Doink Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Too obsessed with Rangers to be a Killie fan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 See that was not so hard now was it? Well done Cherrypicking again. Tedi. Now, "transfer"? anything coming through on that one? No? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Too obsessed with Rangers to be a Killie fan. You're falling into the Amigos' trap there. How many tabs are open on your browser at the moment? Obsessed with rangers? Aye, and with Pratchett, La Plante, Molly Hatchett, abortion, Homeland, and gun laws. At the moment. Only one of which is a thieving bigoted organisation. Christ, lads, there's more to life than football. Just ask a Bigot Brothers fan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Who said he was not welcome .. ? Aye, right enough. Mibbe the plastics will have him. He is a hate-filled fantasist after all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Oh aye 1. To convey or cause to pass from one place, person, or thing to another.2. Law To make over the possession or legal title of; convey. Transfer, that was that SFA membership that was transferred from the oldco to the newco which cannot be done with new clubs, that of course is written into the SFA`s articles of association Did I mention that if the club is new then company running that club can only have a membership GRANTED, that is also in the articles of association, at no point was the newco GRANTED an SFA membership, it did however receive the oldco membership, it was transferred and just for the avoidance of any doubt, the membership was transferred between company`s SFA statementWe are pleased to confirm that agreement has been reached on all outstanding points relating to the TRANSFER of Scottish FA membership between Rangers F.C (in administration),and Sevco Scotland Ltd,who will be the new owners of The Rangers Football Club Ltd note how Sevco are referred to the new owners of the FOOTBALL CLUB Lord Glennie Statement -"This is a petition for judicial review by The Rangers Football club plc, a company presently in administration, That COMPANY presently OPERATES Rangers Football CLUB (to whom i shall refer to as "rangers"). Rangers ARE members of the Scottish Football Association ("the SFA") So three days, and you finally think you've got it sussed? Not really a definition, Tedi, is it? Just a pathetic rehash of your favourite quotes. Except for the bolded bit. That appears in every definition I've seen. So, "another". I'll help out here, and explain that that implies, nay requires, two entities. So, which two entities was the membership "transferred" between? To save embarrassment, I'll point out that the SFA has member "clubs", not "companies". Off ye go, Tedster. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 What happened to attempt 4 Tedi? Am I to assume that you pretty much can't argue with if (I'm sure you'll find a nonsensical and belligerent way to do so). Now I'm throwing you a bone here. I'm steaming drunk, you must be able to run rings round me now? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 What happened to attempt 4 Tedi? Am I to assume that you pretty much can't argue with if (I'm sure you'll find a nonsensical and belligerent way to do so). Now I'm throwing you a bone here. I'm steaming drunk, you must be able to run rings round me now? Fuckit, Shades, I've been minging since six, and the whole Amigo axis has had f**k all to contribute but abuse. TBF, they've had some success with converting a gullible Killie fan to the idea that I'm a closet green, but that WILL be sorted face to face. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I simply quoted the SFA`s ruling and statement, alongside Lord Glennie`s, you either agree with these statement and the SFA`s articles of association or you don't If you don't then there is seriously no point in debating You also have to accept that Rangers were no GRANTED an SFA membership and if you accept this then by default you have to accept the Rangers are not a new club, new club can only be GRANTED new memberships again if you cannot accept then you cannot accept the rules and debate is pointless Or do you think the SFA has applied the rules wrongly? We are pleased to confirm that agreement has been reached on all outstanding points relating to the TRANSFER of Scottish FA membership between Rangers F.C (in administration),and Sevco Scotland Ltd,who will be the new owners of The Rangers Football Club Ltd That statement separates club from company, read it and read it again This is a petition for judicial review by The Rangers Football club plc, a company presently in administration, That COMPANY presently OPERATES Rangers Football CLUB (to whom i shall refer to as "rangers"). Rangers ARE members of the Scottish Football Association ("the SFA") That Statement separates club from company, read it and read it again Tedi, I asked for a definition of the word transfer. It eventually appeared in your endless repetition of things that make you feel happy. The word "another" implies, nay requires, two entities. Which two entities was the membership "transferred" between? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 You admitted the SFA said Issued so unless you have some other point which refers to the SFA1 statement then the debate is over So admit that I didn't lie then. Then the debate will be over. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 If you are going to ignore my post then please kinda go and f**k yourself, I gave you the definition i even copied and pasted it Do you accept the SFA`s statement that I posted Yes or No Do you accept Lord Glennie`s statement? Yes or No Do you accept the companys operating new clubs can only be GRANTED memberships Yes or No Tedi, how many times.... The SFA are a FOOTBALL organisation. If you want to define a word, you would go to a LEXICOGRAPHICAL organisation. If you wanted advice on childcare, would you consult Ladbrokes or BetFred? I didn't think so. So, what does "transfer" mean? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Perhaps, lets see You said SFA GRANTED Rangers an associate membership, the SFA said ISSUED a conditional membership Did you deliberately misquote the SFA? Did Charles Green, the BBC, the daily mail and the daily record? Did others that used words such as "given", or "allowed? All you have to do, and it is a fundamental principle of the English language, is admit that different words can be used to describe the same action. You held up a Celtic minded lawyers claim for the continuation of Rangers f.c. as evidence of one of your particular arguments. I used the same premise to counteract your claims that I am a liar. Now please extend the same courtesy to me and admit that I am not, in fact, a liar. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I was getting there, but you deflected with this post All you have do is answer the question i put to you You said SFA GRANTED Rangers an associate membership, the SFA said ISSUED a conditional membership Did you deliberately misquote the SFA? No I did not deliberately misquote the SFA. Neither did the BBC etc..... etc..... I expect your next post to describe me (and the others) as mistaken or suchlike. Now remember that we are playing by your rules where high ranking legal eagles are the deciding factor. You'll admit, that I don't argue with your "continuation" scenario. You can "be" Rangers as much as you like. To wit, you must also admit that "granted" can also mean "issued" (as well as allowed, or given amongst others). Admit that I am not a liar. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 If you are going to ignore my post then please kinda go and f**k yourself, I gave you the definition i even copied and pasted it Do you accept the SFA`s statement that I posted Yes or No Do you accept Lord Glennie`s statement? Yes or No Do you accept the companys operating new clubs can only be GRANTED memberships Yes or No Bennett must be so vewwy pwoud. "Transfer"? Go on, Tedi, let it out.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Are you going to answer the 3 questions I just put to you? What three questions would those be? Come on, I like Tedi Questions - they're funny. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 We are getting there (promise) your post is highly suspicious, I am not trying to trick you Ok so if you did not deliberately misquote the SFA then did you simply see what was in that newspaper article and quote directly from there? without checking the SFA statement for accuracy? Tedi, do you not realise what a c**t you look trying (and failing) to win an argument with Shades75(who is a wee bit brighter than you), while your major f**k-ups are out there undefended? What I'm saying is - sort your own shite out before you have a go at anybody else. I could have told you that at age six. Or after age six, whatever suits your agenda. Just sayin', lkes..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 We are getting there (promise) your post is highly suspicious, I am not trying to trick you Ok so if you did not deliberately misquote the SFA then did you simply see what was in that newspaper article and quote directly from there? without checking the SFA statement for accuracy? Most probably. Which is not to admit that the statement was not true being that the two words can be used interchangeably - as confirmed by our Lawyer friend. Admit that I am not a liar. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I am not having a go at shades, you are correct he is inteligent and he certainly does need a fuckwit like you fighting his corner, which is exactly what you are attempting, i am sure he will confirn this himself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Oh, with all that "Blues Brothers" shite? Uncle WRK had 500 on Chelsea at 4/5 - I'll repeat that, 4/5, tonight. SO, I could have invested in the company that holds the company that owns the assets of a dead club. Or, I could pay for a wee weekend in Barcelona, with Mrs WRK. Sex, drink and Messi versus Charlie's retirement. Hard choices, eh? Been a good night - after those fucking mamelodi sundowns. Dortmund, Benfica and Chester (try finding live scores on those bassas) madeChristmas OK. (OK? that bet paid 2 and a half to one! ) Chelsea? outstanding investment. Time to repeat - 500 pounds investment. 400 pounds return. All for knowing about football. I haven't lumped on like that since rangers played Sevilla at ibrox, and some silly b*****d gave me even money - and a fortnight all-inclusive in Sharm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Ok I admit you did not intentionally Lie (sorry) and we can continue to discuss the other point, however it seems you are receiving input from the gallery, which I am sure even you will admit is just provocative flame and is adding nothing worthwhile Perhaps we can continue another time? No, I think you'll find that would be "the gallery", or everybody else on this thread, believing that there's only one liar here. And it ain't Shades75. Or me. Or DhenBhoy. Or....well, anybody but you, Tedi. Unless you want to hang one of your mates out to dry? NO? OK, You. Bigot.* *We are still playing by Tedi's Rules, aren't we? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 What you didn't lump it on the Hoops to beat Barca at Parkhead? I'm a bettor, not a gambler. And certainly not fucking mental. Equally, I didn't take the 9/1 for Killie to win at parkhead. Fuckit, results are sometimes enough. I still remember getting 9/4, ffs, on Germany to beat England in 2010 wc. That paid for the fucking car! 9/4? Was nobody watching the football? 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.