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...
Trackdaybob Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 But amusing nonetheless 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 This is fuckin painful Yes but it's happening to theRangers fans so that;s ok 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Why because I continue to laugh at some mad conspiracy that not even your mad bloggers have picked up on? Run Forrest Run! -1 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 Why because I continue to laugh at some mad conspiracy that not even your mad bloggers have picked up on? So you'd believe it if Mad Phil McWhitsisname had mentioned it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 So you'd believe it if Mad Phil McWhitsisname had mentioned it? Only a few hours ago he was telling us how he doesn't mention "The Blogger" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 (edited) Probably not but even he is not daft enough to push this. Ignore me. As ever. Edited December 19, 2014 by The DA 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 Probably not but even he is not daft enough to push this. Fo what it is worth, whether the rules were changed is neither here nor there anyway. Even if the rules were exactly the same then they were still interpreted in a hugely different manner than they were for previous liquidations. It isn't some massive conspiracy to suggest that Rangers were treated differently to, for example, Airdrieonians, is it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 You seem to be getting really defensive over Phil. You seem to mention him almost everyday...you know , that blogger you never mention?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin McCann Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 and how were Hearts treated?, yeah I know, things were 'different' back then. But in all truth what happened at Rangers was far from unique, without wanting to go through it all again, the SFA had plenty of examples from England and even further afield to copy, their rules allowed them to do so, Hearts weren't liquidated. 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 (edited) and how were Hearts treated?, yeah I know, things were 'different' back then. But in all truth what happened at Rangers was far from unique, without wanting to go through it all again, the SFA had plenty of examples from England and even further afield to copy, their rules allowed them to do so, Hearts weren't liquidated. Scotland uses the Scottish rule book. Ever heard of precedent? ETA: I see, you mean in the early 20th century for Hearts. I dont know how they were treated, but as it was (I'm guessing) over 100 years ago I would say that cases in the last 10 or 20 years are a bit more relevant. Most importantly would be to compare cases that have happened since the current Corporate Law on insolvency came in. How were they treated by the way? Genuinely don't know. Edited December 19, 2014 by Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsr Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Why are brain-dead Sevconians *still* constantly arguing for nothing more than the sake of arguing? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Hearts weren't liquidated. sorry I wasn't paying attention. Did a club actually GET liquidated? Gosh 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.