hellbhoy Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Are you trying to sell timeshares? Fucksake, surely even the fans of the dead cheats aren't that stupid. I bought into a time share years ago ,I got married because she wanted to share my life with her and then felt like I was doing hard time . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 You could certainly call it a timeshare except there would be absolutely none of the increasing annual fees normally associated with timeshares. We have identified several plots we can afford, many we cannot and ones that are are just out of reach but are excellent properties. Simply put we are looking to sell a very limited number of weeks to raise capital .. mostly likely capped at 20 x 2 weeks at £5,000 which would be at least 50% off the total cost not even taking into account of inflation .. if not we have several smaller beach touch plots lined up .... Is it debentures at the Sportsdirect Asbesdos Dome? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Still more worried about the motivation of the messenger than the content of the message? Little wonder you lot get ripped off so often.[/quote Benny seems to harbour a particular hatred for C.F.? And Jim Spence! The 'campaign' against the ginga ninja is tragic even by their standards. Since you're a fan of his maybe you translate some of his tweets for me. Jum Spence @jum_spence4h Ahm gettun gie board ae aw thus Newco/Oldco/Sevco/Deed Club chaut noo Thu belivurs, nae proof necessury. Fur thu doobturs, nane us poasuble! Expand Reply Retweet Favourite More Jum Spence @jum_spence6h Stood oan ae cerput tauck whulst cerryun mah lunch, tuna & mayunauise uvrywhur! @BBCKheredine wusnae pleased whun sum laundud oan hus specs! Expand 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 aw go on then Benny post a link to this rumour will you or are you making things up again . CF must be the most stupidest of blackmailers to publicly publish online the dirty linen at Ibrox when a blackmailer does their blackmailing on the fly where no one else is supposed to know so that the durty deeds are kept secret when the payment is stumped up. A QC, CA, IT Expert, Computer Designer and now an expert blackmailer. Is there no end to your many talents? -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Still more worried about the motivation of the messenger than the content of the message? Little wonder you lot get ripped off so often. Shooting the messenger is a part of the currant buns psyche. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 So what exactly was the 250k fine for then ???. Fucking good question that I have no answer for. I can't remember and I can't be arsed looking it up again. Was it because Liewell would have gone tonto if nothing happened at all? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 A QC, CA, IT Expert, Computer Designer and now an expert blackmailer. Is there no end to your many talents? No beginning, surely. It's Hellish under discussion is it not? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Fucking good question that I have no answer for. I can't remember and I can't be arsed looking it up again. Still waiting for an answer to my questions. feel free to give it a try 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Fucking good question that I have no answer for. I can't remember and I can't be arsed looking it up again. Was it because Liewell would have gone tonto if nothing happened at all? fined for cheating....but not gaining any sporting advantage . I still struggle to comprehend that bizarre statement http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9899917/Rangers-will-not-be-stripped-of-titles-but-face-large-fine-for-undisclosed-payments-to-players.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 A QC, CA, IT Expert, Computer Designer and now an expert blackmailer. Is there no end to your many talents? Just keep the titles coming Benny 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 fined for cheating....but not gaining any sporting advantage . I still struggle to comprehend that bizarre statement http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9899917/Rangers-will-not-be-stripped-of-titles-but-face-large-fine-for-undisclosed-payments-to-players.html Confusing for all - even if the final outcome was of great satisfaction to us and the opposite for others. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 fined for cheating....but not gaining any sporting advantage . I still struggle to comprehend that bizarre statement http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9899917/Rangers-will-not-be-stripped-of-titles-but-face-large-fine-for-undisclosed-payments-to-players.html They were fined for serious, sustained and intentional rule-breaking. They were found not to have gained advantage on the field due to a loophole in the SPL rules which prevents retroactive punishment. The short version is that, by the letter of the law, it doesn't count as cheating if you don't get caught. This isn't news to the resident Teds,most of whom have put quite a lot of time and effort into pretending that they don't understand it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 They were fined for serious, sustained and intentional rule-breaking. They were found not to have gained advantage on the field due to a loophole in the SPL rules which prevents retroactive punishment. The short version is that, by the letter of the law, it doesn't count as cheating if you don't get caught. This isn't news to the resident Teds,most of whom have put quite a lot of time and effort into pretending that they don't understand it. There are many unresolved mysteries - we can only wonder why, for example, the SFA acted on what amounted to hopelessly inaccurate advice on their chances of victory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bookies Love Me Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Just keep the titles coming Benny How long before your haul of titles will overtake the "most successful club/company in the whole wide world"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Fucking good question that I have no answer for. I can't remember and I can't be arsed looking it up again. Was it because Liewell would have gone tonto if nothing happened at all? fined for cheating....but not gaining any sporting advantage . I still struggle to comprehend that bizarre statement http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9899917/Rangers-will-not-be-stripped-of-titles-but-face-large-fine-for-undisclosed-payments-to-players.html I'll go a little further into it . First of all, as a result of the way the Notice of Complaint was phrased, the Commission did not consider that Rangers had been properly “charged” with the offence of playing ineligible players in the period before 23rd May 2005. Accordingly it was only the period from that date which was considered. We all know what happens in the law courts when you have not been properly charged don't we ?,you walk away Scot free . Even more convenient for Rangers was who was head of the SFA at this time !,one EBT receiving rat b@stard Campbell Ogilvie who's head of registrations supplied the evidence to the commission that the SFA considered these players to be still registered at the time and it was the SPL's job to revoke players registrations if they found them in breach at the time.Remember Rangers deliberately hid these side contracts throughout the investigations for a decade. The SFA themselves gave the evidence they still considered the players still eligible because said players had not had their licences revoked by the SPL before the commission ruled upon the hearing. SPL hearing but the SFA conveniently supplied the evidence to get the club off as the SFA had already implemented the cloning process and ra bears would have declared public unrest and war towards anyone stealing the dead clubs titles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 (edited) There are many unresolved mysteries - we can only wonder why, for example, the SFA acted on what amounted to hopelessly inaccurate advice on their chances of victory. Surely so, although there's little mystery about how the SPL wound up with rules that couldn't prevent clubs deliberately breaking the rules over a ten year period. That's because nobody thought it would be necessary to instruct clubs to not cheat.Sadly, they reckoned without the mob of conmen at Ibrox, since that investigation proved beyond serious doubt that they were deliberately deceiving the other clubs to cover up their dodgy tax scam. Edited September 9, 2013 by flyingrodent 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 I'll go a little further into it . We all know what happens in the law courts when you have not been properly charged don't we ?,you walk away Scot free . Even more convenient for Rangers was who was head of the SFA at this time !,one EBT receiving rat b@stard Campbell Ogilvie who's head of registrations supplied the evidence to the commission that the SFA considered these players to be still registered at the time and it was the SPL's job to revoke players registrations if they found them in breach at the time.Remember Rangers deliberately hid these side contracts throughout the investigations for a decade. The SFA themselves gave the evidence they still considered the players still eligible because said players had not had their licences revoked by the SPL before the commission ruled upon the hearing. SPL hearing but the SFA conveniently supplied the evidence to get the club off as the SFA had already implemented the cloning process and ra bears would have declared public unrest and war towards anyone stealing the dead clubs titles. The truth is out there.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 The truth is out there.... And the lies are all in Ibrox . Club is separate from the company ,it still makes me laugh ffs .You have to hand it the SFA's law bhoys eh Benny for coming up with that pile of tear stained pish to con us all ,except only the The Rangers fans fell for it hook line and sinker . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 The truth is out there.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 The fine was for not producing additional documents or information (timeously). Clearly not handing over extra info (promptly) did not help the team play better. Club and company? Companies often run things. It's not difficult. 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.