ray_of_licht Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) half your quote isn't glennie. the part that is him makes a non definite statement then says 'is not a matter for this court' ie. no opinion. Apologies, didn't realise I'd C&P'd that much. so completely irrelevant. How so? ETA: Ach, who cares. You interpret it one way, I interpret it another., Difference of opinion. It's Friday and I've had enough "differences of opinion" for one week. Edited June 8, 2012 by ray_of_licht 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTaxMan Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Almeira offer to forget about the £500,000 Rangers owe them if they give them Ortiz back, maybe Hearts should make the same offer for Wallace. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/rangers/2012/06/08/spanish-side-almeria-offer-deal-for-rangers-flop-juanma-ortiz-86908-23890271/ Celtic could forget the £40K they owe us if they bring the toilet ceilings back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 half your quote isn't glennie. the part that is him makes a non definite statement then says 'is not a matter for this court' ie. no opinion. so completely irrelevant. How about tackling the comments I have made on the same subject, sure I did direct them towards No8 but feel free to jump in feet first again and I will repeat again for you why they are relevant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Apologies, didn't realise I'd C&P'd that much. How so? ETA: Ach, who cares. You interpret it one way, I interpret it another., Difference of opinion. It's Friday and I've had enough "differences of opinion" for one week. he tells you at the start he is only interested in whether or not the panel can set their own punishment. he makes no investigation into guilt or the suitability of any listed punishments so he can't actually say what is a suitable punishment and what isn't. what is interesting is that it is a response to an argument by the sfa qc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 How about tackling the comments I have made on the same subject, sure I did direct them towards No8 but feel free to jump in feet first again and I will repeat again for you why they are relevant. as above. glennie only considered one aspect. regarding anything else he is irrelevant. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) They can obviously give Rangers ANY punishment within the rules. I think it would be straight back to the CoS if they hand out a penalty they have already said themself is too severe. That is why i see the Scottish Cup Ban as the best available punishment. We will all find out soon enough. From the panel report "On any view thematters involved in this case are as serious offences against theordinarystandards of corporate governance as one could imagine. The Tribunal attemptedin its exercise of fixing these matters on the scale of offences to identify amoreserious offence than those on the complaints, and concluded that only match fixingin its various forms might be a more serious breach. It had no hesitation in concludingthat the breaches struck at the heart of good corporate governance and socialand financial probity and responsibility. They brought the game into serious disrepute.As such, they required to be regarded as at the top of the scale of seriousness." The word might says to me they are explaining the punishment they chose with what could have been much tougher. The offences were at the top end of seriousness. That in no way says that expulsion is not appropriate for what Rangers did (or at least the parts the panel looked at). The main aspect is that it was Rangers 'in the dock', not Whyte. That was established and not challenged but also endorsed by the subsequent Court appeal. The panel had the authority, the facts of the wrong doing were agreed by all, the only issue is the choice of punishment. From a common law view were Rangers culpable, Yes! Were there victims? Yes! Scottish Cup ban? Like fielding an ineligible player? Bigger decision inevitable. Edited June 8, 2012 by thelegendthatis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Apologies, didn't realise I'd C&P'd that much. How so? ETA: Ach, who cares. You interpret it one way, I interpret it another., Difference of opinion. It's Friday and I've had enough "differences of opinion" for one week. There is no scope for differences of opinion, T_S_A_R is totally wrong, the language used in Lord Glennie's legal reply is black and white due to the legallity of the document. Put it this way T_S_A_R's opinion was based on the fact that he believed the key quote to be Lord Glennie quoting the SFA's QC when in fact he was using the appellate's statement to prove that the SFA's QC was wrong in the his argument that the sanction could not be increased to suspension or expulsion from membership. The "not for this court" quote is declaring that the court should not decide on the punishment to be handed out to Rangers that is for the appellate to decide. Nothing to do with making the appellate's quote irrelevant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoMaSano Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Good job Dundee Hibernian are already on the hate list for boycotting. http://www.telegraph...n-Thompson.html Fair play to Thompson, time some of the other clubs - including Celtic were developing some cojones He is only playing a political game here. Saying enough to appease fans of his own club. Give them the notion that he will vote against a newco when he hasn't said anything of the sort: I'd have my doubts whether they'd get sufficient votes to get back in It wouldn't be just a simple yes or no vote, they'd have to negotiate their way back in again. He has his doubts how other clubs would vote, but it would be a simple yes/no vote, looks to me like he'd be open to voting yes but want's to ring them for all their worth first. There's been a lack of remorse shown. Views have hardened. Taking things to a court of law hasn't helped. That's certainly hardened views of people within the game. We know that views have hardened, we all heard Gilmours comments. Not telling us anything new here. He doesn't once say that he'd vote a newco out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 There is no scope for differences of opinion, T_S_A_R is totally wrong, the language used in Lord Glennie's legal reply is black and white due to the legallity of the document. Put it this way T_S_A_R's opinion was based on the fact that he believed the key quote to be Lord Glennie quoting the SFA's QC when in fact he was using the appellate's statement to prove that the SFA's QC was wrong in the his argument that the sanction could not be increased to suspension or expulsion from membership. The "not for this court" quote is declaring that the court should not decide on the punishment to be handed out to Rangers that is for the appellate to decide. Nothing to do with making the appellate's quote irrelevant. The original panel said something along the lines that Rangers crimes were second only to match fixing in severity. I don't personally agree with that but no major club has ever been thrown out the game for match fixing and the panel consider this a more serious crime. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) @BBCAlLamont - @BBCAlLamont -Quote Right, plenty to follow from Charles Green but first ...the admins are moving to terminate Dave King's directorship of Rangers Oh Dave. You angered the beast You can't beat a good token gesture from Duff & Duffer. Amazing how quickly Duff & Duffer can move when they want to. Edited June 8, 2012 by thelegendthatis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 There is no scope for differences of opinion, T_S_A_R is totally wrong, the language used in Lord Glennie's legal reply is black and white due to the legallity of the document. Put it this way T_S_A_R's opinion was based on the fact that he believed the key quote to be Lord Glennie quoting the SFA's QC when in fact he was using the appellate's statement to prove that the SFA's QC was wrong in the his argument that the sanction could not be increased to suspension or expulsion from membership. The "not for this court" quote is declaring that the court should not decide on the punishment to be handed out to Rangers that is for the appellate to decide. Nothing to do with making the appellate's quote irrelevant. he says the right of the panel to set their own punishment 'is the only question with which i am concerned'. that to me says he hasn't considered the appropiateness of any punishments and therefore can't give an opinion on that. The fact that I find the imposition of the additional sanctions to be ultra vires does not necessarily mean that the petitioners will escape to a lighter and ineffective punishment. That is entirely a matter for the Appeal Tribunal and not for this court. no conclusion can be drawn from that statement. it's a legal equivalent of maybes aye, maybes no. what is telling is that the sfa's own qc argued that they wouldn't be able to punish them enough. why would he do that? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 The original panel said something along the lines that Rangers crimes were second only to match fixing in severity. I don't personally agree with that but no major club has ever been thrown out the game for match fixing and the panel consider this a more serious crime. No. Wrong. "only match fixingin its various forms might be a more serious breach" Totally different from "the panel consider this a more serious crime". So the panel can whack them with whatever they want as long as it is on the list. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 The original panel said something along the lines that Rangers crimes were second only to match fixing in severity. I don't personally agree with that but no major club has ever been thrown out the game for match fixing and the panel consider this a more serious crime. But the SFA's disciplinary processes do not allow for any other punishments to be issued, as proved by Rangers, other clubs have accepted their punishments for their wrong doings without forcing their respective FAs to consider the ultimate sanction. Maybe Rangers should just have accepted the sanction placed on them then they would not be staring into the abyss. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Right, plenty to follow from Charles Green but first ...the admins are moving to terminate Dave King's directorship of Rangers So, 4 months in Duff & Phelps finally start cutting staff numbers... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Rumour has it that a certain west Fife club is up for grabs as the owner is "retiring". Given the open letter to their fans distancing the board from the chairmans rantings its fair to say that the chairman, (who is not a Rangers man unlike the owner), wont be an impediment to a newco takeover. Makes sense as the stadium is SPL standard and cheaper to run for a few years than costly Ibrox. Given the level of Rangers support eminating from Fife it could be a shrewd move by the Blue Knights. Give me strength! For the umpteenth time to the umpteenth individual coming out with these "wishful thinking" rumours, where does the money for this takeover come from, never mind the cost of rebranding, paying of redundancies to surplus staff at "certain West Fife club", etc, etc - never mind they cannot run away from the debt even if they do put it in an incubator (all that will buy them is a few months at best? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 @BBCAlLamont: Charles Green: "We are buying this club on Thursday whether Mr King likes it or not." Boom! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Celtic season ticket advert in the Sun today has the following line in it Applies to Under 13 Opt-out and Under 13 Special Season Tickets which exclude games against Rangers FC or a successor to it. Covering themselves for a Newco Rangers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huckleberry Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Give me strength! For the umpteenth time to the umpteenth individual coming out with these "wishful thinking" rumours, where does the money for this takeover come from, never mind the cost of rebranding, paying of redundancies to surplus staff at "certain West Fife club", etc, etc - never mind they cannot run away from the debt even if they do put it in an incubator (all that will buy them is a few months at best? Well Mr Kennedy has a few quid. Buying Dunfermline is not that expensive compared to buying out Rangers. A few years as Dunfermline Rangers then a move to Glasgow. 12000 every home game and the whole thing becomes more managable. Greens Rangers wont last if it even happens. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Green is assuming that, because he hasn't heard from HMRC, they are going to accept the CVA. What a fruitloop. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) he says the right of the panel to set their own punishment 'is the only question with which i am concerned'. that to me says he hasn't considered the appropiateness of any punishments and therefore can't give an opinion on that. no conclusion can be drawn from that statement. it's a legal equivalent of maybes aye, maybes no. what is telling is that the sfa's own qc argued that they wouldn't be able to punish them enough. why would he do that? Let's go back to the original point because I think we are getting crossed wires here. The only way Rangers can dispute any sanction from the appellate now, which is taken from the well documented possible sanctions, would be to appeal that Lord Glennie's decision to send the matter back to the appellate is wrong and the matter should be sent back to the original disciplinary panel. Rangers only have 21 days from the date of Lord Glennie's statement of decision to do this. If, as we are led to believe and has been reported, the SFA wait until after the 21 days have expired to reconvene the appellate panel then Rangers are bound by law to accept the appellate's decision, there would be no return to the CoS. Edited June 8, 2012 by stonedsailor 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.