The BIG strip the titles thread

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, The DA said:

The bit in bold is the bit I haven't been able to get my head round in all these years.  How else could a player be found ineligible other than 'retrospectively'?  It's not as if an SFA official is approving each team sheet before the match kicks off.  And, as far as I'm aware, the rules don't have a statute of limitations.

 

If there are rules about ineligibility in the rulebook, there must be an assumption that they'll have to be looked at retrospectively.  Otherwise, why are they in the rulebook?

 

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

This has always baffled me too.

It does seem to be key though.

That makes three of us.

[Jimboyjones1976]

44 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Love this banner as it captures the authentic voice of diddydom.  The chairmen of the SPL clubs listened to the fans when they voted not to transfer our SPL share from oldco to newco and that worked so well that they then folded the SFL in to their moribund league in order to gain financially from our media rights.

Then we had the fiasco of 'Sell Out Saturday' - the one where the fans promised to show their commitment by, well, selling out their grounds.  That worked well, too.

Imagine thinking football chairmen will listen to a clump of bitter, angry social inadequates who, through a series of unfortunate life events, aren't blessed enough to be one of the people and whose past blusterings have proven to be either detrimental or empty.

Fool me once etc etc.

It was simple business sense Kinc. Fans were stomping their feet and rightly so. What the hell do you expect a club to do? These are basically the stakeholders of the club and I use that term loosely. 

However, if you're going to claim 'diddydom' against fans who have a voice and exert it in their club then you only need to look as far as your own fans voice at the time and the reaction from Chico Green. He played to the fans just like anyone else. Difference being he was fleecing your club when all could see, apart from the 'Blue Diddies' if you'll allow me to call your fan base that. That was as far as it went though because absolutely f**k all else listening was done on Rangers board end. At least people started listening to the 'diddies'. No fucker at all gave two flying fucks what the Rangers fans said: the march to Hampden with Sandy Sardine, protesting outside BBC, John Brown's drunken statement on the steps to name a few. The only time they did listen was when your whole fan base raised the amazing sum of of £500,000 that eventually got spent on the pitch, which was a shite pitch to boot. And that was when your club was on its knees. Christ! The Green Brigade raised a quarter of that in a week proving a point to UEFA about the Palestine demo and even donated the money to them. Maybe we should've given it to Rangers to keep Barry 'Maradona' McKay on.

Diddys indeed. 

[The_Kincardine]

11 minutes ago, Jimboyjones1976 said:

It was simple business sense Kinc.

It's perfectly obvious that neither a. the revocation of our SPL share nor b. Sell Out Sunday made 'business sense'.

All was done at the behest of the pitch-fork wielders and bitter MOPEs.  Thankfully that won't happen again.

Away and start another thread about us.

[The DA]

2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

It's perfectly obvious that neither a. the revocation of our SPL share nor b. Sell Out Sunday made 'business sense'.

All was done at the behest of the pitch-fork wielders and bitter MOPEs.  Thankfully that won't happen again.

Away and start another thread about us.

You seem confused, Kinky.  This isn't about 'business sense'.  When sport comes down to 'who has the deepest pockets and the best lawyers?', I'm no longer interested in it as a sport.

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, The DA said:

You seem confused, Kinky.  This isn't about 'business sense'.  When sport comes down to 'who has the deepest pockets and the best lawyers?', I'm no longer interested in it as a sport.

I mean this affectionately, DA.  We disagree on many most every thing but I do appreciate your posts and we've had some badinage.  BUT when you attempt a cod psychological profile of a football club I'm not sure you should be handing out the 'confused' badges.

[The DA]

2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

I mean this affectionately, DA.  We disagree on many most every thing but I do appreciate your posts and we've had some badinage.  BUT when you attempt a cod psychological profile of a football club I'm not sure you should be handing out the 'confused' badges.

 

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, The_Kincardine said:

Love this banner as it captures the authentic voice of diddydom.  The chairmen of the SPL clubs listened to the fans when they voted not to transfer our SPL share from oldco to newco and that worked so well that they then folded the SFL in to their moribund league in order to gain financially from our media rights.

Then we had the fiasco of 'Sell Out Saturday' - the one where the fans promised to show their commitment by, well, selling out their grounds.  That worked well, too.

Imagine thinking football chairmen will listen to a clump of bitter, angry social inadequates who, through a series of unfortunate life events, aren't blessed enough to be one of the people and whose past blusterings have proven to be either detrimental or empty.

Fool me once etc etc.

The period of Rangers' exile saw more clubs win trophies than during any other four year period since there have been three major domestic trophies.

Ridding the top of our game of Rangers, was an unequivocal success for diddy clubs.

[The_Kincardine]

3 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

The period of Rangers' exile saw more clubs win trophies than during any other four year period since there have been three major domestic trophies.

Ridding the top of our game of Rangers, was an unequivocal success for diddy clubs.

That's just noise, though.  The type of tub-thumping we're used to hearing from the diddies.

'The Chairmen' will disagree.

[strichener]

2 hours ago, The DA said:

The bit in bold is the bit I haven't been able to get my head round in all these years.  How else could a player be found ineligible other than 'retrospectively'?  It's not as if an SFA official is approving each team sheet before the match kicks off.  And, as far as I'm aware, the rules don't have a statute of limitations.

 

If there are rules about ineligibility in the rulebook, there must be an assumption that they'll have to be looked at retrospectively.  Otherwise, why are they in the rulebook?

It really is a question of semantics.  The reality here is that the SPL had no way of knowing that Rangers had purposely withheld information and therefore had no reason to doubt the information as presented at the time of registration.  It was also interesting to see that the SFA claimed that they also operated on this premise and yet they have retrospectively punished the likes of Spartens over Keith McLeod having an admin error on his registration.

This now sets a precedent that allows every club to register players with falsified information without recrimination. 

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute ago, strichener said:

It really is a question of semantics.  The reality here is that the SPL had no way of knowing that Rangers had purposely withheld information and therefore had no reason to doubt the information as presented at the time of registration.  It was also interesting to see that the SFA claimed that they also operated on this premise and yet they have retrospectively punished the likes of Spartens over Keith McLeod having an admin error on his registration.

This now sets a precedent that allows every club to register players with falsified information without recrimination. 

Totally agree.

 

[Monkey Tennis]

15 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

That's just noise, though.  The type of tub-thumping we're used to hearing from the diddies.

'The Chairmen' will disagree.

So it's the chairmen that matter, as opposed to supporters.

Do you really think it can all be measured by crude gross income?

[The_Kincardine]

11 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

So it's the chairmen that matter, as opposed to supporters.

Do you really think it can all be measured by crude gross income?

"Imagine taking lessons in finance from a supporter of a deid club" incoming but it's a numbers' game, MT.  The most important factor in this branch of the entertainment industry is bums on seats.  The reaction of the the grey and green dross in voting with their fat arses in our absence is the perfect example.

'The Chairmen' have already pandered twice to the utter diddy moonhowlers and have twice been let down.  This won't be repeated.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, bennett said:

 

An interesting snippet on the players registrations, basically the rules left LNS no other choice in regards to not stripping titles.

 

 

*On the eligibility of players: The SPL alleges “such that Rangers FC was in breach of a condition of the registration of such players and such players were ineligible to play in official matches for Rangers FC” (p26)

• Sandy Bryson, Head of Registrations at the Scottish FA, gives evidence that registrations remain unless revoked and are not automatically invalid due to rule breaches.

• The SPL explain a different take on registration.

"[SPL lawyer] Mr McKenzie explained to us that SPL Rule D1.13 had hitherto been understood to mean that if, at the time of registration, a document was not lodged as required, the consequence was that a condition of registration was broken and the player automatically became ineligible to play in terms of SPL Rule D1.11." (p26)

• Mr McKenzie then accepts that the rules could not allow a player to be automatically ineligible.

"'He accepted that no provision of the Rules enabled the Board of the SPL retrospectively to terminate the registration of the player." (p26)

• The tribunal states that the Scottish FA approach to the rules is clear and the SPL should apply their rules in the same manner.

"We are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches." (p27)

"This is an important finding, as it means that there was no instance shown of Rangers FC fielding an ineligible player.

I think that this is the important stuff.

It still strikes me as odd and essentially unjust, but I've no legal training or background at all.  

If LNS really was unable to find differently, he didn't help his case with the "no unfair competitive advantage" line.  That just left him open to attack and he'd surely have been better just leaving it as being about having his hands tied re eligibility.  

It points to Rangers having been allowed to keep their titles on a quaint technicality, yet having the decision billed as being about whether or not EBTs gave them an edge.

No wonder dear old Nacho gets so confused.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said:

"Imagine taking lessons in finance from a supporter of a deid club" incoming but it's a numbers' game, MT.  The most important factor in this branch of the entertainment industry is bums on seats.  The reaction of the the grey and green dross in voting with their fat arses in our absence is the perfect example.

'The Chairmen' have already pandered twice to the utter diddy moonhowlers and have twice been let down.  This won't be repeated.

And yet, gates didn't really suffer at the top, they got a boost further down and trophies got shared round better.  

Separating the OF was absolutely positive for the game.

[The_Kincardine]

Just now, Monkey Tennis said:

And yet, gates didn't really suffer at the top

Well they did.  The SPL lost about 1/3rd of its fan base and was on the verge of bankruptcy as a league hence the bullying and blackmail as previously discussed.

Simply stated, 'fan powers' means f**k all when 'Sell out Saturday' saw tumbleweed in most stadiums.

[hellbhoy]

How many fucking days have you two been at it wi each other ffs?

[Cerberus]

4 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Well they did.  The SPL lost about 1/3rd of its fan base and was on the verge of bankruptcy as a league hence the bullying and blackmail as previously discussed.

Simply stated, 'fan powers' means f**k all when 'Sell out Saturday' saw tumbleweed in most stadiums.

I never had you down for an ARMAGEDDON truther. 

[Monkey Tennis]

2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Well they did.  The SPL lost about 1/3rd of its fan base and was on the verge of bankruptcy as a league hence the bullying and blackmail as previously discussed.

Simply stated, 'fan powers' means f**k all when 'Sell out Saturday' saw tumbleweed in most stadiums.

That's wildly misleading.

Most of the fans who disappeared from the top flight did so, because Rangers were no longer there and they've a big stadium they regularly come close to filling.  They still did that further down, so the overall loss didn't happen.  Celtic's gates dropped which was obviously excellent news too.

The other teams didn't really lose fans at all.  Some went up a bit - some like Motherwell, tailed off.  Only Rangers and Celtic gain from their big gates at home, so to suggest that Rangers' exile damaged others is just dishonest.

'Fan power' was what saw Rangers visit the bottom tier.  Your 'sell out Saturday' focus is a reminder of the 'booming I tells ye' facile narrative of No8 in his darker days.

Losing Rangers was terrible for Rangers and bad for Celtic.  That alone makes it good for our game.  

The facts that more sides won trophies, we got one body in charge of our leagues again, we got rid of punitive seating criteria, we got more egalitarian financial distribution and we got top flight play-offs, really don't harm that perception.

[The_Kincardine]

3 minutes ago, Cerberus said:

I never had you down for an ARMAGEDDON truther. 

ARMAGEDDON was always about the plastics and diddies shiting their breeks.  And they did.  Had 'sell out Saturday' been backed by the fans things may have been different.  If the Ps&Ds wanted anything to change they'd have shown to their various boards that they meant business by supporting in their droves.  They didn't.

The simple truth?  Both this board and the boards of your sundry clubs are propped up by all things Rangers.

[The_Kincardine]

6 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

That's wildly misleading

But accurate.