Jump to content

The Falkirk FC Thread


Recommended Posts

Quite right too. Your original punishment was far too lax. 

Shame your statement didn’t actually list your grounds of appeal.. Those would have been good for a laugh. 

Whack another nought on and deduct a few points Appeal Panel please. These muppets seem incapable of understanding the concepts of truth, integrity and ethics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Branch Ton said:

Quite right too. Your original punishment was far too lax. 

Shame your statement didn’t actually list your grounds of appeal.. Those would have been good for a laugh. 

Whack another nought on and deduct a few points Appeal Panel please. These muppets seem incapable of understanding the concepts of truth, integrity and ethics.

 

Here he is #meltdowncity 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, port-ton said:

More statements than Rangers at this point.

Must be a cheaters thing.

 

16 minutes ago, port-ton said:
19 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:
Did you not check to see if you were first Morton fan in, or are you cool with being that guy?

Coming from the guy who posted the same photo in two threads for maximum attention that means a lot thanks xx

 

10 minutes ago, Branch Ton said:

Quite right too. Your original punishment was far too lax. 

Shame your statement didn’t actually list your grounds of appeal.. Those would have been good for a laugh. 

Whack another nought on and deduct a few points Appeal Panel please. These muppets seem incapable of understanding the concepts of truth, integrity and ethics.

 

Glorious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really a surprise as Lang & co seem quite sure of their innocence even though the report was reasonably damning. Presumably there's some other evidence or we're just trying to reduce the fine amount.
Either way I'd rather this was done quickly. We all enjoy making fun of the roasters from the Morton thread but now we might have a team with actual footballers I'd rather read about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ilostmyself said:

Not really a surprise as Lang & co seem quite sure of their innocence even though the report was reasonably damning. Presumably there's some other evidence or we're just trying to reduce the fine amount.
Either way I'd rather this was done quickly. We all enjoy making fun of the roasters from the Morton thread but now we might have a team with actual footballers I'd rather read about that.

Can see where your coming from but the same time the SPFL didn't do themselves many favours either, no one comes out of it with much credibility. My favourite having to be the Morton contract with no termination or notice period added into it.

On another note to say to someone we are fining you on the chance of a "PROBABILITY" without anything other than that isn't exactly great in the SPFL favour either. 
 

contract.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going to be honest here, I CBA reading the full judgment. So am I right in saying that breaching rules of how to go about an approach (tapping up) is what the fine has been issued for?

Presumably since there was no notice period McKinnon and Taylor have no case to answer in terms of compensation or that?

Not really sure what it is that we are appealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reeks of Lang trying to save some credibility to me. As long as she is prepared to foot the bill then it is worth it just to noise up Greenock Morton a bit more. 
Thats kinda what I think. McKinnon and Taylor had no notice period so they are surely in the clear for being pursued? If theres no notice theres no notice. End of. That being the case, we are left with Lang and Campbell fucking up by not knowing the rules for which they personally should be taking the medicine.

Look forward to someone coming in here with more "Snake" patter or talk some shite about loyalty when its now apparently clear McKinnon fulfilled the terms of his contract of employment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, ilostmyself said:

Not really a surprise as Lang & co seem quite sure of their innocence even though the report was reasonably damning. Presumably there's some other evidence or we're just trying to reduce the fine amount.
Either way I'd rather this was done quickly. We all enjoy making fun of the roasters from the Morton thread but now we might have a team with actual footballers I'd rather read about that.

If the fine was split 20k to the governing body and 20k to Morton plus costs or even all to Morton then the case would be seen as closed.

I've never heard of such a case where a club loses their manager and doesn't get some sort of compo.

Our governing body hasn't really closed this case due to keeping the fine within its four walls

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the fine was split 20k to the governing body and 20k to Morton plus costs or even all to Morton then the case would be seen as closed.
I've never heard of such a case where a club loses their manager and doesn't get some sort of compo.
Our governing body hasn't really closed this case due to keeping the fine within its four walls
They were losing their manager anyway. Surely Rae would be dutybound to tell McKinnon of the interest and had he refused to give Ray permission he could have just said aye nae bother, wont be in tomorrow.

So you are left with a governing body imposing sanctions based on a breach of their protocol.

Not saying this for the craic or to troll, Morton deserve f**k all out of this. No notice period from them is one of two things. An absolute howler, or seen as mutually beneficial and worth the risk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, HopeStreetPieStall said:

Appeal will be on the grounds that no breach of rules was proven. Debate will be over "probability" being a strong enough conclusion.

The original decision clearly sets out various findings of fact. One of those was that the oral testimony of one of your principal witnesses was wholly unreliable and not in accordance with the proven timeline in respect of which your case also contained significant omissions.. Your only hope of overturning it is to demonstrate that the Panels Decision, based on those findings of fact, was perverse in the sense that no ordinary person could reach the same conclusion. 

You’ve no chance. Suck it up and quit wingeing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...