The BIG strip the titles thread

[strichener]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Yes, but none of them are realistically likely to result in any of the more severe sanctions, other than the player registration one.  

If you want to claim that it can realistically happen for anything else, then we're departing from the idea of looking at precedent.

I wasn't making a claim, I was responding to an incorrect post from Bennett where he claimed that it was against the rules.  It very clearly is not.

[hellbhoy]

17 minutes ago, strichener said:

I wasn't making a claim, I was responding to an incorrect post from Bennett where he claimed that it was against the rules.  It very clearly is not.

It's Bennett ffs? He has made one decent post in years?, maybe not, but he posts shite all the time looking for bites.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, hellbhoy said:

It's Bennett ffs? He has made one decent post in years?, maybe not, but he posts shite all the time looking for bites.

On this occasion, he had a point of sorts.

He sometimes does.

[The DA]

7 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I think the point is though, that while a range of sanctions, including withdrawing the award of titles, was available, the facility to find players ineligible retrospectively, wasn't.

That's what LNS used as a means of deeming the players eligible, thereby allowing him to not impose a direct football sanction.

It still sounds ridiculous, but I think it's what Bennett refers to in saying the rules didn't permit it.

The sanction was allowed, but finding Rangers guilty of the relevant offence, didn't seem to be.  

Thoroughly unjust of course, but technically, Bennett was right.  I don't say that lightly.

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?

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute 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?

This has always baffled me too.

It does seem to be key though.

[The_Kincardine]

On 16/07/2017 at 20:18, Dindeleux said:

 

It's not really a criticism you are obviously just wired that way. Some people are quite relaxed and can let things go either by losing an argument or laughing at the other side but you seem incapable of that.

You, Monkey and Drunkardine have more in common than you may realise.
 

 

This after your 'performance' on Sunday?  f**k off Dindelush

[The_Kincardine]

11 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said:

squeaky bum time

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 DA]

14 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.

Psychopathic tendencies, if you ask me.

• glib and superficial charm Meh
• grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self  Yup.
• need for stimulation No comment.
• pathological lying Yup.
• cunning and manipulative.  They would like to think so.
• lack of remorse or guilt  Yup.
• shallow affect (superficial emotional responsiveness)  Rangers good, everything else bad.  Yup.
• callousness and lack of empathy Yup.
• parasitic lifestyle Oh, god, yup.
• poor behavioral controls What's a control? Yup.
• sexual promiscuity Nae chance.  Who'd have them?
• early behavior problems And late behaviour too.
• lack of realistic long-term goals  Define 'long term'.  Is that past Christmas?
• impulsivity  That's a body-spray, yes?    
• irresponsibility  Yup
• failure to accept responsibility for own actions  Yup. Thrice yup.
• many short-term marital relationships The first one lasted from 1872 or 3 all the way to 2012 so this one is a naw.
• juvenile delinquency.  
• revocation of conditional release  Does that mean 'on parole'?  Aye.
• criminal versatility They've had their share.

[hellbhoy]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

On this occasion, he had a point of sorts.

He sometimes does.

And sometimes he posts excellently worded posts. Like his view on EBT's 3 days after Rangers went into administration.

On 17/02/2012 at 17:21, bennett said:

We live in hope but i reckon that we've used the EBT's wrongly so we'll get f**ked.

Try getting him to repeat that would be like pulling out hens teeth.

Is Bennett on the nawty step? He hasn't posted pish, shite or drivel since he got hammered for editing posts.

[dave.j]

Try getting him to repeat that would be like pulling out hens teeth. [emoji38]
Is Bennett on the nawty step? He hasn't posted pish, shite or drivel since he got hammered for editing posts.

He's put everyone on ignore

[bennett]

 

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.

 

 

 

 

[The_Kincardine]

2 minutes ago, dave.j said:

 

He's put everyone on ignore

 

Tsk tsk, young Dave.  You boys take Oor Ben far too seriously.  He's a good-hearted bloke whose comments are mostly tongue in cheek.

How are the wife and weans btw?  Haven't seen you post much lately.

 

[bennett]

4 minutes ago, hellbhoy said:

.

Try getting him to repeat that would be like pulling out hens teeth.

.

 

We did make a kunt of the ebt scheme and we did get hammered for it.

 

 

[hellbhoy]

Just now, dave.j said:

 

He's put everyone on ignore

Nope, he is not on the nawty step, sly bugger waited until he got a mention, bless.

[hellbhoy]

Just now, 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.

 

 

 

 

TL, didn't read, lol. ©Bennett.

[hellbhoy]

Just now, bennett said:

 

We did make a kunt of the ebt scheme and we did get hammered for it.

 

 

No no no Benny, your club died because it ran out of money. The subsequent aftermath came from liquidation. Had feck all to do with EBT's, which was a paltry £250K fine taken from the old Rangers TV rights iirc.

[Jimboyjones1976]

6 hours ago, williemillersmoustache said:

I know, fined £500 and six penalty points for fleeing the scene of a murder at 82mph.

Sssshhhhhhh!!!!

 

i don't want anybody knowing that about me.

[Jimboyjones1976]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

On this occasion, he had a point of sorts.

He sometimes does.

That's what he does though, occupies the grey areas claiming dubious technicalities and points.

[dave.j]

Tsk tsk, young Dave.  You boys take Oor Ben far too seriously.  He's a good-hearted bloke whose comments are mostly tongue in cheek.
How are the wife and weans btw?  Haven't seen you post much lately.
 

He's a troll. That is all. His "opinion" is irrelevant.

[bennett]

3 minutes ago, hellbhoy said:

No no no Benny, your club died because it ran out of money. The subsequent aftermath came from liquidation. Had feck all to do with EBT's, which was a paltry £250K fine taken from the old Rangers TV rights iirc.

 

 

"As a result of this decision, the club invoked Article 99 of the SFA Articles seeking a determination by an Arbitral Tribunal appointed by the SFA that the sum was not due to the SPFL.

"The tribunal was held in October 2015 and found in favour of the SPFL and as such the club was liable to pay the fine plus associated costs.

"The club duly paid the SPFL and the total paid during the year amounted to £286,000 and has been disclosed"