williemillersmoustache Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Thank you. Is Bennett just being daft then? Out of interest, what do Rangers claim to be "the subsequent actions of the SPFL" that have waived their right to the money? No idea, think it's been thrown out to the floor in the past with no cogent response. For both questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Gordon Brown, another Daily Ranger lie. Different vow, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 I asked about this last week because it confused me. The answer I got indicated that Rangers had agreed to pay any fine initially, but then chose not to, alleging that the authorities had not kept their part of the bargain. Have I got that wrong? ".Newco bears no responsibility for the rule breaches. "There is no allegation that the current owner and operator of the club, The Rangers Football Club Limited (“Newco”), contravened the SPL Rules or could be held responsible for any breach by Oldco." (p1) A fine has been imposed on Oldco covering all rule breaches. "In all the circumstances the Commission has imposed a fine of £250,000 on Oldco." (p1) LNS is quite clear here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 ".Newco bears no responsibility for the rule breaches. "There is no allegation that the current owner and operator of the club, The Rangers Football Club Limited (“Newco”), contravened the SPL Rules or could be held responsible for any breach by Oldco." (p1) A fine has been imposed on Oldco covering all rule breaches. "In all the circumstances the Commission has imposed a fine of £250,000 on Oldco." (p1) LNS is quite clear here. Jeez, it really is just that they're new for bad stuff; old for good stuff then? Is it really that unsophisticated? That doesn't actually address the "subsequent actions" thing though. Also Bennett, why did you imply it had been paid when it hadn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Jeez, it really is just that they're new for bad stuff; old for good stuff then? Is it really that unsophisticated? That doesn't actually address the "subsequent actions" thing though. Also Bennett, why did you imply it had been paid when it hadn't? The reply to insaintee? I was being a dick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 The reply to insaintee? I was being a dick. Ah, Bennett. You do make me chuckle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Indulge me then Bennett, because I've clearly managed to overlook these numerous answers. Who said they'd accept LNS's ruling as final, whichever way it went? The then SPL - the only body which matters, shirley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 The then SPL - the only body which matters, shirley? Sadly yes. That's not who Bennett was referring to though. He kept implying that people who are now calling for title stripping to be re-examined, were once saying they'd accept LNS's word as final. I'm not sure who he means. Neither, it seems, are you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 ".Newco bears no responsibility for the rule breaches. "There is no allegation that the current owner and operator of the club, The Rangers Football Club Limited (“Newco”), contravened the SPL Rules or could be held responsible for any breach by Oldco." (p1) A fine has been imposed on Oldco covering all rule breaches. "In all the circumstances the Commission has imposed a fine of £250,000 on Oldco." (p1) LNS is quite clear here. Forget the companies. Rangers have not settled the fine. Besides, RFC 2012 are Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Sadly yes. That's not who Bennett was referring to though. He kept implying that people who are now calling for title stripping to be re-examined, were once saying they'd accept LNS's word as final. I'm not sure who he means. Neither, it seems, are you. Of course The Diddies were expecting titles to be stripped. More importantly, how do you think The SPFL will react to The Title Stripping Tossers and their demand that 'something' should be done? There's certainly no basis for a new commission as nothing has happened that wasn't factored in to the LNS commission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Of course The Diddies were expecting titles to be stripped. More importantly, how do you think The SPFL will react to The Title Stripping Tossers and their demand that 'something' should be done? There's certainly no basis for a new commission as nothing has happened that wasn't factored in to the LNS commission. I've answered this many times of late. I expect the SPFL to do nothing. I've said all along that the big tax case result should have no real bearing on the title stripping debate. Right now though, I'd opportunistically like it to. You however, have changed your stance on that question, because the big tax case verdict has changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 You however, have changed your stance on that question, because the big tax case verdict has changed. I'm pretty sure I said that The LNS enquiry shouldn't proceed in the light of The FTTT result. I bet you wish the SPL had agreed with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Koop Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Whose plan? Can you give us the details of this plan? The plan that's as self evident as breathing is required to stay alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 No mate. Rangers invested well in Murrary Park in that period. Over ten million pounds. One of the best world class youth academies in the world tha's going to bear fruit for Rangers for decades to come. Barrie McKay from & many others from this youth academy are arguably better than anything in the Falkirk team at the moment. Your just jealous that Rangers are the most successful team in Scotland. Is another club in the country not allowed to spend money? Compared to Rangers, Falkirk etc are like the grimy dirt under your toilet seat when you lift it up. Why don't you suck on a werthers original to get rid of all that bitterness you hold for Rangers and focus on your own club. Meanwhile Falkirk publish a million pound profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmc Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Meanwhile Falkirk publish a million pound profit.Has Falkirk managed to flog a player to la liga the way Murray park has with mighty Barry mckay? ? No cos Murray pk is the new European blueprint for youth development. ....oh...wait.......ah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Sadly yes. That's not who Bennett was referring to though. He kept implying that people who are now calling for title stripping to be re-examined, were once saying they'd accept LNS's word as final. I'm not sure who he means. Neither, it seems, are you. Or, indeed, is he. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 I'm pretty sure I said that The LNS enquiry shouldn't proceed in the light of The FTTT result. I bet you wish the SPL had agreed with me. Ah, clever. Yes I do, as it happens. Let's not pretend however that your desire for the commission to pack up was motivated by anything other than a desire for Rangers to wriggle from a hook. Once more, we see your reliance on technicality of procedure, as opposed to justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Ah, clever. Yes I do, as it happens. Let's not pretend however that your desire for the commission to pack up was motivated by anything other than a desire for Rangers to wriggle from a hook. Once more, we see your reliance on technicality of procedure, as opposed to justice. Exactly. His position on this is as variable as the wind. Anyone that thought " the LNS enquiry should not have taken place in light of the FTTT result" would now be of the opinion that the LNS enquiry was open to review. Of course Kinky will always attempt to use ambiguity to ensure that he has the wind at his back regardless of which way he is facing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Just a reminder the "punishment" received by the clumpany was a registration embargo (while playing in part time leagues) one they fought through the courts and a fine, which is still unpaid. It's hilarious sevco supporters feel they've been punished enough and it should be case closed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Meanwhile Falkirk publish a million pound profit. Beautifully worded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.