WeeHectorPar Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 More hilarity from the dildo heads on RM. Can't these brain-dead tossers get it into their heads that no matter what Super-Ally says the sanctions will land on them anyway. Super Big Fat Sally can refuse all he wants but he will still get stuffed in the end. http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=232350 :lol::lol::lol: Excuse me while I return to RM to commiserate with my fellow orcs. 54 posts and counting. Or maybe I'm just taking the piss. :lol::lol::lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby_F Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 That doesn't make him right, ... pandering to a lynch mob. Nor does it excuse the behaviour of the morons flying the banner and it certainly doesn't negate the point my statement made. You said: "In summary you are of the limited mindset which only allows others to express their views as long as it passes your censorship criteria. I expect the usual bullshit replies to follow. Edit: I suspect you are one of the 'professionally offended'. " I actually said nothing about being offended by it at all. What I said was that the episode clearly showed Celtic are more than happy to accept that behaviour, presumably for commercial reasons. So yes, I'd say that it does negate the point you made. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Do you give him a reacharound while you were at it? Lordy Capin, hes far too fat for my tastes. Wearing vertical stripes makes you thinner though, hmmmmmmmmmmmm St Mirren play........... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candalan Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Anyone else think this bluster from sally is going to be his excuse for walking away? He is distancing himself now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby_F Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Aww man. I was looking forward to the cheats losing their ill gotten titles but now it's not going to happen cause coisty said no. Guess he's not fully accepting any oldco newco distinctions then. What a Fudd. Surely THEEEEE most important thing here far more important than relegation or fines or transfer embargoes or anything else is that oldco won those titles fielding players they could not legally afford thereby giving them an unfair advantage therefore the titles must be retrospectively removed. I hope the bridge of weir knobend remembers the oldco fans were screeching for him to be sacked before united put them out the cup. What a charmed life for him now with the luxury of a cakewalk 3 nursery years for him to learn his trade jammy Cnut That's not actually the point. Even if they could have afforded them, the fact they had them registered illegally is all that matters. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 This gets even more bizarre... #Rangers #SFA membership hinges on #SPL and #SFL coming to an agreement on who gets #RFC media rights. Stand off at the moment. @BBCchrismclaug 2 hours ago ... how can SPL have any claim to 'Rangers' media rights whatsoever? And how can SPL stop SFA membership transfer? All extremely puzzling. They have no claim but in the name of sporting integrity they'll try their best to get it. We are an SFL club and the media rights are an SFL matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 They have no claim but in the name of sporting integrity they'll try their best to get it. We are an SFL club and the media rights are an SFL matter. They are using the argument that they cannot pay the settlement agreement without TV money and that they cannot get TV money from those nasty TV companies without including Newco's matches. So once again the SPL need the SFL. The SFL should tell them to go and fcuk themselves. Sell the media rights themselves for a couple of million or more and then take whatever the settlement agreement would be if the SPL did not have the TV money. If it is more than £1m then they are quids in over any previous offer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huistrinho Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 See my reply to craigkillie. Lawell should have not pandered to the mob and yes he probably has a case to answer for saying one thing and doing another .. but that's about it. It's you right to be offended .. but so what , does it kill or injure you? What is allowed in free speech is a whole other debate .. lets not get into that. I am simply saying although I found it distasteful I don't think it is sufficient to warrant a ban despite Mr Lawell's comments. However personally I would like to see them banned as it's not the behaviour I want to see associated with Celtic fans .. that doesn't make me right either. Kind of a Catch 22 dilemma. I don't think we really disagree on anything here. As I said, I found it distasteful (as you did), but I certainly wasn't offended. My interpretation of your original post was that you thought this was a free speech issue, hence me getting into the details of it. It may be that I picked up your meaning incorrectly as the only point I was making was that Celtic were perfectly within their rights to choose to act against those responsible (or not) in whichever way they saw fit. Whether Celtic follow through on their chosen course of action, and people's opinions on Celtic's handling of the affair are separate issues entirely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dundee Hibernian Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 They are using the argument that they cannot pay the settlement agreement without TV money and that they cannot get TV money from those nasty TV companies without including Newco's matches. So once again the SPL need the SFL. The SFL should tell them to go and fcuk themselves. Sell the media rights themselves for a couple of million or more and then take whatever the settlement agreement would be if the SPL did not have the TV money. If it is more than £1m then they are quids in over any previous offer. The wee problem in all of this is............................ ....will Rangers actually be playing any games in season 2012-13? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leepylee Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 That's not actually the point. Even if they could have afforded them, the fact they had them registered illegally is all that matters. No, I really think the big issue is they assembled a ( better ) squad because they weren't burdened by the rules the way everybody else was 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) They are using the argument that they cannot pay the settlement agreement without TV money and that they cannot get TV money from those nasty TV companies without including Newco's matches. Hold on - so they want SFL to give them media rights to SFL matches; so SPL can sell them to TV companies; so SPL can receive income from those TV companies and give some of it to SFL? So it's effectively SPL moving SFL's £££ around in a circle ? (But perhaps keeping some?). Unless SPL offer as much or more than any TV company is offerring for a straight deal, then surely this shouldn't be considered... According to Clyde/Raith's statements the Settlement is a contractual requirement. And it only reduces if SPL income falls below £6M. Their income was to be at least £22M this coming season, is it really going to be reduced by almost 75%? If so then presumably they'd produce evidence of that, and publically shame Sky etc. Also they'd be insolvent, surely? So once again the SPL need the SFL. The SFL should tell them to go and fcuk themselves. Sell the media rights themselves for a couple of million or more and then take whatever the settlement agreement would be if the SPL did not have the TV money. If it is more than £1m then they are quids in over any previous offer. Fair point. Edited July 21, 2012 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFC1973 Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 It was more of an acheivement when he shagged Hazel Irvine IMO, I mean, how the f**k did he managed to get it up for that troll. The story at the time was hazel irvine was a top escort in her spare time i kid you not..... so fat sally shagged her and paid her in EBTS rather than IOU's 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Michael Johnstone Well for one thing, CraigKillie has been more than outspoken about his chairman's tomfoolery. Secondly, that's whataboutery of the lowest level. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leepylee Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 They have no claim but in the name of sporting integrity they'll try their best to get it. We are an SFL club and the media rights are an SFL matter. I assume it's based around the sfl receiving a share of spl tv rights therefor if sfl get a tv deal if their own then spl will claim a share of that. Tit for tat stylie, actually seems fair enough. Also every wing of Scottish football governance gets a say in who joins up if spl were totally opposed to a particular club joining Scottish football then it's right they get to voice an opinion as membership to sfl comes with provisional membership to sPl assuming repeated promotion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 BBC Scotland confirms SPL want media rights to Rangers matches, to include in their own deal... SFL objecting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18941515 A stand-off over media rights and a possible stripping of titles threatens to scupper Rangers' hopes of Scottish Football Association membership. The SFA said on Friday that the new Rangers agreed to a transfer embargo in return for a license to play. BBC Scotland understands two obstacles remain before a deal can be agreed. Rangers want the Scottish Premier League to drop their investigation into dual contracts and the SPL want the SFL to hand over Rangers' media rights. There must be a five-way agreement between the SFA, SPL, Scottish Football League, old Rangers and new Rangers before any deal is ratified. ... However, the SPL are digging their heels in over media rights. It is believed broadcasters are not keen to sign up to an SPL deal without having the rights for Rangers in the Third Division. For that reason, the SPL want the SFL to hand over the rights for a price. They say that without the broadcasting deal in place, they cannot pay the SFL their annual £2m settlement fee that was agreed back in 1999 when the top clubs split from the league to form the SPL. But Rangers and the SFL want to hold onto the rights and all parties are currently at a stand-off. Talks will continue next week to try to find a solution but several parties involved believe a deal is a long way off. Still confused why SPL is involved in SFA membership situation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) According to Clyde/Raith's statements the Settlement is a contractual requirement. And it only reduces if SPL income falls below £6M. Their income was to be at least £22M this coming season, is it really going to be reduced by almost 75%? If so then presumably they'd produce evidence of that, and publically shame Sky etc. Cockwomble will be doing the negotiating remember!!! I think there is a good chance that their revenue could fall below £6m Financial Armageddon remember. Since then: Scottish Government has increased the sponsorship of the communities cup. Cash Converters have extended Motherwells sponsorship. ICT went into panic mode, then went to the pictures to see that armageddon is actually averted and came to their senses. Not quite the slow lingering death. Oh and Gilmour / St. Mirren are cocks! Edited July 21, 2012 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 What the hell is cockwomble playing at? Why would the SPL be entitled to Rangers TV revenues? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) I assume it's based around the sfl receiving a share of spl tv rights therefor if sfl get a tv deal if their own then spl will claim a share of that. Tit for tat stylie, actually seems fair enough. Also every wing of Scottish football governance gets a say in who joins up if spl were totally opposed to a particular club joining Scottish football then it's right they get to voice an opinion as membership to sfl comes with provisional membership to sPl assuming repeated promotion Doesn't happen. SFL have an agreement from 1998 that they will provide a team to the SPL and receive a team from the SPL every year. For this agreement, the SFL receives a fee from the SPL. This agreement was the only way that the SPL could be formed at the time and the amount of the fee is not directly related to the TV monies but to the total income of the SPL regardless of source. Lest you forget that the SPL was formed to ensure that the SPL clubs could divi up the TV money amongst themselves. The SFL should be doing this in the same way as they have historically with BBC Alba Edited July 21, 2012 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 WHO IS THE BEAST 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I assume it's based around the sfl receiving a share of spl tv rights therefor if sfl get a tv deal if their own then spl will claim a share of that. Tit for tat stylie, actually seems fair enough. Also every wing of Scottish football governance gets a say in who joins up if spl were totally opposed to a particular club joining Scottish football then it's right they get to voice an opinion as membership to sfl comes with provisional membership to sPl assuming repeated promotion Lets be clear on 2 things. [1] SFL doesn't get a share of SPL TV rights... it gets a fee agreed in 1998 to allow it to breakaway without 2yr notice, and to continue promotion-relegation thereafter. SPL's perfectly able to pay it with income from returning jam jars, if they liked. [2] formally there doesn't seem any rational reason why SPL should have a veto over who can/can't hold SFA or SFL membership. Those are the facts. What the hell is cockwomble playing at? Why would the SPL be entitled to Rangers TV revenues? Because they say so...? Presumably only reason SPL want SFL's rights, not just see SFL sell direct, is so SPL can cream-off some. 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.