statts1976uk Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) I was going to mention that about Alex Thomson but you beat me to it! One day he's a treacherous ignoramus intent on bringing down the Queen's club the next he's an intrepid reporter uncovering unfairness and deceit against the wee club in the third! Does this mean he's off the list now? Edited February 1, 2013 by statts1976uk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Yeah, if even Alex Thomson can spot whats so blatantly wrong with this hearing then i have to assume that everyone can too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Yeah, if even Alex Thomson can spot whats so blatantly wrong with this hearing then i have to assume that everyone can too. Excuses-in-early-type post, IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Excuses-in-early-type post, IMO. I wonder if the Scottish media will run with this? I assume they'll be keen to expose the lies being spread by the SPL and HM. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) I wonder if the Scottish media will run with this? I assume they'll be keen to expose the lies being spread by the SPL and HM. They will if that ridiculous balloon Green starts whining about it, or if he gets his wee dug Traynor up on his hind legs to do it for him. They've been happy to publicise whatever pieces of laughable propaganda the gruesome twosome have cooked up for the past few months. And, "Expose the lies!". Awesome, Benny - keep discovering the networks, geezer. They go deeper than you could possibly imagine. Follow the money... The truth is out there, the question is, are you paranoid enough? etc. etc. and so on. Edited February 1, 2013 by flyingrodent 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
statts1976uk Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 How long have HM been the legal representatives of the SPL? If they have been in that position for many years then surely Oldco should have complained upon their appointment that they were unhappy that they were Celtic's lawyers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 How long have HM been the legal representatives of the SPL? If they have been in that position for many years then surely Oldco should have complained upon their appointment that they were unhappy that they were Celtic's lawyers? Right now we're discussing discrepancies in the roles played by fat rodney and HM. I'm sure the Scottish media won't gloss over this and the SPL will provide us with a valid reason. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magoo9uk Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 No reasonable person could deny the obvious conflict of interest here with the corpulent Mr McKenzie's firm already having acted for Celtic.If the people involved in the governance of the game here couldn't forsee this situation then they must be blinkered,either that or they don't care and are determined to have their way whatever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 How long have HM been the legal representatives of the SPL? If they have been in that position for many years then surely Oldco should have complained upon their appointment that they were unhappy that they were Celtic's lawyers? Much like the supposedly-unforgiveable Dundee United ticket outrage, it's only become worth the effort of raising the issue at the extreme outer edge of straw-clutching. None of them were much bothered about it, until it became politically useful for them to be bothered. Back when Rangers *actually won things*, they could afford to do their talking on the pitch. Nowadays, they're reduced to feeding huge quantities of nonsense to tinfoil-hatted mentalists, the type who see a Vatican conspiracy if their dog chews their newspaper in the letterbox. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
statts1976uk Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 I think it's a very pertinent point, why did it suit Oldco then as they must have thought they were a very well respected law firm then and obviously the Celtic link was not a problem either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 I think it's a very pertinent point, why did it suit Oldco then as they must have thought they were a very well respected law firm then and obviously the Celtic link was not a problem either. We had a pretty humorous episode the other day when the RFC fans here were asked to guess how and why the SPL and Peter Lawell were orchestrating this alleged title-thievery, and none of them much fancied a stab at it. What good does it do either the SPL or Celtic, for instance, if Rangers' titles are stripped? What's in it for the rest of Scottish football? How come a scam of this magnitude, involving that many people, can proceed so successfully without anybody noticing? We got no answer, or just flat out admissions of talking nonsense. But it's worth bearing all of this "The panel is totally biased and rigged and its verdict is meaningless, likes" stuff in mind for three weeks' time, if Rangers' lawyers manage to squirm the club away from culpability. You can bet your arse that the panel's integrity will be absolutely unimpeachable, far above reproach, if Rangers somehow manage to wriggle out of it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 If they take our titles - we'll see them in court. Scottish, UK and European if need be. I for one would love to see that happen. Your company/club/institution would get wiped off the planet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 No reasonable person could deny the obvious conflict of interest here with the corpulent Mr McKenzie's firm already having acted for Celtic.If the people involved in the governance of the game here couldn't forsee this situation then they must be blinkered,either that or they don't care and are determined to have their way whatever. Kind of like Kevin Bacon, i think you could link ever man, woman and child in Scotland to Rangers or Celtic in 3 steps or less. If you were so inclined/stupid/blinkered* *delete as appropriate 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 If they take our titles - we'll see them in court. Scottish, UK and European if need be. Silly Orc, its illegal to take your own football authority to court. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Silly Orc, its illegal to take your own football authority to court. That will be why we took the SFA to the Court of Session over the transfer embargo and which was found in our favour. Subsequently of course the club accepted the embargo,albeit reluctantly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 If they take our titles - we'll see them in court. Scottish, UK and European if need be. OK Bendy I'll bite ! disregarding the MSM view on the club is now operated by a new company shite here as has been printed as well as some footballing associations views.We'll move to the UK & European law courts on how they will view it. Under UK & European law Rangers became a company in 1899 and then became insolvent in 2012 as a corporate entity and was thus liquidated and ceased to be a club as within the laws of the land.This is the entity the law courts will see as the club that won the titles if they are stripped. Now supposing Green takes this to court claiming these are his clubs titles and that it is the very same club that was liquidated then surely he will be hit by a huge bill from the HMRC from Whytes tenure in charge seeing as it was the club itself that ran up the bills in the eyes of the law.The law will see these two clubs as separate entities completely and will be a huge slap in the face of Rangers fans claiming the club was saved from leathal liquidation. Lastly there is no fucking way Green will take this to court as he stands to lose his licences by bringing the game into disrepute and by going outside the associations appeals process again and has actually said that the club you now follow is in fact a brand new club,and you've been conned into believing it is in fact the same club you have always followed. The RFFF may take this to court but that's about it and how much will it cost the RFFF to save tainted titles and cups and can the RFFF afford many years in courts both in the UK and the European courts ? it's a pointless and futile task and may backfire completely ? actually it will backfire and you'll all be left looking so fucking stupid as evidence will go against you big style as it will be dragged up again and the FTTT ruling will be in the spotlight again and used in the courts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Silly Orc, its illegal to take your own football authority to court. Apart from the SPL not being our football authority, we've already taken the 'top' footballing authority in this country to court. Illegal, i guess someones been on Muirheads website 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomDom Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Anything Alex Thomson says IS tainted, and not down to anything he said about Rangers either. Although as always, people will have short memories about the clubs he said would be voting Rangers into the first division. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 That will be why we took the SFA to the Court of Session over the transfer embargo and which was found in our favour. Subsequently of course the club accepted the embargo,albeit reluctantly. The point is that the SFA will only use what punishments are available to them and may actually expell the old club ten times from the league which won't affect the new club but may recieve monetary fines and suspensions from cups like the Scottish cup and European cups for a set amount of years. The laugh will be on record for ten years Rangers PLC played all their games and forfieted them by mandatory 3 nil defeats and that is a real possibilty if the commission rule that Rangers PLC fielded inelligable players from day one in 2000 to 2010 Ten years at the bottom of the SPL on record. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 The horse test holds good here - if you hear approaching hoofbeats, do you think "Aha - here comes a zebra?". Because most people would think, "those hoofbeats mean that there's a horse headed my way", and the word "zebra" wouldn't occur, because there just aren't many zebras around. Same thing with this - the obvious, horsey explanation is that it's a reference to the universally-recognised Men at Work sign, a symbol that would be recognised by all, even by small children. The oddball zebra explanation is that it's a highly obscure reference to the IRA. Well, it may be, but you really would have to think of the Celtic View as a bunch of mental republican fanatics sitting around an office inventing devious codes, rather than as a bunch of boring PR flacks pushing a commercial enterprise, which they are. I mean, it could be either the zebra or the horse. But it's probably the horse. Mmmmm. As 'Bookies Love Me' dismissively implies, the likelihood of the hoofbeats emanating from a zebra can vary dependent upon the direction the noise comes from. If the noise came from a distorted environment such as a zoo, I'd be more inclined to accept the possibility that a zebra might be responsible for 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.