WhiteRoseKillie Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 they can't be punished for going to court. regan has admitted this already. regan is a clown i wouldn't read too much into the 'pragmatic' comment. this is a guy who came out with the quote ' we won't accept anything which can be offensive to anyone' which for any remedials out there means absolutely everything. how they can give them a punishment that has already been rejected as too severe by two lords for the charges they are guilty of? It was rejected when the SFA believed they could use discretion.The suicidal race to the CoS has removed that possibility, so the choice is either "gaunnae no' dae that" or "Get yersels' tae f**k". With FIFA now taking an interest, which way do YOU think they'll jump? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iceblink Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Doncaster on Newsnight Scotland Something of the night about him Is there anywhere that streams newsnight scotland live - these Ghandi comments sound incredible 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 whats the difference between craig whyte & ghandi 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillieJimbo Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Is there anywhere that streams newsnight scotland live - these Ghandi comments sound incredible This has been on the bbc for a while now - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18287971 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart. Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 This guy is a peen, the interviewer is doing a good job here, get him on sportsound 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) The second lord didn't make any kind of judgement on the severity of the punishment. The first, and indeed the first panel thought that it was too severe due to their belief that any other punishment they see fit was more suitable. They have now been told to find the most fitting punishment between one that wasn't enough, and one that was too much. With FIFA breathing down their necks, and a few £1000's lighter on court fees, which way do you think they'll swing next time? "The sanctions available included expulsion from participation in the game and termination or suspension of membership of the Scottish FA, which would have had a similar effect. "The appellate tribunal observes that serious consideration was given by the disciplinary tribunal to imposing one of these sanctions, which would have had obvious consequences for the survival of the club. "The disciplinary tribunal rejected these as too severe and this appellate tribunal agrees with that conclusion. the appelate tribunal agrees meaning carloway agrees with nimmo and the 3 who should not be named. and it doesn't say that those punishments were rejected because others were available. it says they were considered disproportionate. Edited May 31, 2012 by T_S_A_R 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fueradejuego Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) Who would win a fight between Ghandi and Craig Whyte? That's the real issue here. Edited May 31, 2012 by fueradejuego 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismcarab Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 My enjoyment of the thread has improved remarkably since placing the oxygen thief (aka No8.) on ignore. For anyone else wanting the instant cure from a waste of bandwidth, click the 'signed in as....' bit at the top of the page, select 'manage ignored users' and type 'no8.' in the box (including the full stop, the illiterate fool...) then save. After - one less moron spoiling the thread. Someone with such a negative rating should automatically be defaulted to 'ignore' anyway. Thanks for the advice, I really didn't want to have to create a bottom three posts of the thread debate, tonight was going so well.......... bullet dodged, phew! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Is there anywhere that streams newsnight scotland live - these Ghandi comments sound incredible The interview is on BBC Scotland Sports newspage as a vid is it not? I watched it earlier so didn't watch Newsnight Scotland as it's a trainwreck with a bumbling presenter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Click Click Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Did Doncaster just imply that David Murray and Ghandi spit roasted Joanna lumley? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highland Dogma Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Apologies in advance if anyone has already pointed this out, but.... If Rangers aren't in the SPL next season, it won't be due to relegation. Dunfermline have been relegated. They competed in the competition, but weren't quite good enough to stay up. Someone has to finish last. This is an alien concept to Rangers. Rangers don't believe in the meritocracy of a league competition. This is the absolutely fundamental issue here. Rangers have seen themselves as apart from the normal scheme of things. They clearly didn't want to compete - take their chances with everyone else, and accept the final analysis. Rangers' approach has been to manufacture their status, and it isn't simply cheating, it is about a refusal to accept that competing is about winners and losers, not just winners and all the other pieces of shite that they leave in their wake. This is the very antithesis of what I believe football (and sport in general) to be all about. Rangers supporters talk about justice and unduly harsh sanctions, blah, blah, blah.... This means nothing when you don't play the game. You can't expect justice when you haven't bought into the terms and conditions. If you choose to opt out, you're beyond the scope of that justice. They are fortunate that sanctions are even being considered, because this assumes that they still have any part to play. When this whole debacle kicked off, I had a wee chuckle to myself, but wasn't unduly concerned as to how it might pan out. As time has passed, and revelation after revelation has been thrown into the mix, I've grown mightily sick of the fact that they have caused me to question my interest in, and commitment to Scottish footballl, and, indeed, my own club. Nah. Rangers have been playing with a loaded dice for years. If they drop down, they won't have been relegated. They will have been correctly thrown off the table. If you don't play by the rules, don't expect anyone else to invite you back at any level. Tainted indeed. well deserved greenie for u sir...you have eloquently put togeother what i have felt for thousands of pages thus far but failed to express as well...the mcbeth quote bout following sport money will follow etc follows on perfectly to your work well done sir 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Is there anywhere that streams newsnight scotland live - these Ghandi comments sound incredible bbc website: bbc/scotlandnews Extended version there 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 It was rejected when the SFA believed they could use discretion.The suicidal race to the CoS has removed that possibility, so the choice is either "gaunnae no' dae that" or "Get yersels' tae f**k". With FIFA now taking an interest, which way do YOU think they'll jump? i think it will be a scottish cup ban. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Saints Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 'We can only follow the rules as they are.' However, they will simply change them to something else if they are not to Rangers' benefit.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 "we" have a cva proposal in place New Rangers Rumours site 'rumour' that I should try to get past their editors is that cockwomble is the Scottish investor connection in Green's Mysteron Consortium 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) @StewartRegan the Appeal body will have to select a sanction from the identified list without being able to be pragmatic. Wonder if he worn a black cloth on his head and just stopped himself from typing "The due process of the law must be followed through". Doncaster on Newsnight Scotland Something of the night about him Something of the chimpanzee more like it. Edited May 31, 2012 by WaffenThinMint 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy H Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Green is about to walk away. Mark my words. Quite an interesting rumour going round the Rangers supporters on his ability to pay... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambos Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 First of the Gang to Die? Haha there's tons of them. the queen is dead heaven knows im miserable now... sectarianism begins at home... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 i think it will be a scottish cup ban. Me too - I hope to be proven wrong, but hung by their own petard of a report that said IN WRITING that suspension/ejection couldn't really be justified. The C of S decision is a real mystery to me when the SFA rules say you can come-up with a punishment proportionate to the crime instead of being tied - why dismiss that great idea?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 the appelate tribunal agrees meaning carloway agrees with nimmo and the 3 who should not be named. and it doesn't say that those punishments were rejected because others were available. it says they were considered disproportionate. Because they thought they had other options. A fine alone was disproportionate. They are allowed to say OK we,ve been forced to change our minds and have to round up to the nearest punishment, rather than round down to the nearest £100k. You can't go back to court saying "They cannae change their minds" That's what you went to court in the first place for. 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.