flyingrodent Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 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 If somebody can explain how Rangers were found innocent of intentionally breaking the rules, I'll be glad to wind my neck in. It's getting late after all, and there's only so much deliberate point-avoidance a man can take before he eventually tires. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 My god, I think I have overdosed on schadenfreude. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 as it's colloquially known Superb! LNS: "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" Rhatbhoy: "That's a pyoor fuckin colloquialism by ra way." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 LNS: "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" It's poor wording in the summary Oh my aching sides 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 LNS: "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" Oh my aching sides I can see you're a bit slow on the uptake, so let's make this absolutely explicit, shall we? If you're brought up in court on a murder charge, the judge and jury aren't there to look into your mind with psychic powers and determine your guilt via mind-reading, and they don't all jump into a time machine and watch you commit the murder. What they do is, they consider the evidence presented by the prosecution, then they decide whether they think the defence has disproven that evidence. And then, they find you guilty or not guilty. "Guilty" doesn't mean "definitely did it", just as "not guilty" doesn't mean "definitely didn't". The two terms are the judge or jury's best assessment of the probabilities placed in front of them. The Commission decides on similar principles. Which means - the Commission is saying that, based upon the evidence presented, they can't conclude that Rangers benefited. This does not mean "definitely didn't benefit". I mean, this isn't mental-difficulty legal know-how here. You could pick this up from watching Perry Mason for five minutes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) 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. There are all sorts of crimes that people couldn't reach the conclusion that I committed. Because I didn't commit them. Though someone could still claim - through his tears - that it's not been proved that it absolutely didn't happen. Edited February 28, 2013 by Bearwithme 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 There are all sorts of crimes that people couldn't reach the conclusion that I committed. Because I didn't commit them. Though someone could still claim - through his tears - that it's not been proved that it absolutely didn't happen. And this is all before we get to the question of why, exactly, Rangers would need to benefit from intentionally breaking the rules*, in order to receive certain punishments. We don't need to prove that burglars benefit from their crimes in order to bust them, for example. *The Commission did find that you intentionally broke the rules, by the way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Honestly Rico, I like you too but, there were literally thousands of your fellow supporters who banked on this being found against us on all points especially dual contracts. They wanted to call us cheats, they wanted the mockathon that would have came with stripping those titles, they wanted to see the emotions that came with days like helicopter Sunday stripped away, they wanted to laugh. This is what they lost today and this is why it makes a difference, its just a different type of helicopter Sunday. I agree some will be more affected by others, rodent is usually calm in his posts but tonight the pain is pretty obvious from him and if you want to see what it really means to some then have a look at this. Of course there is, You'll have thousands of Celtic fans obsessing over this, spitting blood Rangers didn't get stripped titles. unfortunately you have a lot of people who supporting a football team and hating another is pretty much a way of life for them. and for them to brand you as a bunch of cheats would be fucking fantastic. You know the likes i'm talking about (Tommy from the radio comes to mind) That's the nature of our rivalry we've all danced to this tune many many times and will continue to do so again in the future. I'm glad to say i'm not one of the obsessed I do love a good slagging and no doubt i'll continue to post that creditors list for as long as i'm on this planet. but overall I don't take these things far too serious, unlike some posters on here, i'll never start degrading people and resort to swearing at them or calling them idiots. It's the internet after all Overall, the way i see it the last 12 months have been far more "losses" for Rangers than "victories" and from a Celtic point of view It means i can slag you forever and ever. You may see it as more "victories" than "losses" for Rangers. but either way, we'll obviously never see eye to eye on everything. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 What do we think's next then? Any time this seems to be apprachibg closure, another bombshell lands. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Did you really expect that it would get this good today? I believe I hinted that flyingrhatbhoy coming on would be worth the wait. But, I had no idea he would be suffering so very, very badly. Who could? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic Rebel. Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 My god, I think I have overdosed on schadenfreude. Nope,just fraud. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 I can see you're a bit slow on the uptake, so let's make this absolutely explicit, shall we? Yes please - LNS speaking to you via poorly worded colloquialisms isn't cutting much mustard with me. But, any more fantasy murder cases you might care to cite are very welcome. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Of course, you win some you lose some and you always have to look on the bright side, the alternative to this is the Erskine Bridge Its been a shitty year, but hey I still have my seat at Ibrox, still have the club i love who have no tainted titles amongst that 54, could have been a lot worse and I do genuinely agree with Chris Graham that this was the last big dark cloud hanging over us. Its time to move on, lets get back to the footie and hopefully we too can stop blaming everyone else. How about we just call it (for now) a score draw until the next thing comes up involving either of our clubs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) And this is all before we get to the question of why, exactly, Rangers would need to benefit from intentionally breaking the rules*, in order to receive certain punishments. We don't need to prove that burglars benefit from their crimes in order to bust them, for example. *The Commission did find that you intentionally broke the rules, by the way. And the old company got a fine. So be it. The EBTs were not kept secret. They were in the company's accounts and those accounts were submitted to the footbal authorities. We're not talking about under-the-table payments or anything like that here. And if anyone thinks there was anything wrong in what Lord Nimmo Smith et al did (that they were corrupt in some way, for example), let them take it to the appropriate authority. Edited March 1, 2013 by Bearwithme 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Yes please - LNS speaking to you via poorly worded colloquialisms isn't cutting much mustard with me. But, any more fantasy murder cases you might care to cite are very welcome. Well, children can get their heads around things like "beyond reasonable doubt" and so on, if you sit them in front of a TV for half an hour. I can't help it if you're still struggling with these concepts as a full-grown man and God knows, I've tried to help out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Right i am beginning to get worried now..could somebody find out if WRK is ok. This must be the longest he has gone without posting on this thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Aye ok deal, maybe you want to predict a 4:0 turnaround in Turin? 4-0? Don't be silly now We'll score 6 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack D and Coke Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 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? An almost perfect summing up of events. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) And the old company got a fine. So be it. The EBTs were not kept secret. They were in the company's accounts and those accounts were submitted to the footbal authorities. We're not talking about under-the-table payments or anything like that here. And if anyone thinks there was anything wrong in what Lord Nimmo Smith et al did (that they were corrupt in some way, for example), let them take it to the appropriate authority. This is what we call "deliberately ignoring the issue, because the reality is inconvenient". “While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the non-disclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the side-letters need not be or should not be disclosed. No steps were taken to check, even on a hypothetical basis, the validity of that assumption with the SPL or the SFA.” Are we clear? That's deliberate non-disclosure, there. "Concealment", if you prefer. The distinction you're drawing here is like the one between me saying "I borrowed your car" and me not saying "I borrowed your car, then torched it and pushed it into the Clyde". Edited March 1, 2013 by flyingrodent 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.