mjw Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 The dead sheep will be more savage than the dead club though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 Just now, mjw said: The dead sheep will be more savage than the dead club though. Aye, zombie sheep have teeth, zombie clubs just get sheep-shagged of off anyone willing to fleece it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sugna Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 17 minutes ago, hellbhoy said: Glorious stuff Kinky, you're on a roll now "savaged by a dead sheep" ffs?. It's OK, T_K - some of us got the allusion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 Just now, sugna said: It's OK, T_K - some of us got the allusion. As did I, but it did make me giggle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 9 minutes ago, hellbhoy said: Aye, zombie sheep have teeth, zombie clubs just get sheep-shagged of off anyone willing to fleece it. I'm sure that sounded really witty in your head before you posted it. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 26 minutes ago, bennett said: I'm sure that sounded really witty in your head before you posted it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kildog Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Ooft, it's not even the weekend yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 15 hours ago, coprolite said: I thought that LNS had found that the players were incorrectly registered in the first place, no? they got off because of "no sporting advantage". I can't see why the decision would change because of the tax treatment which is only a bit relevant. The decision was obviously a farce but no one should get their hopes up. No sporting advantage was because other clubs could do the same. As it shows that is not the case other clubs would have been in breach of law. The ruling now states that Rangers simply did not pay tax when it was due. That undoubtedly gave them an advantage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpikey Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 13 hours ago, williemillersmoustache said: "preferentially placed" Also, "imperfectly registered". Apparently, SFA stands for Strategically Fielded Adverbs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 And again you deluded munter. The loans aren't loans any more are they? Which now means they were payments and the double jeopardy rule must be re-looked at in light of the Supreme Courts judgement overturning the SPL's commission outcome that seen the EBT scheme was being used for tax free loans. the loans are loans.facts are as found by the FTT. no sham. all transactions real and effective.this stuff's all before p4 on the judgement 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Is the The Kincardine who is repeatedly insisting that LNS found Rangers guilty the same The Kincardine who responded to the LNS verdict by repeatedly insisting LNS had only found Rangers guilty of "administrative errors"? I'll say this for the "moon howlers": you get the same exaggeration and over-excitement you do on most online forums, but their position has been fairly consistent since the Rangers cheating story broke. The Newco fans though, they've been all over the place for years, desperate flailing. The only consistent position they've held is their utter refusal to look reality in the eye. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 7 hours ago, Bairnardo said: What is dead may never die The full quote is Quote That is not dead which can eternal lie (through its teeth). And with strange SFA decisions even death may die. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 18 hours ago, BobWilliamson said: The burden of proof lies with the prosecution I'm afraid Gosh, I'd anticipated at least an attempt. You're effectively admitting then that there are no actual arguments in favour of Rangers retaining the titles - it's just that you'd like them to. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 16 hours ago, BobWilliamson said: Ludicrous? You are agreeing with me ya crackpot. The SPL fans did not influence their own clubs in any way. The SPL clubs voted for Rangers to be put into the second tier and then tried to strongarm the SFL into meekly accepting this. So pushing through a CVA at 0p in the pound is acceptable? You don't think punishments should be far more severe? How many times are Dundee , for example, going to be allowed to merely write off the debt and carry on with fairly mild punishments. There has to be a real deterrent. You're losing it a little here, Friend. SPL clubs voted not to have the Newco admitted to the top tier. That was absolutely and unequivocally in response to lobbying by fans of these clubs who threatened to withhold money. You are not at any stage going to get me defending how people like Gilmour at St Mirren behaved over the following days. They cynically tried to bully SFL clubs into ensuring the exile lasted just one year, but joyfully failed. I fully accept that the SPL vote quite possibly went in the way it did, in anticipation of the SFL one turning out differently. I know what the SPL was all about and I need no reminding of the self interest and greed behind its inception and subsequent operation. As for 0p in the pound CVAs being acceptable, of course they're not. I've said before that in a moral sense regarding meeting obligations, there's not a vast difference between the behaviour of Dundee, Livingston etc and Rangers. The things that have happened to Rangers however, have come about due to liquidation - an altogether different process. To deny that that makes a difference here, is simply stupid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 11 hours ago, The_Kincardine said: The SPL investigated us thoroughly, found us guilty and punished us. Do you thik the SPFL will find us guiltier? You keep saying this as if it must be the end of the matter. Perhaps it actually must, but how unsatisfactory is that? Yes, they were found guilty, but the sentence given did not remotely reflect the scale and nature of the offence. That should, morally at least, be revisited. I honestly don't know if it can be or not, but the question certainly deserves to be raised. I'm not even fishing here, but I'm genuinely baffled that you'd apparently want to keep such titles. I know what the stereotypical Rangers fan is like and why he'd want to cling on regardless. I know also that you and plenty others don't conform to said stereotype though, so I don't get why some innate sense of fair play and some innate sense of pride doesn't kick in here. Tell me honestly: Why do you want Rangers to retain the titles in question, especially given that the club has won dozens of others entirely legitimately? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 11 hours ago, The_Kincardine said: Anyway, the BTC outcome changes nothing. That we may lose the case was factored in to the LNS enquiry so there is no new news. It was only 'factored in' in the sense that it was explicitly dismissed. How can that be just? As I've said, I think you're essentially right in saying the BTC changes nothing with regard to this as this is really about player registration. For you to use that line now though, strips you of any credibility you may once have possessed. When the initial ruling went in Rangers' favour, you claimed that the LNS commission should be stood down in the wake of it. I've argued that this ruling was not materially that significant throughout. You've only felt that way when it was leaning in particular directions. Can you not see how foolish this looks? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) On 2017-7-6 at 21:28, The_Kincardine said: There is no longer a league operated by the SFL It was bullied in to submission by the then SPL for one reason only - Rangers' media rights - so to ask the SPFL to investigate us is brazenly ignorant (not that I'm suggesting you're saying this). The SPFL is the product of greed on the part of the then SPL members who knew their own league would have been bankrupt in our absence (not the same as individual clubs' bankruptcy for the slow of thinking). As the excellent Jim Ballantyne said: So if there is any blood-letting over the BTC (and there is no reason for it) I'd like a 360 view which takes cognisance of the fact that the (then) SPL clubs exploited our demise to save their own league and enrich themselves at the same time. I accept that what happened to the SFL was essentially a takeover and I'd have preferred if the balance of the merger had been in the opposite direction. I absolutely welcome the fact that we now have one governing body for our national league structure though and the improved (though still imperfect) financial redistribution, relaxed stadium criteria and creation of play-offs that has resultantly accompanied it. I don't for one moment accept however that you have the slightest genuine regret over the demise of the SFL. The real damage was done to that organisation in 1998 and that is not something that has apparently troubled you. Once more, you're attempting to deflect from the matter at hand and your tactics are transparent. Edited July 8, 2017 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) I'm surprised that the people who supported Rangers before they went bust aren't more annoyed with the wealthy people who put in place an elaborate tax avoidance scheme and through their greed ultimately sunk their club. Instead they seem to be fuming with clubs who transparently paid their players what they said they were going to and paid the taxman accordingly. They may not want to see title stripping but if I'd sunk thousands of pounds into an institution and some guy drove it into the ground while pocketing millions I'd want to see some knighthood stripping. Edited July 7, 2017 by The OP 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarf Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 53 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: You keep saying this as if it must be the end of the matter. Perhaps it actually must, but how unsatisfactory is that? Yes, they were found guilty, but the sentence given did not remotely reflect the scale and nature of the offence. That should, morally at least, be revisited. I honestly don't know if it can be or not, but the question certainly deserves to be raised. I'm not even fishing here, but I'm genuinely baffled that you'd apparently want to keep such titles. I know what the stereotypical Rangers fan is like and why he'd want to cling on regardless. I know also that you and plenty others don't conform to said stereotype though, so I don't get why some innate sense of fair play and some innate sense of pride doesn't kick in here. Tell me honestly: Why do you want Rangers to retain the titles in question, especially given that the club has won dozens of others entirely legitimately? In short, it's because Celtic would be only 1, possibly 2 titles behind them. That's all that matters to them, staying ahead of Celtic in titles won. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWilliamson Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 2 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said: Gosh, I'd anticipated at least an attempt. You're effectively admitting then that there are no actual arguments in favour of Rangers retaining the titles - it's just that you'd like them to. What part of no sporting advantage are you struggling with? -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.