kildog Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Is this a reasonable distillation of diddy thinking (no laughing, I know it's an oxymoron) on the subject? If it is then no-wonder you're in a total mess over it. Possibly the single most laughable comment of the entire debacle is you saying, "The SFA and SPFL are completely free to revisit that ruling and also to question the legality of the set up and remit of the investigation." Sadly, I suspect a fair few other diddies and most of the rhabid morons think you're on to something. Since it still hasn't penetrated your obdurate napper I'll restate the options: Have a new commission that covers the same ground as LNS and hope it comes to different conclusions. Make up rules and apply them retrospectively STFU, grow up and move on. The SPFL are being cruel to the demented brigade here. Their silence is giving them hope and it really is time they tried to at least pretend to be professional and draw this farrago to a close. Cheats! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Is this a reasonable distillation of diddy thinking (no laughing, I know it's an oxymoron) on the subject? If it is then no-wonder you're in a total mess over it. Possibly the single most laughable comment of the entire debacle is you saying, "The SFA and SPFL are completely free to revisit that ruling and also to question the legality of the set up and remit of the investigation." Sadly, I suspect a fair few other diddies and most of the rhabid morons think you're on to something. Since it still hasn't penetrated your obdurate napper I'll restate the options: Have a new commission that covers the same ground as LNS and hope it comes to different conclusions. Make up rules and apply them retrospectively STFU, grow up and move on. The SPFL are being cruel to the demented brigade here. Their silence is giving them hope and it really is time they tried to at least pretend to be professional and draw this farrago to a close. Tainted titles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 (edited) William Austin Nimmo Smith Level 5 are fully engaged to undermine the desire to strip titles. The last thing the football authorities want is a Judicial Review of the privately commissioned report. Despite what Stephen Kerr and one of the malleable Record hacks would have us believe, there are two mechanisms. A judicial review, as is the case with Mike Ashley’s petition to the Court of Session, contravenes the SFA’s articles of association, which deem that the highest court that clubs can appeal to is The Court of Arbitration for Sports. As we have seen with the approval of King, it’s possible to transgress one article on 41 occasions and still be deemed fit and proper at an SFA kangaroo court. Paul Murray was approved by the eleven member Professional Gaming Board. Regan,Ogilvie,McRae & Doncaster set up a meeting of eight members with only seven votes, knowing in advance that they would prevail. King’s approval was a shoddy back room deal. It’s also, incredibly, possible to be serving a suspended sentence for contempt of court, something The Record is studiously avoiding. A cynic might suggest that they don’t want you to know the facts. They have a history of misinformation. As Ashley’s counsel will point out, how can the SFA justify approving an individual who is under licence for three years on a three months prison sentence. King was convicted of contempt on 22 February 2013. King’s supporters point to the Court of Session ruling as proof that a court has deemed King ‘fit & proper.’ This is typical of how misinformed they are. As a former director of RFC plc, King had to apply for permission to be a director of a similarly named club. There is a five years moratorium on directors of a failed enterprise. This is to preclude a company going out of business one day leaving debts behind with the receivers, then setting up the following day. It was a Companies Act technicality. As we saw with LSE AIM, no NOMAD would represent a man with forty-one criminal convictions who is currently under licence. Ashley’s counsel will hammer this point home at The Court of Session on 4th February. Those who wish to add gravitas to the report by Mr Smith refer to him as Lord. However this is a misnomer.Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, commonly known as Law Lords, were appointed under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 to the House of Lords of the United Kingdom in order to exercise its judicial functions, which included acting as the highest court of appeal for most domestic matters. To be appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary under the 1876 Act, an individual was required to have been a practising barrister for a period of fifteen years or to have held a high judicial office. Two years experience as a judge in the Court of Appeal, High Court or Court of Session is sufficient to attain the title of Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. Mr Smith retired from the bench on 30th September 2009. The title Lord.ismerely a courtesy, and since he is not active, he is not a Lord of Appeal. Mr Smith’s report was so flawed that I can understand why successive Rangers administrations have refused to pay the £250,000 fine and costs. Campbell Ogilvie, who was compromised, went out of his way to mitigate his guilt in administrating EBT at Rangers. He refused to cooperate fully with Harper McLeod who were assigned to collate the pertinent information. Sandy Bryson came up with the‘imperfectly registered caveat’ which is a legal travesty. Any junior counsel would raze this nonsense to the ground. The following statement is the central plank of Mr Smith’s report: “Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed.” They were in breach of SPL and SFA rules as they were in breach of the laws of the land. As social taxes were not paid they were also in breach of UEFA rules. This report is fundamentally flawed. A judicial review would set it aside in a matter of months. As a shareholder in Rangers, Mike Ashley could challenge it. As someone who is hell-bent on exposing malfeasance at the SFA, this is one of the options he may choose to explore. Edited November 14, 2015 by johnnyc13 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 arrogant deluded hypocritical pseud. How you doing this evening? Dandy, thanks. How about you? Those debatable 'titles'. ... Rate your pride on a scale of zero to 1872 million.. There are no 'debatable titles', silly! ETA of course any club that feels that the issue has been inadequately resolved could also take to issue to the SFA/SPFL and /or court of arbitration in sport. I suspect this will happen if the case is not appealed or if the verdict is guilty So CAS is the new LNS, eh? What's the thinking (I use the term loosely) here? Will a club take Rangers to CAS? Will a club take The SPFL to CAS? How do you envisage this happening in practice? William Austin Nimmo Smith Level 5 are fully engaged to undermine the desire to strip titles. .............. ........As a shareholder in Rangers, Mike Ashley could challenge it. As someone who is hell-bent on exposing malfeasance at the SFA, this is one of the options he may choose to explore. Monkey, you asked about tantrums. See the above. It reads like a therapy exercise wherein the counselor has said something like, "Now, LifeBhoy67, you'll never get back to proper mental health unless you confront your demons. Write down the little you understand about Rangers, EBTs and legal processes on this nice piece of paper. When you've done that we'll do a wish list for Santa and send them both up the chimney together" Who wrote this, ignorant, confused, stream of conscience dross, Dougal? I'd like to go and laugh at them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 The_Arsehole 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 The Times (English edition) Oliver Kay, chief football correspondent on the list "After the court cases, the points deduction, the liquidation (of Rangers Football Club plc) and the demotion to the fourth tier of Scottish football, there are calls for the club to be stripped of the trophies they won while illegally using an employee benefit trust fund to pay players between 2001 and 2010. Cheating scum..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Dandy, thanks. How about you? There are no 'debatable titles', silly! So CAS is the new LNS, eh? What's the thinking (I use the term loosely) here? Will a club take Rangers to CAS? Will a club take The SPFL to CAS? How do you envisage this happening in practice? Monkey, you asked about tantrums. See the above. It reads like a therapy exercise wherein the counselor has said something like, "Now, LifeBhoy67, you'll never get back to proper mental health unless you confront your demons. Write down the little you understand about Rangers, EBTs and legal processes on this nice piece of paper. When you've done that we'll do a wish list for Santa and send them both up the chimney together" Who wrote this, ignorant, confused, stream of conscience dross, Dougal? I'd like to go and laugh at them. Ya probs find him down Ibrokes way, he is a sevco fan ya arsehole 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 The Times (English edition) Oliver Kay, chief football correspondent on the list "After the court cases, the points deduction, the liquidation (of Rangers Football Club plc) and the demotion to the fourth tier of Scottish football, there are calls for the club to be stripped of the trophies they won while illegally using an employee benefit trust fund to pay players between 2001 and 2010. Cheating scum..... Misinformed English journo. "Demotion" indeed! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Ya probs find him down Ibrokes way, he is a sevco fan ya arsehole It's ok I just had a quick google and found the warmer: https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2015/11/14/william-austin-nimmo-smith/ Rangers fan, eh? Shame the word 'gullible' has been removed from the dictionary otherwise I could have used it to describe you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 It's ok I just had a quick google and found the warmer: https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2015/11/14/william-austin-nimmo-smith/ Rangers fan, eh? Shame the word 'gullible' has been removed from the dictionary otherwise I could have used it to describe you. A sevco fan calling someone 'gullible' .... Buy many shares? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 It's ok I just had a quick google and found the warmer: https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2015/11/14/william-austin-nimmo-smith/ Rangers fan, eh? Shame the word 'gullible' has been removed from the dictionary otherwise I could have used it to describe you. Was it removed due to raging "Rangers" fans getting pissed off that they were being labelled as such after Murray, Whyte and Greens successively ripping the c**t out of them? Is it now considered to be sectarian due to the amount it is used to describe ****? How many letter bombs to Oxford did the campaign to have it removed take? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythstoliveby Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Dandy, thanks. How about you? Yeah, I'm fine thanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 My point was quite simply that if the football authorities take the titles away then the Rangers supporters will entirely agree that this is their perogative. Good to know that a Rangers fan disagrees with this. Whilst at the same time they insist that they are the same club because the football authorities say so. Bennett you are a hypocrite. It is blatently obvious from you recent posts that you are are on the back foot trying to defend the indefensible. Your team cheated and got caught. Take the consequences just as you were willing to take the success. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Good to know that a Rangers fan disagrees with this. Whilst at the same time they insist that they are the same club because the football authorities say so. Bennett you are a hypocrite. It is blatently obvious from you recent posts that you are are on the back foot trying to defend the indefensible. Your team cheated and got caught. Take the consequences just as you were willing to take the success. Patently not blatantly. Sorry, I know I am as irritating pulling someone on this as much as the misuse of the phrase irritates me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Good to know that a Rangers fan disagrees with this. Whilst at the same time they insist that they are the same club because the football authorities say so. Strychnine not only wankerishly quoting his own post but also endorsing Dougal. How's the new jacket, Strich? Are you happy with the way the arms tie up at the back? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Patently not blatantly. Sorry, I know I am as irritating pulling someone on this as much as the misuse of the phrase irritates me. ^^Khinky 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythstoliveby Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Patently not blatantly. Sorry, I know I am as irritating pulling someone on this as much as the misuse of the phrase irritates me. The Kinky will no doubt be very proud of your pedantry But I also know what you're saying - that rangers lot are forever picking up on the nuances of the words used to allow them to push their agendas. Sad but common. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythstoliveby Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 ....and as if by magic! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 (edited) "Wankerishly" Is that in the dictionary ya utter moron? The_Arsehole is a wee bit rattled by that article me thinks... Edited November 14, 2015 by johnnyc13 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 (edited) that rangers lot are forever picking up on the nuances of the words used to allow them to push their agendas. Sad but common. As if by magic......... "Wankerishly" Is that in the dictionary ya utter moron? Edited November 14, 2015 by The_Kincardine 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.