The_Kincardine Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I don't want Ashley to prevail in all matters that help against Rangers, that is just rubbish. Ashley...providing a means to kill this blight on Scottish Football is welcome. "I don't support Ashley but want him to kill Rangers" seems like the sort of statement many here would agree with. We are, of course, well-versed in moronic diddy doublespeak. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 "I don't support Ashley but want him to kill Rangers" seems like the sort of statement many here would agree with. We are, of course, well-versed in moronic diddy doublespeak. Not really doublespeak, though. Jelle Klaasen might be a filthy sex pest but I still want him to beat Phil Taylor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Not really doublespeak, though. Jelle Klaasen might be a filthy sex pest but I still want him to beat Phil Taylor. Why? Phil was a decent drummer and all-round good guy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Why? Phil was a decent drummer and all-round good guy. Sorry to say I had to Google that. 'Philthy Animal' would also be a great nickname for The Power. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Not really doublespeak, though. Jelle Klaasen might be a filthy sex pest but I still want him to beat Phil Taylor. I don't know either. Is that like choosing between Cameron or Osborne in a square go? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I don't know either. Is that like choosing between Cameron or Osborne in a square go? Osborne. Pretty sure Cameron does Kung Fu or Karate or somesuch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Osborne. Pretty sure Cameron does Kung Fu or Karate or somesuch. How about Cameron? Charcuterie isn't a martial art? BTW I don't mind the diddies supporting Ashley. The 'doublespeak' come in when they try and hide it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I don't know either. Is that like choosing between Cameron or Osborne in a square go? Exactly. Like being asked who's the best Ian Watkins. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 How about Cameron? Charcuterie isn't a martial art? BTW I don't mind the diddies supporting Ashley. The 'doublespeak' come in when they try and hide it. So you can't comprehend the difference between supporting individuals and supporting an outcome. Probably why you were all supportive of David Murray even though it would prove to kill your club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 So you can't comprehend the difference between supporting individuals and supporting an outcome. Oh so you simply support anonymous agents of change? Does that include the ones you named? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 "I don't support Ashley but want him to kill Rangers" seems like the sort of statement many here would agree with. We are, of course, well-versed in moronic diddy doublespeak. Nice reference to doublespeak. The best example of Orwellian doublethink however, is of course provided by that absurd separation of club and company. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Wait a minute here, let me get this straight. You desire a shity outcome for Rangers, a certain individual who you don't happen to admire has the chance to achieve the shity outcome.....but you think you are immune to being laughed at when the individual fails and the outcome does not come to pass? Really? Steady. You're asking Strychnine to do joined up thinking. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Maturin Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Fifa ???? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 FIFA insist Rangers ARE the same football club despite liquidation woes 13:24, 24 May 2015 Updated 13:25, 24 May 2015 By Record Sport Online DESPITE claims that Rangers are a new club, FIFA have stepped into the argument and insisted that Rangers are the same football club. FIFA have stepped into the Rangers argument by announcing the Ibrox side ARE the same club. Following the reign of Craig Whyte, Rangers were relegated to the bottom tier of Scottish football following the operating company’s liquidation with many Scottish football fans saying Rangers are a new club and calling them Sevco - in reference to the name of the company Charles Green set up to run the club, with Celtic fans even paying for an advert in a newspaper to state that Rangers are a new club . But FIFA have now rejected those claims as they promote the latest edition of their weekly magazine saying: “After their enforced relegation in 2012, Glasgow Rangers are in the hunt for promotion back to Scotland’s top flight.” The statement comes a matter of months after SPFL chief Neil Doncaster also stated that Rangers are the same club when he said: Doncaster said: “In terms of the question about old club, new club, that was settled very much by the Lord Nimmo Smith commission that was put together by the SPL to look at EBT payments at that time. “The decision, very clearly from the commission, was that the club is the same, the club continues, albeit it is owned by a new company, but the club is the same. “It’s the same club, absolutely. “The member club is the entity that participates in our league and we have 42 member clubs. “Those clubs may be owned by a company, sometimes it’s a Private Limited Company, sometimes it’s a PLC, but ultimately, the company is a legal entity in its own right, which owns a member club that participates in the league. “It was put to bed by the Lord Nimmo Smith commission some while ago – it’s the same club.” We could go on and on again about this new club stuff and debate it for years. But were Rangers relegated in 2012 or were they allowed to compete in the Scottish League due to no competition for that vacant place in Division 3?. Does the continuation argument for according to the Daily Record hinge on Rangers being relegated in 2012? I thought everyone knew what happened to Rangers when they had to apply to enter at the 4th tier Its a surprise to me that they were actually relegated to the 4th tier. All these outside agencies that supposedly provide evidence for the same club crap are irrelevant as they all need to follow the line from the governing FA from whatever Country in these cases, in our case it basically boils down to brother Sandy and Ogilve at the SFA -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 (edited) It supports my view: The whole thing's messy. There's evidence to suggest that what we have is new; there's evidence to say it's not. Neither of the absolutist views is entirely satisfactory. For me, there's been a continuation, but it's not been seamless. Edited January 24, 2016 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 But FIFA have now rejected those claims as they promote the latest edition of their weekly magazine saying: “After their enforced relegation in 2012, Glasgow Rangers are in the hunt for promotion back to Scotland’s top flight.” Now that FIFA state that Rangers were relegated to the 4th tier should we also now be told the vote to allow Rangers to compete in League 3 never happened?. Astonishing revisionism or a lack of knowledge on the subject? Simply, as MT says, that all the "official" bodies take their lead from the relevant FA. Which, in this case, means a body led by a man who was himself a beneficiary of rangers' shady practises. I'll continue to go with legal verdicts delivered in actual courtrooms. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calum_gers Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 It supports my view: The whole thing's messy. There's evidence to suggest that what we have is new; there's evidence to say it's not. Neither of the absolutist views is entirely satisfactory. For me, there's been a continuation, but it's not been seamless. It's almost like nobody outside Scotland particularly cares. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 It's almost like nobody outside Scotland particularly cares. Since your club plays in Scotland, nobody outside Scotland's opinion really matters - they'll never get a chance to laugh at you like we do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Fcuk does Fifa know! If Philip macgilligan says its a new club then its a new club. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 But FIFA have now rejected those claims as they promote the latest edition of their weekly magazine saying: “After their enforced relegation in 2012, Glasgow Rangers are in the hunt for promotion back to Scotland’s top flight.” Now that FIFA state that Rangers were relegated to the 4th tier should we also now be told the vote to allow Rangers to compete in League 3 never happened?. Astonishing revisionism or a lack of knowledge on the subject? The infamous 5 way agreement states that the CAS's viewpoint is the final word. In a similar case the CAS stated "Pursuant to this rule, clubs are not allowed to change their legal form or structure in order to obtain a licence, simply by 'cleaning up' their balance sheet while offloading debts onto a new entity that might potentially go bankrupt – thus harming creditors (including employees and social/tax authorities) as well as threatening the integrity of sporting competition. Any such alteration of a club's legal form or structure is deemed to be an interruption to its membership of a UEFA member association" So the SPL, SFL, SFA, Rangers and Sevco all agreed to that statement. Same club, possibly, restarted SFA membership, a certainty. So we have two timelines, before liquidation (BL) and post liquidation (PL). The counting restarts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.