Ken Fitlike Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Regarding the LNS Judgement, have the scum paid that 250,000 fine yet? Oooh! A 'pay the fine or lose the titles' ultimatum would create a stir.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Oooh! A 'pay the fine or lose the titles' ultimatum would create a stir.. And Social unrest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 What is new about the commission being asked by the SPL to give a judgment irrespective of the outcome of that process? Is that not in itself, sort of extraordinary though? I can see the commission being asked to make decision irrespective of the FTTT question altogether. To recognise however that a result is in place, but is open to a review which must be ignored, seems wildly unjust. How can it be argued that the commission can only act on a current state of play, but should that change, what they decide must stick? If that SPL request was key, that looks flimsy to this totally inexpert observer. Why would the SPL have made such a request. Had the FTTT gone the other way, what would the SPL request have been? Would there have been one? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Oooh! A 'pay the fine or lose the titles' ultimatum would create a stir.. Surely if the fine was part of the '5 way agreement' and therefore was a condition of Sevco getting league entry then it could be argued that The Rangers could/should be thrown out of the league? I'd be inclined to think that this debt still rests with the OldCo, hence the reason it hasn't been paid yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 The transfer ban saved them from spunking away even more money than they have. Even the transfer ban was very weak. . There was no transfer ban, ranting about something which never even happened. . Effectively, it covered one window, that of January 2013.'. The price has been small - bigger than our game's authorities wished it, but small nonetheless. The registration embargo lasted for exactly one year. Facts n all that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Regarding the LNS Judgement, have the scum paid that 250,000 fine yet? Very kind of fat Peter to offer to pay it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Is it 4 or 5 titles that are EBT dubious. 5 stars at stake and all that.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Very kind of fat Peter to offer to pay it. I see what you did there, genius Vicky Do you scumbags follow follow any rules or regulations? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Is it 4 or 5 titles that are EBT dubious. 5 stars at stake and all that.... 5 I think, Would bring the dead clubs total to 49 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 (edited) There was no transfer ban, ranting about something which never even happened. The registration embargo lasted for exactly one year. Facts n all that. Are you quibbling over ban/embargo? Ok, Bennett, I'm happy to call it an embargo from here on. Language should be precise. Why though are you so keen to pounce on these things and accuse me of ranting? I think it's pretty clear to anyone looking in that I'm discussing this in good faith here. As for this embargo's duration, I stand corrected (if you're right). I'd thought it was meant to be 18 months. If it was a year, fair enough. The reality is though, that there was only one window that saw Rangers unable to bring in players. Edited November 14, 2015 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Right, clearly I'm being whoooooshed here, but I must be a bit thick, because I can't see how or why. What do you mean? What was my wee slip? Bit obscure perhaps ... that would undoubtedly see the club liquidated. You posted 'club' rather than 'company'. Soz, do carry on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 The Alternative Dave King Statement #DaveKingmemories 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Are you quibbling over ban/embargo? Ok, Bennett, I'm happy to call it an embargo from here on. Language should be precise. Why though are you so keen to pounce on these things though and accuse me of ranting. I think it's pretty clear to anyone looking in that I'm discussing this in good faith here. As for this embargo's duration, I stand corrected (if you're right). I'd thought it was meant to be 18 months. If it was a year, fair enough. The reality is though, that there was only one window that saw Rangers unable to bring in players. No I'm quibbling over you wrongly saying that Rangers had a transfer ban. Rangers were banned from registering players for two full windows. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 No I'm quibbling over you wrongly saying that Rangers had a transfer ban. Rangers were banned from registering players for two full windows. A worrrld record amount of 'trialists' successfully circumvented one of them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Bit obscure perhaps ... You posted 'club' rather than 'company'. Soz, do carry on. Still puzzled. As you know, the terms 'club' and 'company' have long been considered synonymous in a football context. They most certainly were when Rangers were operating EBTs. Were you doing that thing of pretending to be an idiot Rangers fan? That is obscure. You've spent too long arguing with idiot Hibs fans. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 No I'm quibbling over you wrongly saying that Rangers had a transfer ban. Rangers were banned from registering players for two full windows. Ok. As I said, language should be used with precision when possible. Obviously though, you used this to deflect from my point and made yourself look stupid by describing my post as a rant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 You spend a large amount of time defending the robustness of this decision. A decision sevco have entirely ignored. Whether I agree or not with the decision is wholly immaterial. I'm simply pointing out that the CoS decision doesn't affect the conclusions reached by LNS and the diddies are banging on about it in vain. That they struggle to accept this is puzzling. Is that not in itself, sort of extraordinary though? I can see the commission being asked to make decision irrespective of the FTTT question altogether. To recognise however that a result is in place, but is open to a review which must be ignored, seems wildly unjust. It is, though, practical. They had 3 options: Make a decision and stick to it - which is the one they chose Make a decision and revise it if the UTT ruled against the FTT - which would have yielded the same result Make a decision and revise it once the whole appeals process had been concluded - which means we'd still not know the outcome. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Whether I agree or not with the decision is wholly immaterial. I'm simply pointing out that the CoS decision doesn't affect the conclusions reached by LNS and the diddies are banging on about it in vain. That they struggle to accept this is puzzling. It is, though, practical. They had 3 options: Make a decision and stick to it - which is the one they chose Make a decision and revise it if the UTT ruled against the FTT - which would have yielded the same result Make a decision and revise it once the whole appeals process had been concluded - which means we'd still not know the outcome. Are you proud of these debatable titles? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Whether I agree or not with the decision is wholly immaterial. I'm simply pointing out that the CoS decision doesn't affect the conclusions reached by LNS and the diddies are banging on about it in vain. That they struggle to accept this is puzzling. It is, though, practical. They had 3 options: Make a decision and stick to it - which is the one they chose Make a decision and revise it if the UTT ruled against the FTT - which would have yielded the same result Make a decision and revise it once the whole appeals process had been concluded - which means we'd still not know the outcome. What would be wrong with option 3? What would be wrong with not making a decision at all until the appeals process had run its course? Wouldn't both be fairer than deciding on a state of play at a fixed moment, even though that state could change? Are you saying that the FTTT decision really did have a big bearing on the LNS decision? If you are, that answers your earlier question about what's new. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 What is 'new' about something the commission knew was in process? What is new about the commission being asked by the SPL to give a judgment irrespective of the outcome of that process? I think you fail to grasp the meaning of 'new' - not that I'm surprised. I think you fail to grasp that LNS's wee panel wasn't a court of law, and nothing you, Vicky, Tedi, or any semi-sentient fuckwit say will alter that. Keep using your "precedents" to show us poor fools how this one-off, singular process should be conducted, though. How come you're out and about in daylight, anyway? -1 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.