The DA Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 7. this disqualification was still in place in 2007 Yep, my mistake. I misreadified it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Which means the FPP test is flawed, no matter how you try to dodge this. The rule is in place, its wording makes it clear what its sole purpose is. It failed (the SFA`s FPP test) Craig Whyte is not a fit and proper person. Again, Tedi, you fall into the trap of avoiding the major issue with some spurious concerns over a minor detail. The responsibility of assessing any buyer's character rested with the club, not the Association. The rule has been posted on here and, with your lack of challenge to the actual rule's wording, I have to assume you accept that this is the ruling in the SFA rulebook. Flawed or not - it was, if your statement about 2007 is correct, deliberately broken by rangers. Not by Murray, not by Whyte, not by the SFA - by rangers. The club has either failed to carry out due diligence, shameful in itself; or, having carried out the relevant checks, has lied in order to carry out their preferred course of action. If there is a flaw, it is that the Association assumes, by the method described in their rule book, that their member clubs will act in an open and honest manner. The sense of trust is what has failed - because one of those members lied. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Which means the FPP test is flawed, no matter how you try to dodge this. The rule is in place, its wording makes it clear what its sole purpose is. It failed (the SFA`s FPP test) Craig Whyte is not a fit and proper person. If I lie on my tax return, Hector probably doesn't have the resources to track me down. I might get away with it for years, maybe forever. However, if Hector later finds out that I've been lying, I'm in trouble - not Hector. It doesn't mean the tax laws are flawed - it means I've lied and got away with it. For a while. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 You will not get any argument from me on Murray, not once have I tried to put him on a pedastool, he simply lied when he said he was duped, this showed that in the end the only loyalty he had was too himself. This all started with KillingFloorMan asking "Didn't you blame the SFA for not blocking Whyte's takeover?" The answer to which is yes of course they must share some of the responsibility along with Murray and certain groups of fans. I'm not even going to object to this, you know. If this idea that blame must be shared between Murray, Rangers fans and the football authorities catches on with RFC supporters, it'd be a huge, huge step forward. Good on you, son. I still think trying to rope the SPL etc. into Rangers' self-inflicted catastrophe is a weak attempt at spreading the blame, but at least Tedi has consistently shown a willingness to face up to certain unpleasant realities that lots of his fellow fans don't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 How many times. Where on this discussion have I tried to defend Murray. Nowhere that i can see but that won't stop Norman from claiming you did. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamenitza Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 So it failed to do what the SFA designed it for, it most definately is flawed. Most clubs, societies or associations have a set of rules which it's members agree to abide by. If a member breaks one of these rules is the rule flawed and poinless or is the fault fully and squarely on the member who, despite having agreed to abide by it, broke the rule? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Nowhere that i can see but that won't stop Norman from claiming you did. And have I? No, Bennett, I haven't. I've tried to explain that the responsibility for the FAPP test lay with the Board of the club. As per the rule book. If, as Tedi claims, that rule was flawed, why did rangers not at a previous juncture act, as a member club, to amend it? The club was responsible, and either failed in its duty as an SFA member or lied about Whyte. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Most clubs, societies or associations have a set of rules which it's members agree to abide by. If a member breaks one of these rules is the rule flawed and poinless or is the fault fully and squarely on the member who, despite having agreed to abide by it, broke the rule? Strange that i never heard any outcry a couple of years ago when Celtic unleashed JP McBride on to the SFA and forced them into a humiliating climb down regarding their own rules. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 And have I? No, Bennett, I haven't. I've tried to explain that the responsibility for the FAPP test lay with the Board of the club. As per the rule book. If, as Tedi claims, that rule was flawed, why did rangers not at a previous juncture act, as a member club, to amend it? The club was responsible, and either failed in its duty as an SFA member or lied about Whyte. Yes Norman everyone is blessed with the gift of foresight and can foretell these things in advance. The rule is obviously flawed if the footballing authorities were powerless to stop the sale of the club to Whyte. I assume they have finally put in place measures to stop such a situation from ever happening again. Tedi is quite correct and your 'fishing' posts are getting tiresome now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 If somethings fails in its purpose then IMO its flawed. If I don't wear a condom, has the condom failed in its purpose? Or is my burd up the duff anyway? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I'm not even going to object to this, you know. If this idea that blame must be shared between Murray, Rangers fans and the football authorities catches on with RFC supporters, it'd be a huge, huge step forward. Good on you, son. I still think trying to rope the SPL etc. into Rangers' self-inflicted catastrophe is a weak attempt at spreading the blame, but at least Tedi has consistently shown a willingness to face up to certain unpleasant realities that lots of his fellow fans don't. I agree that Tedi is acknowledging some unpalatable truths that his fellow rangers fans find difficult to swallow, but I also have sympathy for the SFA in this instance. To have blocked Whyte's takeover would have seen such an outpouring of rage that SFA employees would have been in genuine fear for their safety. The point where the SFA failed, if they did, was years before when Murray was shuffling debt and liability around his companies. I don't know what they could have done about it, mind, but again, no rangers fans were asking uncomfortable questions as long as the silverware was being delivered. Tedi, you're turning into a fair old debater in your old age - where was this spirit back when the Amigos were crowing all over the place? Bennett is just an irrelevance, with his random burblings, and Bendarroch just pops up for a bit of Tourette's now and again (that boy has an unhealthy obsession with the legal system, IMHO). You, however, have come out as a committed rangers fan who, while misguided at times ( ), no longer descends to name-calling and abuse. Perhaps your journey to acceptance is making progress - thank you for allowing us to accompany you. Random greenie to the first post of yours that I find. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Yes Norman everyone is blessed with the gift of foresight and can foretell these things in advance. The rule is obviously flawed if the footballing authorities were powerless to stop the sale of the club to Whyte. I assume they have finally put in place measures to stop such a situation from ever happening again. Tedi is quite correct and your 'fishing' posts are getting tiresome now. I suspect the SFA can't actually stop the club/company being sold to anyone the current owner likes. What they can do is withdraw the club's license to play. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Haha i've upset agent KIllie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Yes Norman everyone is blessed with the gift of foresight and can foretell these things in advance. The rule is obviously flawed if the footballing authorities were powerless to stop the sale of the club to Whyte. I assume they have finally put in place measures to stop such a situation from ever happening again. Tedi is quite correct and your 'fishing' posts are getting tiresome now. As I stated earlier, the only failure on the SFA's part was to trust their members to be honest. What exposed this flaw was rangers breaking that trust. That is, rangers acting against the rules as they stood at the time, in full knowledge that they were doing so. Following from a previous poster - the speed limit is 70mph. Flawed? Of course it is. Even my people-carrier can do over 100 without breaking sweat. So should all cars be limited to 70? That would ensure no more speeding. Or should the authorities trust the majority to obey the law, and punish those who break it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I suspect the SFA can't actually stop the club/company being sold to anyone the current owner likes. What they can do is withdraw the club's license to play. The SFA have always been next to useless, i doubt that will ever change. I'll skip the Whyte stuff as thats hindsight and move onto our current owners. If the SFA found out that all wasn't right with the goings on at boardroom level then i'd expect them to step and suspend the club and try to safeguard it. (goes for any other club too obviously) Mistakes happen but we must learn from them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 If somethings fails in its purpose then IMO its flawed. ''Conquer Europe'' , ''team at Ibrox''.......................................? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 As I stated earlier, the only failure on the SFA's part was to trust their members to be honest. What exposed this flaw was rangers breaking that trust. That is, rangers acting against the rules as they stood at the time, in full knowledge that they were doing so. Following from a previous poster - the speed limit is 70mph. Flawed? Of course it is. Even my people-carrier can do over 100 without breaking sweat. So should all cars be limited to 70? That would ensure no more speeding. Or should the authorities trust the majority to obey the law, and punish those who break it? With tens of millions at stake dishonesty will always be an issue, the SFA's rules were outdated and out of place. There should be safeguards in place at association level to ensure this doesn;t happen again. Whyte broke the rules, did Murray? I'm 50/50ish on that one, though i reckon it'll come out in the wash soon enough Norm. Yes restrict it to the speed limit and the bennett mobile can only manage 96 mph ya dick (thats banter by the way) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Irrelevant He has his monents. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 ''Conquer Europe'' , ''team at Ibrox''.......................................? Any news on the shares mate? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 The SFA have always been next to useless, i doubt that will ever change. I'll skip the Whyte stuff as thats hindsight and move onto our current owners. If the SFA found out that all wasn't right with the goings on at boardroom level then i'd expect them to step and suspend the club and try to safeguard it. (goes for any other club too obviously) Mistakes happen but we must learn from them. Given that Campbell's still lording it over the corridors of power, I'd venture to suggest that the SFA knew more about the inner workings of rangers than they did about any other club. I wonder why they didn't step in to stop rangers doing what they wanted to do? If you wanted your lot treating like any other club, can we assume you mean "any other club apart from Airdrieonians"? 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.