hellbhoy Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 (edited) If you read it yourself you would have noticed - Please note that there is no evidence to suggest any breach of Disciplinary Rule 23 which you highlighted to bring to my attention so not much point in doing that. This is not relevant at this moment as it says itself. I read this whole notice a few hours ago and a pretty daft thing to do have done if he is guilty, however at this moment all of this has yet to be proved. I'd would be interested to know how and where these allegations leading to the notice of complaint originated from. I did post rule 22 but I kinda knew the orcs would only see the bit containing "Please note that there is no evidence to suggest any breach of Disciplinary Rule 23". Black has broken rule 22 ya NUMPTY but like all things Rangers the orcs only see what they want to see and disregard the rest even if it says GUILTY as charged with rule 22. This is rule 22 which Black is to answer for FFS. Disciplinary Rule 22 (Rule 33 in updated Judicial Panel Protocol for season 2013/14): No club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, match official or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall bet in any way on a football match (except authorised and registered football pools). edit fur bhad shpellin n aw rat. Edited August 19, 2013 by hellbhoy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 You are quite right but rule 22 is the one that will fcuk him anyways . The reason why rule 23 won't get him is because his then registered club had won them fixtures BUT ! if they had lost because he got sent off and gave away a penalty then I'm sure he wouldn't be back at Ibrox anytime soon . Black put a bet on the last Ramsdens cup fixture that The Rangers would lose the cup tie imagine if The Rangers did lose that cup tie with all this coming to light . Not sure that's the case but we'll see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 (edited) I did post rule 22 but I kinda knew the orcs would only see the bit containing "Please note that there is no evidence to suggest any breach of Disciplinary Rule 23". Black has broken rule 22 ya NUMPTY but like all things Rangers the orcs only see what they want to see and disregard the rest even if it says GUILTY as charged with rule 22. This is rule 22 which Black is to answer for FFS. edit fur bhad shpellin n aw rat. Again, we'll see. Edited August 19, 2013 by Bearwithme 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Black put a bet on the last Ramsdens cup fixture that The Rangers would lose the cup tie imagine if The Rangers did lose that cup tie with all this coming to light . Not having a go at you but is that true or are you speculating again? -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Not having a go at you but is that true or are you speculating again? I'm guessing it's based on that being the closing date of the long period during which he placed bets. If he did bet on this game, which is uncertain, I'd imagine it was among the ten in which he backed his team to win. Amusing as this story is, I don't see it as a big one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Not sure that's the case but we'll see. Doesn't matter. HBQC is on a roll. This means we'll get irrelevant quotes from a myriad if sites; lots of cutting and pasting and lots of shite to scroll through yet not one original opinion. Haven't you noticed this about the Plastics on here? Their modus operandi is to quote from elsewhere rather than to express an original view. I'd welcome at least one Plastic to break the cut and paste obsession and say what you think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Not sure that's the case but we'll see. Doesn't matter. HBQC is on a roll. This means we'll get irrelevant quotes from a myriad if sites; lots of cutting and pasting and lots of shite to scroll through yet not one original opinion. Haven't you noticed this about the Plastics on here? Their modus operandi is to quote from elsewhere rather than to express an original view. I'd welcome at least one Plastic to break the cut and paste obsession and say what you think. Like watching Atticus Finch in his prime. Great work HB. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 I'm guessing it's based on that being the closing date of the long period during which he placed bets. If he did bet on this game, which is uncertain, I'd imagine it was among the ten in which he backed his team to win. Amusing as this story is, I don't see it as a big one. Seems like he's got a serious gambling problem, going by the SFA's press release it's all a bit unclear at the moment. Looks like a lot of these bets were from his Hearts and Inverness days too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Like watching Atticus Finch in his prime. Are you Mocking me? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Like watching Atticus Finch in his prime. More like Chris Finch than Atticus. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 I bet there is much deleting of tweets from a few players this evening. Ridiculous rule, half-baked like most of the stuff these guys come up with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 More like Chris Finch than Atticus. Finchy! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 So we have Charity theft Tax avoidance Shafting creditors Dual contracts Banned directors Anything else I've missed? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Finchy! Bloody good rep. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 So we have Charity theft Tax avoidance Shafting creditors Dual contracts Banned directors Anything else I've missed? Rabble Rousing. Surveillance of HMRC inspectors. Racist comments from the owner. Betting Scandal. Just another week in Sevconia. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Rabble Rousing. Surveillance of HMRC inspectors. Racist comments from the owner. Betting Scandal. Just another week in Sevconia. All fair comment except what I highlighted. Want a £20 bet that, "Racist comments from the owner. " is not accurate? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Not having a go at you but is that true or are you speculating again? Doesn't matter. HBQC is on a roll. This means we'll get irrelevant quotes from a myriad if sites; lots of cutting and pasting and lots of shite to scroll through yet not one original opinion. Haven't you noticed this about the Plastics on here? Their modus operandi is to quote from elsewhere rather than to express an original view. I'd welcome at least one Plastic to break the cut and paste obsession and say what you think. ^ ^ ^ must be raging there The_ to post pish ffs. How do you know what games he placed bets on? It is alleged Black bet against his "then registered club" three times between March 4, 2006 and July 28, 2013. ^ ^ ^ the above in bold is in fact the Ramsdens cup tie date it was played ! this is the last bet he made and is listed in the accusations of betting against his then registered club http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23454470 2nd sentence of yours - This is the reason for my last sentence, which you obviously ignored or failed to understand given your inability to have any reasonable communication due to a deep rooted blinkered view point which I have witnessed on many occasion on this thread and in previous replies to my posts. FFS just read this you numpty were it cites rule 22 but does not say that he has not breached rule 22.He has been cited for breaching two rules but rule 23 is where he has not been in breach because his then registered club had actually won the fucking game and he did not get sent off giving away a penalty to which The Rangers might have lost the game causing a breach in rule 23.And it's not my fault you read through blue tinted specs. He is being cited for breaching rule 22 http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2566&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=12361 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 All fair comment except what I highlighted. Want a £20 bet that, "Racist comments from the owner. " is not accurate? Nope. Is racist comment from the largest shareholder, CEO, and head of controlling consortium more accurate? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 ^ ^ ^ must be raging there The_ to post pish ffs. ^ ^ ^ the above in bold is in fact the Ramsdens cup tie date it was played ! this is the last bet he made and is listed in the accusations of betting against his then registered club http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23454470 FFS just read this you numpty were it cites rule 22 but does not say that he has not breached rule 22.He has been cited for breaching two rules but rule 23 is where he has not been in breach because his then registered club had actually won the fucking game and he did not get sent off giving away a penalty to which The Rangers might have lost the game causing a breach in rule 23.And it's not my fault you read through blue tinted specs. He is being cited for breaching rule 22 http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2566&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=12361 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Doesn't matter. HBQC is on a roll. This means we'll get irrelevant quotes from a myriad if sites; lots of cutting and pasting and lots of shite to scroll through yet not one original opinion. ^ ^ ^ must be raging there The_ to post pish ffs. ^ ^ ^ the above in bold is in fact the Ramsdens cup tie date it was played ! this is the last bet he made and is listed in the accusations of betting against his then registered club http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23454470 FFS just read this you numpty were it cites rule 22 but does not say that he has not breached rule 22.He has been cited for breaching two rules but rule 23 is where he has not been in breach because his then registered club had actually won the fucking game and he did not get sent off giving away a penalty to which The Rangers might have lost the game causing a breach in rule 23.And it's not my fault you read through blue tinted specs. He is being cited for breaching rule 22 http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2566&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=12361 Yup. There you go. Twatwards of unmitigated shite. 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.