Henrik's tongue Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 That's totally fucking mental. Yep. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 You talk of drivel whilst simultaneously making a case for a completely pointless contest? No, no Bendarroch. The point would be that the governing bodies could not be accused of offering Rangers favourable treatment, while the new outfit you support would not be tarnished by having received a leg up. Far from pointless. Quit while you're behind you daft old goat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 (edited) Using the word Tim, H*n, cream bun etc is no worse than calling me a Teuchter, Hamish or some reference about sheep worrying. Its in the context and most of us can take it and give it back. Where is the line drawn where even if it is not offensive to the poster on the receiving end and the lurker looking for a reason who has no sense of humour?. As much as RulingSupreme was a wind up, I don't think his use of these words warranted a ban. Edited October 13, 2013 by CityDave 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 (edited) lads lads lads, it was AWRA/ BP So therefore as the crayon eater mentioned earlier a currently suspended poster did not respect his suspension therefore was banned. Edited October 13, 2013 by CityDave 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 He was banned because he was a racist bigot moron troll who was previously banned as AWRA and many more probs, but I am sure you thought he was a top bloke cause his team was rangers This. He wasn't banned for that alone, no doubt he'd been racking up the warnings for his racist/bigoted views. He was a total w**k and the mods were probably glad of an opportunity to ban him again. This forum is incredibly lenient, you'd have to be a complete fud to get banned once, let alone on numerous occasions. Not to worry, he'll be back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomogganners Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 He would have been a brilliant contestant on the old 3-2-1 game show. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 (edited) The game just ramped up a level. Celtic shareholders want UEFA to probe SFA over Rangers punishment CELTIC shareholders are demanding the club’s board lodge a formal complaint with UEFA over Rangers’ readmittance to the Scottish Football League following its financial collapse. By: Dean Herbert Published: Sun, October 13, 2013 Charles Green's Sevco bought the Rangers assets last June after they went into liquidation A resolution set to be tabled at the club’s AGM on November 15 calls upon the board to demand a probe into how “an unqualified new club” formed after the Ibrox side’s liquidation was allowed entry into the league by the SFA.They claim Scotland’s footballing bosses contravened the UEFA code of conduct by granting a licence and put other clubs vying to enter the league at a disadvantage.The Celtic board has urged that the motion is rejected, saying that requesting a UEFA investigation would be “unnecessary”.But shareholders have promised a “fiery debate” over the resolution, which states sections of the Hoops’ shareholders have “no confidence in the SFA’s governance”.Rangers entered administration in February last year. Charles Green’s Sevco bought the club’s assets last June as it faced liquidation and later changed the name to The Rangers Football Club Plc. Celtic shareholders have raised questions about the SFA’s decision The Ibrox club was removed from the SPL but its membership of the SFA was transferred to the new owners, allowing it to start last season in Division Three. Celtic shareholders have raised questions about the SFA’s decision, claiming it displayed “a disregard for the rules and spirit of fair play” and “contradicted FIFA, UEFA and SFA mission statements”.The resolution also claims the SFA was involved in “secret cross governance agreements” to get Rangers back in the league, allowed the club to compete “without proper registration compliance” and that the SFA failed to initiate an “inquiry on improper player registration”.It is also stated “our concern is directed at the governance of the game in Scotland, the SFA, and its apparent disregard for the licensing designed to protect against such commercial impropriety and ensure sporting integrity”. Edited October 13, 2013 by CityDave 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 He was back today for about 30 posts You not here? It was quite funny. Aye, but I'm sure he'll be back again and we can all point and laugh at him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 Tom English: Dave King’s role at Rangers Dave King was the first to realise that Rangers had to show contrition. Picture: SNS Published on the13October Last June, amid the desperate rancour of the Rangers debacle, Dave King visited Glasgow with a number of things on his mind. He wanted to speak with Charles Green and get reassurances that he wasn’t just a front man for Craig Whyte. He wanted to dynamite David Murray and his hubris and single him out as the main cause of the collapse of the club. Whyte had merely accelerated the decline, he said. And, also, he wanted to show some contrition on behalf of Rangers. He was the first one to do so. A week earlier, the new chairman, Malcolm Murray, had issued a statement that typified the Ibrox mindset at the time. Murray said that if Rangers were not welcomed back into the SPL then the other clubs in the league would be signing a “mass suicide pact”. That arrogance and sense of entitlement was not lost on King, who took a different tack when he flew in from his home in South Africa. King said that Rangers needed to take their medicine and advised that an illustration of penitence wouldn’t be a bad idea. “There’s not been enough, in my view, humility with the way the football authorities have been dealt with,” he said. “I think Rangers have been a bit arrogant. We did make mistakes. It’s not Charles Green’s fault, it’s the previous owners. I was part of that board at the time. I think we should be a bit more helpful than we have been.” In the space of an interview that lasted just short of 12 minutes, King mentioned the word ‘humility’ three times. “Scottish football needs a strong Rangers,” he said. “But what Scottish football also needs is a level of humility and a level of reparation from Rangers and either that’s going to come from Rangers or it’s going to be extracted from Rangers… The conversation that Rangers should have had with the authorities was a quiet conversation, from the point of humility.” That conversation never took place in the way King would have wanted. It was a pity, because he was right. And no matter what you thought about King you had to have respect for him for swimming against the Rangers tide and calling for an expression of regret rather than Malcolm Murray’s objectionable, and self-defeating, conceit and condescension. If it was Murray’s contention that Rangers were “the people” then it was his air of supremacy that prevented him from seeing that “the people” didn’t have a leg to stand on at the time and that an apology rather than an attack was the most sensible approach. King could see it, but his voice was drowned out by all the noise of a fractious summer. The enormous contradiction in all of this, of course, is that at that precise moment the South African Revenue Service (SARS) were not only accusing King of a lack of humility but were also threatening to get him stuck in the slammer for upwards of 15 years. When told of King’s call for contrition at Rangers, a source close to SARS was not exactly impressed. “What about practising what he preaches?” said the source. This is where the analysis of King becomes mind-bending. A year earlier, the man who wanted Rangers to express regret for the things they had done wrong was denounced as a “glib and shameless” liar by a judge in a South African tax court. In his epic battle with the authorities, King was described, by Justice Southwood, as a “mendacious witness” who had “no respect for the truth” and who “does not hesitate to lie.” King versus SARS lasted 14 years and it was the biggest tax case in the history of the country. In the beginning the revenue service were chasing him for 2.7bn rand (about £230m) but recently the entire affair, including the 322 criminal charges, were settled for around £44m. King accepted that he had not been compliant with South African tax law and expressed regret at the way he had behaved. It took him long enough, but he got there in the end. There is now something of a rush to install him as the new King of Ibrox, the great redeemer who can replace chaos with order on the back of his undoubted wealth. Rand off the radar, or something like that. Of course, this wouldn’t be Rangers if there weren’t multiple layers to the story. There’s the moral argument and whether an accepted tax cheat should be welcomed into Scottish football. The flip-side of that is that he has fronted up and paid his dues. All matters have been settled. The moral argument is less important than the technical argument. The SFA’s improper person rules are a bit like their rules on gambling. They exist, but the question is how rigorously they will be enforced. King’s involvement in Whyte’s board should be an insurmountable obstacle to the notion that he can become Rangers chairman. King was no acolyte of Whyte’s, far from it. But he still had a degree of culpability. For confirmation, all the SFA have to do is re-read the report of their own judicial panel investigation into Whyte’s regime. King, it said, had asked a few questions and griped a little about the lack of information coming from Whyte, but beyond that, the report concluded, he hadn’t done a whole lot to challenge the former owner. In essence, he should have done more. None of that should stop him investing, though. Even if he is denied the tag of chairman, as he should be, he can still bring his cash and his influence to bear, can still attempt to bring order where there is now chaos, can still plot a future for Rangers that involves proper governance instead of the current circus act. King doesn’t need to be on the board in order to invest and stabilise Rangers. What he needs is to be welcomed, not so much by those who reign at Hampden, but by those who control things at Ibrox. He needs the warring factions to behave themselves. He needs them to stop kidding themselves that they are doing a good job at Ibrox, that the club is safe in their hands. If they can’t do that, then this club is heading for the poor house again. You’d hesitate to buy into all those headlines about the “Return of the King” and the “King and Aye” and all the other trumpeting of the exiled Scot as the great redeemer. It’s too early. Regardless of his shameful tax history in South Africa and despite the SFA’s rulebook that ought to preclude him from being chairman, nobody can stop him from investing in Rangers if he is given sufficient opportunity. It’s not the SFA he should be worried about. It’s the guys wearing the club tie and smiling gormlessly as the ship heads for the rocks again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 How does King as Chairman register with the SOS and Sack the Board campaign? Confused Bearz ahoy, methinks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 The game just ramped up a level. Celtic shareholders want UEFA to probe SFA over Rangers punishment CELTIC shareholders are demanding the club’s board lodge a formal complaint with UEFA over Rangers’ readmittance to the Scottish Football League following its financial collapse. By: Dean Herbert Published: Sun, October 13, 2013 Charles Green's Sevco bought the Rangers assets last June after they went into liquidation A resolution set to be tabled at the club’s AGM on November 15 calls upon the board to demand a probe into how “an unqualified new club” formed after the Ibrox side’s liquidation was allowed entry into the league by the SFA. They claim Scotland’s footballing bosses contravened the UEFA code of conduct by granting a licence and put other clubs vying to enter the league at a disadvantage. The Celtic board has urged that the motion is rejected, saying that requesting a UEFA investigation would be “unnecessary”. But shareholders have promised a “fiery debate” over the resolution, which states sections of the Hoops’ shareholders have “no confidence in the SFA’s governance”. Rangers entered administration in February last year. Charles Green’s Sevco bought the club’s assets last June as it faced liquidation and later changed the name to The Rangers Football Club Plc. Celtic shareholders have raised questions about the SFA’s decision The Ibrox club was removed from the SPL but its membership of the SFA was transferred to the new owners, allowing it to start last season in Division Three. Celtic shareholders have raised questions about the SFA’s decision, claiming it displayed “a disregard for the rules and spirit of fair play” and “contradicted FIFA, UEFA and SFA mission statements”. The resolution also claims the SFA was involved in “secret cross governance agreements” to get Rangers back in the league, allowed the club to compete “without proper registration compliance” and that the SFA failed to initiate an “inquiry on improper player registration”. It is also stated “our concern is directed at the governance of the game in Scotland, the SFA, and its apparent disregard for the licensing designed to protect against such commercial impropriety and ensure sporting integrity”. Not obsessed at all then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 Is the idea of a sustainable, prudent, football club only spending what it earns such anathema to ra peeps that they would prefer a succession of dodgy spiv-like directors or false prophet sugar daddies to living within their means. Puzzling to say the least. Any normal fans would be happy just to have a team to watch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 The game just ramped up a level. Celtic shareholders want UEFA to probe SFA over Rangers punishment CELTIC shareholders are demanding the clubs board lodge a formal complaint with UEFA over Rangers readmittance to the Scottish Football League following its financial collapse. By: Dean HerbertPublished: Sun, October 13, 2013 Charles Green's Sevco bought the Rangers assets last June after they went into liquidation A resolution set to be tabled at the clubs AGM on November 15 calls upon the board to demand a probe into how an unqualified new club formed after the Ibrox sides liquidation was allowed entry into the league by the SFA. They claim Scotlands footballing bosses contravened the UEFA code of conduct by granting a licence and put other clubs vying to enter the league at a disadvantage. The Celtic board has urged that the motion is rejected, saying that requesting a UEFA investigation would be unnecessary. But shareholders have promised a fiery debate over the resolution, which states sections of the Hoops shareholders have no confidence in the SFAs governance. Rangers entered administration in February last year. Charles Greens Sevco bought the clubs assets last June as it faced liquidation and later changed the name to The Rangers Football Club Plc. Celtic shareholders have raised questions about the SFAs decisionThe Ibrox club was removed from the SPL but its membership of the SFA was transferred to the new owners, allowing it to start last season in Division Three. Celtic shareholders have raised questions about the SFAs decision, claiming it displayed a disregard for the rules and spirit of fair play and contradicted FIFA, UEFA and SFA mission statements.The resolution also claims the SFA was involved in secret cross governance agreements to get Rangers back in the league, allowed the club to compete without proper registration compliance and that the SFA failed to initiate an inquiry on improper player registration. It is also stated our concern is directed at the governance of the game in Scotland, the SFA, and its apparent disregard for the licensing designed to protect against such commercial impropriety and ensure sporting integrity. Lovely 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 Those pesky T1ms I would say it is more like ... Those Chidish T1ms 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 Not obsessed at all then. ^^^ obviously rattled and resorts to default reply. In haste fails to add question mark at the end of reply, adds smiley to hide concern. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 S'OK chaps. Big Dave King'll sort it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 ^^^ obviously rattled and resorts to default reply. In haste fails to add question mark at the end of reply, adds smiley to hide concern. Jeezo. Even their own board has told them to get a life. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 Those pesky T1ms reported. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 Seemingly the Celtc fans petition is not directly concerned with Sevco, but rather Rangers being awarded a UEFA licence in 2011. http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/crystal-myth-the-untold-story-of-the-wee-tax-case/#more-1031 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 It's rather sweet that people are trying to make things awkward for the horrible, triumphalistic fuckers. 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.