AberdeenBud Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Incredible double standards on display from the P & Bers, to be fair nothing else was to be expected. Are you including the blunose p&b'ers Tedi? Also double standards implies two similar situations, this is patently not the case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 It is shocking what Dunfermline have done, but at least they show a little bit of humility, and not start boasting about being debt free and start spending millions on players and wages I assume you've posted their creditor list 286 times by now? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 (edited) Every case is different, Rangers could have been suspended or terminated, as could Hearts and Dunfermline. Everybody who is fined for say breach of the peace isn't giving the same fine. I've already acknowledged as much. I said that the scale and nature of Ranger's offence probably justified the size of the punishment. Rangers questioning of it should therefore provide an ideal opportunity to reiterate. Edited August 1, 2013 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 The only thing that's strange is why fine a team for being insolvent when it's obvious they have no money. Pains me to agree with you but i agree with this. Why fine a club who are already in serious financial trouble...I can understand the registration ban and that is the perfect punishment for a club with no money but adding to their financial problems makes no sense...It is just another obstacle to them getting themselves out of trouble 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Every case is different, Rangers could have been suspended or terminated, as could Hearts and Dunfermline. Everybody who is fined for say breach of the peace isn't giving the same fine. The only thing that's strange is why fine a team for beitng insolvent when it's obvious they have no money. Clon, I agree with that much you say here and sure, "Everybody who is fined for say breach of the peace isn't giving the same fine.". We all accept this. But what sheriffs don't do in breach cases is issue a punishment beyond their remit and then say "Well accept it because it could be worse if you don't". This was exactly what happened with Rangers. The SFA issued a ban that they were not competent to give but threatened us to accept it. Not one single fucker on here called 'foul'. I am not upset about the outcome but I am about the process. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Clon, I agree with that much you say here and sure, "Everybody who is fined for say breach of the peace isn't giving the same fine.". We all accept this. But what sheriffs don't do in breach cases is issue a punishment beyond their remit and then say "Well accept it because it could be worse if you don't". This was exactly what happened with Rangers. The SFA issued a ban that they were not competent to give but threatened us to accept it. Not one single fucker on here called 'foul'. I am not upset about the outcome but I am about the process. I recall that the draconian punishment was issued because the appropriate one was nuclear annihilation of the club by booting it out of the game altogether. Which doesn't suggest unfair treatment to me, unless we mean "unfairly lenient". I may be wrong about this, of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 I recall that the draconian punishment was issued because the appropriate one was nuclear annihilation of the club by booting it out of the game altogether. Which doesn't suggest unfair treatment to me, unless we mean "unfairly lenient". I may be wrong about this, of course. A myth which sprang up well after the decision and one which was never going to happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 It is shocking what Dunfermline have done, but at least they show a little bit of humility, and not start boasting about being debt free and start spending millions on players and wages They are perfectly entitled to spend millions on players wages etc. It's their money raised from share capital and ST sales. None of it is borrowed or cash withheld from any small business or the like. They don't need to show humility for the crass behaviour of Rangers FC not if they're a new club. The Rangers Inter are debt free and answerable to none. It it wasn't for the fact that they seem to have inherited the arrogance and the abhorrent support of the old Rangers FC I wouldn't have a problem with them. Dunfermline on the other hand will have to live with the stigma attached to leaving their debts behind, although tbf as you say they are showing a good degree of humility. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Perhaps. I take it this bout of football necromancy means that it's not time to focus on The Journey any more? Or are you simultaneously looking back in anger and onwards to the glorious dawn? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Clon, I agree with that much you say here and sure, "Everybody who is fined for say breach of the peace isn't giving the same fine.". We all accept this. But what sheriffs don't do in breach cases is issue a punishment beyond their remit and then say "Well accept it because it could be worse if you don't". This was exactly what happened with Rangers. The SFA issued a ban that they were not competent to give but threatened us to accept it. Not one single fucker on here called 'foul'. I am not upset about the outcome but I am about the process. Yes, but the fine - the bit that's now being queried - wasn't beyond their remit, was it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 I recall that the draconian punishment was issued because the appropriate one was nuclear annihilation of the club by booting it out of the game altogether. Which doesn't suggest unfair treatment to me, unless we mean "unfairly lenient". I may be wrong about this, of course. As Bennett says a complete and utter myth. The punishments that could have been handed out were varied and this nonsense about throwing Rangers out of football is just nonsense. That was NEVER going to happen 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 (edited) I recall that the draconian punishment was issued because the appropriate one was nuclear annihilation of the club by booting it out of the game altogether. Which doesn't suggest unfair treatment to me, unless we mean "unfairly lenient". I may be wrong about this, of course. This is correct, the alternative punishments inc suspension or termination of SFA membership ie no football club. So they invented a new sanction that was less drastic and instead of being grateful for this, toys were chucked out pram, with the usual dignity. Of course 'throwing them out of the game' was never going to happen, that's why the SFA bent over backwards to avoid such a scenario. Edited August 1, 2013 by Apache Don 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 I recall that the draconian punishment was issued because the appropriate one was nuclear annihilation of the club by booting it out of the game altogether. Which doesn't suggest unfair treatment to me, unless we mean "unfairly lenient". I may be wrong about this, of course. Not like a Celtic fan to rewrite history. It is simple. The SFA issued a punishment outside of their rules. We challenged that and won. The SFA then said "Accept our illegal sanction or it could be worse". Pathetic bullying and, as I said, not one decent fan on here commented. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Has Gary Locke demanded to know who are these people? They could kill his club and it's only fair that the hearts fans have a chance to intimidate and threaten them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 I'm asking because I don't know, it can be hard to keep up with the club / company things at times, considered its never been applied before Rangers went tits up. If you don't want to answer, or don't know. thats fine. Worst plastic poster on here by any number of your country miles. No one else comes close to repeatedly asking questions of such tedious redundancy. A match for bhairnforever in his pomp. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Worst plastic poster on here by any number of your country miles. No one else comes close to repeatedly asking questions of such tedious redundancy. A match for bhairnforever in his pomp. So, who received the fine? was it the club or the company? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 (edited) Did I fine out? So why do the plastics keeping asking? You're not exactly on the ball the night. Tedi needs a strong Benny IMO I assume you've commented on Dunfermline not paying the Scottish Ambulance Service? What with you not being a complete hypocrite.... TBF I think bumping the local florist out of £500 was a lot worse from your perspective. Likewise, Dunfermline somehow managed to have Fife Airport as a creditor after the Yorkston's & Masterton's had a picnic day out. Edited August 1, 2013 by Fotbawmad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 So, who received the fine? was it the club or the company? You asked this an hour ago. It was as funny then as it is now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 So, who received the fine? was it the club or the company? That's at least four times you have asked - has it never once occurred to you that Rangers supporters very obviously ignore you because you are, well, utterly ridiculous? Feel free to ask again. And again. And again... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 (edited) You asked this an hour ago. It was as funny then as it is now. He's asked you, me and Tedi so far - and been ridiculed without getting close to any kind of answer. There may be others he has tried to bore into submission. How did you put it? Like kicking a pup? Edited August 1, 2013 by Bendarroch 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.