wunfellaff Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 My opinion will be that it was a very bad idea for the SPL to allow themselves to be left open to criticism of this type and I will question their judgement on the matter.Surely one of them has enough savvy to see how this would be perceived in the current climate ? ? There is NO connection between Celtic and the club in the lowest tier of Scottish Football. None. There is NO Old Firm. You are basing your argument on a dead club. You have 'history' on doing similar.......... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 The SPL denied the transfer of the SPL share from the old company to the new company. I don't know who or what LNS is in this context. I am not a member of the club nor do I know a member of it. But then there many clubs of various sorts that I am not a member of and don't know a member of. Are St Mirren a club, in your view? So the club doesn't hold the share? What happens if a club comes up that doesn't have a company behind it? who gets the share. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 So the club doesn't hold the share? What happens if a club comes up that doesn't have a company behind it? who gets the share. Whoever or whatever owns the club I suppose. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 I'll throw Green's statement when asked to go to the SPL hearing last year as well ! "This club has never played in or ever taken part in the SPL ever and the SPL has no jurisdiction over us". That's a pretty bold statement there claiming Green's club is in fact a brand new club and he will surely use this again if the SPL commission goes against the old club and punishments go to the new club !. He also said you need a CVA to keep the history, but apparently he was wrong. and it's just a big coincidence you could buy the club separate from the company never once came up before . David Murray could have liquidated the company with all the debt being written off, why didn't he simple do that? Craig Whyte bought the company with the debt alone with the club. Why? Why didn't another businessman like Bill Miller simple buy the club without the company? Why would Charles Green, a man who has admitted he was in it for the money. try for a CVA when he could have from the start just bought the club but yet wanted the debt ridden company? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magoo9uk Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 ? There is NO connection between Celtic and the club in the lowest tier of Scottish Football. None. There is NO Old Firm. You are basing your argument on a dead club. You have 'history' on doing similar.......... That's great,I'm sure you would have been equaly magnanimous if Donald Findlay was representing the SPL in a dispute with your club....... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) Well, maybe so. It's been a few years since I read the Celtic View myself, but I remember it as an uncontroversial house publishing exercise, with only two aims - pimping the Celtic family/more than a club/greatest fans line like it was wearing a purple fedora, and trying to get readers to part with wads of cash for all kinds of tat. I don't recall ever reading anything surprising or adventurous in it, and it always felt to me like it was written by bloodless marketing creatures rather than diehard fans. You get the feeling the lot of them would rather eat a half-brick than take a risk of any kind. I'd suggest that you have to believe some fairly silly things about the View in particular and Celtic fans in general, if you think the sniper explanation is more likely. No doubt plenty of us would recognise the sniper sign - it might be wildly popular for all i know - but I've never seen it until No.8 kicked off, and I'd say the Men At Work explanation seems a lot more likely. But then, I can be naive about these things at times. I'd imagine that's probably fair comment. I certainly didn't recognise the sniper sign, but Northern Ireland is of less interest and relevance to me than it is to many OF fans. The 'View' probably is some annodine publication that states the bleedin' obvious to those whose minds don't do much inquiring, but as Reid demonstrated recently, the club can be keen to milk the ludicrous notion that Catholics remain second class. Perhaps a leap is required to take us from that to this, but I can still see why someone might ask if the use of the imagery is entirely coincidental when deployed in relation to Paddy McCourt. I'm happy to leave it there, but in the world of wacky No8 statements, I'm not sure why this one is regarded as the benchmark. Edited February 1, 2013 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 That's great,I'm sure you would have been equaly magnanimous if Donald Findlay was representing the SPL in a dispute with your club....... He has represented Celtic players in the past, does this make him impartial when it comes to Rangers now? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magoo9uk Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 He has represented Celtic players in the past, does this make him impartial when it comes to Rangers now? Can you really not see why the governing body must be seen to be impartial in a matter like this and have someone to represent them who is not inextricably linked with a rival club ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 He also said you need a CVA to keep the history, but apparently he was wrong. and it's just a big coincidence you could buy the club separate from the company never once came up before . David Murray could have liquidated the company with all the debt being written off, why didn't he simple do that? Craig Whyte bought the company with the debt alone with the club. Why? Why didn't another businessman like Bill Miller simple buy the club without the company? Why would Charles Green, a man who has admitted he was in it for the money. try for a CVA when he could have from the start just bought the club but yet wanted the debt ridden company? Are you expecting sevconians to give serious answers to those questions ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Can you really not see why the governing body must be seen to be impartial in a matter like this and have someone to represent them who is not inextricably linked with a rival club ? This just stinks of "getting excuses in early". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 That's great,I'm sure you would have been equaly magnanimous if Donald Findlay was representing the SPL in a dispute with your club....... Wouldn' give a toss to be honest.....wasn't he horsed out of the dead club for being a bigot????? So no connection to either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Are you expecting sevconians to give serious answers to those questions ? Seeing as he asked Hellbhoy the questions, that is probably one of your dumbest posts of all time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 I don't know for sure. Presumably by producing sale documents and the like. The administrators of the old company have stated in a formal report that the history was transferred to the new company, for example. Getting back to the club/company thing, I believe what I said about Lord Nimmo Smith is correct but if anyone gives me a link to his document I'll look at it again. Also the SPL's own rules talk about "The owner and operator of a Club". The bit I have put in bold only refers to a solvent club being sold from one operator to another including the company side of a club to which a club needs if it is to be a club within the associations to be able to play or trade in football.Also it is not Lord Nimmo's actual view as he said it was his belief after reading his SPL's remit on the commission as Lord Nimmo is not himself an expert in footballing associations rules and regulations but will adhere to the associations rules when he ruled upon it. 1, Under the law the club died from liquidation from being financially insolvent and it is resigned to the history books unless someone or group comes forward and pays off all it's debts in full. 2, Under the Rangers fans view and some other sources Rangers the club simply moved from one company to another. Now if number two is to be believed then it is possible for other clubs to move a club from one company to another and escape debt and still be the very same club.If this is possible then one can assume that all the other football clubs could do this as many times as possible running up massive debts in the process keeping any honours won through running up huge debts and moving the club to another company everytime the HMRC or creditors want their money. So will Chucky now use this approach to moving Rangers the club to another company after running the company/club into any possible massives debts ? Nah I don't think so because it is not possible to just move a club from one company to another company as the club itself in the law is a company or it cannot be a club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Roasting? I don't think so, you tried to claim something and not one person backed you up. You are just making this up. Those were Lord Nimmo`s words, that is why the document clearly states BY THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD NIMMO SMITH. Lord Nimmo Smith is acting independently of the SPL, a clue to this is in the name - The independent commission. Those are his views, no matter how many times you try to claim otherwise or imagine you have roasted anyone. He has went out of his way to say that he is independent from the SPL on several occasions. You really need to stop making this shit up. Yopu got your arse handed back to you on a silver platter fud.Then you removed your Lord Nimmo says signature and then went totally off your napper by claiming it was a cunning plan to lure us P&Bers into a trap.Now tell me I'm lying there Tedi ! Now if you wish you can have your arse handed back to you again so everybody here can witness Tedi having a meltdown. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Do you really think that the only person available to represent the SPL was someone from a firm who have already represented Celtic ? surely not ? look up^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ way, way up^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ See that thing, that's my point going right over your head. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Seeing as he asked Hellbhoy the questions, that is probably one of your dumbest posts of all time. Yes Benny your reply totally fits all the criteria you listed there 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) The bit I have put in bold only refers to a solvent club being sold from one operator to another including the company side of a club to which a club needs if it is to be a club within the associations to be able to play or trade in football.Also it is not Lord Nimmo's actual view as he said it was his belief after reading his SPL's remit on the commission as Lord Nimmo is not himself an expert in footballing associations rules and regulations but will adhere to the associations rules when he ruled upon it. 1, Under the law the club died from liquidation from being financially insolvent and it is resigned to the history books unless someone or group comes forward and pays off all it's debts in full. 2, Under the Rangers fans view and some other sources Rangers the club simply moved from one company to another. Now if number two is to be believed then it is possible for other clubs to move a club from one company to another and escape debt and still be the very same club.If this is possible then one can assume that all the other football clubs could do this as many times as possible running up massive debts in the process keeping any honours won through running up huge debts and moving the club to another company everytime the HMRC or creditors want their money. So will Chucky now use this approach to moving Rangers the club to another company after running the company/club into any possible massives debts ? Nah I don't think so because it is not possible to just move a club from one company to another company as the club itself in the law is a company or it cannot be a club. The companies that run clubs can also shed debts via CVAs but that doesn't mean they want to go through all the hassle of doing so including football punishments. The Nimmo Smith thing has already been dealt with. Edited February 1, 2013 by Bearwithme 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Well actually you can see the future , rangers will either be found guilty or not guilty , so are rangers fans going to rip their tights and greet about conspiracies if found guilty ? And if found innocent it's well done o great commission told you so? Oh sonny how long will it take to fix my boiler Ach am no sure mrs, it's an awfy big job ken. (while trolling P&B on his mobile) Hope it's not too m,uch longer, i'm freezing Did i tell ye i get paid by the hour, (now whits No.8 up to?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Blast from the past 2 Didn't the P&Bers once assure us that the RTC blogger had evidence regarding EBT usage which would destory Walter Smith? ...and we'd here about it any day now, (months ago now) Exposing P&Ber bullshit since November 2011 © Bennett 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.