Jump to content

Aim Here

Gold Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Aim Here

  1. Except that Parks of Hamilton aren't SFA members; it's whatever papers you sign for SFA membership that generally constitutes the agreement to be bound by arbitration under the SFA process. And the SFA does 'decide' the outcome in that the outcome is determined by the SFA's rulebook. Here, Parks seem to have found a legal route to forcing themselves into the arbitration process despite not having made the usual agreement to be bound by arbitration, and it's far from obvious, before the ruling that was upheld on today's appeal, that that would be the case.
  2. The word you're looking for is 'implying' not 'inferring'. And plenty of court cases have been settled one way or another when an incriminating document has been dug up and shows that one or other party wasn't entirely forthcoming with what they told the court, and their case is now ruined. That's not conspiracy any more than any other such court case - but then again, you can make the case that much of business, government, policing, crime, the work of the intelligence services and so on is just a series of little conspiracies. And in any case, on the face of it, Rangers case is that they made an absolutely absurd contract with Parks of Hamilton that somehow a) didn't advertise Parks of Hamilton at Ibrox but b) precluded cinch from appearing in the SPFL sponsor logo at Ibrox and c) was signed before Rangers were in communication with cinch regarding renaming Ibrox (notwithstanding Rangers strange denial where they claim that cinch didn't offer terms to them, yet are silent on whether they - the supplier - offered terms to cinch, the prospective buyer, the usual way these things occur). None of this makes any kind of business sense, if we're taking Rangers at their word. Why would Parks pay for advertising exclusivity it doesn't use? Why would Rangers talk to cinch? Why haven't Rangers said whether they offered terms to cinch regarding the Ibrox sponsorship deal, despite them clearly denying the converse offer? I've already pointed out that the "conspiratorial" turn of events - that the contract between Rangers and Park was nothing more than an attempt to undermine the SPFL and isn't part of the usual run of business for either party - is actually the least unlikely one, because it's at least consistent with the motivations of the actors concerned. When you've eliminated the flagrantly absurd on the face of it, you're left with the merely unlikely. I mean, Rangers contracts could be as weird as they claim and they could be in the right, but it's very much a bizarro-world way of doing business. Well we only know that Parks should be in the arbitration now because the Court of Session settled it. It's not actually obvious that Parks of Hamilton should be part of an arbitration run by an organization they've never joined and where they've never agreed to any of the multitude of obligations that other SFA members have to abide by. It's not as if any sanctions applied by the arbitrators can be legally enforced against Parks of Hamilton, since these are SFA sanctions, and the legal force is in the contracts that Rangers and the SPFL have with the SFA. Likewise it's not obvious that anyone with a contract with one of the parties to a real court case is a party to the case. If someone defrauds a bank by taking a contract you signed with them, adding a couple of extra zeroes to the money you're supposed to pay them, and then borrowing against it, the nature of the contract with you is very much part of the case, but you're not a party to the case, merely a witness. Law is complicated and tricky and people don't know the answers until the judgements are in. You're not actually clever when you pretend court rulings are obvious when they're based on a whole pile of stuff that layfolk like you and me don't have a clue about.
  3. Did something short-circuit your frontal lobes? You clearly don't understant what you've just read. This ruling has absolutely f**k all to do with the merits or otherwise of the SPFL case, this is about whether Parks of Hamilton's lawyer gets to show up to arbitration. The SPFL were not a party to this ruling (neither were Rangers, despite your mischaracterization), this was between Parks of Hamilton and the SFA. Parks of Hamilton have effectively taken the *judges* to court and won a ruling on the conduct of the trial, and not one that has an immediate obvious effect on the merits of the case. How this will affect the actual case - the one between the SPFL and Rangers - is not entirely clear, but given that they've just added another party to the case, it's likely that the SPFL will get to discover evidence from Parks of Hamilton as well as Rangers. Sure, it's a nominal win for the Rangers side but it could just as easily backfire, if there's something in Parks of Hamilton's filing cabinet that doesn't match what Rangers have been telling the judges. Hearts won themselves a preliminary ruling too, prior to arbitration - and that was against the actual defendant, the SPFL. This isn't even that.
  4. Looks like Douglas Park gets to have two lawyers at the arbitration, not just one. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/19660786.sfa-pay-price-rangers-chairman-douglas-park-wins-legal-dispute-spfl-8m-cinch-sponsorship/ I'm wondering if this also means that the SPFL gets to dig through the Parks of Hamilton filing cabinets for documents that don't match up with whatever case Rangers are making.
  5. On the principle of 'better out than in', I reckon swallowing that rat poison and puking it up once is better than having it running around inside me doing god-knows what.
  6. How did what? When we played, you didn't play anything eccentric. You played about 6 or 7 moves into the Gioco Piano by the book which is about as far as anyone at my level ever gets before it diverges into random freestyle stuff anyways. Nothing at all like your Alekhines-defence-but-for-white that you were trying against Dearyme.
  7. Alternatively, if you play an eccentric move very early on, it's a red flag, and the opponent is immediately thinking 'that's not anything like the main opening lines. What is Loki's mistake and what do I do to punish it?'. It's a two-edged sword.
  8. Division A, Round 13 Sometimes I just hate stockfish. I think I play a blinder of a game, taking advantage of an early inaccuracy in beef's opening and then crushing him with a devastating kingside attack, and the post-match analysis tells me his move 3 really wasn't that bad, and awards me a succession of 5 'mistake' and 'missed win' ratings in a row for not starting the pawn storm a lot earlier - and telling me that when I did eventually do it, the move was decidedly mediocre. Git! Still, a win is a win. AimHere beats beef2711 by checkmate
  9. I still don't see the link between that and being the victim of assassinations. Most of my examples of apolitical assassination attempts were Presidents or Prime Ministers, who are surely much more of a pinnacle still. Come off it. There have been no MSPs, MEPs or assembly members murdered for political reasons either. The instance of politicians being killed for any reason at all is very low. If we boil this argument down, your train of thought is that this apparent Somalian national, in 2021, well over 20 years after Irish Republicans stopped shooting at agents of the British state, is more likely to have a political motive because he's probably an Irish Republican because he attacked an MP? I'll leave working out the flaw in the logic as an exercise for the reader. If that's too much for you, let's try another route: since the war is, to all intents and purposes, over, we can easily exclude Irish Republicans from the suspects list, so howabout we do the Bayesian statistical thing and only look at the main perpetrators of violence against MPs specifically (though why we arbitrarily only look at MPs, I still don't understand - this laughable 'pinnacle of democracy' nonsense aside) who aren't Irish Republicans? And we come up with 1 non-political, 1 fascist and 1 Islamist in the last 20 years or so. 33% chance? Seems reasonable.
  10. What I said was that plenty of politicians get attacked for non-ideological reasons. There has been at least one such murderous attack on an MP well within living memory (though merely attempted murder) and I listed a bunch of instances of politicians who weren't members of Parliament being murdered. "Politicians do get physically attacked for non-political reasons' is a very different statement from 'Every murdered member of Parliament was killed by an actor with a non-ideological motive'. The former is true and the latter is false.
  11. That's a complete non sequitur. Plenty of politicians have been attacked over non-ideological reasons. You listed three that were killed for political reasons - and you missed out Robert Bradford, not to mention Airey Neave wasn't killed by the IRA. In any case, what does this irrelevant aside have to do with anything I said?
  12. What a fucking statement for any organisation to make never mind the BBC. What exactly do they mean, I think we all know but to describe a black person as being of "African appearance" in this day and age is a shocker. 19% of the continent are white ffs. Not even 19% of the population of South Africa - the whitest country in the continent - is white.
  13. MPs are in positions of power and surgeries are often held for people with personal issues relating to central government bureaucracy. It's not a huge stretch for someone disgruntled over a pending bankruptcy or a failed planning permission application or dealings with the health services to take it out on the nearest such representative to hand - their local MP. And to aid your limited imagination with the sorts of non-ideological motives people have for launching murderous attacks on politicians, I helpfully listed a bunch of them - actually real examples, not merely realistic ones - including one case where an MP was attacked in their surgery by a mentally ill person, who succeeded in murdering their aide. You can start there.
  14. Not necessarily. It's too early to make that claim. Plenty of politicians have been killed or attacked for non-ideological motives. US President Garfield was killed by someone miffed at not getting promoted. Spencer Perceval was killed because he was annoyed at not getting personally compensated by the government. Ronald Reagan was shot by some loner who was obsessed with Jodie Foster. Nigel Jones was attacked by some mentally ill guy with a samurai sword.
  15. The Times is stating that the guy is foreign, but so far, the police have noted that he hasn't been using language indicative of a terrorism motivation, while continuing to investigate. Of couse, that's under the headline 'Terror police investigate extremism link to killing of David Amess MP', to give the exact diametric opposite impression to the one that the story actually says, but that's the news media for you.
  16. I just checked. We have David Owen, David Mcletchie and David Steel, but not David Amess, so we're probably not in the suspects list quite yet...
  17. Since I know there's nothing Hearts fans like more than to find some tenuous excuse for calling Hibs the wee team, I dug out the original files and updated them to take into account the recent changes re: Brechin, Kelty and Edinburgh City. I'm not sure if my coordinates catch the exact centre circle of neoMeadowbank (satellite images still have the old one), but it won't make much odds. Edinburgh City are clearly the second force in Edinburgh fitba' now.
  18. To be fair, they had a length spell of about 50 years in-between where their colours were predominantly white. Dundee United's kit designers have been painting a Republic of Ireland tricolour through time.
  19. The most egregious case is surely not in Scotland, but the phenomenon of Londoners gloryhunting the Ferguson-era Man United en masse, despite hailing from a city replete with great football clubs that played at every conceivable level.
  20. If Austria beat Israel, can't they beat us to second if we don't beat Moldova?
  21. Scotland are world leaders at stoppage time and penalty shootouts. It's the actual 90/120 minutes where we're not so hot.
  22. Shane Duffy isn't that bad at scoring goals, for a defender. He's just gash when it comes to, you know, defending.
  23. Steve Clarke's plucky Scottish underdogs are doing a sterling job of fending off the brutal Faroese juggernaut. Maybe they can hang on to the half-time whistle.
  24. That's the kind of attack that spurs on 'This is so fucken easy' chants.
  • Create New...