bennett Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Not sure what's more laughable, monkey claiming an internet victory or liono pointing out a typo.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 The registrations were improper, hence the big fine. None of the registered players were ineligible to play. This is crucial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 None of the registered players were ineligible to play. This is crucial. Indeed. However, that ruling was made by a commission, operating on an assumption since overridden and it provided a reading since discredited. These matters are also crucial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Indeed. However, that ruling was made by a commission, operating on an assumption since overridden That the assumption could have been 'overridden' was factored in. This is what makes The Commission's view coherent even if you and your diddy pals rail against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 That the assumption could have been 'overridden' was factored in. This is what makes The Commission's view coherent even if you and your diddy pals rail against it. It's what makes it utterly flimsy. If they'd said that this was to do with registration and that the big tax case was a separate issue that could have no bearing on their work, then that would indeed have been coherent. To state however that even though a ruling may well change, we'll make a decision based on where it stands currently, but that decision will forever be set in stone, is manifestly unjust. Yet this is the basis on which you actually wish to retain trophies. It really is staggering when you think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 What is crucial is that, by not paying tax, rangers could employ, not just arguably better players, but unarguably more players. Having a de facto higher budget than the tax laws allowed undoubtedly conferred an advantage. Sporting it wasn't. Deceitful and immoral it most certainly was. Cheats. Pure and simple. That not one fan of the rangers on here has shown any kind of reluctance to claim the unfairly-won titles, or to show the slightest discomfort in the manner that this panel of their comfort blanket was sewn, is frankly pathetic. Let them keep their shinies, by all means. In a very real way, they have shown that this is what is important to them. Inadequate, arrogant, stupid people, they know that the vicarious victories which form their personal validation were achieved dishonestly - and they don't fucking care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 If they'd said that this was to do with registration and that the big tax case was a separate issue that could have no bearing on their work, then that would indeed have been coherent. In praxis that was what they did and that is what The Diddies rail against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 In praxis that was what they did and that is what The Diddies rail against. No it's not. The brief set to the commission and the wording of the result, did not separate the issues in the way I've always seen as wise and in the way you've only recently decided would be wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 No it's not. The brief set to the commission and the wording of the result, did not separate the issues in the way I've always seen as wise and in the way you've only recently decided would be wise. Wise or not isn't the issue. The commission's brief was to assess if we broke SPL rules and, in doing so, gained an unfair advantage. The result was 'yes' and 'no'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Wise or not isn't the issue. The commission's brief was to assess if we broke SPL rules and, in doing so, gained an unfair advantage. The result was 'yes' and 'no'. Yes, while operating on a basis that has since changed. They didn't decide that no unfair advantage was gained. They decided instead that no sporting advantage was gained, a demonstrably absurd conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 They decided instead that no sporting advantage was gained, a demonstrably absurd conclusion. Given the length of the commission and the depth of evidence they assessed I'd see that they reached a fair conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 It's length and depth now that's what's important. All over the shop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Given the length of the commission and the depth of evidence they assessed I'd see that they reached a fair conclusion. You only claim it to be fair because it chimes with your preferred reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 It's length and depth now that's what's important. All over the shop. You only claim it to be fair because it chimes with your preferred reading. So, 2 years on, are you unhappy with a commission that found Rangers guilty? How much more guilty should we have been? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 So, 2 years on, are you unhappy with a commission that found Rangers guilty? How much more guilty should we have been? Guilty enough to have seen trophies stripped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 That the assumption could have been 'overridden' was factored in. This is what makes The Commission's view coherent even if you and your diddy pals rail against it. This is what you're clinging to? Sorry chief but that is desperate stuff. A key assumption LNS made has been blown apart by the Court of Session ruling. It is only right that the "no sporting advantage" conclusion is challenged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 This is what you're clinging to? Sorry chief but that is desperate stuff. A key assumption LNS made has been blown apart by the Court of Session ruling. It is only right that the "no sporting advantage" conclusion is challenged. Was the possibility of an appeal factored in to The LNS Commission or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Was the possibility of an appeal factored in to The LNS Commission or not? I am not sure if it was or wasn't. What I do find comical is that you are happy to abide by SPL/SPFL decisions when it suits and take to court (against the rules) when it doesn't. If the SP(F)L/SFA are the de facto authrority on all football matters then why have your club previously taken then to court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Was the possibility of an appeal factored in to The LNS Commission or not?I do believe it was.What sort of a defence is that though? Is that honestly the basis on which you wish to retain titles that there is serious debate about the legitimacy of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Was the possibility of an appeal factored in to The LNS Commission or not? I am not sure if it was or wasn't. I do believe it was. You diddies have to get together and agree yes or no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.