bennett Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Have you read the report? If it was an admin error, why did they try and hide it from the SPL/SFA & HMRC?It was in the accounts given to the SFA and SPL every year, there was adminisitrive problems regarding how it was disclosed which is why a hefty fine was handed out. Hardly what any sane person would class as cheating. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 I think you just have to accept that Lord Nimmo understands these things better than you. I think I may have to. Clearly, ideas that seem so utterly illogical and lunatic require a sharper mind than mine. Maybe one of you Rangers boys could explain it to me? I mean, can you think of any other area in human existence where you can't be punished for breaking the law, if it can't be proven that you benefited from doing so? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 good to see that Chris Graham is making an arse of himself again on STV Rangers are found guilty - "We have been vindicated" Even Tom English said Rangers never cheated, you need to get over this. I blame the various bloggers who forecast our impending title stripping, they let you and the P&Bers down ..................... again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Stopped here, you are starting to make things up now. That was a totally shit post by your standards, the hurt has plainly got to you. pleasing So you weren't found guilty of intentionally conspiring to break the rules of the game? You must be reading different reports than me. I could've sworn the Commission said you intentionally conspired to break the rules of the game. Maybe this is some twenty-dimensional-chess clever geezer's issue that mediocre minds like mine can't grasp. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Has anyone seen Norman? Hope he's ok.... he does tend to take these things rather badly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 That is bullshit. The SPL tried to make us (incorrectly) to accept title stripping, in fact it was attempted blackmail. Every newspaper talked about it, every blogger has being saying this is what should happen, I could post 200+ posts from here that wanted it. We have not been found guilty of anything that constitutes cheating on the field of play, everything else is completely irrelevant to me at least. Yes, I don't think anyone disagrees that the SPL make an arse of things for all clubs. Hardly blackmail, Keeping in mind you are lucky you have a team in senior football at all, let's not kid on here, if it was any team other than yours or mine in that position they would not have got the same treatment. Title stripping was one of the punishments on the table, the only people who made a big song and dance about it was Rangers. and why did every news paper talk about it? Because Rangers (charlie green) didn't shut up about it! People on P&B are not in a position to demand title stripping, that is an individual opinion You have been found guilty!!!! Read the verdict, it clearly states this! just because you didn't get given a title stripping punishment doesn't mean you are innocent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 The SPL tried to make us (incorrectly) to accept title stripping, in fact it was attempted blackmail. Agree with this. At no point should there ever have been offers, deals or votes re staying in spl or joining div Z1 When liquidation was announced they should have been decisive and immediately have Rangers apply again at bottom. No bullshit and shitbaggery. Had they done that, it would have been far less messy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack D and Coke Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) Learn to read. They have been found guilty of not fully disclosing all relevant paper work. The players were properly registered. LOL, wot? And fined quarter of a million for it? Stop kidding yourselves this verdict is anything less than a surrender to thuggery. "We're not fining them for cheating, we're fining them for, um, missing paperwork, um, yes, that's what it is, and let that be a lesson to them!" Lol and don't you scamps ever think about cheating for a decade ever again! Or else! I knew titles would never be stripped. The one thing that has shone like a beacon since day one of this saga is that there has not been one single person with the gumption and bottle to deal with it like a man. They've pussied and piss farted about all shite scared to do anything and instead have only ended up pissing the whole country off. The beauty of it is Glasgow Rangers died and the Newco is playing in Division 3 over an admin error. It's actually absolutely fucking hilarious. Edited February 28, 2013 by Jack D and Coke 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Lol and don't you scamps ever think about cheating for a decade ever again! Or else! I knew titles would never be stripped. The one thing that has shone like a beacon since day one of this saga is that there has not been one single person with the gumption and bottle to deal with it like a man. They've pussied and piss farted about all shite scared to do anything and instead have only ended up pissing the whole country off. The beauty of it is Glasgow Rangers died and the Newco is playing in Division 3 over an admin error. It's actually absolutely fucking hilarious. the reason they had been allowed to come back in the third decision was due to the club being liquidated as it couldn't afford to pay it's debts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 How long do you think it will be before the hurt dies down? They really thought this was going to happen, the reactions have been far sweeter than I ever could of hoped for, Ibrox will be a fun place come Saturday. What hurt? You seem to think not having any titles stripped is a victory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 How long do you think it will be before the hurt dies down? They really thought this was going to happen, the reactions have been far sweeter than I ever could of hoped for, Ibrox will be a fun place come Saturday. I can see the hurt increasing over the next few days as this slowly sinks in and it dawns on them that the bloggers have played them for chumps ................ again. Sit back, enjoy their hurt and laugh at their pathetic attempts to down play the verdict. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Same reply as above, another really shitty hurting post. Don't be discouraging flyingratbhoy from howling at the moon now. It's terrific to witness. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Aplogies for deleting the rest of your post but I want home in on this point. Accept unfair illegal title stripping or we will not give you a licence and force the total death of your football club. That was undeniable blackmail. that's fine. I don't mind you picking up on individual points. As i said, If this happened to any other club except yours or mine, they wouldn't even be in a position to barter for a league place in any division. they would have simply been told, tough luck and sent packing. SPL/SFA & Charles Green were desperate to allow Rangers (newco) straight into the SPL or First Division. that's why i don't see it so much as blackmail. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 The Commission, of course, said that they didn't find any evidence that Rangers gained an unfair advantage, which is a very different thing to "did not gain any unfair advantage". Here's exactly what they said on the very first page of the summary. "Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of the SPL Rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be imposed upon Rangers FC" I can see why you're confused by this - it isn't saying what you so badly want it to. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 It is. This was as you coined it Meltdown Day, tomorrow is Meltdown Day 2, I predict it will continue for some time. Have a look through this thread, see who is happy and see who is sad, the only happy people here are those who support the red white and blue, deny it if you want but it just adds to the comedy. People annoyed yes, but not "hurting" as you put it, as some have already said. It makes no difference to them either way if Rangers had titles tripped since it would make zero difference to their club. I wasn't bothered either way and if you look at my previous posts you'll see i've never once called for Rangers to be title stripped, naturally if it had happened like any rival I would have been on here laughing. But overall, I'm not bothered. We've had more than enough ammo in the last 12 months regarding Rangers and the situation they ended up in to last a lifetime 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) I see that the good old impervious-to-reality attitude is being adopted, and why not? It'll work for as long as tomorrow's headlines, which is all the time it needs to. Out in the real world, the Commission found you guilty as sin of conspiring to break the rules or, as it's colloquially known, cheating. You're cheats. You've been branded cheats by an independent Commission which, you'll remember, you've spent the day lauding as fountains of wisdom and moral clarity. And these guys, these exemplars of probity, said it loud and proud - Rangers cheated. Now, you seem to be confusing this verdict with one of the Commission's more bizarre findings - that under the rules as they stand, you can't be punished for that cheating via the removal of titles. That doesn't mean you didn't cheat. It means you did cheat, but that the Commission can't apply the maximum sentence, because of a legal technicality. For all the GIRUY about hurting and so on, you know what you look like today? A bunch of scrawny, thieving wee scrotes who have got off on a technicality, giving the finger to the photographer from the Sun. And that always looks great in the papers, doesn't it? Edited February 28, 2013 by flyingrodent 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Here's exactly what they said on the very first page of the summary. "Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of the SPL Rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be imposed upon Rangers FC" I can see why you're confused by this - it isn't saying what you so badly want it to. You know they don't like facts, even though you can't get it any clearer than that. They'll still deny it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Wrong, the only reason they dropped this clause was to save the TV deal and this where your club chairman was 100% involved, it was the meeting with SKY that forced the SPL to drop the title stripping, the threat of losing all those millions. Sky forced it? Now i've heard this many times, but yet to see anything to back up such a claim, (apart from Rangers fans) Rangers had been just as desperate to get straight into the SPL, remember the power point presentation made at Hampden? Tedi, I like you, but i feel we are just going to keep going round in circles forever over this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) Flyingrodent maybe you should wind your neck in here and show a little humility. Things never went your way, deal with it and move on ..... or keep on making a kunt of yourself Edited February 28, 2013 by bennett 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Here's exactly what they said on the very first page of the summary. "Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of the SPL Rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be imposed upon Rangers FC" I can see why you're confused by this - it isn't saying what you so badly want it to. That's the executive summary, for people who can't be bothered to read the whole thing, which is most people. When they address it in the body of the report - the bit where they give the reasoning behind their decision - they say... Although it is clear to us from Mr Odam’s evidence that Oldco’s failure to disclose the side-letters to the SPL and the SFA was at least partly motivated by a wish not to risk prejudicing the tax advantages of the EBT scheme, we are unable to reach the conclusion that this led to any competitive advantage. "We are unable to reach the conclusion" means "We don't have any evidence to support this conclusion". It does not mean "This absolutely did not happen". I can see why you find the distinction significant, but it isn't. It's poor wording in the summary, not a legal knockout for you. 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.