youngsy Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 No it's not. You'll need to explain why linking Rangers fans to the KKK is acceptable to yourself. Are you categorising all Rangers fans as this or just some of them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 That would be gay pride, then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 You'll need to explain why linking Rangers fans to the KKK is acceptable to yourself. Are you categorising all Rangers fans as this or just some of them? He can't and he has logged out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Why do Newco fans care about whether titles were stripped? That club is dead, let sleeping dogs lie. Move on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Maybe he is away to add to post count about his own club, think it currently stands at 2. Either that or his maw just skelpt his arse and sent him to bed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Why do Newco fans care about whether titles were stripped? That club is dead, let sleeping dogs lie. Move on. ^^^^^ Cliche alert 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 The very sad thing about this post is that 1. A fair few people agree with you and 2. You have to resort to 'technicality' as an excuse, Honestly? I do not think you know what the f**k you're talking about. Plainly, then - Rangers were found guilty of deliberate, serious and sustained rule-breaking. That's why you were fined £250,000. But the committee said it couldn't find that this amounted to a "sporting advantage". This is why you avoided the ultimate penalty. Why couldn't they find you had gained an advantage? Because the SFA guy said players count as properly registered, even if they are improperly registered, unless players are found to be improperly registered. What does this mean? It means that intentionally misregistering players doesn't count as misregistering players, unless you tell people that you're misregistering players. Or, shorter - you can deliberately break the rules but if you don't tell people that you're breaking the rules, it doesn't count as cheating. Rangers were found guilty of intentionally breaking the rules, but because you didn't tell anyone, it doesn't count as cheating. This isn't so much "a technicality" as a giant, stomping, roaring Technicalitosaurus Rex, but it's all that stood between you and title stripping. But even if you ignore all this, which you will, the bottom line remains guilty; serious, sustained and deliberate rule breaking, for which you received a massive fine. And to repeat - nobody in history has ever been fined £250,000 for not cheating. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) Is it "cheating" to not hand over (or to delay handing over) additional documents or information? Not in any meaningful sense. There was no sporting advantage from not (timeously) handing over the additional documents. Therefore it was correct that there was no sporting punishment. Edited March 5, 2013 by Bearwithme 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Plainly, then - Rangers were found guilty of deliberate, serious and sustained rule-breaking. That's why you were fined £250,000. But the committee said it couldn't find that this amounted to a "sporting advantage". This is why you avoided the ultimate penalty. Why couldn't they find you had gained an advantage? Because the SFA guy said players count as properly registered, even if they are improperly registered, unless players are found to be improperly registered. OK this paragraph just shows how desperate you are. You're actually coming across as a little bit unhinged. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 The best bit about that protest was that the majority of the P&Bers claimed they were going to attend it and show us what for A bit like their pledges to support their teams this season i guess That's not even a wee bit true though is it Bennett? I know WRK's already tackled you on this and Bendarroch duly awarded you a coveted greenie, but do you not prefer your posts to carry a hint of truth, in the interests of your own credibility as a poster? I don't remember much talk about this protest ahead of the posting of the funny pictures. To suggest that "the majority of P&Bers claimed they were going to attend" is about as silly as can be. Posting utter shit, then failing to provide evidence for it when invited to, is now becoming something of a habit you'd be better trying to shake. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 ImageUploadedByPie & Bovril1362516820.968551.jpg I seem to recall a time when you lot weren't to happy with Frankie. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 OK this paragraph just shows how desperate you are. You're actually coming across as a little bit unhinged. You'd think, but then - that actually is an accurate summary of the Committee's findings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 That's not even a wee bit true though is it Bennett? I know WRK's already tackled you on this and Bendarroch duly awarded you a coveted greenie, but do you not prefer your posts to carry a hint of truth, in the interests of your own credibility as a poster? I don't remember much talk about this protest ahead of the posting of the funny pictures. To suggest that "the majority of P&Bers claimed they were going to attend" is about as silly as can be. Posting utter shit, then failing to provide evidence for it when invited to, is now becoming something of a habit you'd be better trying to shake. Point out whats not true then with evidence to back it up ofcourse. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) Point out whats not true then with evidence to back it up ofcourse. The claim that "the majority of P&Bers claimed they were going to attend". The evidence of this being complete and utter nonsense will be on this thread from earlier. Seriously - stop being so silly about it. Edited March 5, 2013 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) Is it "cheating" to not hand over (or to delay handing over) additional documents or information? Not in any meaningful sense. There was no sporting advantage from not (timeously) handing over the additional documents. Therefore it was correct that there was no sporting punishment.The Commission found that "not handing over (or delaying handing over) documents" was serious, sustained and deliberate rule breaking, so much so that they fined you quarter of a million pounds as a punishment.The question of "sporting advantage" was rendered moot when the Committee was told that players could only be found to be improperly registered if clubs openly admitted to improperly registering players. But let's ask: why deliberately break the rules over a decade, if not to gain an advantage? And what other kind of advantage could a football club possibly gain *except* a sporting one? Note - if the answer is "minimising the tax bill", then you're answering your own questions here. If you have to deliberately break the rules in order to lessen your tax bill, then you're only saving money by deliberately breaking the rules. And you're a football club. The only reason why you avoided title stripping is that the rules were drafted on the assumption that clubs wouldn't intentionally try to scam them out of self-interest. Which was pretty naive, given that David Murray owned an SPL club at the time, and that he's been proven to have intentionally scammed the rules out of self-interest. Edited March 5, 2013 by flyingrodent 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 You'd think, but then - that actually is an accurate summary of the Committee's findings. Maybe or maybe not but it's meaningless. Don't you see what a farrgo this whole pantomime set up by the self-immolating SPL has been? Why do you take it so seriously? The premise was flawed. The process was flawed. The conclusions were flawed. It has all been a hugely expensive joke of an exercise paid for by the clubs of the SPL. The only interesting thing is that fans of SPL clubs are not beeling that their chairmen funded such a costly and vapid exercise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) The Commission found that "not handing over (or delaying handing over) documents" was serious, sustained and deliberate rule breaking, so much so that they fined you quarter of a million pounds as a punishment. The question of "sporting advantage" was rendered moot when the Committee was told that players could only be found to be improperly registered if clubs openly admitted to improperly registering players. But let's ask: why deliberately break the rules over a decade, if not to gain an advantage? And what other kind of advantage could a football club possibly gain *except* a sporting one? Note - if the answer is "minimising the tax bill", then you're answering your own questions here. If you have to deliberately break the rules in order to lessen your tax bill, then you're only saving money by deliberately breaking the rules. And you're a football club. The only reason why you avoided title stripping is that the rules were drafted on the assumption that clubs wouldn't intentionally try to scam them out of self-interest. Which was pretty naive, given that David Murray owned an SPL club at the time, and that he's been proven to have intentionally scammed the rules out of self-interest. The information wasn't handed over (timeously) in order to protect the company's tax position. It's hardly exceptional stuff for a company to be reluctant to divulge information which might hurt its tax position. It's also worth remembering that the payments themselves were not ruled to be illicit. Edited March 5, 2013 by Bearwithme 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Maybe or maybe not but it's meaningless. Don't you see what a farrgo this whole pantomime set up by the self-immolating SPL has been? Why do you take it so seriously? The premise was flawed. The process was flawed. The conclusions were flawed. It has all been a hugely expensive joke of an exercise paid for by the clubs of the SPL. The only interesting thing is that fans of SPL clubs are not beeling that their chairmen funded such a costly and vapid exercise. This line of reasoning doesn't stand up. Clearly there were irregularities in the disclosure of information that could have impacted on player registration and eligibility. I can accept the judgement, although it disappointed me and I remain baffled by parts of it. To suggest that no such examination should ever have taken place though, smacks of the arrogance that saw the club sail so close to the wind in the first place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 The claim that "the majority of P&Bers claimed they were going to attend". The evidence of this being complete and utter nonsense will be on this thread from earlier. Seriously - stop being so silly about it. That claim is ture, either prove it to be false or stop the revisionist pish. 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.