Monkey Tennis Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Gaining sporting advantage IS the duty of every club. Sometimes you do it wisely and sometimes you don't. My main point was that the phrase, "Gained a sporting advantage" is nonsense. Who hasn't tried? And yet the judgement you place such self serving store in, is utterly reliant on the notion that Rangers did no such thing here. You can't honestly point to said judgement as beyond question while openly questioning its central finding. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Gaining sporting advantage IS the duty of every club. Sometimes you do it wisely and sometimes you don't. My main point was that the phrase, "Gained a sporting advantage" is nonsense. Who hasn't tried? It's not the notion of gaining the sporting advantage. The method selected by Rangers to attempt to achieve this was to conceal, lie and die. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Is that entirely accurate? I thought the commission was then instructed to proceed on the basis that the scheme was operated within HMRC guidelines because that was the existing judgement. Nope. The idea was that the findings of The FTT were not binding on the LNS commission and had no more status than hearsay. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 You can't honestly point to said judgement as beyond question while openly questioning its central finding. Of course I can. Our club, like yours, is set up to gain sporting advantage. We gained nothing through our administrative inefficiency but got our wrists slapped for being disorganised. That's all pretty fair. Furthermore, our players were properly registered. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Nope. The idea was that the findings of The FTT were not binding on the LNS commission and had no more status than hearsay. I think that's not true and I think that you've made many posts in the past that would suggest that you don't either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Of course I can. Our club, like yours, is set up to gain sporting advantage. We gained nothing through our administrative inefficiency but got our wrists slapped for being disorganised. But you've often said otherwise, yourself. You know this and you also know that I know it. What's to be gained by being silly about it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 But you've often said otherwise, yourself I did a quick search...and my views were: http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/227220-the-outcome/?p=9966804 "What I think is immaterial*. The appeal possibility was discounted," http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/227257-would-you-accept-an-apology/?p=9965539 Indeed not. The LNS commission's judgment was unaffected by the UTT result, the CoS outcome or what may happen at the supreme court. The SPL enquiry discounted what may come through the appeal process. You know this. http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/167655-big-rangers-administrationliquidation-thread-all-chat-here/?p=9946718 It is odd to ask for a commission which found us guilty to be reconvened or overruled by a new commission. On the basis that we should be exonerated or that we should be found more guilty than we actually were? It has to be one or the other. You also have to have a basis for the new commission. That a later appeal found in favour of HMRC re The EBT scheme? This possibility was both known, explicitly discussed and discounted by the SPL's representative who sought a decision irrespective of the appeal outcome. Note to a few diddies banging on about sporting advantage. The job of any club's management is to gain a sporting advantage. Our use of EBTs was designed to help that for sure. The issue is whether or not that advantage was gained unfairly. The LNS commission found that it wasn't. My view has been consistent as far as this part of the argument is concerned...LNS was advised to proceed and to discount any HMRC judgement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 (edited) Absolutely we had a moral case to answer. We overspent and we used an imprudent remuneration plan. The consequence of being skint and of being chased by HMRC was administration which was absolutely our own fault and a fair moral judgement. So LNS dealt with the legal case and the bailiffs dealt with the moral one so I say we've had our just deserts. Time for The Diddies to agree with me and move on. MUST NOT TYPE LIQUIDATION. MUST NOT TYPE LIQUIDATION. MUST NOT TYPE LIQUIDATION. <<<Had more drinks than Kinky on an average Monday morning. Edited June 5, 2016 by Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 I am sure you were one of the posters that claimed the FTT (after Rangers won back in 2012) would have no bearing at all on the LNS commission. Hilarious that you now claim it should. You're right Ted. Essentially it should have had no bearing at all and I maintain that. You'll find posts of mine saying the same after that was overturned. The fact is though that the ruling was based on where that FTTT judgment stood at the time. The fact that that judgment has changed shouldn't matter but it therefore obviously does. As far as I'm concerned though, Rangers transgressed in terms of player registration. That's why titles should be lost and it has little to do with the law of the land. Brechin didn't do anything actually illegal either in having a cup tie overturned. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 And here's the relevant quote in full. Note the bottom line which Bennett cut, the one that makes it extremely clear that I did not accept the verdict as correct. You really are dishonest Bennett, forcing me to quote myself like that. I told you that I don't care if you like it or not, that's why I never added that bit. It's accepting it I'm interested in? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 The fact is though that the ruling was based on where that FTTT judgment stood at the time. It wasn't. Rod McKenzie, for The SPL, was insistent on this and why you perpetuate this myth is a mystery. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 MUST NOT TYPE LIQUIDATION. MUST NOT TYPE LIQUIDATION. MUST NOT TYPE LIQUIDATION. <<<Had more drinks than Kinky on an average Monday morning. Your tragedy, JoJo, is that I could tober a bottle of Laphroaig and still be more sensible and coherent than you 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 It wasn't. Rod McKenzie, for The SPL, was insistent on this and why you perpetuate this myth is a mystery. I'll admit that I'm going mainly on your previous posts on the matter. Have you changed your tune on it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 I'll admit that I'm going mainly on your previous posts on the matter. Have you changed your tune on it? You pretty-muched asked this question already which is why I went to the effort of digging out three quotes to disprove you. I disagreed with the notion of the LNS enquiry but not with its terms. Maybe this subtlety confused you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 I told you that I don't care if you like it or not, that's why I never added that bit. It's accepting it I'm interested in? You're being too foolish for words now. It's clear that you tried to say I'd said something I simply hadn't. You wanted it to be that I'd said before LNS ruled, that I'd accept his ruling, regardless of what it was. Your tireless search turned up no such post, so you partially quoted one in which I said I was stuck with the the ruling after it was reached, even if I thought it was wrong. In the words of someone else, you really ought to hold your hands up here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 You pretty-muched asked this question already which is why I went to the effort of digging out three quotes to disprove you. I disagreed with the notion of the LNS enquiry but not with its terms. Maybe this subtlety confused you. Has your new club paid it's fine for the old club cheating yet? Or are you still following cheats... -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 Follow Follow The Blue Cheating Cnuts FC 2012 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 Has your new club paid it's fine for the old club cheating yet? Or are you still following cheats... All paid up...but thanks for enquiring. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 Are they deid yet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 All paid up...but thanks for enquiring. That's nice. At least you can admit you used to support cheats. Baby steps... -1 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.