Florentine_Pogen Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 That is meaningless pap. The whole Rangers situation has been investigated thoroughly and due punishment has been handed out both by the SFA and the SPL. For you to say,"the game I love has rolled over and died today" is ignorant, top-drawer drama queenery but nothing unusual for the brain-dead troglodytes who post on these threads. Hmmm......."brain dead troglodytes"...........an interesting concept[emoji12] You seem a bit angsty today Kinky...........just pop another Werthers into your ivories, hit the 'recline' lever on your Big Chair and take in a further repeat of 'Hetty Wainthrop Investigates'.......you still terrorising the virgins at the High Wycombe Derby & Joan Club ? [emoji15][emoji15] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 15 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said: While Rangers claimed to use EBTs in July the Supreme Court ruled against that interpretation because of side letters that guaranteed the payments rather than issuing discretionary loans. Either way the payments weren’t disclosed to the SFA and SPL with registration issues controlled by Campbell Ogilvie and Andrew Dickson. Ogilvie went on to become President of the SFA with Dickson now a member of the SFA Congress which monitors governance matters. By alerting UEFA to their concerns Celtic have made it clear to Regan that they are prepared to take the issue outside of Scotland. The detail in the letter makes it clear that should guilt be proven in terms of players being ineligible through undeclared payments there is an expectation that retrospective punishments will be applied. Uefa have already said they don't give two fcuks, the punishment would've been a ban for the following season. Is there an AGM coming up soon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 Uefa have already said they don't give two fcuks, the punishment would've been a ban for the following season. Is there an AGM coming up soon? You will able to give a source to back that glib and shameless statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paralytic Critic Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 57 minutes ago, bennett said: Uefa have already said they don't give two fcuks, the punishment would've been a ban for the following season. Is there an AGM coming up soon? With the SFA's failure to act on a request from one of it's members wishing a review, and the fact that Kings cold shoulder isn't long away, and with the strong possibilities that there will be a judicial review, then we shall see how many fcuks that UEFA don't give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 49 minutes ago, Ken Fitlike said: You will able to give a source to back that glib and shameless statement? ‘if Rangers FC had been in breach of the enhanced overdue payables rule as of 30 June or 30 September 2011, any eventual sanctions would have related to potential participation in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions, with no impact on the club’s participation in the 2011/12 UEFA Champions League’. As such, UEFA concludes ‘there is clearly no need for UEFA to investigate this matter any further since the club was not granted a licence to participate in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions, the new club/company entered the fourth tier of Scottish football and it was not able to play in UEFA competitions for the next three years in any event’. http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/doubt-remains-rangers-uefa-licence/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 17 hours ago, Shades75 said: From "The SFA/SPFL really hate us and want to unfairly punish us to the nth degree", to "The SFA/SPFL have done everything properly and there's no need to scrutinise any of it", in the time it takes to write a side letter. It helps to argue both sides of every argument when, at different times, you're absolutely reliant on both of them being correct. Fortunately I've never held either position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 8 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said: That last sentence captures neatly the approach of Kincardine throughout this. Despite his calls for "intellectual consistency" and suchlike in others, he's very content to display none of his own when it suits. This is best illustrated by his wavering stance over the big tax case. When the judgement stood in Rangers' favour, he was vociferous on here about how the SPL's 'title stripping' investigation should be stood down in the wake of it. When the ruling flipped in favour of HMRC, he dismissed it as utterly irrelevant and having no bearing on the title stripping question at all. Nothing wavering about it. I've consistently maintained that title-stripping was a nonsensical idea promulgated by the bitter and the inadequate. Thankfully the footballing authorities agree with me as do most club execs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Ken Fitlike said: You will able to give a source to back that glib and shameless statement? "A UEFA spokesperson told STV: "As a consequence of decisions taken against Rangers FC in 2012 as well as the administration of the club and the events and measures that followed (including the club being ineligible to apply for a licence to participate in UEFA competitions for three seasons), there is no need for UEFA to investigate this matter any further since the club was not granted a licence to participate in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions, the club entered the fourth tier of Scottish football and it was not able to play in UEFA competitions for the next three years in any event." Edit. Kincardine beat me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 1 hour ago, The_Kincardine said: ‘if Rangers FC had been in breach of the enhanced overdue payables rule as of 30 June or 30 September 2011, any eventual sanctions would have related to potential participation in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions, with no impact on the club’s participation in the 2011/12 UEFA Champions League’. As such, UEFA concludes ‘there is clearly no need for UEFA to investigate this matter any further since the club was not granted a licence to participate in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions, the new club/company entered the fourth tier of Scottish football and it was not able to play in UEFA competitions for the next three years in any event’. http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/doubt-remains-rangers-uefa-licence/ Wasn't that the same letter that referred to Rangers as 'the new club/company'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 1 minute ago, The DA said: Wasn't that the same letter that referred to Rangers as 'the new club/company'? You'll likely know better than me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 Just now, The_Kincardine said: You'll likely know better than me You seemed happy enough to refer to it. Did you not read it first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 2 minutes ago, The DA said: You seemed happy enough to refer to it. Did you not read it first? I just select the bits that a. suit me and b. are appropriate to the discussion in hand, of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 1 hour ago, The_Kincardine said: Nothing wavering about it. I've consistently maintained that title-stripping was a nonsensical idea promulgated by the bitter and the inadequate. Thankfully the footballing authorities agree with me as do most club execs. Yet more dishonesty. I'm clearly referring to how you have viewed the big tax ruling in relation to the title stripping debate. On that you have been utterly inconsistent and you know it. It's pathetic really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 15 minutes ago, The DA said: You seemed happy enough to refer to it. Did you not read it first? They really do want it both ways. Old club for good stuff; New club for bad. There's truly nothing more subtle than that going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 7 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: Yet more dishonesty. I'm clearly referring to how you have viewed the big tax ruling in relation to the title stripping debate. On that you have been utterly inconsistent and you know it. It's pathetic really. Pathetic that I have consistently argued against title-stripping? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 6 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: Pathetic that I have consistently argued against title-stripping? Really? Nope. Pathetic that you've altered your attitude regarding the big tax case ruling in relation to it. Terribly simple old chap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 4 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: Nope. Pathetic that you've altered your attitude regarding the big tax case ruling in relation to it. Terribly simple old chap. I haven't, really. The BTC itself was an unnecessary pishing away of taxpayers resources for absolutely no return. I am surprised that none of the G&G dross and you diddy fluffers are taking umbrage at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Skidmarks Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 Thats Diddy, Green and Grey, and dross so far for tonights pisshead bingo folks.... I'm waiting on 'chagrin' for a full house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 Just now, The_Kincardine said: I haven't, really. The BTC itself was an unnecessary pishing away of taxpayers resources for absolutely no return. I am surprised that none of the G&G dross and you diddy fluffers are taking umbrage at it. It wasn't for no return at all. It established a principle that will be of use. And you absolutely and unequivocally have, by the way. You took delight in the initial finding and related it explicitly to the question of title stripping, before dismissing it as irrelevant when that ruling was reversed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 7 minutes ago, Bobby Skidmarks said: I'm waiting on 'chagrin' for a full house. And "demerit". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.