forever_blue Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 That was a joke wee man, I don't think it came over the water when it was called that.(could be wrong) I'm partial to a wee guiness myself, but I prefer local bottles like seggie porter and Belhaven black. Or Cheers. Tried a pint of Guinness for the first time a few months back and was pleasantly surprised , first time I had tried it before that was a can when I was about 16 and it nearly gave me the boak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsr Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 This forum could definitely have done with its own Hibs v Hearts section in recent years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 I'm far from being a "Rangers obsessive", before that accusation gets made because I've had the nerve to post on here, though I enjoy pointing and laughing at them and their fans as much as the next man. It's been great entertainment these last few years. In answer to the original question, if TheRangers are still in the Championship next season I think they should remain quarantined in their own sub-forum. It gives their fans a place to fight amongst themselves, it gives the rest of us visiting rights should we wish to use them and it keeps an awful lot of pish out of the main Championship forum - you know, the important one, the one that actually matters. A doormat so we could wipe our feet on the way out again would be nice, though. And here's a constructive suggestion. Should Hibs successfully Hibs it up and still be with us in the Championship next year, give THEM their own sub-forum as well. Think of the benefits - it'll appeal to their fans' misplaced sense of importance and stature in the Scottish game, and it'll give the rest of us some respite from some of the least pleasant fans in the league. Everyone's a winner. "it gives their fans a place to fight amongst themselves"? absolute nonsense! There can't be more than a dozen regular Bears on here, I don't recall falling out amongst any of them in the 18 months since I signed up, I can't vouch for any in-fighting before that. The sub forum is packed with fans of other clubs. I'd be happy to see the back of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 I do not doubt it for a second, you were specific when you said Rangers fans raising money for Erskine, for him to then try to link this with the shameful acts of D & P in 2012 is a new depressing low. The very definition of whataboutery there. It was not D & P that re-directed funds from RCF to RFC. Sure I will answer your 'deflection' when you show proof of actual funds due to Erskine being 'thieved' A wee clue to avoid more bouts of pathetic what about this, any proof should at least contain the word 'Erskine' If not, then an apology for pathetic point scoring will suffice. Where did I say that they were thieved? I responded to a post that Rob made stating that Erskine did not suffer as a result. As Erskine were the RFC community partner at the time, I think it is fair to say that they lost out as a result of the significant diversion of funds. Now perhaps you can answer the question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Aye, it's an acquired taste. The shitting the next day is bad. Think the mistake I made at 16 was thinking you could try and tan it back like it was a can of tennents haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 This forum could definitely have done with its own Hibs v Hearts section in recent years. The salt v sauce , sauce v salt section Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolph Hucker Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 "it gives their fans a place to fight amongst themselves"? absolute nonsense! There can't be more than a dozen regular Bears on here, I don't recall falling out amongst any of them in the 18 months since I signed up, I can't vouch for any in-fighting before that. The sub forum is packed with fans of other clubs. I'd be happy to see the back of it. Maybe you're right; I'm very rarely in this sub-forum but it looks like way more than "a dozen" to me. Whatever; there's still a huge amount of pish (no matter who is posting it) about Rangers that the rest of the forum is spared by having it all in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Only rangers fans I can think of are me , rob, bennet , tedi , pundit , knightswood bear , Martin and letsoduwabouncy, if I have missed any out let me know , no.8 was banned and knightswood bear never posts on here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akredz Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Only rangers fans I can think of are me , rob, bennet , tedi , pundit , knightswood bear , Martin and letsoduwabouncy, if I have missed any out let me know , no.8 was banned and knightswood bear never posts on here How could you forget The Kinkster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 How could you forget The Kinkster? Oh ffs , my apologies kinky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepundit Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Maybe you're right; I'm very rarely in this sub-forum but it looks like way more than "a dozen" to me. Whatever; there's still a huge amount of pish (no matter who is posting it) about Rangers that the rest of the forum is spared by having it all in here. There's already a Rangers and Celtic section where most of the non-football shite could have been discussed. Instead, whether it's football, transfers, or anything else connected to the football side of things it now ends up getting lost in amongst all the nonsense. I think that unfair on Rangers fans but hey ho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Only rangers fans I can think of are me , rob, bennet , tedi , pundit , knightswood bear , Martin and letsoduwabouncy, if I have missed any out let me know , no.8 was banned and knightswood bear never posts on here You could say, a minority of Rangers fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Yes Bennett, it would be good, wouldn't it? Now obviously, your choice of words indicates that you wish to characterise such an outlook as narrow and essentially right wing in nature. Of course though, it's nothing of the sort. Instead, it would see something much more egalitarian, fair and interesting. I never knew that Royston Vasey was in Dumfriesshire. Maybe because it wasn't Duff & Phelps that made the decision. : They were running things at the time Einstein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 The post that Rob was responding to when you quoted him suggested exactly that, not my issue if you do not try to grasp the actual discussion before jumping in. So no actual proof that funds meant for Erskine were not paid then? just a wild assumption that when D & P decided to hold onto money which was bound for a charity group that Erskine would have lost out? It was obvious what was Rob was referring to when he said Rangers fans and Erskine, your attempted linking of this to what D & P did is pathetic. I am happy to discuss the unrelated issues with RCF once you apologise or issue some proof to back up your allegations, I have already sort on answered your question and who I see to blame. That is some re-writing of history. In terms of the conversation, I was the first to mention Rangers' Charity contributions and therefore I think I understand what I was referring to. Perhaps you want to revisit the actual posts. Now I know that you would like us to differentiate between the RSEA and RCF and I am quite happy to do so. In fact I have already posted that I did not question the fundraisers although you appear to have missed that comment. However, to suggest that the only Rangers organisation that has supported Erskine is the RSEA would be misleading. RCF at the time they diverted funds to RFC was supporting Erskine and as a result of the contribution to RFC had £200k less to distribute to all their causes and hence why I posted However, the RCF supports many good causes so it wasn't just Erskine that suffered. You can continue to blame D & P but as you should know, it was nothing to do with D & P and at no time did the investigation apportion any blame to anyone other than a single RCF trustee. So your sort of answer is not sort of right, it is entirely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 They were running things at the time Einstein. They were not running RCF and the person that made the decision has never stated that D & P demanded anything for facilitating the game. It was clear to Trustee C that, since the primary duty of the Joint Administrators was to ensure the creditors of The Rangers Football Club plc (In Administration) were not prejudiced, use of its resources for the fundraising event would need to be justified on a cost benefit basis. Trustee C considered there was a very real risk that the Joint Administrators would not permit The Rangers Football Club plc’s resources to be used for the fundraising event. If that happened, the fundraising event would not take place and neither the Charity nor the AC Milan Foundation would benefit. In Trustee C’s view unless the Joint Administrators had control of the income from the fundraising event they were unlikely to agree to the event going ahead. Assigning the Charity’s interest in the Agreement with AC Milan Glorie (‘the Agreement’), dated 16 January 2012, for the fundraising event to The Rangers Football Club plc (in Administration) would ensure the Joint Administrators would recover costs and satisfy their duty to creditors to derive income from it. Trustee C considered that assigning the Charity’s interest in the Agreement to The Rangers Football Club plc (in Administration) fulfilled the legal duties of a charity trustee because the event would still be able to take place and, in terms of the agreement reached with the Administrators, the Charity would still receive some benefit. Trustee C did not obtain professional advice before making this decision. (Emphesis mine) Trustee C was not D & P. HTH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Young Einstein on full deflection mode, what about this and what about that. D and P were running the club. They had the final say in all matters, including the charity match and young Einstein knows this well enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Still deflecting, we can discuss your 'whit about RCF' all you want once you deal with the fact that Rob was specific when he mentioned Rangers fans fund raising for Erskine Do you have any proof that Erskine lost out financially as a result of this? I must have asked this several times, will give it one more try but I am guessing you do not, so I think we can change your original reply to 'yes that is true' Was this not a function of the RCF? Unless you want to claim that Rangers fans do not contribute to the RCF then Erskine has received money from Rangers fans through RSEA and RCF, no? Yes, Erskine were not the only good cause to lose out. All the good causes supported by the RCF lost out, I don't see how you can conclude otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Still no proof that Erskine lost out financially, think we can say you were just making it up in the hope you would not be pulled up for it, unlucky. RFC is given £200k from RCF and charities didn't lose out. Only in the world of thieves and scoundrels would this be accepted and therefore I bow out certain in the knowledge that your club acted true to form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 As I said earlier, obsessives ignoring that D & P placed the trustees in an impossible situation, everything was in place when D & P pulled this stunt, tickets sold, players and accommodation booked, the trustees faced with a huge loss which would have to be met with charity`s own funds meaning by default that the good causes supported by the charity would have lost out, they took a decision 'in good faith' which meant they did not lose out, they gained over £63k, not the £190k they hoped for but still better than making a loss. The trust agreed the decision they took was in good faith, it does not surprise me that hate filled obsessives like you never will and will use this as a pathetic way to point score. D & P did not place the Trustee (notice the term) in an impossible position. The trustee made assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Good faith but legally wrong. So instead of losing £32,000 which I have absolutely no doubt the Rangers fans would have raised if it needed repaid,they choose to let the charity lose £120,000+ There was no gun pointed to their head and if they done the right thing would have came out of it looking good. The trustees of the charity were looking after Rangers not the charity. So you would rather that a charity lost £32k, £32k doon the drain and the charity would have struggled to cope with that huge loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.