Highlandmagyar Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 ImageUploadedByPie & Bovril1359757791.105809.jpg Pleasing FUCKING JUDAS p***k 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 What have I told you about posting shite from your blogs HT Here is the real version Take it up with Johnny. I stole it from him in the match thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 let's see 'em explain how these titles belong to Rangers. You saw a question in there ? Yes, I did. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 That's a terribly difficult question - I'm going to say we won them. In the same way that Armstrong 'won' his Tour de France titles? And then had them stripped when found to be cheating? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain kirk Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Yeah, if even Alex Thomson can spot whats so blatantly wrong with this hearing then i have to assume that everyone can too. seems thomo thinks youre all morons... from thomo yesterday... "In sum: 1. there is no conflict of interest for Harper Macleod 2. the SPL position on this does appear to need clarification and I hope to bring it to you next week 3. Rangers fans do their club no service by stirring all this up with internet fiction" -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Yes, I did. That's not a question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Apologies if this has been posted already. Interesting read about sevco potentially going the the english league. Please let it happen !! http://www.casecheck.co.uk/GeneralArticle1.aspx?article=Rangers+v+The+FA+Bosman+for+the+Clubs%201875#.UQvvJ0I21Ns.twitter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Rangers fans do their club no service by stirring all this up with internet fiction" We know for a fact that Thomson is a liar. And a complete fanny into the bargain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 We know for a fact that Thomson is a liar. And a complete fanny into the bargain. That would be sevco supporters then. If he doesn't toe your party line, then he's a liar ? Wonderful reasoning there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Except there is a clear conflict of interest. ...clearly they have the moral standards to interfere with or fabricate this evidence. I wouldn't have thought this was a wise thing to say Tedi. Question whether their appointment was wise given some of the background you refer to, and the need for the process to be seen to be entirely impartial if you wish. Don't suggest they're likely to fabricate or tamper with evidence though. As well as being bonkers, I'd also imagine it's actionable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 I wouldn't have thought this was a wise thing to say Tedi. Question whether their appointment was wise given some of the background you refer to, and the need for the process to be seen to be entirely impartial if you wish. Don't suggest they're likely to fabricate or tamper with evidence though. As well as being bonkers, I'd also imagine it's actionable. Let him get on with it MT. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forest_Fifer Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 seems thomo thinks youre all morons... from thomo yesterday... "In sum: 1. there is no conflict of interest for Harper Macleod 2. the SPL position on this does appear to need clarification and I hope to bring it to you next week 3. Rangers fans do their club no service by stirring all this up with internet fiction" Except there is a clear conflict of interest. This law firm who incidental have also a dreadful tarnished reputation, having one of their lawyers guilty of ripping off the tax man and another guilty of causing a disabled person suffering from dementia to lose there home through negligence, are a firm full of Celtic fans. They had a testimonial from Peter Lewall for service to Celtic Football Club, His daughter also works for them, one of their partners is about to be appointed as company secretary for Celtic, then we have Rod with his Outburst. Clearly they are motivated to provide this evidence against Rangers and clearly they have the moral standards to interfere with or fabricate this evidence. Sevco supporter slagging someone off for ripping off the tax man. You couldn't make it up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magoo9uk Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) Why did they remove the testimonial from Peter Lawell from their website ? Obviously they wanted to conceal their close relationship with Lawell. The SPL could and should have avoided these questions by choosing someone to represent them who is not inextricably linked to one of their member clubs. The people in charge of the governance of Scottish football seem to lurch from one debacle to another. Edited February 2, 2013 by Magoo9uk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
statts1976uk Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 So an internationally recognised legal firm that has won awards for it's work worldwide and worked for some huge companies is willing to trade their reputation and that of the Law Society just to get one over a company thats less than a year old with an annual turnover less than some of their clients do in a day? It didn't seem to bother The Rangers too much when Oldco were in the SPL when they must have agreed to their appointment as SPL's legal team. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Why did they remove the testimonial from Peter Lawell from there website ? Obviously they wanted to conceal their close relationship with Lawell. The SPL could and should have avoided these questions by choosing someone to represent them who is not inextricably linked to one of their member clubs. The people in charge of the governance of Scottish football seem to lurch from one debacle to another. Blah..Blah...Blah...Blah...blah...Blah...Blah..Blah....Blah....Blah...Blah..Blah...Blah...Blah...blah...Blah...Blah..Blah....Blah....Blah...Blah..Blah...Blah...Blah...blah...Blah...Blah..Blah....Blah....Blah...Blah..Blah...Blah...Blah...blah...Blah...Blah..Blah....Blah....Blah...Blah..Blah...Blah...Blah...blah...Blah...Blah..Blah....Blah....Blah...Blah..Blah...Blah...Blah...blah...Blah...Blah..Blah....Blah....Blah. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenockRover Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Why did they remove the testimonial from Peter Lawell from there website ? Obviously they wanted to conceal their close relationship with Lawell. The SPL could and should have avoided these questions by choosing someone to represent them who is not inextricably linked to one of their member clubs. The people in charge of the governance of Scottish football seem to lurch from one debacle to another. Blah..Blah...Blah...Blah...blah...Blah...Blah..Blah....Blah....Blah...Blah..Blah...Blah...Blah...blah...Blah...Blah..Blah....Blah....Blah...Blah..Blah...Blah...Blah...blah...Blah...Blah..Blah....Blah....Blah...Blah..Blah...Blah...Blah...blah...Blah...Blah..Blah....Blah....Blah...Blah..Blah...Blah...Blah...blah...Blah...Blah..Blah....Blah....Blah...Blah..Blah...Blah...Blah...blah...Blah...Blah..Blah....Blah....Blah. Greenie owed :-D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) Except there is a clear conflict of interest. This law firm who incidental have also a dreadful tarnished reputation, having one of their lawyers guilty of ripping off the tax man and another guilty of causing a disabled person suffering from dementia to lose there home through negligence, are a firm full of Celtic fans. They had a testimonial from Peter Lewall for service to Celtic Football Club, His daughter also works for them, one of their partners is about to be appointed as company secretary for Celtic, then we have Rod with his Outburst. Clearly they are motivated to provide this evidence against Rangers and clearly they have the moral standards to interfere with or fabricate this evidence. Hilarious failure to understand the mentality and legal restrictions of lawyers IMO. Things lawyers like - large quantities of money. Things they don't like - large quantities of ignorant football supporters deluging their offices with whining complaints about irrelevant bullshit; going to prison for fraud; being struck off for professional misconduct. I'm going to take a wild, risky stab in the dark guess and say that HM are in this for the money, and that none of their employees are going to risk a penny of it by messing with the outcome. Edit to add: It's also hilarious to see Rangers fans stating that the SPL has brought its woes on itself by employing a firm that the Ibrox faithful suspect of overtly Timmy sympathies. There isn't an entity in the land that wouldn't fall foul of their suspicions, as a brief browse of this very forum would conclusively prove, because they've voluntarily turned into the biggest band of insane paranoids in Scotland. The idea that it's even possible for the SPL to protect itself from Rangers fans' glowering suspicion is cracked and mental. Edited February 2, 2013 by flyingrodent -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) Except there is a clear conflict of interest. This law firm who incidental have also a dreadful tarnished reputation, having one of their lawyers guilty of ripping off the tax man and another guilty of causing a disabled person suffering from dementia to lose there home through negligence, are a firm full of Celtic fans. They had a testimonial from Peter Lewall for service to Celtic Football Club, His daughter also works for them, one of their partners is about to be appointed as company secretary for Celtic, then we have Rod with his Outburst. Clearly they are motivated to provide this evidence against Rangers and clearly they have the moral standards to interfere with or fabricate this evidence. Tedi, I am not a legal expert by any means but seeing as how you say there is a clear conflict of interests could you explain it to me? The way I see it is, and I am probably wrong, the law firm representing the SPL in their pursuit of Rangers have also represented one of the SPL's shareholders. The SPL is a company which is owned by 12 shareholders, the SPL are looking to take action against a former shareholder for by-passing the rules in order to gain a monetary advantage when the dividends were paid out. So far so good? Now you believe that because said law firm have represented one of the shareholders previously as an individual they should not represent that shareholder again in a joint action with the other shareholders against a former shareholder, is this correct? Where then is the conflict of interests? Sorry Tedi, I may have been watching too much "Suits" on Dave, but I cannot see any conflict of interest there. Please show me where I have missed the point and prove to me that the comprehension failure does not lie with you again. Edited February 2, 2013 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Tedi, I am not a legal expert by any means but seeing as how you say there is a clear conflict of interests could you explain it to me? The way I see it is, and I am probably wrong, the law firm representing the SPL in their pursuit of Rangers have also represented one of the SPL's shareholders. The SPL is a company which is owned by 12 shareholders, the SPL are looking to take action against a former shareholder for by-passing the rules in order to gain a monetary advantage when the dividends were paid out. So far so good? Now you believe that because said law firm have represented one of the shareholders previously as an individual they should not represent that shareholder again in a joint action with the other shareholders against a former shareholder, is this correct? Where then is the conflict of interests? Sorry Tedi, I may have been watching too much "Suits" on Dave, but I cannot see any conflict of interest there. Please show me where I have missed the point and prove to me that the comprehension failure does not lie with you again. Apologies to Tedi, who seems to be a reasonably savvy geezer, but neither he nor any of the other Teds on the thread understand the meaning of the term "conflict of interest". It's bandied about a lot but in this context, it has no more meaning than a parrot repeatedly shouting "Polly wanna cracker". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 That would be sevco supporters then. If he doesn't toe your party line, then he's a liar ? Wonderful reasoning there. You're clearly not the brightest, firstly the fail to understand what a question is and now inventing reasons for why we know the twat is a liar. On his very own blog he presented a video where he asked a question regarding Rangers situation - one of the D&P guys answered him. A few days later he posted a second video blog, referred again to the question asked and declared to the world he 'received no answers'. Perhaps you don't understand what a liar is, either. 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.