Fight the sfa

[bluebovril 110]

3 hours ago, Sweetheart said:

@bluebovril

Never say never.

I remember when Charles Green said that it was a SPL/SFA witch hunt and the governing bodies said "prove it".  I think the time is now right to challenge the 5WA. I think Donald Findlay could build a very good case on behalf of the club, to send to the Independent Ethics Committee Investigatory Chamber.

 http://www.fifa.com/governance/independent-ethics-committee/investigatory-chamber/profile.html

I have always wanted someone from Ranger’s with a bit of Bawz about them to look into this.with severe conflicts of interest from the spl and sfa been told by the nappy rippers to do there utmost to handicap us for a long time.having said that they will only say you signed up for it 

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, Copland bear said:

What a load of shite, all that happened to us because Murray wanted us gone to any cunt and a cunt  bought us when the SFA failed to protect our club against someone who had been previously banned as a director, that's why we were demoted, the SFA had their part to play also by failing to do their jobs once again  

And no they won't take our licence as only a fool would think that, it's like all the bluff from the EU, just walk and give them fuck all and watch them come crawling on their knees begging for our help, we do it right then they will be begging us to save Scottish football. 

I would even pull out it next season and let them negotiate a new revised deal with sky and by  without us, as no Rangers no Stevie G then pennies or no contract is what they will get , then starve them of the blue pound while we full Ibrox every home game   

As I said see them in a court of law and highlight how the last time we were in a court of law and won against an illegal transfer embargo they they still  forced us to accept the illegal transfer embargo while forcing us to pay their lawyers fees when the court ruled they should pay for ours. Now they are not biased against us are they ? There's your proof,then throw the 5 way agreement in for good measures and it's game set and match .  Yep we are not treated unfairly by these corrupt cunts but I think you might find a court stating otherwise on these things alone ,

How about you do a piece on how the BBC missed out the fact Hibs covered up Neeley abusing boys then passed him on to us and we contacted the police? Neely  and us where the main headlines , a guy who has never been found guilty in a court of law , Never  once did they do this regarding Torbett and he was found guiltyfgs and is going up again, why are you not doing a piece on possible sanctions against celtic for covering the abuse up like Hibs but what was worse they let him fucking back in to abuse again , or why not a piece on was there a sex ring working within celtic park?  

Your a journalist so do your job and stop telling us they will do this and that and how we must take it a baw deep and continue to be every cunts cash cow and bitch  As a reporter why are you not asking these questions ? Because the tarriers within your organisation don't miss us and have not since 2012, the fact that Torbett was let back in when Big Stein left says it all, then the Hibs chairman who told his mate the reporter in confidence about Nelley?  What's happening to any of them as if they reported him then the boy would never have met Neeley at Ibrox never mind being abused by him .

As I said I fucking dare them to take our licemce as they will need the fucking army in this country as it will go boom, as I said do a piece on Torbett, the ex directors at celtic who were also directors at the trophy centre , then the Labour Party and their lord provost Kelly who helped cover it up and stood up for Torbett during the case , or what about a piece in the last Protestant lord provost of Glasgow something like 1972 or something crazy.

 

Now I have just given you a few good articles to get on with and make a good few quid at the bargain ?

 

  

I'll go through this paragraph by paragraph.

1. It's not the SFA's job to 'protect us'. The fit and proper person test is only applied once someone buys a club. As much as Murray fucked us royally, lots of what happened isn't directly attributable to him. Some of our fans were practically begging to go to D3 in 2012.

2. A decade ago I'd have told you 'only a fool would say we'll get kicked out the SPL and have to play in the third division.' Look how that worked. There's nothing that would surprise me in Scottish football anymore.

3. I don't know how to tell you this but if we 'pull out of the TV deal' we're not playing in the league next season. Or any league for that matter. It's genuinely that simple. It isn't an optional TV deal. IF the SPFL have a TV deal and we're part of the SPFL then we're part of the TV deal.

4. The transfer embargo being unlawful was because it wasn't one of the listed sanctions available. But we've already fought that fight. We can't go back to a court and say that they're out to get us because they applied an unlawful transfer embargo. There needs to be MUCH more than that. Folk keep going on about the 5WA agreement. Why has it been ok for us the last six years to just get on with it but now it's a big thing? Do you not see where accepting it for the last six years and only now deciding to make it an issue doesn't really do us any favours with it? It would literally be the first thing I'd ask. Why didn't King etc make a complaint in 2015 when they took control of the club? or in 2016? or in 2017? 

5. You want me to write an article moaning that the BBC didn't mention another club Neely was at when in a headline when it didn't have anything to do with the story? Is that not the same thing we piss and moan about when folk do it with us? Why would I write stories about that at all when I'm paid to write about football? It tends not to be a stry covered by sportswriters - despite involving sport - but more often crime reporters cover that sort of stuff. Same reason why I can count on one hand the number of articles I've written about our tax stuff out of the thousands I've had published.

6. My organisation? Which organisation is that? I'm almost certain you have no idea who my main employer is - and I'm certainly not going to be writing about it in a blog about Rangers.

7. I think I'll pass on your article suggestions. Tell you what though, if you think they'll make a "good few quid" I suggest you knock them out yourself and send them out and see how much interest you get. Surefire traffic there for any website

[The Dude 20,026]

13 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

Lord Kilbrandon opined that mere irregularity in procedure was not enough; it must be so fundamental that it goes beyond a mere matter of procedure and is something so prejudicial to a fair and impartial investigation of the question to be decided as to amount to a denial of natural justice. 

Many Rangers fans would be of the belief that a denial of natural justice is happening here.

In what way have we been denied natural justice?

[backup 4,724]

11 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

Lord Kilbrandon opined that mere irregularity in procedure was not enough; it must be so fundamental that it goes beyond a mere matter of procedure and is something so prejudicial to a fair and impartial investigation of the question to be decided as to amount to a denial of natural justice. 

Many Rangers fans would be of the belief that a denial of natural justice is happening here.

Precedent has been set on several occassions irrespective of uefa and its tinpot courts.

There is also the saga of the bunnett battering the sfa into abject surrender getting damages and a groveling apology also getting farry the bullet, there again he had balls, our board don't.

 

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

Just now, The Dude said:

In what way have we been denied natural justice?

Where do I start?

Ill just leave it with the current situation. The sfa said that the matter was closed whilst the spfl said it was not and the chairman  was proven to lie. The sfa chairman leaves whilst the spfl chairman becomes member of the sfa board. The charges were found to be false but they then decide to try again with slightly changed wording. That's just one of many things. A semi competent lawyer will be able to find a lot of situations where natural justice hasn't prevailed against the governance of the Scottish football association.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Howsitgoing said:

Where do I start?

Ill just leave it with the current situation. The sfa said that the matter was closed whilst the spfl said it was not and the chairman  was proven to lie. The sfa chairman leaves whilst the spfl chairman becomes member of the sfa board. The charges were found to be false but they then decide to try again with slightly changed wording. That's just one of many things. A semi competent lawyer will be able to find a lot of situations where natural justice hasn't prevailed against the governance of the Scottish football association.

That’s not denying us natural justice. We are entitled to put our side across (hearing on June 26th). That initself makes it wildly different from the example you cited. 

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

10 hours ago, The Dude said:

That’s not denying us natural justice. We are entitled to put our side across (hearing on June 26th). That initself makes it wildly different from the example you cited. 

It is if they continue to keep pressing charges until one sticks. This matter has been ongoing for years. The new Notice of Complaint neglects to properly capture the provisions of prior agreements and is nothing more than another attempt to invoke charges against our club.

What makes it similar to the example I cited is that it’s uefa who are responsible for the license and they have stated that the matter is closed. Ultra vires might have a case then due to it only being the SFA that want to continue the matter.

[backup 4,724]

13 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

It is if they continue to keep pressing charges until one sticks. This matter has been ongoing for years. The new Notice of Complaint neglects to properly capture the provisions of prior agreements and is nothing more than another attempt to invoke charges against our club.

 

Another court appearance for the sfa, yes we beat them 

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11788/7785730/sfa-surprised-by-ruling