RenfrewBlue Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 8 hours ago, ShedTA said: Or king illegally procuring the Charlotte fakes tapes and releasing them to drive down the share price prior to his takeover? Yep investigate it all I say. Ive no knowledge about that but it doesn't sound like something the SFA would be capable of investigating. I'm sure there's other authorities that could investigate though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 7 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: Jaywalking v crimes against humanity. The headline doesn't match the content of the article. Correct. Crimes against humanity? ???? You need help my friend. Seriously. It's feckin football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 4 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: Wasn't the 5 Way Agreement done in secret, though? I don't trust any of them... (1) THE SCOTTISH FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION LIMITED (2) THE SCOTTISH PREMIER LEAGUE LIMITED (3) THE SCOTTISH FOOTBALL LEAGUE (4) THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB PLC (IN ADMINISTRATION) (5) SEVCO SCOTLAND LIMITED (Wow! How did that cabal manage to get things to swing in the huns favour?) And here we have the reason nothing else will happen. Fans of other clubs are judging through their tinted lenses with emotion. That's not how it works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 1 hour ago, RenfrewBlue said: Crimes against humanity? ???? You need help my friend. Seriously. It's feckin football. You're comparing a Roy Aitken shy to 10 plus years of deliberate financial doping. It's about contrast (in the same way that it would be silly to try and compare jaywalking to crimes against humanity). (Ripping off HMRC to the tune of some 160M is definitely a crime against society though.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, RenfrewBlue said: And here we have the reason nothing else will happen. Fans of other clubs are judging through their tinted lenses with emotion. That's not how it works. The outcome so far has a huge bias in Rangers favour. Ibrox and the lot should have been sold to pay the creditors. (No other entity, including Celtic, would have got away with it.) Edited July 22, 2017 by Scotty CTA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 10 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said: You're comparing a Roy Aitken shy to 10 plus years of deliberate financial doping. It's about contrast (in the same way that it would be silly to try and compare jaywalking to crimes against humanity). (Ripping off HMRC to the tune of some 160M is definitely a crime against society though.) You said humanity not society,, they're different. And I wasn't comparing the "offences". I was merely pointing out that if you start down a road sometimes you have unforseen eventualities. 6 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 10 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said: The outcome so far has a huge bias in Rangers favour. Ibrox and the lot should have been sold to pay the creditors. (No other entity, including Celtic, would have got away with it.) You've proven my point with this post. In your opinion (biased that it is) the process favoured Rangers and that only Rangers would "get away with it". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 2 hours ago, RenfrewBlue said: You said humanity not society,, they're different. I said both. The first was exaggeration to prove a point, and the second was basic truth in an attempt to simplify. 2 hours ago, RenfrewBlue said: I was merely pointing out that if you start down a road sometimes you have unforseen eventualities. Rangers paying for their crimes would definitely be unforeseen. 2 hours ago, RenfrewBlue said: You've proven my point with this post. In your opinion (biased that it is) the process favoured Rangers and that only Rangers would "get away with it". I don't see how an honest person could come to any other conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Ceelo Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 Canny believe 5 wee stars above a badge causes so much annoyance, think of all those poor tattoos that would need to be altered, the price of that alone would wipe out the £160m Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: The outcome so far has a huge bias in Rangers favour. Ibrox and the lot should have been sold to pay the creditors. (No other entity, including Celtic, would have got away with it.) I'm hoping you've a big fishing rod applied to this post... if not, i'd go and change your big tin foil hat. 41 clubs, and the SFA voted this in. Your club voted this way on behalf of the board and fans. As I posted above, if they wish to change the goal posts, go ahead, but if so, I hope everyone out there who benefited from Rangers demotion can now afford to pay it all back. Remembering that league titles stripped at the time would have meant Rangers continuing in the top tier as offered by Thompson at Utd and Co. Stranraer only stayed in business due to the games with Rangers. Effectively you'd be wanting them to pay all that money back then? Edited July 23, 2017 by Debian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 Anyway, I'm surprised no one is greeting over Wes Foderingham wearing an orange goalie top yesterday against Marseille... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 1 hour ago, The White Ceelo said: Canny believe 5 wee stars above a badge causes so much annoyance, think of all those poor tattoos that would need to be altered, the price of that alone would wipe out the £160m ??? I hadn't thought of that. No wonder some of the more vocal bears are angry all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 6 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: I said both. The first was exaggeration to prove a point, and the second was basic truth in an attempt to simplify. Rangers paying for their crimes would definitely be unforeseen. I don't see how an honest person could come to any other conclusion. So you're backtracking, and still expressing opinion as fact. Fair enough. I think you need to look up the definition of the word Fact in the dictionary, it'll help you greatly. I understand your faith undermines your ability to differentiate between fact and a belief but it really isn't that difficult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 17 hours ago, Debian said: Genuine question here. After all, fans and clubs can't have it all their own way. The 5 way agreement was signed and agreed by each club and the SFA/SPL. If they renege on the 5 way agreement, then who funds the financial exposure from the SPL/SFA for; 1. Transfer fees withheld (Davis and Edu, along with development fee's for McCabe and Ness) 2. SPL Prize money held back from the Oldco 3. Scottish Cup money held back from the Oldco In addition. The 5 way agreement originally offered title stripping in exchange for continuing SPL membership. Do they then reimburse Rangers for 4 years of potential lost revenue from the top tier? So did the 5 way agreement ensure no title stripping if ebts ruled illegal? Serious question as I have no idea what the agreement is. The thing is what has happened has happened but it means f@ck all because football fans have now seen that it was financial doping on a huge scale and the nms enquiry was a total stitch up. Based on that it all needs reviewed. What was agreed in the past is now null and void. We were all lied to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 1 hour ago, ShedTA said: So did the 5 way agreement ensure no title stripping if ebts ruled illegal? Serious question as I have no idea what the agreement is. The thing is what has happened has happened but it means f@ck all because football fans have now seen that it was financial doping on a huge scale and the nms enquiry was a total stitch up. Based on that it all needs reviewed. What was agreed in the past is now null and void. We were all lied to. That's not how the law works though, is it? As you say it depends on how the agreement was worded but I'd be surprised if it could just be ripped up without serious repercussions for all signatories. Every club agreed to it via their designated representative so it's a bit rich to then change your mind. After all there only were 2 possible outcomes of the EBT case and the agreement was made with that knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 3 hours ago, Debian said: I'm hoping you've a big fishing rod applied to this post... if not, i'd go and change your big tin foil hat. 41 clubs, and the SFA voted this in. Your club voted this way on behalf of the board and fans. As I posted above, if they wish to change the goal posts, go ahead, but if so, I hope everyone out there who benefited from Rangers demotion can now afford to pay it all back. Remembering that league titles stripped at the time would have meant Rangers continuing in the top tier as offered by Thompson at Utd and Co. Stranraer only stayed in business due to the games with Rangers. Effectively you'd be wanting them to pay all that money back then? You're under the delusion that Rangers were somehow entitled to a deal when they should have been consigned to history (lock, stock, and barrel) as any other club would have been. 2 hours ago, RenfrewBlue said: So you're backtracking... I'm definitely not backtracking. I did say both. You couldn't understand the simple technique of 'exaggeration to prove a point' (blowing something up so that you can see it better) so I simplified it further for you by highlighting the fact that society (schools, hospitals, police, armed forces, etc.) really was ripped off to the tune of 160M (but you're not getting that either). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 3 hours ago, Debian said: Stranraer only stayed in business due to the games with Rangers. Airdrie only went out of business because SDM called in a 25K loan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 35 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said: Airdrie only went out of business because SDM called in a 25K loan. Cannae think of a mair hun-like team than Airdrie, so that was cool wae me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Scotty CTA said: You're under the delusion that Rangers were somehow entitled to a deal when they should have been consigned to history (lock, stock, and barrel) as any other club would have been. I'm definitely not backtracking. I did say both. You couldn't understand the simple technique of 'exaggeration to prove a point' (blowing something up so that you can see it better) so I simplified it further for you by highlighting the fact that society (schools, hospitals, police, armed forces, etc.) really was ripped off to the tune of 160M (but you're not getting that either). You said humanity, I called you out as talking keech and THEN you changed it to society because you realised how silly you'd been. That IS backtracking whether you like it or not. Whether Rangers were entitled to a deal or not, one was done. Therefore a precedent was set and assumptions and rules made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Col Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 4 hours ago, Debian said: Anyway, I'm surprised no one is greeting over Wes Foderingham wearing an orange goalie top yesterday against Marseille... Marseille that had a title stripped and robbed Rangers of a Champions League win? Canny be many bears happy with that fixture or is it an honour amongst thieves thing ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 19 minutes ago, Big Col said: Marseille that had a title stripped and robbed Rangers of a Champions League win? Canny be many bears happy with that fixture or is it an honour amongst thieves thing ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 53 minutes ago, Big Col said: Marseille that had a title stripped and robbed Rangers of a Champions League win? Canny be many bears happy with that fixture or is it an honour amongst thieves thing ? Marseille didn't rob us of a CL win. At the most paranoid you could say they robbed us of a place in the final. However if we'd beaten Moscow at Ibrox in the last group game we'd have been in the final anyway. So it actually was just our own fault. I know it doesn't fit the paranoid Huns shite you lot like to spout though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Ceelo Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 5 hours ago, RenfrewBlue said: ??? I hadn't thought of that. No wonder some of the more vocal bears are angry all the time. Mate, as far as I'm concerned this is the only issue. Some folk still don't want to accept Old Rangers, Rangers fc, or ffs "sevco" managed to get there first so were awarded the 5 stars by uefa to be graced above the badge...if they were stripped and awarded to Celtic fc,Celtic athletic and football club, or Pacific shelf bla bla bla...then they would have the 5 and a golden one above depending on what club won them? Nobody on the green side of Glasgow will admit this tho...tin hat firmly strapped on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitre Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 1 hour ago, RenfrewBlue said: Marseille didn't rob us of a CL win. At the most paranoid you could say they robbed us of a place in the final. However if we'd beaten Moscow at Ibrox in the last group game we'd have been in the final anyway. So it actually was just our own fault. I know it doesn't fit the paranoid Huns shite you lot like to spout though. The CSKA result didn't matter in the end due to Marseilles winning in Bruges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slasher Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 On 22/07/2017 at 5:10 PM, Debian said: Genuine question here. After all, fans and clubs can't have it all their own way. The 5 way agreement was signed and agreed by each club and the SFA/SPL. If they renege on the 5 way agreement, then who funds the financial exposure from the SPL/SFA for; 1. Transfer fees withheld (Davis and Edu, along with development fee's for McCabe and Ness) 2. SPL Prize money held back from the Oldco 3. Scottish Cup money held back from the Oldco In addition. The 5 way agreement originally offered title stripping in exchange for continuing SPL membership. Do they then reimburse Rangers for 4 years of potential lost revenue from the top tier? Irony alert. ? 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.