hellbhoy Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 This dogs intelligence level is clearly much higher than your own. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Let's not kid on here, if the SFA said when Craig Whyte wasn't fit and proper to take over the club, Rangers fans would have went ape shit. don't forget things had gotten bad at the end of David Murray reign. So what happens if Green is not a fit and proper person ! who gets the blame there ? D&P or the SFA again ? after all D&P must have done some stringent investigation before flogging off the old clubs assets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Did the SFA`s rule / system Fit and Proper person rules work with regards to Craig Whyte? Yes or no answers on a postcard please. Yes, he was a good fit for Rangers and they proper got what they deserved from him 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Read the source ! the blame ! it's clearly at Murray's door. Quote me a source and I'll read it. What you posted is NOT a source. There you go ! http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFApublications2011-12/Scottish%20FA%20Handbook.pdf You're being obtuse - even by your standards. The SFA handbook says that the responsibility for policing who is fit and proper is down to the SFA and makes no mention of David Murray. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Did the SFA`s rule / system Fit and Proper person rules work with regards to Craig Whyte? Yes or no answers on a postcard please. See for yourself Tedi ! Some board member for Rangers filled out the relevant form and sent it back to the SFA and claimed Wyhte was a fit and proper person.Rangers fault completely I'd say seeing as they filled out the form. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehoss Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) I rarely contribute to this thread, but on the topic of the SFA being at fault for not making sure Whyte was fit and proper to own the club etc etc. Then where would that put David Murray? he's just as negligent as any person for what happened to rangers. I guess he may have passed the fit and proper test back in the day. So even with the test in place it can still go wrong. I'll go back to lurking now. Edited February 19, 2013 by thehoss 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Did the SFA`s rule / system Fit and Proper person rules work with regards to Craig Whyte? Yes or no answers on a postcard please. No it did not. That doesn't mean the rule is flawed, it means it was broken. Not a tough concept really. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncolegrady Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 It is the SFA`s rule. It simply did not work, the rule must therefore be flawed. It did not 'did not work', it was broken. You wee disingenuous thing ye! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) On whether the SFA/SPL should've stepped in to remove Craig Whyte, we actually do know how Rangers fans responded to concrete proof that he was a dodger and a liar with a deeply suspect business history, because the BBC told us about it in a well-sourced and argued documentary. How did Rangers fans respond to the news? Given a choice between backing a proven conman and asset stripper, or the nation's public service broadcaster with it's constitutional requirement for fairness, Rangers fans backed the conman. Now, let's try to imagine a scenario in which the SFA/SPL interceded and removed Whyte from his post, thus leaving Rangers without an owner, teetering on the edge of financial destruction and with Celtic breathing down their necks in the title race. The question here isn't "Would Rangers fans have backed the SFA/SPL against Whyte". Only the most deranged and insane lunatic would believe that such a thing was possible. The question is "Who would get the most death threats, bullets and wonky parcel-bombs?" and the answer would be "Pretty much everyone perceived to be Against Rangers". And as events have shown, the only people who don't fall into that category are Ally McCoist and the Big Hoose Walloper. Edited February 19, 2013 by flyingrodent 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 How the rule operates is quite frankly irrelevant. It either works or it does not, in this case is obviously did not, the rule is flawed and as such pointless. But, strangely, the SFA still exists and Rangers don't. If a rule is flawed and pointless, that's the kind of flawed and pointless I like. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Excellent - here's hoping Whyte can do something useful at last and bring the house of cards down by suing the arse off those wankers. Do you think any repacement is going to have the resources to do any better? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehoss Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Third person to use this argument, it really is deflecting. What Rangers fans opinion of the SFA should they have blocked CW is completely irrelevant to the question; Did the SFA`s FPP test fail, it clearly did. What difference does it make though? Im sure murray passed some sort of FPP test. He still managed to lead your team down a dark alley no? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) Third person to use this argument, it really is deflecting. What Rangers fans opinion of the SFA should they have blocked CW is completely irrelevant to the question; Did the SFA`s FPP test fail, it clearly did. Tedi, you're right. Any such testing failed to pick up on the true nature of Craig Whyte. Such failings utterly pale into insignificance however, when set against what Murray did, and against how fans reacted when the BBC revealed how fit, proper or otherwise Whyte really was. I agree that the SFA shouldn't be (and I'm sure weren't) swayed by worries over the reactions of fans. To focus on any SFA shortcomings however, at the expense of examining the conduct of Murray and the fans, really is the ultimate in "deflecting". In their actual context, such matters truly are "completely irrelevant". Edited February 19, 2013 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 You are making this up. They neither applied or as you put it 'applying on the 14th of June' They were simply in administration from Feb 2012 until October 2012 They applied to the court of session on the 17th October for liquidators to be appointed, this was granted on the 31st if October 2012 when BDO were appointed. So who the f**k were that mob getting World Record crowds in the Third Division, then? (Oh, and getting pumped out of cups in Sally's usual style). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Would Whyte have failed the FAPP test when he first bought Rangers? According to the SFA's Articles of Association, a person is not a FAPP if they fail to meet one of the following: bankrupt - not then, he wasn't. unsound mind - avoiding the obvious jokes, probably not. under suspension - not then. member of another club - nope. player of another club - nope. has an endorsed Disclosure - nope. disqualified as a director within the last 5 years - nope (mebees back in 2000). convicted/corruption.fraud - not aware of any suspended by any other Association - nope director of any insolvent club So, why would the SFA have found him not to be a FAPP? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Would Whyte have failed the FAPP test when he first bought Rangers? According to the SFA's Articles of Association, a person is not a FAPP if they fail to meet one of the following: bankrupt - not then, he wasn't. unsound mind - avoiding the obvious jokes, probably not. under suspension - not then. member of another club - nope. player of another club - nope. has an endorsed Disclosure - nope. disqualified as a director within the last 5 years - nope (mebees back in 2000). convicted/corruption.fraud - not aware of any suspended by any other Association - nope director of any insolvent club So, why would the SFA have found him not to be a FAPP? Now this I like - the rule as to be applied, and the hoops which have to be jumped through. Craig appears to be eligible. As, to be fair, would some pretty unsavoury characters of my acquaintance (makes no reference to residency in the Queens Hotel for non-financial matters, as far as I can see.) Over to Tedi - this really should be outstanding. The meltdown to end them all? And a week or so before the cheating verdict as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Rangers Football club, it says it right here. http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/club/rangers/ Waaheeyy! Tedi's brought his link back! Have No. 8's pills worn off, then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) 7. this disqualification was still in place in 2007 So, in the declaration submitted by rangers to the SFA, there was a lie? How desperate was Murray to get shot of them by this point? Desperate enough to lie? Surely not! ETA: And surely not desperate enough to incriminate the innocent members of the rangers Board of the time - corporate responsibility (and the SFA rule) and all that.... Edited February 19, 2013 by WhiteRoseKillie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic Rebel. Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 The Secovians remind me of my wife. Never her fault and she's always the victim. I watch her spend too much money and if I try to discuss it with her she flies off in a rage to deny and deflect so that the real issue doesn't get discussed. When she's calmed down she actually thinks she's the victim because I shouted (actually I only spoke to her) and she was upset by me "having a go at her". How dare I upset her. Not guilty and now the victim. Job done. Behaviour doesn't change and she carries on as before, Sound familiar? Sounds very similar to mine Johnny,remember yon snowstorm we had in 2010,well it was 3 am in the morning and i got up to look out the window to see if the snow was on,she shuffled her bahookie and i said 'Its snowing again' she roared back 'Am no bloody snoring.' See wimmen !!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) How many times. Where on this discussion have I tried to defend Murray. Murray didn't submit the declaration - rangers did. How many times, indeed. ETA: I let the "pedastool" pass first time, but ffs use English, will you? Unless it's a Bennett-style typo, of course.... Edited February 19, 2013 by WhiteRoseKillie 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.