Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

147 counts of betting on football and you think it still has to be proved he breached rule 22 :rolleyes: .

Of course it has still to be proved. :rolleyes:

Also we don't know in which matches he allegedly bet against his own club. You don't seem to understand the word "between" in relation to the dates regarding the alleged offences.

So, we'll see what the actual situations turn out to be.

Edited by Bearwithme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

March 4th 2006 he played for caley in a 1.0 home defeat to Motherwell.

Motherwell scored a penalty after Tokely had brought down the last man.

Motherwell had earlier had a penalty turned down after Munro had fouled.

Motherwell had a third penalty claim when keeper Brown brought down McDonald, but no penalty awarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Is this like Karaoke, I sing the blue bits, you sing the red bits, and we harmonise on the black bits?

I reckon your the online equivalent of the snotty wee first year geeks with the set square, the compass, the 6 inch ruler and the pen with both red and blue inks tucked into the breast pocket of his school blazer. The knob that changed colour for every line in his jotter because he didn't want one colour to run out before the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's wrong, the BBC are just being lazy.

Read the notice of complaint it never mentions anything about when the 3 bets were placed.

Your right though it could be lazy journalism :wacko: ,but if you read the BBC article it is pretty specific 3 bets against his then club where placed between two dates and I am sure the last date means the last bet against his then club and then goes on later to say that he placed more bets during that time scale.

The BBC wouldn't manipulate the SFA's article to say something different would they :o ,or has the BBC phoned the SFA to clarify on the matter and are using what the SFA has released to the BBC journalist and Black did in fact place a bet against his then club on 28th of July and the source stuck Black into the association for breaching their rules for placing bets against his then club ?.

We await further clarification from the SFA :) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the only reason he is not in breach of rule 23 is because the The Rangers won?

You have to play in a deliberate fashion that would be sure to cost your team the game. Such as getting yourself sent off early on, giving away a penalty, or missing clear cut chances. If you look at the game he played against Dundee United last season. There is no way he cost his team the game.

Edited by Fotbawmad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you go about rule 23 again, when it is not relevant due to being difficult to prove.

Only when you can find proof on what he put his bets on. :)

You are having a right mare lad, even when you post relevant articles you fail to read and understand them due to your overwhelming inability to see even a neutral view point, to many tales of leprechauns and goblins as a child methinks, black green and white blue opinions no grey turquoise areas ever. But even so there are 50 shades of bigot, don't you know.

Your font is making my eyes itchy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you go about rule 23 again, when it is not relevant due to being difficult to prove. No shit Sherlock :1eye

Only when you can find proof on what he put his bets on. :)

You are having a right mare lad, even when you post relevant articles you fail to read and understand them due to your overwhelming inability to see even a neutral view point, to many tales of leprechauns and goblins as a child methinks, black green and white blue opinions no grey turquoise areas ever. But even so there are 50 shades of bigot, don't you know.

I'm having a mare ???,the SFA wouldn't hold a hearing unless they were given evidence of rule breaching would they ?,not as if I can phone up the SFA and say a The Rangers player has being betting on games for the club he plays for and then they pull him up for it.And why the precise amount of bets on what type of fixture never mind what the bets where actually placed on.

Go to bed sonny your brain must be hurting you somewhat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...