Ken Fitlike Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Yet you did mention UK insolvency rules and when I mentioned that other clubs in the UK had went through the same process you tried to narrow the argument, basically it seems you are quite happy to say 'what about these clubs but not these clubs' sorry but you do not get to control the scope of the discussion. No the SFA did not change them to suit, no matter how many times you or anyone else attempts to push this conspiracy bullshit I will not be drawn into it. Sometime between 2009 (i think) and Feb 2011 the SFA removed a rule which could have allowed them terminate Rangers membership, however even these old rules started with 'Full membership or associate membership may be suspended or terminated' may being the key word, this had no effect on another long-standing rule that allowed the transferral of the membership which was the the route they took. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lodmoorhill Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 That's unbelievable. I thought it was a spoof at first - I'd never read that blog before. He fair gives Mad Phil a run for his money. I dread to think what anyone outside of Scotland thinks about our football, if they were ever unfortunate enough to stumble across the two mad mac's blogs. Those blogs are everything that's shameful about our game. Rhetoric inspired by hate and bile, and only filling a void because the mainstream media are utterly useless. A sad state of affairs all round. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 there's probably more around the blogs and sites. its not a bad thing if we had a few more 'outsiders' opinions, neutral ones especially. Like Alex Thomson? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 No its true, there was an actual legal challenge, but it failed on grounds of Royal prerogative, basically she is free to bestow any title she sees fit. I never asked you about Royal perogative?..I simply asked you what her title is in relation to Scotland? Or are you saying she doesn't have one?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 there's probably more around the blogs and sites. its not a bad thing if we had a few more 'outsiders' opinions, neutral ones especially. Neutral and uninformed, you mean? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 why alex thomson? is this friend of mad phil regarded by you as impartial? Yes. Clearly the Chief corespondent and award winning journalist for Channel 4 news just isn't neutral enough for some people. Alex is the longest-serving on-screen journalist on C4 News since the channel began. In more than 25 years he's covered over 20 wars; led major investigations and continues to front the programme from around the world. His journalism has won several BAFTA and EMMY awards; two New York Film and TV Awards and in 2011/12 he was named TV Journalist of the Year by the Royal Television Society. He's written two books about the 1991 Gulf War and a travelogue about cycling across India. He has been External Examiner at Cardiff and currently Bournemouth Schools of Journalism and is Honorary Fellow in Journalism at Falmouth School of Journalism. Clearly a therangers hating bigot IMO 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Elizabeth II Well done. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 why alex thomson? is this friend of mad phil regarded by you as impartial? Alex Thomson came in as a respected ( neutral) news reporter and reported all the swirling shit that was going on in the whole Murray / Whyte / Green clusterfuck. The fact that Assembled Horde of Beardom didn't like someone calling the story as he honestly saw it, asked questions about it it and reported all the utterly bonkers revelations did not make him in anyway Not Neutral. He ended up utterly bemused more than anything and was glad to get back to the first war-zone that got him oot o'Glesga 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 (edited) Hate to interfere with the playground banter and the big boys flexing their muscles over such insignificant causes such as Elizabeth 1 or is it 2, SFA policies or even Willam (McMurdo) the second's blog. But here goes anyway. Said a while back that I thought that Ashely had a problem sorting out Rangers as long as Ally sat tight. I suggested isolating Ally so he couldn't retain his "I am the voice of Rangers" mantle. You can do these things the confrontational way or the more subtle way. Obviously Llambias has been smart enough to encourage Ally to do it for himself by offering his own resignation. Daft laddy. Nowhere in the narrative to date are McDowell or Durrant included in the discussions. So Ally is trying to look after himself (well, his own pocket) in giving a year's notice and then not walking. So they will now see Ally as someone only concerned about himself. Good working relationships in the management team? I think not! Ally also needs to be spilt from the players and supporters. That is already happening to some extent. And it is the duff players who are coming out in support of Ally. The overpaid useless players who will never get a fraction of their current wages anywhere else. With the meeting with Ally on Wednesday only taking 45 mins this was I would guess that was just to find out what he wants to go. Now with Llambias as chief exec he will be expected to negotiate from the Rangers side to get the best deal for the business and is in a better position to do it. Since David Murray the clueless board in place at Rangers has been incapable of making any significant decisions, other than how to overpay people. Remember Wallace took 120 days to review the business. And then produced a report. No decisions, no action just a report. A skill set appropriate for the local Council but not for a company driving towards a brick wall at full speed. Llambias probably just wandered around. "and what is it you do son?" and then made his mind up. Llambias will make decisions. First target is getting Ally out the door. Then he will get McDowell and Durrant to clean out the lazy, greedy and overpaid players. Might even get some money for a couple! Meanwhile the carcrash that is Rangers will get closer to administration or Armageddon as some call it. With Llambias as CE and Ashley with the money they will manage the situation to achieve what they want at the time that suits them. There will be lots of brinkmanship and late night board meetings, but when you are the guy with the money in your pocket you can take your time. Edited December 19, 2014 by thelegendthatis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lodmoorhill Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Yet you did mention UK insolvency rules and when I mentioned that other clubs in the UK had went through the same process you tried to narrow the argument, basically it seems you are quite happy to say 'what about these clubs but not these clubs' sorry but you do not get to control the scope of the discussion. No the SFA did not change them to suit, no matter how many times you or anyone else attempts to push this conspiracy bullshit I will not be drawn into it. Sometime between 2009 (i think) and Feb 2011 the SFA removed a rule which could have allowed them terminate Rangers membership, however even these old rules started with 'Full membership or associate membership may be suspended or terminated' may being the key word, this had no effect on another long-standing rule that allowed the transferral of the membership which was the the route they took. The SFA, like it's bigger brothers FIFA and UEFA, change the rules all the time to suit specific agendas. Usually for the benefit of the "bigger clubs". There is no better example of this than the "Champions" League, which every year includes many teams that aren't champions, haven't been for a long time and are unlikely to be any time soon. But hey, it's a nice earner for the "big" clubs. There is no absolute proof that the rules were changed for Rangers benefit, but on current form, most people would believe that they were. It's not just possible, it's probable and we all know it. It really is taking the piss when you make out that the SFA is an inscrutable organisation, diligently following rules to make Scottish football a fair and equal playing field. It's not anything of the kind; it's a snakepit ruled by vested interests. And generally, it always has been. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 I recall that he wrote a piece on something that was about to happen, when this did not happen, a winding up order or such, he dug the hole further with some tweets about watch this space, none of his predictions came true and he has not touched the Rangers thing since, that's what you get when you listen to Phil though, why did someone not warn him that Phil is not to be taken seriously? so you have no disagreement with what I said in the post that you replied to? Nice one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 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. Seriously Tedi, you are making a complete arse out of yourself over this. There is no conspiracy in any way shape or fashion, it is blindingly clear the associations made radical rules changes that removed the liquidation rule that killed clubs and that my dear orc happened during The Cardigans last season in charge of Rangers PLC 2010/2011. I now have official links to PDF files from 2009 to the present day from the SFA itself as posted on their website, there is no conspiracy or argument ffs. You are just making a complete idiot out of yourself and other posters have now verified and confirmed this actually happened and the rule changes were implemented the season before Rangers went tits up and died so they could clone the club when this happened. The SFA didn't conspire ffs ?, where on Earth did you pull that from ?, it must be the most open conspiracy ever created seeing as it was put into their handbook for all to view if they were looking for rule changes. It just that no one ever noticed the the radical changes because no other club was suffering from an insolvency event other than Rangers when the changes were made. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Run Forrest Run! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 its not in the sfa's interest to have rangers disappear from scottish football, its not in their interest to have rangers teeter on the brink for a second time. do the sfa have a history of helping clubs in financial trouble?. Then someone at the SFA should give them a stern lecture about running their business like a normal prudent and properly administered football club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 award winning or not an individual can be impartial on many subjects like the good people that grace this forum, but when it comes to football it can bring out the worst in the best of us. maybe not in this case but we are all know someone. a bit over the top calling someone a bigot just because he doesn't share your blinkered view. alex thomson a bigot? no, he's entitled to his opinion which shows no evidence of bigotry. is phil mac a bigot, well he's definately not impartial, a bigot?. that's a matter of opinion depending on which side of the wall you stand Competent to report on worldwide conflict but not on a cheating mess of a football club. You don't want impartiality you want Jim White-esque, Chick Youngisms, fawning re-writing of history that fits your particular shtick. Perhaps if there were some decent journalists around pre 2012 and not just mad bloggers maybe somebody could have warned you?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 I recall that he wrote a piece on something that was about to happen, when this did not happen, a winding up order or such, he dug the hole further with some tweets about watch this space, none of his predictions came true and he has not touched the Rangers thing since, that's what you get when you listen to Phil though, why did someone not warn him that Phil is not to be taken seriously? But you read his blogs and watched his tweets....genius. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Reading through the latest epic of denial, I can't help but chuckle at the fact that, elsewhere on this site, Tedi has been voted as the best rangers poster on P&B. Just let that sink in for a minute.... No fucking way man ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottxs Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 No fucking way man ? good for tedi. At least he's better than jock(you're a bigot)0000000001 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 who said anything about competency, oh wait you did. this is a lot of assumptions going into this, that's a lot of brain activity going on there. maybe you should have a lie down after all that hard work?. Just making up for your lack thereof. Away and colour something in and add some smilies, it's Christmas, enjoy yourself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 There is no conspiracy but the SFA conspired? how does that work? 'it must be the most open conspiracy ever created' really? Why on earth has nobody but Hellbhoy from P & B carried this then? Your rule says 'MAY' right? nothing about 'WILL'? They used another rule, one that existed in all your old rule books (and the current relevant ones) It's you who's saying it's a conspiracy. Everyone else just accepts that it was a rule change which was almost certainly triggered by, and intended to deal with, Rangers' looming financial problems. The timing might be coincidental but I doubt it. 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.