7. this disqualification was still in place in 2007 So, in the declaration submitted by rangers to the SFA, there was a lie? How desperate was Murray to get shot of them by this point? Desperate enough to lie? Surely not! ETA: And surely not desperate enough to incriminate the innocent members of the rangers Board of the time - corporate responsibility (and the SFA rule) and all that.... Edited February 19, 2013 by WhiteRoseKillie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic Rebel. Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 The Secovians remind me of my wife. Never her fault and she's always the victim. I watch her spend too much money and if I try to discuss it with her she flies off in a rage to deny and deflect so that the real issue doesn't get discussed. When she's calmed down she actually thinks she's the victim because I shouted (actually I only spoke to her) and she was upset by me "having a go at her". How dare I upset her. Not guilty and now the victim. Job done. Behaviour doesn't change and she carries on as before, Sound familiar? Sounds very similar to mine Johnny,remember yon snowstorm we had in 2010,well it was 3 am in the morning and i got up to look out the window to see if the snow was on,she shuffled her bahookie and i said 'Its snowing again' she roared back 'Am no bloody snoring.' See wimmen !!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) How many times. Where on this discussion have I tried to defend Murray. Murray didn't submit the declaration - rangers did. How many times, indeed. ETA: I let the "pedastool" pass first time, but ffs use English, will you? Unless it's a Bennett-style typo, of course.... Edited February 19, 2013 by WhiteRoseKillie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 7. this disqualification was still in place in 2007 Yep, my mistake. I misreadified it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Which means the FPP test is flawed, no matter how you try to dodge this. The rule is in place, its wording makes it clear what its sole purpose is. It failed (the SFA`s FPP test) Craig Whyte is not a fit and proper person. Again, Tedi, you fall into the trap of avoiding the major issue with some spurious concerns over a minor detail. The responsibility of assessing any buyer's character rested with the club, not the Association. The rule has been posted on here and, with your lack of challenge to the actual rule's wording, I have to assume you accept that this is the ruling in the SFA rulebook. Flawed or not - it was, if your statement about 2007 is correct, deliberately broken by rangers. Not by Murray, not by Whyte, not by the SFA - by rangers. The club has either failed to carry out due diligence, shameful in itself; or, having carried out the relevant checks, has lied in order to carry out their preferred course of action. If there is a flaw, it is that the Association assumes, by the method described in their rule book, that their member clubs will act in an open and honest manner. The sense of trust is what has failed - because one of those members lied. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Which means the FPP test is flawed, no matter how you try to dodge this. The rule is in place, its wording makes it clear what its sole purpose is. It failed (the SFA`s FPP test) Craig Whyte is not a fit and proper person. If I lie on my tax return, Hector probably doesn't have the resources to track me down. I might get away with it for years, maybe forever. However, if Hector later finds out that I've been lying, I'm in trouble - not Hector. It doesn't mean the tax laws are flawed - it means I've lied and got away with it. For a while. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 You will not get any argument from me on Murray, not once have I tried to put him on a pedastool, he simply lied when he said he was duped, this showed that in the end the only loyalty he had was too himself. This all started with KillingFloorMan asking "Didn't you blame the SFA for not blocking Whyte's takeover?" The answer to which is yes of course they must share some of the responsibility along with Murray and certain groups of fans. I'm not even going to object to this, you know. If this idea that blame must be shared between Murray, Rangers fans and the football authorities catches on with RFC supporters, it'd be a huge, huge step forward. Good on you, son. I still think trying to rope the SPL etc. into Rangers' self-inflicted catastrophe is a weak attempt at spreading the blame, but at least Tedi has consistently shown a willingness to face up to certain unpleasant realities that lots of his fellow fans don't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 How many times. Where on this discussion have I tried to defend Murray. Nowhere that i can see but that won't stop Norman from claiming you did. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamenitza Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 So it failed to do what the SFA designed it for, it most definately is flawed. Most clubs, societies or associations have a set of rules which it's members agree to abide by. If a member breaks one of these rules is the rule flawed and poinless or is the fault fully and squarely on the member who, despite having agreed to abide by it, broke the rule? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Nowhere that i can see but that won't stop Norman from claiming you did. And have I? No, Bennett, I haven't. I've tried to explain that the responsibility for the FAPP test lay with the Board of the club. As per the rule book. If, as Tedi claims, that rule was flawed, why did rangers not at a previous juncture act, as a member club, to amend it? The club was responsible, and either failed in its duty as an SFA member or lied about Whyte. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Most clubs, societies or associations have a set of rules which it's members agree to abide by. If a member breaks one of these rules is the rule flawed and poinless or is the fault fully and squarely on the member who, despite having agreed to abide by it, broke the rule? Strange that i never heard any outcry a couple of years ago when Celtic unleashed JP McBride on to the SFA and forced them into a humiliating climb down regarding their own rules. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 And have I? No, Bennett, I haven't. I've tried to explain that the responsibility for the FAPP test lay with the Board of the club. As per the rule book. If, as Tedi claims, that rule was flawed, why did rangers not at a previous juncture act, as a member club, to amend it? The club was responsible, and either failed in its duty as an SFA member or lied about Whyte. Yes Norman everyone is blessed with the gift of foresight and can foretell these things in advance. The rule is obviously flawed if the footballing authorities were powerless to stop the sale of the club to Whyte. I assume they have finally put in place measures to stop such a situation from ever happening again. Tedi is quite correct and your 'fishing' posts are getting tiresome now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 If somethings fails in its purpose then IMO its flawed. If I don't wear a condom, has the condom failed in its purpose? Or is my burd up the duff anyway? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I'm not even going to object to this, you know. If this idea that blame must be shared between Murray, Rangers fans and the football authorities catches on with RFC supporters, it'd be a huge, huge step forward. Good on you, son. I still think trying to rope the SPL etc. into Rangers' self-inflicted catastrophe is a weak attempt at spreading the blame, but at least Tedi has consistently shown a willingness to face up to certain unpleasant realities that lots of his fellow fans don't. I agree that Tedi is acknowledging some unpalatable truths that his fellow rangers fans find difficult to swallow, but I also have sympathy for the SFA in this instance. To have blocked Whyte's takeover would have seen such an outpouring of rage that SFA employees would have been in genuine fear for their safety. The point where the SFA failed, if they did, was years before when Murray was shuffling debt and liability around his companies. I don't know what they could have done about it, mind, but again, no rangers fans were asking uncomfortable questions as long as the silverware was being delivered. Tedi, you're turning into a fair old debater in your old age - where was this spirit back when the Amigos were crowing all over the place? Bennett is just an irrelevance, with his random burblings, and Bendarroch just pops up for a bit of Tourette's now and again (that boy has an unhealthy obsession with the legal system, IMHO). You, however, have come out as a committed rangers fan who, while misguided at times ( ), no longer descends to name-calling and abuse. Perhaps your journey to acceptance is making progress - thank you for allowing us to accompany you. Random greenie to the first post of yours that I find. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Yes Norman everyone is blessed with the gift of foresight and can foretell these things in advance. The rule is obviously flawed if the footballing authorities were powerless to stop the sale of the club to Whyte. I assume they have finally put in place measures to stop such a situation from ever happening again. Tedi is quite correct and your 'fishing' posts are getting tiresome now. I suspect the SFA can't actually stop the club/company being sold to anyone the current owner likes. What they can do is withdraw the club's license to play. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Haha i've upset agent KIllie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Yes Norman everyone is blessed with the gift of foresight and can foretell these things in advance. The rule is obviously flawed if the footballing authorities were powerless to stop the sale of the club to Whyte. I assume they have finally put in place measures to stop such a situation from ever happening again. Tedi is quite correct and your 'fishing' posts are getting tiresome now. As I stated earlier, the only failure on the SFA's part was to trust their members to be honest. What exposed this flaw was rangers breaking that trust. That is, rangers acting against the rules as they stood at the time, in full knowledge that they were doing so. Following from a previous poster - the speed limit is 70mph. Flawed? Of course it is. Even my people-carrier can do over 100 without breaking sweat. So should all cars be limited to 70? That would ensure no more speeding. Or should the authorities trust the majority to obey the law, and punish those who break it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I suspect the SFA can't actually stop the club/company being sold to anyone the current owner likes. What they can do is withdraw the club's license to play. The SFA have always been next to useless, i doubt that will ever change. I'll skip the Whyte stuff as thats hindsight and move onto our current owners. If the SFA found out that all wasn't right with the goings on at boardroom level then i'd expect them to step and suspend the club and try to safeguard it. (goes for any other club too obviously) Mistakes happen but we must learn from them. 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.