dave.j Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Another insult. and you have no idea when that rulebook was changed...you are guessing. The rule says MAY not WILL Let me get this right. You think all the top brass at the SFA , that is the entire board got together sometime after 2006 and voted through some rule change for an insolvency event that not even happened yet? These decisions are made by committee remember, it not some wee guy sneaking in a rule change and nobody else noticing. So when the events then happen to transpire not one person from the SFA coughs up and says hey we changed that rule to protect Rangers against a possible insolvency event years in the future? and not one blogger or media source pick up on it in over 30 months...just a mad ranting Hellboy from P & B? and you expect me to take this seriously? really? Why do you keep referencing 2006? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Today's papers spent page after page, in publications across the entire UK from London to Aberdeen, laying out in precise and painstaking detail just how much of an appalling clusterfvck Rangers FC is. I've had a butchers at 3 papers today. None of them did. Stop being a drama queen or stop reading shite papers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Why do you keep referencing 2006? I was just about to ask that myself, personally I think he has jumped over a cliff. The daft cnut can't differentiate between two handbooks 24 months apart that have differing insolvency rules, he can't even see the rule in the 2009 version where it clearly lays out that a clubs licence will be terminated upon the liquidation order being given. It's as clear as day and that's the rule that killed Gretna and Airdrieonians and he still wants to argue ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 I was just about to ask that myself, personally I think he has jumped over a cliff. The daft cnut can't differentiate between two handbooks 24 months apart that have differing insolvency rules, he can't even see the rule in the 2009 version where it clearly lays out that a clubs licence will be terminated upon the liquidation order being given. It's as clear as day and that's the rule that killed Gretna and Airdrieonians and he still wants to argue ? Arrange a time and place and then just f**k, and get it over with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 But that is exactly what you are suggesting...a conspiracy by the SFA put in place somewhere between 1 and 6 years before anything actually happened, identified by Hellbhoy from P & B, is that where we are at now? Where did I make that claim? How 6 years ago? What are you talking about. The rules were either changed for the beginning of season 10/11 or 11/12. The rules can't have been changed prior to 10/11 as demonstrated by the 09/10 handbook. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H Wragg Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 (edited) Breaking on BBC. Llambias is new CEO. Somers reverts to previous non exec chairman role. This definitely absolutely 100% confirms Ashley isn't running the show. Edited December 19, 2014 by H Wragg 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Brees Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Breaking on BBC. Llambias is new CEO. Somers reverts to previous non exec chairman role. This definitely absolutely 100% confirms Ashley isn't running the show. From this point on, he will be known as Mr Llambias, and he and Alistair will have a close working relationship. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Despite having all his limbs cut off by proven facts, Black Knight Tedi defiantly bleeds over HellBhoy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boghead ranter Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Today's papers spent page after page, in publications across the entire UK from London to Aberdeen, laying out in precise and painstaking detail just how much of an appalling clusterfvck Rangers FC is. And the best part is, it was all true - the board hate the manager, the players are clueless, the fans hate the board, there's no money to pay for anything and what little money there is, is being sucked up for non-football reasons immediately. The authorities hate the club because it won't pay the money that it's due, the club doesn't know if it's a club or a company, the manager hates the board and the fans are all disgusted by the manager's remorseless personal greed and are split on supporting either the manager or the board, and absolutely everyone in Scottish football knows that the club will go tits up without further Sugar Daddy intervention. Speaking as a Celtic fan who went through the nineties with a very similar, although not as drastic, scenario playing out at my own club, I just want to say - Get It Right Up You. Edit: Sorry, I revised this. I stupidly hit Post while the Mrs was distracting me. I've had a butchers at 3 papers today. None of them did. Stop being a drama queen or stop reading shite papers. People still read papers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11302893/Celtic-and-Rangers-united-in-defiance.html Two Cheeks, One Arse Celtic and Rangers united in problems with authority By Roddy Forsyth 12:00AM GMT 19 Dec 2014 Old Firm may not play each other in the Scottish League Cup for six weeks, but they are on familiar battleground as each take on the Scottish Football Association It is still six weeks until Celtic and Rangers face each other at Hampden Park but, behind the scenes at the stadium, the Old Firm have already reunited. Yes, in a throwback to the days when the Glasgow clubs periodically engaged in combat with the Scottish Football Association, the pair this week threw down their gauntlets to the ruling body of the game in Scotland. Mike Ashley is the new kid on the block north of the border, but already his people are battering at the door of the SFAs sixth-floor offices at Hampden and shattering the peace of the SPFLs domain along the corridor. Celtics chief executive, Peter Lawwell, also has the association in his sights, now that the Aleksandar Tonev racial abuse case has concluded without the outcome the club desired, which was the players exoneration. And, as on many such occasions previously, the dispassionate observer will note that the battle cries are often loudest when the positions are weakest. The indisputable fact of the racial abuse case is that only two men know for certain what took place in the 54th minute of the game between Celtic and Aberdeen on Sept 13 and they are Tonev and Shay Logan. Ronny Deila and Scott Brown do not know, despite their public statements that they believe Tonev, who insists that he did not say: Dont touch me, you black c---. However, the SFA was obliged to rule on the matter once Logan made his complaint. They employed a process agreed by member clubs, who include Celtic. It is nonsense to state, as some Celtic partisans have done, that a ruling on the basis of one mans word against that of another would never be upheld in a court of law. Such judgments are routine in civil cases the sort that pit neighbour against neighbour, for example. Any civil dispute that depends largely upon what might have been said in a conversation or confrontation privy to nobody except the contending parties is judged in exactly the manner used by the original disciplinary tribunal. The SFA deserves praise for releasing the transcripts of the disciplinary and appeal hearings. Paragraph 16 of the appeal judgment defines the meaning of balance of probabilities and reiterates that all that was required of the disciplinary tribunal was that they should find one party to be more credible than the other. Some associated with Celtic argue that, in this regard, the scales were tipped against Tonev from the start because English is not his first language and because he was said to be unsure of himself in such formal proceedings. That ignores the fact that he was accompanied by John Collins, the Celtic assistant manager, plus a Bulgarian interpreter, whom he did not use. The hearing also ensured scrupulously that all witnesses spoke slowly and audibly for Tonevs benefit. The transcripts make it clear that the tribunal found Logan to be more credible and that there was a degree of corroboration in the circumstantial evidence in how other individuals conducted themselves after the incident. It has been suggested that Logan might have misheard or misunderstood what was said to him there was even a belated attempt to insinuate that the weather conditions might have played a part yet the words the Aberdeen player claims to have heard were uttered when he had his arm across Tonevs chest and the pair were within a foot or so of each other. So if we can rule out the chance of misinterpretation and Logan testified that he immediately confronted Tonev the alternative is to believe that the Aberdeen defender methodically executed a series of complaints to his captain, the referee and his manager against a player whom he had never previously encountered. Again, in the balance of probabilities, how likely is that? And when Lawwell does voice his concerns to the SFA, will he accept that the best course of action in future is for all concerned to make no public statements until a judgment is rendered? Meanwhile, we do not know exactly what was in Ashleys undertaking to the SFA not to exert undue influence at Rangers and he might well argue that nothing could have happened without the compliance of other shareholders, whose holdings are greater than his. Mind you, none of the others previously employed Derek Llambias, before sending him to slash costs at Ibrox. Additionally, in the clubs response to the SPFL over its withholding of broadcast cash in lieu of a £250,000 fine, which Rangers accepted last year, are the lawyers who will ensure that the appeal is pursued vigorously Rangers words the same lawyers who pored over the original deal and advised them to comply? We might never find out, but we can say one thing for certain about Celtic and Rangers this week. The boys are back in town 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 @Chris_Jack89: RIFC release forgot the 'because Mike told us so' reason for Llambias appointment. And there's nothing, SFA included, anyone can do about it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/fans-call-on-rangers-to-front-up-over-inexplicable-decisions.114880823 Looks like they want to grill the board on Monday .... :lol: Riot police if Livi turn them over this weekend? Livi turning over Sevco would a guid Xmas make. It would also open the gates of hell doon at the big hoose. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 I understand why you are desperate to believe ken. what I want or don't want to believe is irrelevant. I can read printed information as it appears in front of me... The SFA rulebook was altered prior to Rangers 1872 disintegration. Are you of the 'tsk, a mere coincidence' frame of mind or the 'la la la la, I've got my fingers in my ears and I can't hear you' frame of mind? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 (edited) It was altered I agree, long before events happened as you have just admitted, so basically you are saying the entire SFA board conspired to have a rule changed that did not make the slightest bit of difference as the rule that was used existed in both sets of rules. If someone apart from Hellbhoy fae P & B had pushed this notion then I might be willing to stop laughing at it. not 'long before' - just as soon as it became obvious that Rangers 1872 were heading for the dumpster, the wagons were circled at the SFA and a few ad-hoc changed rule life-vests were conjured up to no great fanfare at the time. But my goodness did they not prove handy a few month down the line? You should really try to stop laughing at the truth staring you in the face. Edited December 19, 2014 by Ken Fitlike 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Tedi has prompted a cracking earworm... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE3ra4RZBtU 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny van Axeldongen Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 @Chris_Jack89: RIFC release forgot the 'because Mike told us so' reason for Llambias appointment. And there's nothing, SFA included, anyone can do about it The SFA will probably punish Rangers with a 6-month transfer embargo that begins on the 2nd of February. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Tedi has a point TBH. As Ranger's finances were in such rude health back then (©Tedi) why, oh why, would the SFA ever consider changing a rule that may help out Rangers during a future insolvency event? I'm guessing they had a look at the 'actual debt figure' that was 'clearly shown' in the accounts for guidance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 what I want or don't want to believe is irrelevant. I can read printed information as it appears in front of me... The SFA rulebook was altered prior to Rangers 1872 disintegration. Are you of the 'tsk, a mere coincidence' frame of mind or the 'la la la la, I've got my fingers in my ears and I can't hear you' frame of mind? I asked Tedi a question in another thread regarding a woman who calls herself Elizabeth II. He didn't answer the question, he just said it was a mere trifle. Your observations about him appear to be correct. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 (edited) I'm shocked to see Tedi making a total c**t of himself again. This has all the trademarks of a 5 star f**k up, 1 States shite as fact. 2 Rebuts facts as shite. 3 Spends next 2 days with help of Bennet n the gang trying to save face. .....we're at stage 2 going on to 3. Edited December 19, 2014 by THE KING 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trackdaybob Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 This is fuckin painful 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.