williemillersmoustache Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Of course King will get past the test, if CW can get past it anyone can. I get that you think the test must have been ok since it let your criminal hero in, you have already admitted than you have no real moral compass with this regard. That does not change the fact that it is not fit for purpose of course, the test is designed to stop unscrupulous owners gaining control of football clubs, if you feel that it should stop DK then you should also agree that it should have stopped CW. If you wrote the criteria for this test, as a theRangers fan, tell me the criteria that differentiates between King (a pass) and Whyte (a fail). The fact the ragers fans don't like Whyte is strong anecdotal evidence that he must be a good guy, but not conclusive. I would never have wanted him or anyone like him (even a South African bloke for example) into my beloved football, the fact that you seem able to just lump all the responsibility for the great frothing disaster of a club you have now on to him, is a mite convenient, donchathink? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magoo9uk Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 If the system was as robust as you claim you wanted it to be, there would be no football at theRankjurs ShellSuit Arena. You'd have been metaphorically hung from the nearest tree with a sign around the rotting corpses neck saying "Cheats". I think we all have excellent reason to criticise and pour scorn over the SFA and SPL/SPFL over the way they have mis-handled your old and new clubs. I would assume if they robustly tell King "f**k-off, you are joking right?" then in your eyes they would be failing in their duties again? Explain to me the differences that make Whyte someone who would fail the F&P test versus King who you want and think should pass? Anyone over the age of 11 who types the "Rankjurs Shell suit arena",should , to paraphrase Spike Milligan, be shot with a Blunderbuss filled with their own shite.... -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magoo9uk Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Or be given a greenie ... depending on your view and sense of humour. You could be right,gotta know your audience/preaching to the converted etc..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Why are you trying to turn this into a King vs CW thing? My argument is that we have a test which is supposed to stop unscrupulous owners getting near football clubs being clearly unfit for purpose. Despite this being an SFA test, you seem quite content to put the responsibility of this purely at Rangers door when it comes to CW yet here you are demanding the SFA use it block King, screams of hypocrisy imo. You are making this too easy today. Try harder please. Because rangers lied about CW the SFA could not block CW. As everyone and their granny knows DK is dodgy as a 7 bob note there is a possibility they could block DK even if sevco continue in the lying cheating traditions of their predecessors. I doubt they will as once again they would just be able to point at sevco lies and wash their hands, but the possibility exists. No hypocrisy by the moustache just your inability refusal to understand English. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Bit harsh ... Do you think the authorities would have sanctioned Whyte as fit and proper had the phlegm directors come forward and made them aware of the internal conflict within Ragers and revealed the contents of their dossier? The SFA can only be held responsible if the club submit all the relevant information to them .. a failure to disclose pertinent facts by any club leaves the SFA with clean hands in legal terms. Impossible question to answer. One could be forgiven for suggesting that Sir David Murray, Knight of the Realm, phoned up his pal Campbell at the SFA and announced his intentions to sell to CW. Who knows what details the SFA demanded to see ? It is an incredibly opaque process. I suspect that if the full Sevco story ever emerges, the amount of criminality and lawbreaking will be absolutely breathtaking. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 were the SFA duped? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 (edited) Of course the 'test' is inadequate. As Florrie says, it's not really designed to test anything - it exists to enable the SFA to shift responsibility. It's perfectly reasonable to simultaneously view the test as a joke, while criticising Rangers' for their own failings in performing any sort of due diligence and for not flagging up the huge concerns that quickly arose. Not strictly relevant, but still hilarious however, is how certain members of the fan base did respond when the BBC helpfully highlighted just who they were dealing with here. It makes any criticism of others for not intervening, worthy of only the highest levels of scorn. Edited October 17, 2014 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 were the SFA duped? My guess :- Minty's pals in the Scottish establishment and at the SFA did him a huge favour by not asking too many searching questions re. the sale of Deidco. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Anyone over the age of 11 who types the "Rankjurs Shell suit arena",should , to paraphrase Spike Milligan, be shot with a Blunderbuss filled with their own shite.... Ok, I laughed at that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 So a system that allows an unscrupulous owner to lie about an unscrupulous owner is fit for purpose? I think not, this is just you being stupid (as usual) The purpose is to allow the SFA to wash their hands which it achieves very very well. You really are on poor form today tedi, I hope you are OK. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 So a system that allows the SFA to 'wash their hands' is fit for purpose now, lol talking about destroying your own argument, what a mare you are having (again) Of course it's fit for the purpose - that is it's purpose. It's not fit for YOUR purpose but why should anyone care about that? Come on tedi, at least attempt to make sense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 with my recollection slightly foggy on the details of the relationship between murray and the board and whyte and murray i'm having a wee dig around. responsibility for their part must lie with the sfa for not having a working system in place which as history shows is nothing new for them, reacting rather than initiating are you for real? Rangers demise is the fault of no one except.............Rangers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 So did I, shull did not find it funny though which is ironic because shull continously post the worst patter on this forum 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Was it not public knowledge that Whyte was dodgy? was his previous ban as a director not public knowledge, had not other Rangers directors who were outside of Whyte's inner circle not publicly express doubts about his integrity? But no, according to some like aofjays here a system which on the outside claims to be in place to stop dodgy blokes like CW getting their grubby mits on football clubs and allows other dodgy blokes to lie about suitability is perfectly ok as long as it allows the SFA to 'wash their hands of it' a perfect example of an SFA rule serving the good of Scottish Football. So why did all the Rangers fans protest at the BBC after Whyte's obvious dodginess was highlighted in the Mark Daly documentary? History is written by the winners. Rangers lost and you lot are trying to re-write it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 This is nothing to do with MY purpose lol according to you the SFA is not to blame for having a system which is designed to stop dodgy blokes gaining control of Scottish football clubs as long as that system allows them to 'wash their hands of it' what a brilliant rule. Can we agree that as a general principle cheating criminal b*****ds, shouldn't be a position of power in Scottish Football? Can we further agree that allowing one cheating criminal b*****d in, doesn't mean we should allow another? quite clear the sfa failed rangers Quite clear Rangers and the SFA failed Scottish Football 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 which is ironic because shull continously post the worst patter on this forum Shull tells it like it is. A day without 3 or 4 Shull blasts is incomplete 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Was it not public knowledge that Whyte was dodgy? was his previous ban as a director not public knowledge, had not other Rangers directors who were outside of Whyte's inner circle not publicly express doubts about his integrity? But no, according to some like aofjays here a system which on the outside claims to be in place to stop dodgy blokes like CW getting their grubby mits on football clubs and allows other dodgy blokes to lie about suitability is perfectly ok as long as it allows the SFA to 'wash their hands of it' a perfect example of an SFA rule serving the good of Scottish Football. Ted, think also of Romanov at Hearts, that wee Italian p***k at Dundee, Miles Brookson (?) at Gretna, those guys at Livi, the Motherwell fiasco.....................the SFA have plenty of previous when it comes to being the 'custodians' of the Scottish game. Add to this the fact that you have someone like Campbell Ogilvie in charge, a man who has been in the employ of two of the biggest crooks ever to own clubs in Scotland, and you can begin to see why dodgy deals and cover-ups are the order of the day at Hampden. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 All? Nope, this is an incorrect assumption. 'All' is in ' look at all those fat angry Rangers fans protesting like the utter tubes that they are' I could go back and look, but at the time were you pro-Whyte and Anti-BBC or vice-versa. (oh sorry, I can't go back and look, as you deleted a huge percentage of your BRALT posts) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 This is nothing to do with MY purpose lol according to you the SFA is not to blame for having a system which is designed to stop dodgy blokes gaining control of Scottish football clubs as long as that system allows them to 'wash their hands of it' what a brilliant rule. Yes, it is a brilliant rule. It's no catch 22 but it's still a beauty. Imagine they had rule which actually served YOUR purpose. Are you honestly going to claim that if the SFA had told CW to bugger off you would have been happy about it? I think we all know that would not be true. The best bit of course is as CW wouldn't have taken over no-one would have any proof that he was going to screw you. This way those less burdened with intelligence would forever be able to claim the SFA had it in for them because they stopped the takeover. SFA are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't so the best thing for them to do is make sure they are divorced from responsibility - which, funnily enough, this rule very effectively does. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 please please SFA.... come out and simply state 'Dave King' is most definately NOT a Fit and Proper person and will not be allowed any office or proxy-influence at The Rangers (nee 'Sevco) We're going to need a bigger Seethe-o-Meter 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.