Thistle_do_nicely Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I could have cried when i read he was on the list...I have avoided reading the names as i knew this would happen...saved myself further heartache by not reading any after the dud striker and Danny The Fanny. IIRC he was one of McLeishs signings. No more names...I have suffered enough!!! Should add that I vaguely remember Federico Nieto, but only because he became quite good on one of the old Pro Evolution Soccer games. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Are Rangers dead yet? I need cheered up after we signed Tokely. they are the undead. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismcarab Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 That might carry some weight if it wasn't days old and Charles Green has totally rubbished that story. Anyway any chance you can answer the question from last night? How does Regan KNOW what sanctions , if any, the independent panel will hand out? Oh, I'll have a stab at this one then. You're implying that any panel the SFA use won't be impartial in your favour which in itself negates your points. I'm sure if it were Jimmy Nicholl, Donald Findlay and Campbell Ogilvie there would not have been one peep of protest from Ibrox, but everyone else would be up in arms, just how you like it, all or nothing eh? Try remembering this little lot but please take off those special reading glasses you normally wear, it might help you see things in black and white for a change, wouldn't that be nice? The guilty verdict on 5 out of 6 counts of breaching SFA rules still stands The JP and the AT both agreed that a fine was insufficient punishment for such offences and applied a transfer embargo Rangers won an appeal against the improper use of a transfer embargo at the CoS The CoS sent the matter back to the AT noting that the AT still have the power to impose a further sanction from the available listed options The AT, having already agreed that a fine is insufficient, now have to select - should they see fit - a sanction from the following list A Scottish Cup Ban Suspension of Membership Expulsion You clearly think the world is weighed against you in a unjustified vandetta. How you can see it that way is beyond me but there we have it. There are, frankly, too many reasons for Rangers to be disliked, most of them already noted on this thread, but let's try and keep emotion out of it, it tends to cloud judgement. I'll assume that's the view you have too, but from the other side of the looking glass. The findings of the JP and AT were never in question and Lord Glennie made reference to that. Rangers have put the SFA in an untenable position from many sides. If they impose no further sanction, they are weak in they eyes of every football fan in the world, except Rangers fans, and the system is shown to be corrupt, which in itself will bring the game down with or without Rangers. I'll try to let you see if from a different perspective, one more befitting of your understanding........you might want to top up that coffee, this takes a while...... Back to School with Rangers Rangers are the school bully. For years they've been lording it up and taking sweeties off everyone else. The diddies are the rest of the playground. Too scared and small to stand up to the bully. For years everyone in the playground has hated the bully. No one likes him, but he doesn't care with that big bag of chips on his shoulder. He just carries on taking what he wants and doing what he likes because he's bigger than the rest of the diddies and he has a big family. I mean really big. In every way. One day, the actions of the bully came to the attention of a staff member (the SFA). The staff member was most annoyed with the bully. It turns out this has been going on for years. More and more stories from the playground start to come out and one by one the diddies begin to let the staff member know how they feel about the bully and his conduct over the years. Unsure of how to deal with this situation, the staff member goes to the school counsellor (the JP) who is hearing all of this for the first time. The counsellor, who works in the school as a volunteer, goes to look up the school rules to see what punishment can be handed out. The rules say that the pupil can be given 100 page essay, not allowed to play in the Schools Football Cup, suspended from school or expelled. There is also the power to impose any sanction the counsellor deems fitting although this doesn't give any further indications of what that might be. The counsellor reports back to the staff member, who coincidentally looks after the school football team. The counsellor thinks that a 100 page essay is far too lenient. Restricting the bully from playing football will damage the teams chances of winning the schools cup and raising funds and suspension or expelling the bully wouldn't be good for the schools reputation. It was also noted that suspension or expelling the bully would likely cause the bully himself unknown damage, even in the short term, given the current situation at home. In this instance, the counsellor decides to invoke the power to determine a suitable punishment because of the special case this presents. So the bully is given a 100 page essay and detention after school while everyone else gets to go home. This serves to restrict the bully from causing the same problems and hopefully learn from the experience, while still allowing him to play football to keep his spirits up and not bringing the schools reputation into question. Most of the diddies seem pleased with this outcome and everyone is prepared to move on. The next morning, bully shows up at school with his dad. The dad is demanding to meet the counsellor and wants to know which staff room he is in. The counsellor is quite shaken having not expected this reaction given that the misconduct of the bully was so bad, it could have seen him expelled. The bully asks his dad not to keep embarrassing him and to please go home. Via the bakery. Later that day, the bully and the counsellor agree that the matter should be taken to another more senior member of staff, the Head Teacher (AT) who is better qualified than the counsellor to rule on the original findings and that they will both await his decision. Having heard all the facts from both parties, it doesn't take the Head Teacher long to realise that, in the circumstances, the counsellor was attempting to keep the staff member happy by still allowing the bully to play football, not getting the bully into even more potential trouble at home through suspension or being expelled and ensuring no lasting damage to the schools reputation. The Head Teacher concludes that the volunteer counsellor was being fair with the punishment and asks that the bully accept this second opinion so that they might all prepare for the new school year which is due to start in 8 weeks time. The school bully is furious now. The entire family, including uncle Sandy, have waddled to the steps of the school in protest and the whole matter gets a little out of hand for a few days. A few days later, after a whip round from the family to raise the necessary funds because Grandad (Green) came up a bit short on his promises, the bully proceeds to take his case to the Council (Lord Glennie). The Council is not impressed with the school volunteer counsellor or the Head Teacher for imposing a punishment on the bully that was not specifically mentioned in the school rules. The Council noted that the bully does not deny any of the guilty verdicts but nonetheless that was not why the bully was complaining. The bully had insisted on being given a punishment from within the rulebook. The Head Teacher, the counsellor and the staff member all concede to the Council's decision that the matter be returned back to the Head Teacher with the bully receiving no detention as it is not stated in the school rules as an available punishment and that the matter of any further punishment is for the Head Teacher to deal with. Much whooping and eating of cakes ensues as the bully and his family celebrate their big win. Meanwhile, all of this negative publicity has attracted the attention of the Department of Education (FIFA) who have been in contact with the school to insist the matter is dealt with quickly and effectively. Now that the matter has returned to within the confines of the school, to deal with it logically would be to apply one of the remaining sanctions listed, therefore the bully's punishment is warranted as having been properly selected from the options available - exactly the bully wanted. If this is dealt with in the appropriate manner, then the Department for Education will leave the matter to the Head Teacher. If it isn't then the Head Teacher, counsellor and staff member can expect a visit from HMiE about putting their school in order. The Head Teacher has been forced into the position of being compelled by their own findings to apply a further level of sanction above the most lenient option of the 100 page essay, now that the Council at the request of the bully have ruled out detention, or risk the diddies complaining, the staff feeling unsupported and the counsellors being hung out to dry. Everyone knows the rules of the game now thanks to the bully being, well, bullish. The argument has come full circle and it's back to what to do about the bully's behaviour. For which the bully has never once said sorry. I was wrong. So the moral of the story? If you are a bully and get caught, take your punishment and learn from your mistakes. Bringing your family to school to back you up shows how weak you really are. The willingness to flaunt the rules for years and then hide behind them when its suits serves to justify that even further as the actions of a coward. But some bully's never learn. This bully might even go back to the Council and tell them they were wrong too, that it should be the counsellor not the head teacher that has to decide their fate. And isn't that where it all started, applying fair and reasonable sanctions in light of the bully's own personal circumstances, looking at it as a special case? More circles. Like clocks, all ticking and no talking. Or maybe ever decreasing circles, like the ones you get circling a drain........ And breathe So, back to your question using simple logic No.8: How does Regan know what sanctions? Easy. Regan, me, you and everybody knows what the sanctions are. What, if any will be imposed? No, no sir. That should be what in particular will they choose to apply? That's the £13million pound question..... in the words of Jim Bowen, " and Bully's special prize......awww, look at what you could have won...." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forest_Fifer Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Green states that Ibrox and Murray park will not be mortgaged or sold My link Well, other than having been bought with £8.3 million of debt that is 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Green states that Ibrox and Murray park will not be mortgaged or sold My link Well, other than having been bought with £8.3 million of debt that is This guy is a belter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishes Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) He scored against Dundee, a raking shot, I'm almost certain it was him. Left back, yes? He scored the daftest o.g I've ever seen against the Pars. 1:50 onwards. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=hscynoUprzc Edited June 7, 2012 by Fishes 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyrshireTon Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I suppose it's easier to tell the press than to print a wee disclaimer on the season tickets about the fan's suggested name fir MP being pointless if it they sell the place off first. Might hamper sales. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) Green states that Ibrox and Murray park will not be mortgaged or sold My link Well, other than having been bought with £8.3 million of debt that is On the grounds that one of the first things he stated was Rangers would never be in debt again, and when the CVA came out the first thing he had done was organise putting them in £8.3M of debt I would expect his shiny face and suit to be appearing at a branch of GSPC very shortly. If he told me it was Thursday I would check the day on the front of the Record or Sun as far more trustworthy sources of imformation. Edited June 7, 2012 by MEADOWXI 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) Anyway any chance you can answer the question from last night? How does Regan KNOW what sanctions , if any, the independent panel will hand out? Let me take a stab at this one, Lord Glennie's report will be sent to the appellate tribunal for consideration. He states in his report that the SFA's QC's argument that the sanctions available to the panel were either too light or too harsh was not correct because of the following statement made by the appellate panel after upholding the embargo. "Although the Appellate Tribunal agreed with the Disciplinary Tribunal that termination, suspension of membership would have been excessive, it made that assessment in the context of the availability of competent lesser sanctions such as the one actually imposed. Were that option not to have been available, suspension might have had to be considered appropriate for such serious misconduct, which has brought the game into disrepute." He therefore believes that in the absence of the sanction of player registration embargo the appellate could go back to their original thought that suspension would have had to be considered as an option. So Regan knows that the only two options, in absence of an embargo are suspension (which the appellate said would have to be considered due to the seriousness of the misconduct) or expulsion. ETA T_S_A_R ye dickwad! I quoted this before wrongly as Lord Glennie's words and you ripped me a new one for getting it wrong, you too my little fvckwit had it wrong, Lord Glennie used a quote from the appellate tribunal to show that the QC's argument that sanctions befitting the misconduct were unavailable was incorrect. I shall repeat myself so you and No8 can "get it" the sanction of suspension can be considered now because the context of the lesser sanction (embargo) is not available. :D :D GIRUY Edited June 7, 2012 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 89a%12%00%12%00%B3%00%00% FF%FF%FF%F7%F7%EF%CC%CC%CC%BD%BE%BD%99%99% 99ZYZRUR%00%00%00%FE%01%02%00%00%00%00%00% 00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00% 00%00%21%F9%04%04%14%00%FF%00%2C%00%00%00% 00%12%00%12%00%00%04X0%C8I%2B%1D8%EB%3D%E4% 00%60%28%8A%85%17%0AG*%8C%40%19%7C%00J%08% C4%B1%92%26z%C76%FE%02%07%C2%89v%F0%7Dz%C3b% C8u%14%82V5%23o%A7%13%19L%BCY-%25%7D%A6l%DF% D0%F5%C7%02%85%5B%D82%90%CBT%87%D8i7%88Y%A8% DB%EFx%8B%DE%12%01%00%3B data:image/gif,GIF89a%12%00%12%00%B3%00%00% FF%FF%FF%F7%F7%EF%CC%CC%CC%BD%BE%BD%99%99% 99ZYZRUR%00%00%00%FE%01%02%00%00%00%00%00% 00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00% 00%00%21%F9%04%04%14%00%FF%00%2C%00%00%00% 00%12%00%12%00%00%04X0%C8I%2B%1D8%EB%3D%E4% 00%60%28%8A%85%17%0AG*%8C%40%19%7C%00J%08% C4%B1%92%26z%C76%FE%02%07%C2%89v%F0%7Dz%C3b% C8u%14%82V5%23o%A7%13%19L%BCY-%25%7D%A6l%DF% D0%F5%C7%02%85%5B%D82%90%CBT%87%D8i7%88Y%A8% DB%EFx%8B%DE%12%01%00%3B Has somebody leaked Duff & Phelps CVA calculations? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelman65 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Re mystery investors in Rangers Could one of them be a wee man in a bunnet with experience of rescuing a Glasgow institution. Could be why they would want it kept a secret ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Let me take a stab at this one, Lord Glennie's report will be sent to the appellate tribunal for consideration. He states in his report that the SFA's QC's argument that the sanctions available to the panel were either too light or too harsh was not correct because of the following statement made by the appellate panel after upholding the embargo. He therefore believes that in the absence of the sanction of player registration embargo the appellate could go back to their original thought that suspension would have had to be considered as an option. So Regan knows that the only two options, in absence of an embargo are suspension (which the appellate said would have to be considered due to the seriousness of the misconduct) or expulsion. ETA T_S_A_R ye dickwad! I quoted this before wrongly as Lord Glennie's words and you ripped me a new one for getting it wrong, you too my little fvckwit had it wrong, Lord Glennie used a quote from the appellate tribunal to show that the QC's argument that sanctions befitting the misconduct were unavailable was incorrect. I shall repeat myself so you and No8 can "get it" the sanction of suspension can be considered now because the context of the lesser sanction (embargo) is not available. :D :D GIRUY I pointed that out to him at the time 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I pointed that out to him at the time Cheers dude, I was one can over the limit for dissecting legal jargon at the time but I did promise to get back to him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismcarab Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Let me take a stab at this one, Lord Glennie's report will be sent to the appellate tribunal for consideration. He states in his report that the SFA's QC's argument that the sanctions available to the panel were either too light or too harsh was not correct because of the following statement made by the appellate panel after upholding the embargo. He therefore believes that in the absence of the sanction of player registration embargo the appellate could go back to their original thought that suspension would have had to be considered as an option. So Regan knows that the only two options, in absence of an embargo are suspension (which the appellate said would have to be considered due to the seriousness of the misconduct) or expulsion. ETA T_S_A_R ye dickwad! I quoted this before wrongly as Lord Glennie's words and you ripped me a new one for getting it wrong, you too my little fvckwit had it wrong, Lord Glennie used a quote from the appellate tribunal to show that the QC's argument that sanctions befitting the misconduct were unavailable was incorrect. I shall repeat myself so you and No8 can "get it" the sanction of suspension can be considered now because the context of the lesser sanction (embargo) is not available. :D :D GIRUY This. Just...this. And so much shorter than mine. Greenied accordingly sir 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 The Record is still punting the Gattuso shite. FFS Traynor give it up. My link 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 The Record is still punting the Gattuso shite. FFS Traynor give it up. My link Any move for the 34-year-old would have to overcome massive hurdles, of course, with Rangers currently in administration and fighting a 12-month transfer embargo. Deary me. I know its the Record but even so 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 This. Just...this. And so much shorter than mine. Greenied accordingly sir I tried to greeny your one but I've got the usual pie and bovril quota embargo going on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macshimmy Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 EGIL FUCKING OSTENSTAD..OVER £300,000...WE DESERVE LIQUIDATION FOR THAT ALONE!!!!!! I fucking knew i would be better not looking at that list...DAN FUCKING EGGEN...I HAD FORGOTTEN HE 'PLAYED' FOR US AT ALL!!! A pleasure to be of service. :D:D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 1339010983[/url]' post='6308840']I suppose it was only a matter of time before we were wombled err........ rumbled. Having consulted with my learned friends I must advise you that, were this ever to come to a court case, you have no chance of winning. As every fool knows, the Wombles are yesterday's men, (excuse me ...yesterday's wombles). Their tv series has been cancelled, they have renaged on the leasing agreement of Wimbledon Common and Great Uncle Bulgaria has a history of being found drunk and disorderly and in a state of undress, (I will draw a veil across the recent allegations made about him in a Sunday newspaper by Madame Cholet). Basically, you haven't a leg to stand on when you compare the inebriate Womles to the paragon of virtue that is Neil Doncaster - long may he remain wombleing free through the corridors of Hampden! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 That might carry some weight if it wasn't days old and Charles Green has totally rubbished that story. Anyway any chance you can answer the question from last night? How does Regan KNOW what sanctions , if any, the independent panel will hand out? I believe what he has said is that it will be one on the available 4 sanctions - that - is what he knows. 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.