strichener Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 The authorities did not want to pursue such a course. It would have required courage. Rangers got to retain their titles on the basis that the SPL decided they could not impose such penalties retrospectively. The SFL under Longmuir had already decided that his body was not prepared to examine the legitimacy or otherwise of any League Cups Rangers had won. There's no doubt though that rules were broken, hence the record breaking fine. Rangers got to keep their titles, not on the basis that they deserved to, but on the basis that leaving them be was less trouble. Imagine wanting to accept that, let alone wishing to use it for gloating purposes. My God, it's pitiful. I wonder what the SPL and SFL would have done if Sevco were prevented from using the Rangers brand. As Sevco bought the titles, would the record books now show them as won by Sevco or would they have remained as Rangers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Rather than a simple lol, why not point out where I've gone wrong? Conspiracy based clap trap. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Conspiracy based clap trap. Come on Bennett. Better than that needed. How did you interpret the decision and the reasons given for it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
energyzone Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 The decision not to strip any titles was the correct one in my opinion. You would have to prove that Rangers wouldn't have won them anyway. Even if you exclude the players on EBTs from the Rangers line-ups of the time, others would have taken their place. Perhaps even better ones, who knows. (WATP GSTQ NS) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Come on Bennett. Better than that needed. How did you interpret the decision and the reasons given for it? Whatever happened to accepting LNS' verdict no mater what? That was what the p and B posters were saying prior to his judgement, the rest of it has been done to death on here Phil. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 The decision not to strip any titles was the correct one in my opinion. You would have to prove that Rangers wouldn't have won them anyway. Even if you exclude the players on EBTs from the Rangers line-ups of the time, others would have taken their place. Perhaps even better ones, who knows. (WATP GSTQ NS) Not the point and no such proof of anything needed. Cup ties have been overturned because of clerical errors. This was systematic and deliberate over hundreds of games. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Whatever happened to accepting LNS' verdict no mater what? That was what the p and B posters were saying prior to his judgement, the rest of it has been done to death on here Phil. I never said I'd accept any such verdict. The decision to leave titles intact was unfair and wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I never said I'd accept any such verdict. The decision to leave titles intact was unfair and wrong. If I recall correctly LNS claimed that Celtics fat low level gatherer of paper misunderstood the rules regarding title stripping and densboy and chums never got their party. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Whatever happened to accepting LNS' verdict no mater what? That was what the p and B posters were saying prior to his judgement, the rest of it has been done to death on here Phil. The LNS verdict that said you 'cheated but gained no sporting advantage'? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 The LNS verdict that said you 'cheated but gained no sporting advantage'? Dinna talk pish, it said no such thing ya haddie. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirdrockfromtheSon Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 If I had smilies I'd go the full QC after reading that but a simple lol will have to do. Just out of interest, why did you change Monkey Tennis to Monkey McMadeupname when you replied? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 If I recall correctly LNS claimed that Celtics fat low level gatherer of paper misunderstood the rules regarding title stripping and densboy and chums never got their party. Think they did. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Dinna talk pish, it said no such thing ya haddie. What ever happened to accepting LNS no matter what? Not cheating, but fined anyway 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Just out of interest, why did you change Monkey Tennis to Monkey McMadeupname when you replied? At the time it seemed really witty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 What ever happened to accepting LNS no matter what? Not cheating, but fined anyway As has been said before - if Rangers hadn't weren't found to have engaged in serious, intentional and systematic rule-breaking over hundreds of games in all competitions, it's a bit odd that they were slapped with what was IIRC the largest fine in Scottish football history. Maybe they got the biggest fine for being especially awesome, or something? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Dinna talk pish, it said no such thing ya haddie. Let's not go back over the definition of 'cheating' again. Rangers deliberately withheld information from the football authorities, presumably because they weren't sure if the EBTs were legal or not. The LNS statement said 'Oldco through its senior management decided that such side-letter arrangements should not be disclosed to the football authorities...'. To anyone other than a sophist, that's cheating - one cheat (non-disclosure) to cover up what they thought was another cheat (payment of EBTs)! If there was no cheating, why were they fined 250K? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Let's not go back over the definition of 'cheating' again. That's a sensible approach. Rangers deliberately withheld information from the football authorities..........To anyone other than a sophist, that's cheating. You're doing what you said we shouldn't do - defining cheating. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 That's a sensible approach. You're doing what you said we shouldn't do - defining cheating. I'm allowed to do that cos I'm me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 As has been said before - if Rangers hadn't weren't found to have engaged in serious, intentional and systematic rule-breaking over hundreds of games in all competitions, it's a bit odd that they were slapped with what was IIRC the largest fine in Scottish football history. Maybe they got the biggest fine for being especially awesome, or something? Think it was a world record TBF 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Let's not go back over the definition of 'cheating' again. Rangers deliberately withheld information from the football authorities, presumably because they weren't sure if the EBTs were legal or not. The LNS statement said 'Oldco through its senior management decided that such side-letter arrangements should not be disclosed to the football authorities...'. To anyone other than a sophist, that's cheating - one cheat (non-disclosure) to cover up what they thought was another cheat (payment of EBTs)! If there was no cheating, why were they fined 250K? Administrative errors. 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.