Monkey Tennis Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 The Chief Executive Rabble Rouser also mentioned the embargo in his statement. Surely he realises this related to the overall charge sheet and not purely for entering administration? Agreed, the lumping together of the embargo and that part of the fine amounts to the rabble rousing you speak of. Basically, I think the entire statement does, but questioning the fine seems legitimate to me. Out of interest, does anyone know if it was paid? It wouldn't really alter matters in material terms, but it would surely weaken the right of Rangers to now moan about it if it had never been paid anyway? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 So what happens when a club becomes incorporated? As far as I can make out, it's legal form changes in that instance. Quite happy to discuss this, even though the apparent answers contradict my earlier arguments. It's a pity the Sevconians only comment on issues which fit their agenda. Tedi, since you've stuck your toe back inti the new/old debate, MacGregor & Co, why no fees for the transfer of registration? Why did FIFA intervene and ratify the transfers against the will of the SFA? The bit in red answers the bold part. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Yes they could have imposed a lesser fine and probably would have done, if it were the only item on charge sheet. However, as there was a whole list of accompanying charges, I think the max fine was issued on the basis of obvious and blatant disregard for rules/laws/morals. In short, 'the arrogance factor'. Once more, I agree with this and said as much yesterday - that the nature and scale of Rangers' wrongdoing probably justified the maximum penalty. Raising the question remains legitimate though, in my view. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 You or I could go have a look if we wished. It would be utterly irrelevant though. As my post made clear, I had no problem whatever with your issuing reddies without accompanying posts. The issue is all to do with the hypocrisy involved in having a go at German Jag for behaviour you often indulge in, yourself. Address that point, rather than whether my reddie was merited or otherwise. Oh that is easy....I have far too many posts on this thread...I have made my position pretty clear on most of the topics covered. You can pass comment or award red or green dots on any of these posts as you see fit. My problem with German Jag is he NEVER posted on this thread and stayed out of all debates and added nothing but dots. He has explained his position now and that is fine. It really was no big deal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Oh that is easy....I have far too many posts on this thread...I have made my position pretty clear on most of the topics covered. You can pass comment or award red or green dots on any of these posts as you see fit. My problem with German Jag is he NEVER posted on this thread and stayed out of all debates and added nothing but dots. He has explained his position now and that is fine. It really was no big deal. German Jag "has explained his position" to you and is now in the clear. I can only imagine what a relief that's come as, for him and his family. You're right of course - this is no big deal. Just the exposure of some casual but very blatant hypocrisy on your part. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 (edited) The bit in red answers the bold part. I take it then that there is little point in posting my follow up question. Why did an independent panel state that the SFA's articles of association did not allow for arbitration on the matter to be transferred, along with all the assets, from one company to the other when arbitration was begun by the club? Unless I am using the refusal to answer as a sign of concession from the Sevconians that both the SFA's and FIFA's rulebooks, when tested, appear to show that the clubs are not the same. Edited August 2, 2013 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 So what happens when a club becomes incorporated? As far as I can make out, it's legal form changes in that instance. Quite happy to discuss this, even though the apparent answers contradict my earlier arguments. It's a pity the Sevconians only comment on issues which fit their agenda. Tedi, since you've stuck your toe back inti the new/old debate, MacGregor & Co, why no fees for the transfer of registration? Why did FIFA intervene and ratify the transfers against the will of the SFA? Sorry yes it's legal form would change. My mind is on charities at the moment as that's what I'm working on and I worded my point very poorly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Personally I will take the view that UEFA know considerably more about this than you, I hope you can understand this. I can fully understand you taking that view. Could you tell me what Rangers changed their legal form from and to? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 I take it then that there is little point in posting my follow up question. Why did an independent panel state that the SFA's articles of association did not allow for arbitration on the matter to be transferred, along with all the assets, from one company to the other when arbitration was begun by the club? Unless I am using the refusal to answer as a sign of concession from the Sevconians that both the SFA's and FIFA's rulebooks, when tested, appear to show that the clubs are not the same. Pretty much yes. The 'Brighter' group know the 'party line' doesn't stand up to proper scrutiny but they cannot admit such and owe it to the 'Less Bright' group, to keep spouting pish. The whole siege mentality thing is the perfect smokescreen for reasoned/logical debate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 German Jag "has explained his position" to you and is now in the clear. I can only imagine what a relief that's come as, for him and his family. You're right of course - this is no big deal. Just the exposure of some casual but very blatant hypocrisy on your part. Sorry what hypocrisy? I am sure it is no relief to him or his family. TBH i am pretty sure he couldn't care less what i thought of his posting style. He does something i don't particularly like but that's his choice. He explained himself at least...time to move on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Sorry yes it's legal form would change. My mind is on charities at the moment as that's what I'm working on and I worded my point very poorly. Don't worry I was just using your post to open up the debate in the 3rd paragraph of my post. I now have a spurious chance to bury the employment law angle of defence with the 'Sandaza principle' whose contract was cancelled long before Rangers agreed to the release of his registration documents. Apologies for using your posts in this way but the Sevconians are notorious for not entering debates which require the use of thought. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 I take it then that there is little point in posting my follow up question. Why did an independent panel state that the SFA's articles of association did not allow for arbitration on the matter to be transferred, along with all the assets, from one company to the other when arbitration was begun by the club? Unless I am using the refusal to answer as a sign of concession from the Sevconians that both the SFA's and FIFA's rulebooks, when tested, appear to show that the clubs are not the same. Pretty much yes. The 'Brighter' group know the 'party line' doesn't stand up to proper scrutiny but they cannot admit such and owe it to the 'Less Bright' group, to keep spouting pish. The whole siege mentality thing is the perfect smokescreen for reasoned/logical debate. Article 12 UEFA states:- 'A club may not apply for licence to participate in UEFA comp. unless they have held licence with a member association for at least 3x consecutive years.' As The Rangers have been excluded from Euro comp for 3x years, this would indicate that UEFA do not consider them to have been a member of The SFA for 3x years and therefore by definition, a new club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Sorry what hypocrisy? I am sure it is no relief to him or his family. TBH i am pretty sure he couldn't care less what i thought of his posting style. He does something i don't particularly like but that's his choice. He explained himself at least...time to move on. But you are strangely silent about 'rangers' fans creating aliases to do likewise? Surely a far more cowardly act. Hypocrisy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Article 12 UEFA states:- 'A club may not apply for licence to participate in UEFA comp. unless they have held licence with a member association for at least 3x consecutive years.' As The Rangers have been excluded from Euro comp for 3x years, this would indicate that UEFA do not consider them to have been a member of The SFA for 3x years and therefore by definition, a new club. That is avery good point, perhaps Tedi's seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of the UEFA rulebook could clarify? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Hey No8, I noticed you offered this very fine post of mine one of those reddie things the other day. You chose not to elaborate by posting any arguments against what I'd said. Well within your rights of course, something you do frequently and not a problem. However, I notice also that you berated poor old German Jag along these lines: "Nobody cares you red dot posters but red dotting and adding nothing to the debate is just the act of a coward IMO. Scared to post your opinion but willing to publicly denounce others...pretty tragic." Now it's almost as if what we're seeing here is some sort of naked hypocrisy. Yes, I do have a lot of time on my hands at the moment, and yes, you can respond to this with a predictable reddie. Strangely enough, a lot of my neg reps come from one particular poster who delights in telling everyone he's just dishing out the reddies 'cos he can. And no, you don't get a prize for guessing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 That is avery good point, perhaps Tedi's seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of the UEFA rulebook could clarify? Aye good luck with that one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Sorry what hypocrisy? I am sure it is no relief to him or his family. TBH i am pretty sure he couldn't care less what i thought of his posting style. He does something i don't particularly like but that's his choice. He explained himself at least...time to move on. Yes, quite right, No. 8. After having had your arse handed to you over your changing attitudes towards the taxi mafia the new power in the ibrox boardroom, your association with terrorists, your inability to explain your definition of "loyalist", your failure to acknowledge that the scum rioting in Ulster wearing rangers tops were more than coincidence, and now having, how does your wee cheerleader put it, "flown your double standards high again", we should all move on and forget any of this happened. Move along, nothing to see... Yeah, right. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magoo9uk Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Strangely enough, a lot of my neg reps come from one particular poster who delights in telling everyone he's just dishing out the reddies 'cos he can. And no, you don't get a prize for guessing. Anyone who describes an ex football player as a "c**t with cancer" anonymously via a football forum is bound to attract a degree of opprobium...... -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Address that point, rather than whether my reddie was merited or otherwise. you could always copy mad Norman and complain to admin about it. The 50K fine was purely for breaching rule 14.1, the overall fine was much larger, Rangers were treated differently in this Regard, the fans have every right to be angry and Mather has every right to ask the question. Some of arguments from the P&D's are unbelievable, even with the evidence right in front of their beaks they still plod on with the same old tired routines. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WILLIEA Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 I can fully understand you taking that view. Could you tell me what Rangers changed their legal form from and to? No no no. Do NOT ask them hard questions! 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.