vanderark14 Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 Just now, slasher said: As far as I can see the game is up. The clubs need to stop bickering and get on with planning for next season without fans coming through the gate for at least half of it. This season needs called now although I'd have loved to play it out What makes you think the season can't be played out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slasher Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 1 minute ago, vanderark14 said: What makes you think the season can't be played out? That will involve conflating next season. I think the cost attached to that is going to cost too much hence the push to call this season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 So, the only reasonable solution is to Null and Void the season and start afresh next season with the current divisions as they stand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolling hIlls Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 9 minutes ago, Debian said: So, the only reasonable solution is to Null and Void the season and start afresh next season with the current divisions as they stand? That is the sensible choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killiefaetheferry Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 Anyone been able to get Sportsound? It’s listed on the Sounds app and the website but even on the Sportsound page it’s defaulting to Get itOn music show? Apparently Clyde had the Hun director Robertson in on saying the Huns had never mentioned bullying and he wasn’t challenged on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slasher Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 19 minutes ago, Debian said: So, the only reasonable solution is to Null and Void the season and start afresh next season with the current divisions as they stand? Hun utopia 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 1 hour ago, slasher said: As far as I can see the game is up. The clubs need to stop bickering and get on with planning for next season without fans coming through the gate for at least half of it. This season needs called now although I'd have loved to play it out When in the Uefa deadline for making the decision? End of the month somepoint? Guy who works in politics told me that the SPFL will hold off until the SG makes the decision for them in terms of the relaxing the lockdown. Said basically that the relaxed provisions wont allow for the league to be restarted- and the SPFL will call it on the back of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redz Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 2 hours ago, aaid said: So you're as full of shit as you think Rangers are then, glad we've established that You should stick to the political stuff You're generally pretty good at that This, sadly, brings out the true you and doesn't come across well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farcity Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 4 hours ago, aaid said: I'm not aware of any demands for lynchings, hangings or even resignations. They clearly want Doncaster out, to suggest otherwise is being fanciful. Might be pish of course but STV and the sun etc are reporting Rangers say a legal counsel has told them they have a ‘reasonably good prospect’ of getting Neil Doncaster removed as SPFL chief executive for his role in the vote to end the current season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 Just now, Farcity said: They clearly want Doncaster out, to suggest otherwise is being fanciful. Might be pish of course but STV and the sun etc are reporting Rangers say a legal counsel has told them they have a ‘reasonably good prospect’ of getting Neil Doncaster removed as SPFL chief executive for his role in the vote to end the current season. Thats in Appendix 7 of the report - its the Counsels Opinion. Bascially you give the evidence to a QC and ask him what a court would find based on it. Closest you'll get to a legal ruling, before you go to Court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 5 minutes ago, Farcity said: They clearly want Doncaster out, to suggest otherwise is being fanciful. Might be pish of course but STV and the sun etc are reporting Rangers say a legal counsel has told them they have a ‘reasonably good prospect’ of getting Neil Doncaster removed as SPFL chief executive for his role in the vote to end the current season. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did want rid of him but that's different from publicly calling for him to be sacked, which I'm not aware they have been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Redz said: You should stick to the political stuff You're generally pretty good at that This, sadly, brings out the true you and doesn't come across well Nothing like shooting the messenger and failing to address the substantive point - pretty much par for the course on this thread. What's the "true me" then, care to expand on that? Edited May 7, 2020 by aaid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farcity Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 6 minutes ago, Stu101 said: Thats in Appendix 7 of the report - its the Counsels Opinion. Bascially you give the evidence to a QC and ask him what a court would find based on it. Closest you'll get to a legal ruling, before you go to Court. It also suggests that their aim is the removal of Doncaster, in my opinion anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 9 minutes ago, Stu101 said: Thats in Appendix 7 of the report - its the Counsels Opinion. Bascially you give the evidence to a QC and ask him what a court would find based on it. Closest you'll get to a legal ruling, before you go to Court. If a QC tells you you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning you'd be pretty stupid to go to court an opinion saying you've a "reasonably good prospect" equates to "you pays your money and you takes your chances" The person who's opinion is important is of course the judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dandydunn Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 18 minutes ago, Stu101 said: Thats in Appendix 7 of the report - its the Counsels Opinion. Bascially you give the evidence to a QC and ask him what a court would find based on it. Closest you'll get to a legal ruling, before you go to Court. Donald Findlay by any chance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farcity Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 8 minutes ago, aaid said: If a QC tells you you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning you'd be pretty stupid to go to court an opinion saying you've a "reasonably good prospect" equates to "you pays your money and you takes your chances" The person who's opinion is important is of course the judge. Rangers have spent more time in court than Andy Murray, yet they appear to have a win percentage lower than Jeremy Bates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slasher Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 10 minutes ago, dandydunn said: Donald Findlay by any chance? No, even he's said old Rangers would never have behaved like this. I think there's a fatwah out on him now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 44 minutes ago, Farcity said: Rangers have spent more time in court than Andy Murray, yet they appear to have a win percentage lower than Jeremy Bates. To ensure this thread remains on track; if we are comparing a tennis court to a court of law, then this is factually incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farcity Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 Sorry, my meds sometimes make me wander off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beardy Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 15 hours ago, Stu101 said: Havent read the full thing yet, but didn't a number of clubs say in the press they came under pressure to accept the SPFL resolution (which resolution they now accept was wrong?). If this was a normal company, the standard procedure would be for the director involved to be suspended, whist an independent investigation was undertaken. This is what happens when boards are alleged to use influence unfairly over minority shareholders. Agreed 100% that we dont help ourselfs, and I am not a fan of our board. But we are corrrect on this- which is why you see the SPFL not wanting this to be looked at independently. Anyway, with the news coming out of Germany today, I just hope we get back to actual football again soon. Only so much football from Belarus I can take. Surely lobbying clubs to approve your resolution is what you'd expect. Who's said the resolution was wrong? 80% of clubs voted for it. It was what the board deemed best for the SPFL, a board which included Robertson so what the fvck was he doing during the whole designing the resolution process? If he was just sitting back waiting to fvck over the board he was sitting on then he should be hounded. Why are Rangers even driving this. Their season was over. This is so obviously about getting one over Celtic not any altruistic desire for better governance. That clubs avoid Rangers council and opinion on this is obvious and expected. The good of the game is not their desire. Fvck em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMcoolJ Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 12 hours ago, Stu101 said: Thats in Appendix 7 of the report - its the Counsels Opinion. Bascially you give the evidence to a QC and ask him what a court would find based on it. Closest you'll get to a legal ruling, before you go to Court. "Reasonably good prospect" sounds like about a 60% chance. Unless something is an absolute slam dunk, this as good as you will get from a QC. I have read the main section of the dossier (not the appendices). I assume the appendices contain considerably more compelling evidence somewhere?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThistleWhistle Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 13 hours ago, aaid said: I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did want rid of him but that's different from publicly calling for him to be sacked, which I'm not aware they have been. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52255611 I thought one of the main things they've been after for about a month is for his suspension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 26 minutes ago, beardy said: Surely lobbying clubs to approve your resolution is what you'd expect. Who's said the resolution was wrong? In the 6 options discussed in the original document, it states that (i) loans are not an option, and (ii) would require an amendment to implement. Except the Guardian article sets out that this exact thing had been done with three clubs (although oddly in the Grenta case, for some reason this hadnt been included the SPFL accounts). Hence what the SPFL put to the clubs is wrong. They must have known this, otherwise its pretty incompetent. Boring legal stuff, but whilst directors are entitled to lobby for a provision, they are not allowed to do so by misrepresenting the position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 4 minutes ago, ThistleWhistle said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52255611 I thought one of the main things they've been after for about a month is for his suspension. There's a big difference between being suspended and being sacked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 18 minutes ago, SMcoolJ said: "Reasonably good prospect" sounds like about a 60% chance. Unless something is an absolute slam dunk, this as good as you will get from a QC. I have read the main section of the dossier (not the appendices). I assume the appendices contain considerably more compelling evidence somewhere?! Yeah, I'd say thats fair to say about a 60% chance. That why I really want to see that Appendix- it would give us a clear view of what a qualified independent person would view the evidence. 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.