Paralytic Critic Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 Sad seeing Petrie's statement. I don't claim to be any expert in law, nor do I fully understand it all, but if I'm not mistaken here and new evidence appears have there not been cases taken back to court, or review, where the parties involved have either had their punishment increased, or decreased, depending on the new evidence. I seem to recollect already punished parties getting further punishment added and others where they were reduced ,or even cleared by new evidence coming to light. The fact that new evidence has come to light since the LNS report then why isn't the SFA at the very least having a review on the matter, saying what they do is just glossing over what really should be done. If Sevco truly feel they have did nothing wrong then what better way to clear the air and their name. The way it stands in everyone elses eyes the SFA and Sevco want us to move on as they look like they have dodged a bullet and got off very lightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 4 hours ago, Paralytic Critic said: The fact that new evidence has come to light since the LNS report then why isn't the SFA at the very least having a review on the matter, saying what they do is just glossing over what really should be done. If Sevco truly feel they have did nothing wrong then what better way to clear the air and their name. The way it stands in everyone elses eyes the SFA and Sevco want us to move on as they look like they have dodged a bullet and got off very lightly. No new evidence has come to light that wasn't factored in to the LNS enquiry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 48 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: No new evidence has come to light that wasn't factored in to the LNS enquiry. The only evidence you need to know in the LNS commission is "rangers ceased to be a club as defined in the rules" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 19 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said: The only evidence you need to know in the LNS commission is "rangers ceased to be a club as defined in the rules" Your quote is wrong, those words don't appear in the LNS commission. It does say "ceased to be a member of the SPL" which is what happens to every club who no longer play in the top flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 14 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: Your quote is wrong, those words don't appear in the LNS commission. It does say "ceased to be a member of the SPL" which is what happens to every club who no longer play in the top flight. commission reasons for decision of 12 september 2012 - SPFL paragraph 45 rangers fc i will wait for your apology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 30 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said: commission reasons for decision of 12 september 2012 - SPFL paragraph 45 rangers fc i will wait for your apology That is not the LNS Commission ruling https://spfl.co.uk/news/article/commission-decision-2013-02-28/mediaassets/doc/Commission Decision 28 02 2013.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 1 minute ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: That is not the LNS Commission ruling https://spfl.co.uk/news/article/commission-decision-2013-02-28/mediaassets/doc/Commission Decision 28 02 2013.pdf one is decisions and one is reasons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 Just now, wastecoatwilly said: one is decisions and one is reasons Mine is the verdict, the actual document that matters. Reasons were written before the Commission heard evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: Mine is the verdict, the actual document that matters. Reasons were written before the Commission heard evidence. yes all part of the LNS commission apology accepted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 Nope you are still wrong, that quote is not from the evidence or as a result of evidence provided to the Lord Nimmo Smith commission so it isn't "The only evidence you need to know". Take your out of context nonsense elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 2 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said: The only evidence you need to know in the LNS commission is "rangers ceased to be a club as defined in the rules" One of your fellow fans thinks there is new evidence and it would be useful to hear what it is. You, however, seem to disagree with him, are simply a troll or didn't understand his post. Which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingnut Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 The establishment will look after their own,surely the currants canny sing that no one likes us shit again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 5 hours ago, The_Kincardine said: No new evidence has come to light that wasn't factored in to the LNS enquiry. It wasn't "factored in" in the way you repeatedly attempt to represent. Instead, the fact it could change was acknowledged, yet dismissed. Now that would be entirely proper if the verdict's capacity for change meant its then current standing was left out of considerations altogether. However, the ruling as it stood at that moment had an explicit bearing on its outcome, even though it might change and indeed subsequently has done. Despite the fact that we've been over this ground before, not once have you been able to say how such a bizarre set up can possibly have seen justice served. All you can do is say that it's fixed and that it suits you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 44 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: It wasn't "factored in" in the way you repeatedly attempt to represent. Instead, the fact it could change was acknowledged, yet dismissed. Now that would be entirely proper if the verdict's capacity for change meant its then current standing was left out of considerations altogether. However, the ruling as it stood at that moment had an explicit bearing on its outcome, even though it might change and indeed subsequently has done. Despite the fact that we've been over this ground before, not once have you been able to say how such a bizarre set up can possibly have seen justice served. All you can do is say that it's fixed and that it suits you. Will qots be backing sevco or them in reviewgate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 13 minutes ago, bennett said: Will qots be backing sevco or them in reviewgate? I think I can rely on my club to do or say nothing at all on the matter if they can. If push were to come to shove again though, I've no doubt that the morally reprehensible option would once more be chosen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 4 hours ago, The_Kincardine said: One of your fellow fans thinks there is new evidence and it would be useful to hear what it is. You, however, seem to disagree with him, are simply a troll or didn't understand his post. Which is it? Have you read the LNS commission? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 18 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said: Have you read the LNS commission? Yes. Now can you address your fellow-fan's issue? He stated clearly that, "new evidence has come to light since the LNS report". Now will you like to respond to this or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 19 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said: Have you read the LNS commission? I'm guessing you've read it a few times... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 5 hours ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: Nope you are still wrong, that quote is not from the evidence or as a result of evidence provided to the Lord Nimmo Smith commission so it isn't "The only evidence you need to know". Take your out of context nonsense elsewhere. That quote is the consequences of going into liquidation with no decision needed to be made,more damning than any side letters or improper players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 1 minute ago, wastecoatwilly said: That quote is the consequences of going into liquidation with no decision needed to be made,more damning than any side letters or improper players Is 'improper' now an accusation? I'm sure they were perfectly polite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.