bennett Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Hey Ted, it's a fitba forum. Spelling police etc. That was me who made the "it's a fitba forum" comments, not Tedi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Doncaster was asked that question on Radio Scotland on saturday and refused what happened to the funds which whould have been paid to the oldco. Apparently it's time to move on. We can speculate ofcourse, my guess would be that they've already spent the cash. Yes, I heard that bit too. That's why I confess to not really having a handle on this part of the saga. Nobody's really cleared it up yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 That was me who made the "it's a fitba forum" comments, not Tedi. I think you'll find that he chimed in very soon with precisely the same observation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Tedi! Tedi, quick! Bennett's made a couple of typos! Mock him, quick! Strangely enough, the most constructive post from the liar today. There certainly appears to be jiggery and possibly pokery going on in the corridors of power. Not least in the way that (not only in this instance) Charlie boy seems to be hovering around Doncaster's office more than you'd expect from a CEO of a club who "have never played there".... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Thanks for showing you don't know you arse from your elbow. Most Diddies try and obfuscate. Nice to see someone who is openly ignorant. It's 'your'. Please help address my ignorance by answering the question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 It's 'your'. Please help address my ignorance by answering the question. Haw Norman he's mocking someone for posting a typo, gonnae sort him out champ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Haw Norman he's mocking someone for posting a typo, gonnae sort him out champ? Aye, but he called me iggerant, furst. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 It's 'your'. Please help address my ignorance by answering the question. Happy to answer. Your question: "Or is this another case of the company not declaring the EBTs?" My answer: "No" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Haw Norman he's mocking someone for posting a typo, gonnae sort him out champ? Looks like a polite, if perfunctory, correction; followed by an equally polite plea for enlightenment. Saying that - polite posts are probably like a foreign language to you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Looks like a polite, if perfunctory, correction; followed by an equally polite plea for enlightenment. Saying that - polite posts are probably like a foreign language to you. Piss off Norman. (Thats a joke by the way) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Happy to answer. Your question: "Or is this another case of the company not declaring the EBTs?" My answer: "No" The EBTs were declared, of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Piss off Norman. (Thats a joke by the way) Oh aye, banter. I remember you explaining that before. Keep trying. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 The EBTs were declared, of course. Bear, of course they were but this doesn't stop the Ps&Ds from glossing over it. I know I am repeating myself but no c**t can give a reasonable answer (although Shades had a try). I will ask again: It has cost each of the SPL clubs the price of a player for a year yet not one word of condemnation towards The SPL. Surely at least one fan of an SPL club can break ranks and see this for the farce that it was? Anyone? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Well thank you for the answer. I think however that it can be paraphrased thus: 'A legal argument of sorts can be constructed to suggest that we can indeed keep the good stuff, while ditching the bad. This suits me, and I'll therefore refuse to address or even recognise that this whole thing could involve a moral dimension.' For me, that's what sets Rangers apart. Again you're wrong about keeping the good stuff and ditching the bad. It's about being realistic that football is a business and a company that owns a club is not going to even consider paying a debt that they are not legally obliged to pay. As i've already said if the SPL Commission had stipulated that NEWCO would or could be liable for costs then perhaps there would be an argument but as they were not even involved in the investigation and therefore couldn't face any monetary penalties it would have been farcical to expect them to pay costs. Do you really think that any club owners who were in this position would have paid such costs incurred because of a case that involved a previous regime,not a chance of that but i think you know that. Only because this is Rangers is there such a furore. That is the top and bottom of it all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Bear, of course they were but this doesn't stop the Ps&Ds from glossing over it. I know I am repeating myself but no c**t can give a reasonable answer (although Shades had a try). I will ask again: It has cost each of the SPL clubs the price of a player for a year yet not one word of condemnation towards The SPL. Surely at least one fan of an SPL club can break ranks and see this for the farce that it was? Anyone? I'm not seeing the relevance of the cost involved in a league body enforcing it's rules and the member clubs' interest in that. Do the SPL split up it's profit between members? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 I'm not seeing the relevance of the cost involved in a league body enforcing it's rules and the member clubs' interest in that. Do the SPL split up it's profit between members? The issue is not about the enforcement of rules but that manner in which they did so. That has cost your club the price of a player. How happy are you with that? Can you make any comment (as an SPL fan) on the farago of the tribunal, the price your club will pay and the brass-neck of The SPL trying to charge Rangers for The SPL's f**k-up? I'l wager you'll be like the rest of the SPL fans on here - haven't a fucking clue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 The issue is not about the enforcement of rules but that manner in which they did so. That has cost your club the price of a player. How happy are you with that? Can you make any comment (as an SPL fan) on the farago of the tribunal, the price your club will pay and the brass-neck of The SPL trying to charge Rangers for The SPL's f**k-up? I'l wager you'll be like the rest of the SPL fans on here - haven't a fucking clue. Sorry, I didn't realise they were deducting the costs from the prize money. My bad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLip69 Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Oh away with ye, have you actually read the shite he comes out with? I take my own kids to games occasionally, at 8 my youngest likes the day out with her Dad and that is about it, "why don't they score a goal dad" is about the height of the conversation when it comes to the game, she spends most of the time asking if she can get another hotdog. Now my eldest (13) asks many more questions about football matters and what the daft wee boys in BF1 are singing about, if she came to me and said "you know what, I do not like Rangers and do not want to attend any more games" then I would accept that she may be making an informed decision. My point is at 6 WKR claims he made an informed decision that PH was not the place for him and that he should be off supporting a local team that are not operated through 100 years of organised bigotry. I dont think he's too far off the mark I was 7 when I realised I wanted nothing to do with either of the bigot brothers. I was fortunate though in that I had a parent who sat me down and explained things to me and allowed me to choose which club I would follow. I chose Motherwell and over the years friends and relatives tried to get me over to their side, a situation which lead to me being dragged along to, among other places, Newcastle with Rangers in 1969, Milan with Celtic in 1970, and Barcelona with Rangers in 1972. All that led to was me having a deep distrust of the 90 minute bigots on both sides of the sectarian divide and a passionate hatred, which remains to this day, of Newcastle United. Maybe you should be making that informed decision for your kids. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
As We Rise Again Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Old Norris couldn't make it anymore obvious that he's a green and grey hoops fan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umbungo1874 Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Again you're wrong about keeping the good stuff and ditching the bad. It's about being realistic that football is a business and a company that owns a club is not going to even consider paying a debt that they are not legally obliged to pay. As i've already said if the SPL Commission had stipulated that NEWCO would or could be liable for costs then perhaps there would be an argument but as they were not even involved in the investigation and therefore couldn't face any monetary penalties it would have been farcical to expect them to pay costs. Do you really think that any club owners who were in this position would have paid such costs incurred because of a case that involved a previous regime,not a chance of that but i think you know that. Only because this is Rangers is there such a furore. That is the top and bottom of it all. Sevco paid Rangers footballing debts they were not legally obliged to pay 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.