Bendarroch Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Embarrassed? Ridiculous claim? You'll have to be more specific. There's only one team's "supporters" who seem to have any trouble understanding clear and concise English on here tonight. Want to take a guess? Killie? Rasellik? Yorkshire? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 (edited) Where's Wally? http://www.whereswally.co.uk/index.html#home See if you can find him... Especially when you need him. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23570933 Walking away? Surely not If he couldn't stand the heat, why did he take on the job in the first place? Surely not just for the money Edited August 5, 2013 by thelegendthatis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=256472&st=0 'We have a massive fan base it's time we utilised that and demanded answers' No mate. The party line is 'suits may come, suits may go.....nothing to see here......WATP' (fingers in ears and go 'la-la-la-la') 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 You know what this situatiion needs? A nice juicy Uppper Tier Tax tribunal ruling, followed by an insolvency event. No rush I've only just stopped laughing at the Timmy wind machine conspiracy (no doubt with those pesky lickspittle abergreen fans in tow). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamenitza Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Do The Rangers not have a forum on their official club website ? The company (SC425159) has an official web site with no forum. There doesn't seem to be an official web site for the club. Rangers Football Club | Official Website | Ibrox Stadium ... The Rangers Football Club (No SC425159), Ibrox Stadium, 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow G51 2XD ... www.rangers.co.uk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 You know what this situatiion needs? A nice juicy Uppper Tier Tax tribunal ruling, followed by an insolvency event. No rush I've only just stopped laughing at the Timmy wind machine conspiracy (no doubt with those pesky lickspittle abergreen fans in tow). did you mean that typo of Bendarroch's 'abhergreen'? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Thats the one i was referring to, its a shame the club don't want to engage the fans. "The Rangers" engaging with their fans starts and stops with 'please fill in your bank details' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 I think you missed the point...Was Paul Murray a director when Rangers went into admin? If not then as far as I am aware nothing in UK law bars him from becoming a director, the SFA have further rules but these are discretionary. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17034043 This article suggests that Paul Murray was not employed as a director at this time, it also suggests that he was completely at odds with Whyte, I doubt the SFA would have an issue with him becoming a director. When did his directorship end? because the law says if it was within the 12 months previous to the day prior to the insolvency event then he cannot become a director of a company who uses the liquidated company's trading name or name. SFA rules state he cannot become a director of a football club if he held a directorship in a club in the 5 years previous to the liquidation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Question is - who's got the power? Easdales? Charlie Boy? Wattie? (Just joking with that last). Are you really not just the tiniest bit embarrassed at the whole shitstorm, Tedi? I mean really - dignity, the rangers way? It's fucking hilarious for the rest of us, but you must be dying inside. If this was any other type of company or corporation, all reasonable people would be united in their condemnation of the way this lot have behaved. Were it my club, I'd be fucking mortified. I wouldn't try and excuse it, though. Christ knows, we've got it bad enough with MJ happily drawing his money while the club suffers (and possibly dies), but your lot really are in a different league. "division" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Despite the inexplicable Reddie from Aberdeen Bud i kinda of agree with him to a certain extent. It wasn't all one man and as i have stated before if i knew Whyte wasn't paying any creditors it is fair to assume that every board member knew yet said and did nothing. That all said it is also unbelievable that a well known gangster is allowed on the board yet a genuine businessman is not even though his only 'crime' as far as we know was remaining silent. Honestly? You were one of those shouting loudest about the SFA allowing Whyte to buy Rangers now you are wanting them to bypass their rules which you decried as not stringent enough a year ago. Do any of the current directors have convictions for gang related activity or is your statement just gossip or yet another Rangers fan's smear campaign against a successful businessman ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 That looks like you have checked and are saying it is not discretionary then? Can you post the rule? I never claimed such a thing. You have made a claim it's discressionary, please feel free to post it yourself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamenitza Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Thats the one i was referring to, its a shame the club don't want to engage the fans. Not sure if a forum on the official site would actually help in this situation. In general, forums run by clubs are quite bland and too much, even reasonable, criticism of the club is 'discouraged'. Ok when things are plodding along normally but when there are behind the scenes shenanigans it becomes a propaganda tool for whichever faction has control of it, with only posts fully supportive of that faction being allowed by the moderators. The Dundee one being a perfect example of that at the moment. If there was an official Rangers one the only information that could be obtained from it would be which faction the person in control, presumably Traynor, is backing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 I at least added "as far as I am aware" As far as I am aware the 5 year rule that you stated as fact is discretionary. I have not seen any evidence to back up your claim although, as with most rules, I accept that their implementation will be at the discression of the ruling body ie the SFA have bent over backwards to accomodate Rangers thus far, why would this case be any different? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Despite the inexplicable Reddie from Aberdeen Bud i kinda of agree with him to a certain extent. It wasn't all one man and as i have stated before if i knew Whyte wasn't paying any creditors it is fair to assume that every board member knew yet said and did nothing. That all said it is also unbelievable that a well known gangster is allowed on the board yet a genuine businessman is not even though his only 'crime' as far as we know was remaining silent. Hey 8, that 'inexplicable reddie' was not for opinion of the Easdales, I will defer to your judgement on these gangsters. What I took umbrage at is your suggestion that the Blue Knight is somehow a fit a proper person merely because he's not as bad as the Bus Bros. I wouldn't want anyone who had been remotely linked to the last ship going down being at the helm now if it was my team. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 I have not seen any evidence to back up your claim although, as with most rules, I accept that their implementation will be at the discression of the ruling body ie the SFA have bent over backwards to accomodate Rangers thus far, why would this case be any different? Yet they still handed out stiffer financial penalties to Rangers than they did to either Dunfermline or Hearts for entering administration. Yep bent over backwards right enough -3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 I have not seen any evidence to back up your claim although, as with most rules, I accept that their implementation will be at the discression of the ruling body ie the SFA have bent over backwards to accomodate Rangers thus far, why would this case be any different? The rules are wishy-washy as a wishy-washy thing: The Board hereby reserves its discretion as to whether or not such a person is fit and proper, as aforesaid, after due consideration of all relevant facts which the Board has in its possession and knowledge, including the undernoted list which is acknowledged to be illustrative and not exhaustive:- ... (j) he has been a director of a club in membership of any National Association within the 5-year period preceding such club having undergone an insolvency event; ... Really the rules just say it's something they will look at before deciding. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Hey 8, that 'inexplicable reddie' was not for opinion of the Easdales, I will defer to your judgement on these gangsters. What I took umbrage at is your suggestion that the Blue Knight is somehow a fit a proper person merely because he's not as bad as the Bus Bros. I wouldn't want anyone who had been remotely linked to the last ship going down being at the helm now if it was my team. As i said i more or less agree with this..or understand why but my point is the Easdales are...well that has been covered already...and Murrays only crime was remaining silent. The rules are obviously not working to allow the bus duo on board..so to speak -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Yet they still handed out stiffer financial penalties to Rangers than they did to either Dunfermline or Hearts for entering administration. Yep bent over backwards right enough To be fair that's one example where things, on the surface, may have gone against Rangers. There are others where it is clear that rules have been bent or changed to accommodate them. I can't understand the expectation that all clubs receive the exact same punishment for the same offence. Rangers latterly are very keen on courts of law and interpret decisions in Ranger's favour as gospel. Those same courts could have 3 people in them charged with the same offence - they are unlikely to all receive the same sentence if found guilty. Those doing the sentencing have to consider all aspects of the case, including aggravating and mitigating factors. Why can someone as intelligent as Mather appears to be not grasp this? Does he indeed have an IQ lower than the ph of my urine or is he attempting to appeal to a base element within the Rangers's support? If it's the latter then why? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 The rules are wishy-washy as a wishy-washy thing: The Board hereby reserves its discretion as to whether or not such a person is fit and proper, as aforesaid, after due consideration of all relevant facts which the Board has in its possession and knowledge, including the undernoted list which is acknowledged to be illustrative and not exhaustive:- ... (j) he has been a director of a club in membership of any National Association within the 5-year period preceding such club having undergone an insolvency event; ... Really the rules just say it's something they will look at before deciding. Tedi is correct, the 'rules' are guidelines 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Is that a director's job, to stay quiet ? ETA- Lets not forget what he was staying quiet about either. OK your stalking was funny to start with but it really is wearing a bit thin now. Where did i say it was his job to stay quiet?...Where have i defended his actions?...Try reading what i posted. -1 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.