flyingrodent Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Don, I've said a few things about this before but (cos I'm a boring fucker) will say it again. One cannot register non-contractual advances. Now it know that hunners of posters will 'call foul' over this but it is what was agreed by the tax tribunal. Ergo there are only three possible outcomes: 1. Our players were not properly registered thus ALL games shoud be unwound at whatever level. 2. We don't have a case to answer. 3. The SPL rules were not fit for purpose and what a silly bunch of lickspittles for consuming so much time and cost. Currently, if you sell me a stolen car and I buy it thinking it's legit, I'll probably lose the money and the car. Which means I get screwed twice. It's an unfair system, but at least it focuses on the most important point - you may have intentionally ripped off both me and the car's owner, but it's you alone that's going to get sent to prison. You're the crook, so you do the time. What you're saying should happen is this - that if you sell me a stolen car, then you, me and the poor sucker you stole the car off should all go to prison. I'm not saying the football beaks would never go for your reasoning. I'm just saying, it doesn't even qualify as "reasoning". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 That's more like it. What of tomorrow then? I know you reckon it's a kangaroo court etc, but what do you think they'll decide? The balance of opinion on here seems to think Rangers' titles will be left where they are and I'm kind of resigned to that being the case now. I predict a lot of self-important people being pompous whatever the outcome and much bombast and loads of folk being 'telt' on P&B. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I predict a lot of self-important people being pompous whatever the outcome and much bombast and loads of folk being 'telt' on P&B. Yes, but that's all a given. Who'll get to be pompous and who'll get telt? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Has Paul the lawyer paid the miners back yet? Have you seen the creditors list? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Currently, if you sell me a stolen car and I buy it thinking it's legit, I'll probably lose the money and the car. Which means I get screwed twice. It's an unfair system, but at least it focuses on the most important point - you may have intentionally ripped off both me and the car's owner, but it's you alone that's going to get sent to prison. You're the crook, so you do the time. What you're saying should happen is this - that if you sell me a stolen car, then you, me and the poor sucker you stole the car off should all go to prison. I'm not saying the football beaks would never go for your reasoning. I'm just saying, it doesn't even qualify as "reasoning". What a lot of tosh. Have I ever told you that 'argument by analogy' is always flawed? Much better I sell you one of my legitimate old bangers. You choose which one: My 11 year old VW Polo or my 43 Year old ex wife. One is a right goer and the other has more mileage than her years warrant. I won't say which one! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Yes, but that's all a given. Who'll get to be pompous and who'll get telt? so if i go out on a limb? the spl will be telt if the panel have anything amounting to balls. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 so if i go out on a limb? the spl will be telt if the panel have anything amounting to balls. We'll count that as a prediction then. Remember the 'Prediction Board' when Derek Johnstone and Jim Craig jointly hosted the worst ever football programme on BBC Scotland at lunchtime on Saturdays. Johnstone's gems and Craig's crackers were the names given to their predictions. Truly painful stuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 The "enemies" list http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/internet-security-tips-from-rangers-media-and-a-picture-quiz-from-vanguard-bears/ That's why site like vanguardbears are dangerous Putting your faith in the disgraced, bungling lawyer to one side for a moment - what's 'dangerous' about a site 'like' vangaurdbears? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 What a lot of tosh. Have I ever told you that 'argument by analogy' is always flawed? Much better I sell you one of my legitimate old bangers. You choose which one: My 11 year old VW Polo or my 43 Year old ex wife. One is a right goer and the other has more mileage than her years warrant. I won't say which one! It's pretty straightforward, I would've said. If the allegations against Rangers are true, then you've intentionally deceived all the other teams and the governing authorities, and benefited handsomely from it, at least in the short term. By saying that the logical outcome of punishing Rangers for being crooks is that those they deceived should be punished also - national teams who benefited from using Rangers players, for example - you're saying that both the crooks and their victims should be punished equally. There's no reason at all to believe that anyone outside the club was complicit in Rangers' malfeasance, which means that everyone else acted in good faith by selecting Rangers players for national teams. Since that's clearly the case, then why should national teams be punished for Rangers malfeasance? We don't punish little old ladies because conmen used their bank cards or chequebooks - that would be insane and deranged. If robbers manage to evade the police, we don't decide that the police are in cahoots with the criminals. We accept that criminals make huge efforts to evade the law, and so the police can't always catch them. So why should Rangers' fraud extend guilt to anyone else? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 what's 'dangerous' about a site 'like' vangaurdbears? Really? You're an idiot if you can't see what's wrong with that group of "supporters" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 It's pretty straightforward, I would've said. If the allegations against Rangers are true, then you've intentionally deceived all the other teams and the governing authorities, and benefited handsomely from it, at least in the short term. By saying that the logical outcome of punishing Rangers for being crooks is that those they deceived should be punished also - national teams who benefited from using Rangers players, for example - you're saying that both the crooks and their victims should be punished equally. There's no reason at all to believe that anyone outside the club was complicit in Rangers' malfeasance, which means that everyone else acted in good faith by selecting Rangers players for national teams. Since that's clearly the case, then why should national teams be punished for Rangers malfeasance? We don't punish little old ladies because conmen used their bank cards or chequebooks - that would be insane and deranged. If robbers manage to evade the police, we don't decide that the police are in cahoots with the criminals. We accept that criminals make huge efforts to evade the law, and so the police can't always catch them. So why should Rangers' fraud extend guilt to anyone else? What an excellent example of rage and ignorance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 What an excellent example of rage and ignorance. I thought I was pretty calm and measured, personally. But if you think it's raging ignorance, could you explain* why you think that, if Rangers are found to have intentionally deceived the football authorities to gain advantage, the people who they deceived should receive the same punishment as Rangers? It doesn't make much sense and it runs contrary to everything the public would understand as "fairness", I think. *(briefly, I'm off to my bed in about five minutes). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Right, bedtime. Night all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Putting your faith in the disgraced, bungling lawyer to one side for a moment - what's 'dangerous' about a site 'like' vangaurdbears? Ben, most of The Plastics are like weans on Christmas Eve- cannae sleep in anticipation of Lord Nimmo Santa bringing them a wee present in the morning. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Really? You're an idiot if you can't see what's wrong with that group of "supporters" I don't know much about them - they require verification from fellow Rangers supporters to access the forums. And with that, I have no clue as to how 'dangerous' sites 'like' that can be - because I don't know what it's like. You do, apparently, so I'm asking why you made the assertions. My guess? You know f**k all about them and trotted out some pish to suggest you do know. I'm more than happy to be corrected. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) Who cares your club died Half you clowns on here don't even know your clubs offical title Does Charlie get money back if titles are stripped?? He bought 54. Oh for fuxace. Why do we have to put up with this ignorance from The Plastics? Get your fucking facts right or go away. He bought 53 1/2 titles. Get it? Edited February 27, 2013 by The_Kincardine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic Rebel. Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Who cares your club died Half you clowns on here don't even know your clubs offical title Does Charlie get money back if titles are stripped?? He bought 54. Tedi doesn't even know Sevco's proper name. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Ben, most of The Plastics are like weans on Christmas Eve- cannae sleep in anticipation of Lord Nimmo Santa bringing them a wee present in the morning. I'd be very entertained indeed if they decide we had a case to answer, but can do f**k all about it. I'd be dining out on such a result to plastics for the rest of my days. E S T A B L I S H M E N T. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic Rebel. Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Who cares your club died Half you clowns on here don't even know your clubs offical title Does Charlie get money back if titles are stripped?? He bought 54. Word is that the judgement from the FTT said that Rangers directors hid files (side letters and so on) in a deliberate act to stop the SFA knowing about the payments, they deliberate withheld the facts from the SFA by not putting them in the contracts submitted. This was not a clerical error it was says the FTT a deliberate act to deceive the Scottish Footballing Authorities. If this is the case then the only outcome is GUILTY. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 I'd be very entertained indeed if they decide we had a case to answer, but can do f**k all about it. I'd be dining out on such a result to plastics for the rest of my days. E S T A B L I S H M E N T. I will laugh like a fucking drain when Lord 'Finding Nemo' Smith returns his anticipated 'not proven' verdict and we all go back to square one.. Cue a myriad of Plastics and their diddy fellow-travellers making 100 posts a minute on here. 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.