hellbhoy Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Awaiting The Great Leaders response to his mega UEFA rule interpretation fuckup. Should be a five star performance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Just goes to show he doesn't understand anything he reads .. can't believe he proudly posted it .... :lol: Not only that but continued to quote from it, for quite some time after. Not one mention of the word 'accounts' in that UEFA quote either. ''UEFA's stated position'' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Awaiting The Great Leaders response to his mega UEFA rule interpretation fuckup. Should be a five star performance. Aye, now let's be sure to keep it nice and handy from now on. Very useful when having to deal with newbies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Are you referring to this wonder blunder ... (as posted by Tedi in reply and used to back up his argument)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Are you referring to this wonder blunder ... (as posted by Tedi in reply and used to back up his argument)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Are you referring to this wonder blunder ... (as posted by Tedi in reply and used to back up his argument)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Are you referring to this wonder blunder ... (as posted by Tedi in reply and used to back up his argument)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Are you referring to this wonder blunder ... (as posted by Tedi in reply and used to back up his argument)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 I believe...if it quacks like a duck then it must be a... Do you also believe Mike Yarwood is Larry Grayson and Rory Bremner is Tony Blair? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Our rules allow for the recognition of the “sporting continuity” of a club’s match record, even if that club’s corporate structure had changed. UEFA Praise be the 78 who would not let it go. Now you have to back up this ridiculous claim by adding some authority by way of an official release from UEFA themselves. We won't accept anything other than official UEFA documents as any other source will be contaminated with pish stained tears that make no sense what so ever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Our rules allow for the recognition of the “sporting continuity” of a club’s match record, even if that club’s corporate structure had changed. UEFA Asking any corporate lawyer, I think you will find that going into liquidation and having your assets bought from your administrators by a company formed for that specific purpose, is not merely a change to your corporate structure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Now you have to back up this ridiculous claim by adding some authority by way of an official release from UEFA themselves. We won't accept anything other than official UEFA documents as any other source will be contaminated with pish stained tears that make no sense what so ever. Are you referring to this wonder blunder ... (as posted by Tedi in reply and used to back up his argument)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 The ASA consulted UEFA and this was UEFA`s response. Did UEFA get it wrong? Praise be the 78 who could not let it go. You have already fucked this up once and now you are furthering your stupidity by deliberately misleading everyone by sticking to an ASA released partial interpretation of the full rules UEFA use themselves, and that you yourself supplied an official UEFA response that going newco means new club. Now you have the audacity and blind stupidity to ask did UEFA get it wrong when in fact you are quoting an ASA released interpretation of what UEFA sent them. Just exactly what did ASA ask UEFA when asking for clarity ?, the answer to this if anyone knew would clear up a whole shitload of questions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) The ASA consulted UEFA and this was UEFA`s response. Did UEFA get it wrong? Praise be the 78 who could not let it go. To me, the only way to interpret what would appear a glaring contradiction by UEFA, is to accept that for some reason, they are prepared to overlook what is clearly stated in their rule-book (Article 12 in particular) for convenience and harmony. In their response to the question posed by STV, they have quoted (Article 12) directly from the actual rule-book, whereas in their response to the question posed by ASA, they have not done but merely issued an opinion. The rule-book wins for me all the time. ETA:- Also although we know what the STV question actually was, as HB has just pointed out, we are not so clear on what exactly was asked by ASA. Edited April 16, 2014 by Apache Don 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing (2) Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Our rules allow for the recognition of the sporting continuity of a clubs match record, even if that clubs corporate structure had changed. UEFA Praise be the 78 who would not let it go. So let me get this straight. You are saying the rangers are the sporting wing of the company? that'll go down well at Ibrox. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 STV were asking about a single entity, UEFA replied about a single entity, not old club and new club just the club. We are crystal clear on what ASA were asking. 'Eighty two complainants challenged whether the claims "Scotland's most successful club" and “RANGERS THEN... RANGERS NOW... RANGERS FOREVER” were misleading, because they understood that the current club had only been formed in 2012.' Praise be the 78 who would not let it go, praise be the 82 who could not let it go. Oh dear lord you are a fucking idiot of the highest magnitude You neither know or can interpret UEFA ruling without putting on your blue tinted specs first. Firstly you don't have a scooby what ASA actually think or what did UEFA actually E-Mail to ASA, and secondly how fucking dare you try to tell us intelligent folk here on P&B how UEFA view their own rules of the game. We all know UEFA view the club as a footballing company END OFF !, there isn't a duality or two single entities making up what constitutes a football club to them and you are just posting deluded crap that compounds your stupidity. You are seriously one deluded fucker ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 STV were asking about a single entity, UEFA replied about a single entity, not old club and new club just the club. We are crystal clear on what ASA were asking. 'Eighty two complainants challenged whether the claims "Scotland's most successful club" and “RANGERS THEN... RANGERS NOW... RANGERS FOREVER” were misleading, because they understood that the current club had only been formed in 2012.' Praise be the 78 who would not let it go, praise be the 82 who could not let it go. Yes they asked about a single entity, as we all agree 'The Rangers' is a single entity. They were asking if 'The Rangers' as in current post 2012 version (single entity), would be eligible to play in their competitions. Why the fk would they ask if the old Rangers (single but in liquidation entity) would be eligible? Obviously the old club couldn't be currently eligible. They asked if it (single entity) would be? and if not, why? The UEFA response was to quote article 12, therefore declaring that The club is ineligible due to the fact it has not been a member of a member association for at least 3 consecutive years. New fucking club my son. They did not reference any quote from their rule-book in response to ASA. As I've said, the rule-book wins for me, every time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Just for dumb dumb Tedi, Chapter 2: Licence Applicant and Licence Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant 1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions which either: a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league (hereinafter: registered member); or b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football company). 2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example,changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision. Tedi do explain to us what is your interpretation of paragraph 1 in red in the quote above ?. To me it says that UEFA view the club as a legal entity where as you stupid fuckers called a Rangers supporter now believe the club is a separate entity without legal status. UEFA themselves directly state as a matter of fact that only clubs can apply and these clubs must be a "legal entity", in said statement of fact your old club the legally known entity by the law and UEFA has now been put to death through insolvency. Are you now going to post pish countering and redefining what UEFA themselves have in their rules to suit your fucked up philosophy ?. http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Why so angry? ASA were answering a specific complaint that I quoted word for word, it has not been altered or made up. Are you suggesting that they were not as specific when seeking UEFA`s opinion on the complaint? It seems like you are suggesting ASA may have digressed lol, what possible reason would they have to do this? This is not about what they think, this about what they stated after consulting with various bodies, they include direct quotes from those bodies. 'we noted, having read its report in full, that both an Independent Commission appointed by the SPL and the ECA had reached the conclusion that the football club RFC was a recognisable entity in its own right, and that it had continued in existence despite being transferred to another owner and operator. We consulted with UEFA, which explained that its rules allowed for the recognition of the “sporting continuity” of a club’s match record, even if that club’s corporate structure had changed.' Why so angry ? . why are you so thick ? Why are you now posting anything other than an official UEFA press release like it means it's supporting your ever crumbling argument ?, I did ask you to only post official UEFA documents to support your claims. You are now going around in circles posting repetitive pish that got debunked ages ago !, are you drunk ffs ? Stop defending yourself by posting and bolstering your defeated ASA proof when we are now on UEFA related material only that contradicts everything you have been using to bolster your corner. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Just for dumb dumb Tedi, Tedi do explain to us what is your interpretation of paragraph 1 in red in the quote above ?. To me it says that UEFA view the club as a legal entity where as you stupid fuckers called a Rangers supporter now believe the club is a separate entity without legal status. UEFA themselves directly state as a matter of fact that only clubs can apply and these clubs must be a "legal entity", in said statement of fact your old club the legally known entity by the law and UEFA has now been put to death through insolvency. Are you now going to post pish countering and redefining what UEFA themselves have in their rules to suit your fucked up philosophy ?. http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf Said legal entity of course being 'The Rangers FC Ltd' formerly known as 'Sevco Scotland Ltd'. 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.