WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Maybe you want to check this. Nah, half-price or not, makes no difference. I'd not go near the place for free. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 In all honesty I don't believe any titles should be stripped as the players acheivements should not be taken away from them. They won on the pitch and that's all that matters really. With respect, that is quite the silliest argument you ever hear regarding the Title Stripping issue. Of course the honours were won on the pitch: where else could it have happened - a bowling green, a tennis court? The point that so many seem to miss is that it shouldn't matter whether Rangers sought or gained a competitive advantage - The "financial doping" idea is an irrelevant nonsense. It shouldn't matter whether or not the players were aware of wrongdoing. What matters is whether Rangers failed to properly register their players for the competitions they participated in. That's what's seen Cup Tie results overturned a few times in the past, and should see titles removed if it's established that this is what happened here. The evidence to me looks compelling that they probably did, but then it also looked compelling ahead of the FTTT outcome. I await the result with interest. It is thoroughly legitimate that the investigation take place. To suggest it's atavistic or 'kangaroo' in nature just doesn't stand up. I won't pretend to know one way or the other about Rangers guilt, but there's surely enough doubt for the question to be asked and thoroughly examined. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 With respect, that is quite the silliest argument you ever hear regarding the Title Stripping issue. Of course the honours were won on the pitch: where else could it have happened - a bowling green, a tennis court? The point that so many seem to miss is that it shouldn't matter whether Rangers sought or gained a competitive advantage - The "financial doping" idea is an irrelevant nonsense. It shouldn't matter whether or not the players were aware of wrongdoing. What matters is whether Rangers failed to properly register their players for the competitions they participated in. That's what's seen Cup Tie results overturned a few times in the past, and should see titles removed if it's established that this is what happened here. The evidence to me looks compelling that they probably did, but then it also looked compelling ahead of the FTTT outcome. I await the result with interest. It is thoroughly legitimate that the investigation take place. To suggest it's atavistic or 'kangaroo' in nature just doesn't stand up. I won't pretend to know one way or the other about Rangers guilt, but there's surely enough doubt for the question to be asked and thoroughly examined. Well said MT. Enough "smaller" teams have been eliminated from competitions (with a proportionately massive hit to their income) by the omission of a signature or an incorrect date. For rangers and their fans to believe they should be immune from investigation in the face of, as you say, compelling evidence is arrogant in the extreme. If nothing else, the reputation of our governing bodies demands that this situation is investigated fully, and appropriate sanctions applied if rangers were found not to have complied with competition rules. Please note, I said "competition rules" - not "the law" or "SPL rules". The issue is at once wider and narrower than some on here appear to think. How many competitions did rangers compete in over the EBT years? Potential can of worms still unopened here - might be time for Charlie to be quiet for a bit, lest he upsets people.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 1358368893[/url]' post='6991195']Well of course not, silly. The SPL has only fallen on its sword because it realises it is no longer viable without Rangers. This is why they are courting we SFL clubs. You can only pish with the dick you've got, as my auld Gran used to say 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 You really are struggling with this let me help you. You rocket away you go and play with yer Duplo bricks and leave the intelligent debate to the adults. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 It is thoroughly legitimate that the investigation take place. To suggest it's atavistic or 'kangaroo' in nature just doesn't stand up. I won't pretend to know one way or the other about Rangers guilt, but there's surely enough doubt for the question to be asked and thoroughly examined. I used those terms and stand by them. Had we lost the FTTT then maybe The SPL could have had a go as us. Not only did we win that but The SPL is now in life-support without Rangers. Persisting with this commission is the final expression of hubris. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 You really are struggling with this let me help you. Changing someone's post in a quote helps nobody, Tedi. It means you can't expect people to rely on the other post you've quoted to be accurate. Fortunately, most of us have already realised that you and HB are involved in a dead argument, with little or no bearing on the hearing about to take place. Legal/illegal matters not, unless HMRC get leave to appeal. Split payments not disclosed to the authorities matters A LOT. Not just to the SPL, but to all the bodies in whose tournaments rangers competed. Now Charlie's made the football connection by paying some debts, there's an awful lot of prize and appearance money which could be deemed to have been obtained fraudulently. Young Bendarroch seems to relish the atmosphere of a courtroom - I reckon there's a chance Charlie will be seeing the inside of quite a few if he's not careful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 You can only pish with the dick you've got, as my auld Gran used to say Aye, and the SPL needs The SFL's dick as they are now showing themsleves to be full of fannies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 You can only pish with the dick you've got, as my auld Gran used to say Was she an Auld Presbyterian Granny? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I prefer to continue my Latin theme and say, "cogito ergo sum" “Quidquid praecepies esto brevis” f**k off sevco, boo ya cheats. And what monkey tennis said. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Well said MT. Enough "smaller" teams have been eliminated from competitions (with a proportionately massive hit to their income) by the omission of a signature or an incorrect date. For rangers and their fans to believe they should be immune from investigation in the face of, as you say, compelling evidence is arrogant in the extreme. If nothing else, the reputation of our governing bodies demands that this situation is investigated fully, and appropriate sanctions applied if rangers were found not to have complied with competition rules. Please note, I said "competition rules" - not "the law" or "SPL rules". The issue is at once wider and narrower than some on here appear to think. How many competitions did rangers compete in over the EBT years? Potential can of worms still unopened here - might be time for Charlie to be quiet for a bit, lest he upsets people.... Oh I think you'll find that Chucky has that covered ! "We are a brand new club and have never ever played or taken part in the SPL and the SPL has no jurisdiction over us" under other circumstances he could have got off Scot free if he hadn't signed the blackmail contract to accept any punishments if given for a licence. One of the punishments could be a third of points the oldco got in the SPL would be about 24 points deducted from the newco's first year in the 3rd division and that would rob them of the 3rd division title Oh FFS could you imagine the anger from Ibrox the rage that they wouldn't be able to have a full set of league titles back to back never mind losing SPL titles that will send them over a cliff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 1358370702[/url]' post='6991295']Aye, and the SPL needs The SFL's dick as they are now showing themsleves to be full of fannies. Fitba porn 1358370724[/url]' post='6991299']Was she an Auld Presbyterian Granny? She was actually My Da's Maw was one of they Kafflicks though. I'm a genetic half breed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) Quidquid praecepies esto brevis Edited to add: I struggled with Latin at school and was crap at New Testament Greek at Yooni. My quick take at translating this (for the benefit of the plebians) is, "Say what you like but make it short". Still a great motto for a 107,000 post thread, though. Edited January 17, 2013 by Kincardine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Again you miss the point Youngsy ... Rangers admitted to many more prior to the tribunal and those were excluded from the hearing. Do really want the numbers dragged up ... let me know and I will go get them in the next few days. Just say the word .. the proof is out there on the net. I already stated in a previous post that i couldn't be arsed doing a search on this. The 5 myself and hellboy referred to were those in the tribunal finding. However if you can find those numbers you allude to be my guest but tbh it won't make any difference whatsoever to the tribunal finding which is the point i'm making. As for this nonsense that HMRC deem the scheme operated by the PLC illegal as stated before their opinion is irrelevant,after all Murray was always of the opinion that the finding would go the way it did,so which opinion do we take as correct,got to be Murray as his opinion was upheld in a legal aspect as opposed to that of HMRC,which was found to be wrong,all subject to possible appeal of course. So when you can post those EBT numbers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I already stated in a previous post that i couldn't be arsed doing a search on this. The 5 myself and hellboy referred to were those in the tribunal finding. However if you can find those numbers you allude to be my guest but tbh it won't make any difference whatsoever to the tribunal finding which is the point i'm making. As for this nonsense that HMRC deem the scheme operated by the PLC illegal as stated before their opinion is irrelevant,after all Murray was always of the opinion that the finding would go the way it did,so which opinion do we take as correct,got to be Murray as his opinion was upheld in a legal aspect as opposed to that of HMRC,which was found to be wrong,all subject to possible appeal of course. So when you can post those EBT numbers. Give him some time, he's busy googling at the moment 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Give him some time, he's busy googling at the moment You should be googling yourself Benny on why yer boiler has low pressure warnings 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Oh I think you'll find that Chucky has that covered ! "We are a brand new club and have never ever played or taken part in the SPL and the SPL has no jurisdiction over us" under other circumstances he could have got off Scot free if he hadn't signed the blackmail contract to accept any punishments if given for a licence. One of the punishments could be a third of points the oldco got in the SPL would be about 24 points deducted from the newco's first year in the 3rd division and that would rob them of the 3rd division title Oh FFS could you imagine the anger from Ibrox the rage that they wouldn't be able to have a full set of league titles back to back never mind losing SPL titles that will send them over a cliff. That's not going to happen,you know it and so does everyone else. Stupid suggestion really. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 That's not going to happen,you know it and so does everyone else. Stupid suggestion really. Neither was getting kicked out of the SPL, youngsy. Highly unlikely, I agree, but if this last year has taught us anything, it's "never say never". Honestly, nothing would surprise me at this stage. It's like Govan fell through the Looking Glass last year! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I used those terms and stand by them. Had we lost the FTTT then maybe The SPL could have had a go as us. Not only did we win that but The SPL is now in life-support without Rangers. Persisting with this commission is the final expression of hubris. I'll not say the FTTT outcome has nothing to do with the SPL investigation, but it is true that they're not looking at the same things. The FTTT people had no interest whatever in how appropriately Rangers had registered their players to compete. That is the crux of what concerns the commission - you must surely recognise this distinction? What I don't know is how the statement about "payments of any kind" can be interpreted as regards loans. I also don't know about the extent of disclosure required or provided, given that EBT payments were apparently outlined in accounts. As I said before, the Mark Daly and Billy Dodds evidence looked compelling, but I've thought that, and been wrong already in this. The idea that the perception of whether the SPL is in decline or not, can't seriously be seen as being ought to have any bearing on whether the process continues or not. Rangers have committed a serious and prolonged breach or they've not. The fact that the SPL itself may be in its very welcome death throes, is surely irrelevant here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 That's not going to happen,you know it and so does everyone else. Stupid suggestion really. Mind you said.............. Nah, I'm gonny leave it 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.