youngsy Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 No8 I've just checked all the posts on this thread on 16th Feb 2012 where you claimed Rangers deserved SFL 3rd division footy and there is no post from you claiming such a thing although later on in the year on May 21st 2012 that is you did in fact boast that Rangers would only take the 3rd division if sanctions were imposed on them in the SPL to get it right up the P&D's . No8 SPL with no sanctions or it's off to the 3rd division to f**k us all.JPG And notice the neg rep No8 -53 well just because I made it -54 to go with yer title horde . I did find this from Youngsy though on 16th Feb 2012 about telling us how he would much rather prefer to listen to NUFF n HELPS on the event of Rangers being liquidated . At that particular time D & P did state that liquidation was unlikely and as they are more qualified than you on this subject I would think it would be only correct to listen to the better qualified person. The fact that HMRC pushed the PLC into liquidation because of Whites wrongdoings is neither here nor there as in fact I would still take a qualified persons opinion and advice rather than that of a person that lifted my litter at Ibrox, wouldn't you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 No8 I've just checked all the posts on this thread on 16th Feb 2012 where you claimed Rangers deserved SFL 3rd division footy and there is no post from you claiming such a thing although later on in the year on May 21st 2012 that is you did in fact boast that Rangers would only take the 3rd division if sanctions were imposed on them in the SPL to get it right up the P&D's . No8 SPL with no sanctions or it's off to the 3rd division to f**k us all.JPG And notice the neg rep No8 -53 well just because I made it -54 to go with yer title horde . I did find this from Youngsy though on 16th Feb 2012 about telling us how he would much rather prefer to listen to NUFF n HELPS on the event of Rangers being liquidated . Farewell Cruel World! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 I banged some sweet wee chick from there one night when I was in it with a pal who was a member in it . For 'banged' please read 'showed her a spreadsheet about Rangers'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 lol Seems the only one claiming things without proof is you. Proof on your Sandaza claim please. Dick. There you go dopey and I'm sooooo fucking positive that Rangers have struck a deal in monetary terms http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23369938 It says Rangers agree to terminate so that means money is involved dopey which in all likely hood will be around half of what is left on his contract which stood at well over £1 million 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 Did you really? Why? How sad does that make you? But not as stoopid looking as you though 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 He needed released that much is very obvious. Fcuk me you come out with some eye melting pish at times Tedi Rangers sacked him and terminated his contract remember ? Rangers have now agreed to terminate his contract which means Sandaza had the legal upper hand in his unfair dismissal charge to which the club has settled and that will involve a hefty pay off ! it's the logical answer ffs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 At that particular time D & P did state that liquidation was unlikely and as they are more qualified than you on this subject I would think it would be only correct to listen to the better qualified person. The fact that HMRC pushed the PLC into liquidation because of Whites wrongdoings is neither here nor there as in fact I would still take a qualified persons opinion and advice rather than that of a person that lifted my litter at Ibrox, wouldn't you. It was still funny though Youngsy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 So no proof then. You were talking shite. The article does not mention money You are still talking shite. Dopey chunt. See above post dopey on the wording and correct legal approach 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Also remember that the Puma and Blackthorn deals for next season are surely going to be far smaller than the Nike and Tennents ones that were in place last season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saor Alba Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Oh I don't know so much, Henrik. I watched both of them at Blackpool in the same week years ago and for me Manning was more racist than Brown. I would even say that Manning was more racist than WRKs' hatred of Rangers, that's how bad he was. Absolutely disgusting and so was Manning. There is absolutely nothing "racist" or at all wrong with any one who shows only contempt and disdain for "Rangers FC" and the zombies who followed that cheating tax/creditor dodging bankrupted club. Only the dumbest of the dumb is stupid enough now to attempt to defend that dead clubs name. Comparing zombie rangers scummy sectarian fans with the innocent targets of Bernard Manning and Roy Chubby Brown. That's a laugh! Did you buy shares in the IPO youngsy? I fucking hope you did you bigoted zombie fool! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 More bullshit. He has a new club and cannot sign, he needed out of his current contract. I did, you have no idea what you are talking about. Dopey chunt. How thick can you be ? Published on 04/04/2013 08:16 RANGERS have sacked striker Francisco Sandaza following an investigation into a hoax phone call. The club initially suspended the Spaniard as they investigated comments he made in a conversation with someone masquerading as an agent, which was subsequently broadcast online. A statement last night read: “Rangers announced today that the club has decided to terminate its contract with Francisco Sandaza. The player has been advised of the situation.” Sandaza revealed details of his salary and thoughts on his future during the conversation with someone pretending to sound him out over a potential move to Major League Soccer. The statement continued: Francisco spoke at length to someone posing as an agent and engaged in a conversation which the club believes to be a material breach of his contract of employment. The player was suspended but, after careful consideration and a hearing with Francisco and his representatives, the club and our advisors, believe that dismissal is the appropriate course of action. “The termination is subject to the right of appeal under SFL rules and there will be no further comment from Rangers.” The former Dundee United and Brighton striker signed a three-year contract at Ibrox in August after a successful season with St Johnstone. But the 28-year-old endured a difficult time at Ibrox, scoring two goals in 17 appearances for the newly-crowned Irn-Bru Third Division champions. Now the article says TERMINATED you dopey idiot sauce http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sport/football/rangers-sack-sandaza-over-hoax-call-1-2876137 So how the fcuk can Rangers terminate a contract twice dopey ? Sandaza has won his appeal and now Rangers have terminated it for real 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saor Alba Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 I still agree with HB's overriding, if bluntly expressed, point that given recent history and the evidence before us, until some proof is offered, the CEO of TRFC has absolutely no right to have his financial statements taken at face value. True right. Only the idiotic followers are stupid enough to believe anything that comes out of Rangers International FC without proof. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 How thick can you be you dopey stupid chunt. are you saying this article is bullshit then? You still aren't getting it Tedi are you ffs ! he was sacked months ago and he appealed so in order for Rangers to terminate his contract for a second time then Sandaza has won his appeal,because if Rangers had won their termination the first time round then the media would be reporting Sandaza loses appeal and he did in fact have his contract terminated in April back then which meant the club wouldn't need to terminate his contract for a second time. You get it now ?. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 What appeal? link to prove that (1) an appeal was actually lodged and (2) that as you claim he won it. There is only 1 contract to terminate and the latest article says it was terminated now, you are completely ignoring that he has a new club and needs to sign for them ^ ^ ^ Clueless idiot ffs believes a contract can be terminated twice and can't remember Sandaza lodged an appeal as in the link I supplied The termination is subject to the right of appeal under SFL rules and there will be no further comment from Rangers It has been appealed numbnut or there is no need to terminate Sandaza's contract for a second time stupid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 So no link you stupid clueless idiot. The previous article says that Rangers terminated the contract, it does not say Sandaza agreed to the termination. The latest article now says Sandaza agrees to the termination. Why? The only fact we have is that he has a new club and needs to sign. What a rocket you are tonight Tedi It is Rangers who have agreed to terminate Sandaza's contract not the other way round this means what Tedi if Rangers agree ? Rangers agree to terminate Francisco Sandaza contract By Chris McLaughlin Senior Football Reporter, BBC Scotland 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Selective quoting will not save you, this statement makes it clear that Sandaza now agrees. Rangers have reached an agreement with former striker Francisco Sandaza to terminate his contract. Aw ffs it just gets worse for you doesn't it . Sandaza was a free agent back in April when his contract was TERMINATED by the club ! so in order for Rangers to terminate or agree to terminate it for a second time means that ??? in your own time Tedi because I know you have the memory of a goldfish n all that. The only way to terminate Sandaza's contract for a second time is by unfair dismissal or Rangers didn't have sufficient cause by the SFL appeal and folded over avoiding public humiliation and then the media would be reporting something altogether different don't you think if Rangers won the appeal ?,and definitely not terminating a contract for the second time if Rangers were in their legitimate rights to terminate his contract the first time round back in April. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 More made up bullshit, he lost his only appeal and the only route open was through the new SPFL which would take months, during which he would not be eligible to play, this was already covered in another article. He does not have months, he has a new club, he needs to agree to move on that is why the latest article now says both parties agree. Goodnight Dopey . Ask yourself this Tedi ! why would Sandaza agree to terminate his contract with Rangers now when it was already terminated back in April by the club ???. Why would Sandaza need to agree to terminate a contract that has already been terminated back in April by the club to sign onto another club if he was already a free agent ???. Your argument has no substance to agree to terminate a contract that has already been terminated by the club ie he was sacked and his contract ripped up for Sandaza to sign onto another club and no need to terminate it for a second time unless Rangers lost their appeal or were going to lose it ???. Because if Rangers back in April were quite right to terminate Sandaza's contract then there is no need for Sandaza to agree to terminate his contract because the club were quite right to sack him back in April and that would be the end of that and Sandaza could sign for any club without having to agree to terminate his contract because he was already sacked by the club back in April !!!. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saor Alba Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Rangers thought they were right, Sandaza thought differently, that is why he appealed.......he lost. He wanted to appeal again but was told by his lawyers it would take months, months he did not have. Why? he has a new club and already admitted he could not play for them while any appeal was ongoing. You sure do post a lot of shoite on this thread Tedi. Sandanza will have justice one way or another if he hasn't already been settled out of court in a secret deal behind closed doors. Ibrox never ever escapes from from karmic justice. You should know that by now unless you really are a zombie. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 sure do post a lot of shoite on this thread karmic justice The zionists are gonnae get you, zionists are gonnae get you... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 best stick to fantasising about masons following you about in vans. He's got a karma-stick for dealing with masons I heard. Karma doesn't effect vans - soulless, you see. Stick useless. 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.