New SPFL sponsor

[Ric]

Just now, SANTAN said:

It's just class how worked up and angry some of you guys get over all things Rangers. You care about Rangers on some next level thing, you previously mentioned "permanently painful tedious p***ks" without a shred of irony. 

Well done, I don't think you could have missed the point  more if you tried.

As for Rangers, if they stopped being such whiny little shits,. despite having every advantage afforded to them, then people would stop getting exasperated at the premieral victimhood. The only  reason we are talking about this is because of the childish actions of your club.

 

[Ric]

1 minute ago, bennett said:

You're being a bit of a 

Again.....

Oh, no, Bennet how am I ever going to recover from such slander?

I know, I think I'll write a tear stained statement claiming that everyone has it in for me and that lawyers are standing by to litigate. No, wait... I got myself confused with the Rangers board there.

[bennett]

2 minutes ago, Ric said:

Oh, no, Bennet how am I ever going to recover from such slander?

I know, I think I'll write a tear stained statement claiming that everyone has it in for me and that lawyers are standing by to litigate. No, wait... I got myself confused with the Rangers board there.

 

Slander is when it's spoken, not when it's written.

Happy to help.

 

[SANTAN]

Just now, Ric said:

Well done, I don't think you could have missed the point  more if you tried.

As for Rangers, if they stopped being such whiny little shits,. despite having every advantage afforded to them, then people would stop getting exasperated at the premieral victimhood. The only  reason we are talking about this is because of the childish actions of your club.

 

I didn't miss your point because I didn't even try and address it... 

I merely pointed out that you are coming across like a whiny little obsessive shit. You know none of the details yet you're jumping in two footed getting all worked up because Rangers are mentioned. The permanent seeth is extra amusing today considering we are top of the table after one game played. I genuinely don't understand how my football team can bring so much stress and reaction out of people. 

[Ric]

Just now, SANTAN said:

I didn't miss your point because I didn't even try and address it...

No, exactly.. as you'd rather complain about other people commenting on your club rather than the actions of your club. 

Typical reaction really, "everyone else is at fault but Rangers".

 

[SANTAN]

Just now, Ric said:

No, exactly.. as you'd rather complain about other people commenting on your club rather than the actions of your club. 

Typical reaction really, "everyone else is at fault but Rangers".

 

Of course I would as at this point people are being hysterical without being aware of the details. 

You don't know the details yet you're giving yourself grey hairs all for some performative forum outrage and grievance... 

 

[Ric]

3 minutes ago, bennett said:

 

Slander is when it's spoken, not when it's written.

Happy to help.

 

I would have though you wouldn't quote law definitions to me, considering the last two times you did so you were quickly found out and never responded.

[UsedToGoToCentralPark]

Quite possible that parks have a contact that guarantees exclusive advertising for motor trade at Ibrox that was in place before this cinch deal was signed.

The only thing I know about parks is the buses I see going about whereas cinch seem to be advertising on every medium going.

Rangers should not accept any cinch monies and it can be distributed amongst the other teams.

[Ric]

1 minute ago, SANTAN said:

You don't know the details yet you're giving yourself grey hairs all for some performative forum outrage and grievance...

As said to Bennet, you equally know shit, but on my side I have conjecture, circumstantial evidence and a pattern of repeat behaviour.

Let me put that in an analogy for you, if your kid keeps steeling sweets from the cupboard, and you catch them opening the cupboard door and they say "I'm not stealing sweets", do you believe them?

 

[bennett]

6 minutes ago, Ric said:

I would have though you wouldn't quote law definitions to me, considering the last two times you did so you were quickly found out and never responded.

Well if you don't know the difference between slander and libel, it's hardly my fault. 

 

[SANTAN]

Just now, Ric said:

As said to Bennet, you equally know shit, but on my side I have conjecture, circumstantial evidence and a pattern of repeat behaviour.

Let me put that in an analogy for you, if your kid keeps steeling sweets from the cupboard, and you catch them opening the cupboard door and they say "I'm not stealing sweets", do you believe them?

 

So in essence you don't have a clue about the circumstances you're just angry because... well... Rangers. Like I said at the start. 

If I were to analyse your past behaviour then you've no objective credibility to be discussing something about Rangers considering you're so biased and red faced about all things Rangers in the first place. It's probably just cathartic for you to rant about the bogeyman though, especially when we look set to lord it over the diddies again this year. 

[Ric]

6 minutes ago, SANTAN said:

So in essence you don't have a clue about the circumstances you're just angry because... well... Rangers. Like I said at the start.

We know the circumstances, Rangers were obliged to display sponsorship and didn't. That's a choice they took, this is why the issue is being discussed. To claim that people are only discussing it because they "hate Rangers" is the sort of obtuse nonsense Rangers fans are well known for.

6 minutes ago, SANTAN said:

If I were to analyse your past behaviour then you've no objective credibility to be discussing something about Rangers...

So your claim is that we shouldn't look at the evidence, and if we do we can't be objective about it because you are entrenched in an "us and them" mentality.

 

Any more whataboutery or victimhood you wish to add into your reply?

[Ric]

14 minutes ago, bennett said:

Well if you don't know the difference between slander and libel, it's hardly my fault. 

 

I know the difference, it's actually more surprising you did. As I said, your ability to correctly interpret the law has never been your strong point in the past.

[bennett]

35 minutes ago, Ric said:

I know the difference, it's actually more surprising you did. As I said, your ability to correctly interpret the law has never been your strong point in the past.

You needed it explained to you, so I doubt that's true.

[SANTAN]

55 minutes ago, Ric said:

We know the circumstances, Rangers were obliged to display sponsorship and didn't. That's a choice they took, this is why the issue is being discussed. To claim that people are only discussing it because they "hate Rangers" is the sort of obtuse nonsense Rangers fans are well known for.

So your claim is that we shouldn't look at the evidence, and if we do we can't be objective about it because you are entrenched in an "us and them" mentality.

 

Any more whataboutery or victimhood you wish to add into your reply?

^^^Word salad

[Clown Job]

1 hour ago, UsedToGoToCentralPark said:

Quite possible that parks have a contact that guarantees exclusive advertising for motor trade at Ibrox that was in place before this cinch deal was signed.

The only thing I know about parks is the buses I see going about whereas cinch seem to be advertising on every medium going.

Rangers should not accept any cinch monies and it can be distributed amongst the other teams.

Exclusive contracts are not exactly uncommon elsewhere I would imagine 

I can’t think of another example of a team refusing to the league sponsor 

 

[Ric]

8 minutes ago, SANTAN said:

^^^Word salad

No, I totally understand why you'd want to step back after arguing yourself into a corner.

You have a good day, now...

[Rodhull]

1 hour ago, UsedToGoToCentralPark said:

Quite possible that parks have a contact that guarantees exclusive advertising for motor trade at Ibrox that was in place before this cinch deal was signed.

The only thing I know about parks is the buses I see going about whereas cinch seem to be advertising on every medium going.

Rangers should not accept any cinch monies and it can be distributed amongst the other teams.

Hardly likely Cinch would agree to that. As much as every other team might not like it but a sponsorship deal that doesn't include the involvement of one of the old firm would be significantly less valuable to a sponsor. Cinch would likely want to renogotiate terms or drop out entirely if Rangers somehow managed to wriggle out of the deal.

[SANTAN]

7 minutes ago, Ric said:

No, I totally understand why you'd want to step back after arguing yourself into a corner.

You have a good day, now...

There isn't an argument to be had. You were looking for a tedious drawn out repetitive forum style debate over a subject neither have us have anything worthwhile to discuss. I've just pointed out you're clearly extremely bitter about Rangers. You can cool your jets and enjoy the rest of your night now. Try not to lose any sleep obsessing over Rangers though. 

[Ric]

You know... it's funny how rabid and bitter I am about Rangers, yet very rarely post in the Rangers thread and almost never post in the specific sub forum set up for them and Celtic. That seems to draw quite a contrast to the picture you paint.

Let's look at the facts, your club were obliged to display sponsorship and they petulantly refused to do so. This is a long line of typically petulant actions which have resulted in the club posting repeated tear stained statements littered with wild claims of professional impropriety and litigatory fantasy. So you'll forgive me if I don't seem overly convinced of Rangers being an innocent party here.