Flure Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 So Ashley is looking to up his stake to 30%....how does this work out with the SFA? The SFA will cave in because they would be not at all confident of winning if Ashley challenged this "rule" in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macy37 Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 The SFA will cave in because they would be not at all confident of winning if Ashley challenged this "rule" in court. So why is there such a rule? I mean I know they are useless but why create a rule that they know would never stand up if scrutinised in court? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flure Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 So why is there such a rule? I mean I know they are flipping useless but why create a rule that they know would never stand up if scrutinised in court? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Because they are anti Rangers ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flure Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Because they are anti Rangers That's one of the things I can't understand. And Somers made reference to it yesterday, too. If the SFA was so anti-Rangers - and the SFA are made up from the participating clubs - why were Rangers allowed to join the third tier of Scottish football, whilst they had no published accounts. If the SFA is anti-Rangers? Like lots of things in this saga, it doesn't compute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelhumper Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 That's one of the things I can't understand. And Somers made reference to it yesterday, too. If the SFA was so anti-Rangers - and the SFA are made up from the participating clubs - why were Rangers allowed to join the third tier of Scottish football, whilst they had no published accounts. If the SFA is anti-Rangers? Like lots of things in this saga, it doesn't compute. SFA are anything but anti Rangers. History has showm that. Rangers were lucky to get as easy a route back into the league. Well run non league clubs such as Spartans were shafted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairbairn Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 That's one of the things I can't understand. And Somers made reference to it yesterday, too. If the SFA was so anti-Rangers - and the SFA are made up from the participating clubs - why were Rangers allowed to join the third tier of Scottish football, whilst they had no published accounts. If the SFA is anti-Rangers? Like lots of things in this saga, it doesn't compute. It was a sound bite and a smokescreen to try and get the more volatile element of shareholders present onside and cover up the many, many ineptitudes of the board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 That's one of the things I can't understand. And Somers made reference to it yesterday, too. If the SFA was so anti-Rangers - and the SFA are made up from the participating clubs - why were Rangers allowed to join the third tier of Scottish football, whilst they had no published accounts. If the SFA is anti-Rangers? Like lots of things in this saga, it doesn't compute. The SFA needed the money. It's as simple as that. They are still coming up with bogus charges now to try and squeeze more out of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnie x Posted December 23, 2014 Author Share Posted December 23, 2014 Like lots of things in this saga, it doesn't compute. I know that, you know that and most other people know that the SFA wouldnt have done that for any other club (maybe bar one). Its the age old technique of deflect and deny and the brogues have seen that its the easiest thing in the world to blame the SFA and anybody else to deflect attention from their own actions and intentions. There are a huge number of daft fans who latch on to it and start swining punches at everything that moves. Charles Green and his mob will sitting in their Chateaux laughing at how easy it was while keeping an eye on their accounts in the cayman islands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stocky Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 I think the SFA would have done the same with 4 or 5 clubs... the rest would have been left to their own devices,,, no way would Hibs/Hearts and Aberdeen have been allowed to disappear.. imo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macy37 Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 If the SFA are Anti Huuns who are they Pro for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 If the SFA are Anti Rangers who are they Pro for? Themselves obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macy37 Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Themselves obviously. So they are anti all teams then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 So they are anti all teams then? Of course not. I doubt Montrose cause them much trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flora MaDonald Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Of course not. I doubt Montrose cause them much trouble. .....or Stranraer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddardStark Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Posters let their own personal prejudice take hold when commenting on the Rangers issue. Its understandable.And using Somers comments regarding SFA actions to attack the club illustrates this. Every Rangers fans knows what Somers was up to yesterday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 (edited) Thinking the SFA are anti rangers is typical of the warped and perverted up is down black is whyte sense of reality many RFC fans have over this and many other issues surrounding their club. The SFA and that prikk Dungcaster would have had RFC 2012 back in the SPL without sanction if they could have got away with it. It was only the very real threat of a fans rebellion at all the other clubs that forced them to do the right thing. This was before the BTC was 'won' and people rightly felt that RFC 1899 had been using financial doping to cheat the league for donkeys. And this is actually still true IMHO because those EBTs were blatant tax evasion. And if HMRC fail to reverse that and RFC 1899 get away with that then all of us are total mugs for paying income tax in the UK. Edited December 23, 2014 by thplinth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddardStark Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 (edited) Anyway there is a belter of an email from Somers to Ashleys legal team . Seems to totally blow Somers best interest of the club waffle out of the water. Edited December 23, 2014 by EddardStark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamia Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Posters let their own personal prejudice take hold when commenting on the Rangers issue. Its understandable.And using Somers comments regarding SFA actions to attack the club illustrates this. Every Rangers fans knows what Somers was up to yesterday. Enlighten me - I have no idea who is doing what any more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelhumper Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Posters let their own personal prejudice take hold when commenting on the Rangers issue. Especially Rangers fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Thinking the SFA are anti rangers is typical of the warped and perverted up is down black is whyte sense of reality many RFC fans have over this and many other issues surrounding their club. The SFA and that prikk Dungcaster would have had RFC 2012 back in the SPL without sanction if they could have got away with it. It was only the very real threat of a fans rebellion at all the other clubs that forced them to do the right thing. This was before the BTC was 'won' and people rightly felt that RFC 1899 had been using financial doping to cheat the league for donkeys. And this is actually still true IMHO because those EBTs were blatant tax evasion. And if HMRC fail to reverse that and RFC 1899 get away with that then all of us are total mugs for paying income tax in the UK. You're probably the most bitter on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 ...from a monotopic monobrow hhun troll who calls people Decl@n, hurtful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 You're probably the most bitter on here. He spent 6 months trying to tell every rangers fan on here that Rangers were fecked way before it happened. Then left the board for 3 years. when could have been on here posting all the stuff said to him about administration before it happened. I don't think many non-Rangers fans are bitter about Rangers going into administration then disolving, then re-forming to only make the exact same mistakes as last time, 'cept this time you don't have Peter Cummings recklessly lending to Murray international holdings to keep the Wolves at bay for more than a season at a time. The season ticket money is drying up and the pot is a lot smaller, so a few more squeezes of the teats for that last bit of milk. In fact is there a greater disparity of efficacy -outside of the first round of Olympic qualifiers(think eddy the eel)- than that displayed by Rangers and Hearts when dealing with a situation? Even the Ugandan boxing board of control wouldn't sanction that. In fact what bit of quality do Rangers even have? In any capacity? Who is the most talented person at Rangers these days? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 I know that, you know that and most other people know that the SFA wouldnt have done that for any other club (maybe bar one). Its the age old technique of deflect and deny and the brogues have seen that its the easiest thing in the world to blame the SFA and anybody else to deflect attention from their own actions and intentions. There are a huge number of daft fans who latch on to it and start swining punches at everything that moves. Charles Green and his mob will sitting in their Chateaux laughing at how easy it was while keeping an eye on their accounts in the cayman islands. er,...Debian? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpyauldgit Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 I don't think the SFA and the press have it in for Rangers, but the way Ronnie and Reggie Easdale, along with their good pal Ashley, are treating everybody, I could not blame them, if they did have it in for us. 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.