Ross. Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 I see Borussia Dortmund are also in the middle of raising cash via a Rights Issue. No sign of them struggling towards their 114m Euro target mind you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 I always thought this arrangement was common practise. It certainly used to be. The rules, now, though seem pretty clear. Genuine question, is it only Rangers that applying this agreement officially or unofficially? How many times did Jackson Irvine play against celtic last season given the fact he played around 30 games for Killie? how many times will he play against Celtic for Ross county this season? Do you mean "What about Celtic?" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 (edited) Celtic did indeed prevent Jackson Irvine playing against them. "On-loan Kilmarnock defender Jackson Irvine cannot play against his parent club, while it remains to be seen whether Eremenko will go straight into Johnstone's team or start on the bench" http://www.celtic-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/celtic_v_kilmarnock_at_celtic_park_match_preview_822773/index.shtml http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/celtic/262082-celtic-v-kilmarnock-forrest-returns-to-hoops-squad-after-injury/ Edited September 3, 2014 by H_B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Has that appeared on your official website or been made public knowledge to all and sundry? On-loan Kilmarnock defender Jackson Irvine cannot play against his parent club 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 When were the rules clarified? With the creation of the SPFL, i presume. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 When were the rules clarified? Dont know, but I would suspect AberdeenBud is right. Of course, the rule is that this cannot be stipulated. In other words, Rangers cant insist that their players cant play against them. That doesnt stop the other club simply saying to Rangers that they wont play. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Dhenboys article seems to confuse "Governing Body" with "Government" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 The example I provided was last season. This debate prompted accusations of cheating, my question was fairly clear, does this apply only Rangers. That is two threads you are now complaining about 'whatabouterry' where 'what about' is entirely relevant, stop being so precious. Once again, the Rangers fans reaction to being accused of doing something wrong is to point the finger at someone else, screaming "what about ... what about?" Its absolutely hilarious to watch. Lets just clear things up. - Celtic breaking the rules = wrong - Rangers breaking the rules = wrong - Celtic have previously broken a rule = nothing to do with Rangers Presuming, of course, that this is breaking the rules. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 I really do not think it matters in the slightest if it appears on an official website or is public knowledge. It seems he is suggesting that being upfront and open about an arrangement is better than keeping it hush hush and employing the arrangement anyway. I totally see your point but how would you prove a nod and a wink? Slapping it on your official site is a pretty brazzen statement that the rules don't apply to you and you can cheat with impunity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 The terms of the loan deal between Celtic and Kilmarnock prevented Jackson Irvine playing in matches against his parent club. Good to see you wallow in fail on this DhenBhoy - always entertaining. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 So basically it is perfectly OK to have a go at Rangers and call them cheats for doing something that every other club does? and it is not ok for Rangers fans to point out the hypocrisy in this? Wow! Thats a pretty big jump from "What about Celtic?" to "What about every other club?" Bravo, sir. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 So basically it is perfectly OK to have a go at Rangers and call them cheats for doing something that every other club does? and it is not ok for Rangers fans to point out the hypocrisy in this? Just to be pedantic Ted, i don't think every other club does it. Although I don't think anyone would want to loan our players tbf. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 If anyone has access to Rangers TV ... his interview is on there, so maybe it can be confirmed whether it came from him. Given it's on their official site .. it still requires investigating by the SPFL if any stipulation has been agreed. Should the players not be fielded against The Rangers (after playing against others) then it will raise concerns. Densboy has Rangers tv, it figures lol Once again, the Rangers fans reaction to being accused of doing something wrong is to point the finger at someone else, screaming "what about ... what about?" Presuming, of course, that this is breaking the rules. Most people would see it as being perfectly rational to see if any other teams had used the same conditions when loaning out players and compare them, infact i believe that several people have asked about it . Not whataboutery, just a valid comparison. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Celtic have not stated via their official site that on loan players are not allowed to play against them. Rangers have openly stated the on loan players are not allowed via their own website and press releases. Vast difference ... No there isn't. Celtic and Kilmarnock made available to the press last season that the terms of the loan agreement relating to Jackson Irvine meant he couldn't play against his parent club. What the terms of Celtic and Ross County's deal regarding Irvine this season - who knows. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 (edited) So basically it is perfectly OK to have a go at Rangers and call them cheats for doing something that every other club does? and it is not ok for Rangers fans to point out the hypocrisy in this? It is pretty clear, we have a player who every week was a 1st team pick, not even making it to the sub bench every time when the two teams met, nobody can really argue what an arrangement was in place. But hey it seems sleekit is above being open and honest. Correlation does not equal causation. You would have to prove that there is no possibility that the coach thought "this c**t isnae gonna try against them, best drop him". Good luck with that. If celtic are breaking the rules I hope they get punished but it needs to be proven first. Sevco on the other hand appear to be boasting about it. ETA. But according to parsforlife no-one is breaking the rules. Edited September 3, 2014 by aofjays 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Celtic did indeed prevent Jackson Irvine playing against them. "On-loan Kilmarnock defender Jackson Irvine cannot play against his parent club, while it remains to be seen whether Eremenko will go straight into Johnstone's team or start on the bench" http://www.celtic-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/celtic_v_kilmarnock_at_celtic_park_match_preview_822773/index.shtml http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/celtic/262082-celtic-v-kilmarnock-forrest-returns-to-hoops-squad-after-injury/ It's there in black and white on the STV article yet densboy is still demanding proof, while continuing to lambast Rangers for inserting the same clause. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 It does feel strange defending zombies but they are not doing anything wrong here, in fact they'd be breaking the rules to allow the player to play against them. The rule dhenbhoy quotes doesn't apply. This one does. 87. During the term of a temporary transfer, the Player concerned may not take part as a Player in the starting 11 or as being named as a substitute for the transferee Club in a League Match against the transferor Club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 It does feel strange defending zombies but they are not doing anything wrong here, in fact they'd be breaking the rules to allow the player to play against them. The rule dhenbhoy quotes doesn't apply. This one does. 87. During the term of a temporary transfer, the Player concerned may not take part as a Player in the starting 11 or as being named as a substitute for the transferee Club in a League Match against the transferor Club. If thats true then it makes a mockery of whats been posted in the last few pages (especially densboy lol) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 I think it is pretty clear that someone has to actually go and get the rules for this. Utterly pointless otherwise, either it is ok or it's not. If it is tolerated as long as it is not overtly set out or published, then this could be quite the f**k up. Otherwise we will not only have teamSevco claiming this is the biggest victory since LNS found them guilty but we'll have to put up with them claiming whataboutery is a valid debating tactic. Jeeeee-sus 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 This was also true of the Michael Gardyne loan arrangement between Kilmarnock and Dundee Utd last season. 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.