Lawwell - Conflict of interest

[eejay the dj 31,964]

30 minutes ago, TMB said:

celtic have paid UEFA £237k in fines over the last 10 years.

And in 75% of the charges . the fine became lower , then lower

[Coplandrear25 232]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

It's not 'why now' with our songbook though. We've been getting told for well over a decade. When was Villareal? 2006? PSV was 2011?

Eight years since our last indiscretion and we get hammered.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Coplandrear25 said:

Eight years since our last indiscretion and we get hammered.

And for four or five of those years we never played in UEFA competition so were never in a position to be punished for anything. The time elapsed since our last 'indiscretion' is irrlelvant anyway. The punishment for a first offence under article 14 is a section closure. second offence is a stadium closure.

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,647]

If a team has had all these charges in so many years it accumulates to a closure surely same as a yellow and red card situation, they have been treated with favour only because they are a catholic club favoured by a catholic based organisation. 

 

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, BLUEDIGNITY said:

If a team has had all these charges in so many years it accumulates to a closure surely same as a yellow and red card situation, they have been treated with favour only because they are a catholic club favoured by a catholic based organisation. 

 

No, otherwise this wouldn't be a first offence for us and would see up face stadium closure or expulsion from the competition.

[bluenoz 30,836]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

No, otherwise this wouldn't be a first offence for us and would see up face stadium closure or expulsion from the competition.

BD just proved the point - IRA chants, Palestine flag, illicit banner....... That is racism. We have 3000 empty seats for saying a racist word. Only in your eyes is it different.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, bluenoz said:

BD just proved the point - IRA chants, Palestine flag, illicit banner....... That is racism. We have 3000 empty seats for saying a racist word. Only in your eyes is it different.

Not in my eyes. UEFAs. I'm not the one making the decisions here. There's no point arguing what you wanted something to be when it's already done.

[bluenoz 30,836]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

Not in my eyes. UEFAs. I'm not the one making the decisions here. There's no point arguing what you wanted something to be when it's already done.

Then why can't you just say that UEFA are wrong and that the discrepancies appear to be unfair? You probably think Tom Boyd is innocent because it was said on private TV.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, bluenoz said:

Then why can't you just say that UEFA are wrong and that the discrepancies appear to be unfair? You probably think Tom Boyd is innocent because it was said on private TV.

Because that's not the topic. We're talking Peter Lawwell apparently having UEFA on strings. 

I have no idea what you mean about Boyd. What's private TV?

[bluenoz 30,836]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

Because that's not the topic. We're talking Peter Lawwell apparently having UEFA on strings. 

I have no idea what you mean about Boyd. What's private TV?

We are talking about Lawwell and that some people think ( not you ) he is indirectly involved. 

Anyway, I'm out, you are never wrong ( in your eyes )

[16BlueSherbert90 19,223]

1 hour ago, Colin Traive said:

Sorry mate but that’s like saying thatJohn Reid, Secretary of Defence had zero involvement in the revenue decision to scapegoat and persecute Rangers because he didn’t work in that department.

Are you really that naive?

You know he will argue the fuss no matter what when it comes to a love in fest with them. Best leave him to his own naivety:)  This is what happens when you further indulge podcasts with them.  Their influences rub off further, as is apparent here. 

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,647]

15 minutes ago, The Dude said:

No, otherwise this wouldn't be a first offence for us and would see up face stadium closure or expulsion from the competition.

It’s not a first offence for them either their list is only partial, a stand of theirs should’ve been officially shut for the number of times they’ve been fined alone? How many times can you fine offenders before jailing them? C’mon who are you defending here ? 

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, bluenoz said:

We are talking about Lawwell and that some people think ( not you ) he is indirectly involved. 

Anyway, I'm out, you are never wrong ( in your eyes )

If anyone can show me ANYTHING to back up the claim that there is an anti-Rangers conspiracy within UEFA orchestrated by Peter Lawwell then I'm more than happy to concede that I'm wrong.

Until then though, I'll quite happily continue of the belief that we've had a section closed because we've been caught bang to rights and the punishment for a first offence under UEFA's Article 14 of their disciplinary regulations is a section closure.

I mean, I know which one is easier to believe but seeing it in black and white in the UEFA's regs does make a pretty compelling argument against a grand conspiracy.

https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/UEFACompDisCases/02/60/83/56/2608356_DOWNLOAD.pdf

 

[Tomatasauce 1,253]

15 minutes ago, The Dude said:

The earliest I can see (I admittedly checked the first five google results) is 2014.

They didn't get a section closure because it was the harshest of the available penalties for what they were charged with. Ours was the only penalty for what we were charged with.

You’d think after let’s say 8-10 charges for them, before the fuck eufa banner was unfurled uefa would have made an example of clubs fans who don’t heed advice of authority, but it never happened and hasn’t since 2017. now does 2017 coincide roughly when liewell became involved with eufa or the eca is what I’m asking?

now you could call me paranoid regarding his work at the sfa, but to my knowledge no celtic player has ever been charged by the sfa compliance officer other than that tonev cunt, they have been sighted but never charged other than 1 player for a racism charge, compare that to us and surely, surely anybody can see the difference, are they really that whiter than white? What’s yer opinion?

[The Dude 20,026]

3 minutes ago, Sweettartangirl said:

You know he will argue the fuss no matter what when it comes to a love in fest with them. Best leave him to his own naivety:)  This is what happens when you further indulge podcasts with them.  Their influences rub off further, as is apparent here. 

I have no idea why you keep making reference to the podcast as if I've somehow been brinwashed in six weeks by doing a podcast for an hour a week with two celtic-supporting colleagues. 😂

[bluenoz 30,836]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

If anyone can show me ANYTHING to back up the claim that there is an anti-Rangers conspiracy within UEFA orchestrated by Peter Lawwell then I'm more than happy to concede that I'm wrong.

Until then though, I'll quite happily continue of the belief that we've had a section closed because we've been caught bang to rights and the punishment for a first offence under UEFA's Article 14 of their disciplinary regulations is a section closure.

I mean, I know which one is easier to believe but seeing it in black and white in the UEFA's regs does make a pretty compelling argument against a grand conspiracy.

https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/UEFACompDisCases/02/60/83/56/2608356_DOWNLOAD.pdf

 

No one is arguing our guilt or punishment. It is the punishment handed out across the city for similar, actually worse offences is the issue. I know you know this, you are just acting the cunt as usual.

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, Tomatasauce said:

You’d think after let’s say 8-10 charges for them, before the fuck eufa banner was unfurled uefa would have made an example of clubs fans who don’t heed advice of authority, but it never happened and hasn’t since 2017. now does 2017 coincide roughly when liewell became involved with eufa or the eca is what I’m asking?

now you could call me paranoid regarding his work at the sfa, but to my knowledge no celtic player has ever been charged by the sfa compliance officer other than that tonev cunt, they have been sighted but never charged other than 1 player for a racism charge, compare that to us and surely, surely anybody can see the difference, are they really that whiter than white? What’s yer opinion?

No, I already answered that. Lawwell has been involved with the ECA from as early as 2014 (although I didn't check much further)

Without bothering to check how many times all of the other clubs have been cited and charged as a comparison I couldn't really offer any sort of informed opinion on it. They certainly aren't whiter than white and I've not suggested anything remotely close to that.

 

[rabc10000 5,061]

11 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Because that's not the topic. We're talking Peter Lawwell apparently having UEFA on strings. 

I have no idea what you mean about Boyd. What's private TV?

Do people genuinely believe that after a handful of days lawell is dictating to uefa what they can and can't do?? Even I know that's taking paranoia to the extreme 

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,647]

35 minutes ago, eejay the dj said:

And in 75% of the charges . the fine became lower , then lower

Aye we are on an even playing field ! Fuck me !

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, bluenoz said:

No one is arguing our guilt or punishment. It is the punishment handed out across the city for similar, actually worse offences is the issue. I know you know this, you are just acting the cunt as usual.

But, again, according to the rule book what they have been charged with isn't worse. The stuff they've been charged with has section closures as the harshest available punishment and UEFA's committee's over the last decade have all, for whatever reason, felt that it has never merited it. Whether thats right or wrong, tbh, I couldn't particularly care about know because UEFA aren't going to go back and suddenly review it and re-charge and punish celtic so it's utterly pointless.

If you take the time to actually sit and read through the documents of UEFA's website (and believe there are a fucking lot of them) you'll see that various offences have varying scales of punishment. celtic's have almost always been viewed as relatively minor offences - again whether you or I think otherwise is moot - and the punishment issued has always been that way.  There is no 'totting up' process for charges - unless they are directly linked to each other - and simple fan misconduct typically isn't viewed that way.

Now if you think that's all the result of some Peter Lawwell led conspiracy at UEFA then you give the man far too much credit.

[Tomatasauce 1,253]

13 minutes ago, The Dude said:

No, I already answered that. Lawwell has been involved with the ECA from as early as 2014 (although I didn't check much further)

Without bothering to check how many times all of the other clubs have been cited and charged as a comparison I couldn't really offer any sort of informed opinion on it. They certainly aren't whiter than white and I've not suggested anything remotely close to that.

 

Ok so I don’t even want to go into the specifics on what merits what in Europe I’ll just say it looks like a very soft slap on the wrists for their behaviour and a ton of bricks for ours

No your mis-understanding me I didn’t say you said they are whiter than white but I’m glad you agree there not, it’s a start I suppose, I’m asking you cos you are a journo an likely to read they rags more than me

A report on it was on here a while ago we have been charged abt 10 times just for incidents the ref missed they have never been charged for any  incident the ref missed, they have had players sighted but never charged to my knowledge, now it dosent seem right to me putting the mildly, i was gony ask what it looks like to you but I’m guessing your gony say you don’t know so unless you care to find out I’m not gony get anything new to chew on

[bluenoz 30,836]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

But, again, according to the rule book what they have been charged with isn't worse. The stuff they've been charged with has section closures as the harshest available punishment and UEFA's committee's over the last decade have all, for whatever reason, felt that it has never merited it. Whether thats right or wrong, tbh, I couldn't particularly care about know because UEFA aren't going to go back and suddenly review it and re-charge and punish celtic so it's utterly pointless.

If you take the time to actually sit and read through the documents of UEFA's website (and believe there are a fucking lot of them) you'll see that various offences have varying scales of punishment. celtic's have almost always been viewed as relatively minor offences - again whether you or I think otherwise is moot - and the punishment issued has always been that way.  There is no 'totting up' process for charges - unless they are directly linked to each other - and simple fan misconduct typically isn't viewed that way.

Now if you think that's all the result of some Peter Lawwell led conspiracy at UEFA then you give the man far too much credit.

So we sing one song with the word fenian in it in front of almost 50,000 Rangers supporters and maybe 200 ex pats from Gibralter where no Catholics are around and our crime is worse than singing terrorists songs and flying terrorist flags? Or at the very least there is a difference?

I'm asking you what you think not what UEFA think?

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, Tomatasauce said:

Ok so I don’t even want to go into the specifics on what merits what in Europe I’ll just say it looks like a very soft slap on the wrists for their behaviour and a ton of bricks for ours

No your mis-understanding me I didn’t say you said they are whiter than white but I’m glad you agree there not, it’s a start I suppose, I’m asking you cos you are a journo an likely to read they rags more than me

A report on it was on here a while ago we have been charged abt 10 times just for incidents the ref missed they have never been charged by and incident the ref missed, they have had players sighted but never charged to my knowledge, now it dosent seem right to me putting the mildly, i was gony ask what it looks like to you but I’m guessing your gony say you don’t know so unless you care to find out I’m not gony get anything new to chew on

I remember seeing the report I just can't remember the detail of it. assuming everyone else has picked up a certain number of charges/citations, then it would definitely look dodgy if they were the only one with one or two.

[Tomatasauce 1,253]

1 hour ago, BLUEDIGNITY said:

If a team has had all these charges in so many years it accumulates to a closure surely same as a yellow and red card situation, they have been treated with favour only because they are a catholic club favoured by a catholic based organisation. 

 

Beggars belief mate

first charge: sectarian surely

second charge: risking people’s H&S 

third charge: political (strange cos to everybody else politics is frowned upon or might even be banned completely) 

Yous get the drift...fucking mockery man

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, bluenoz said:

So we sing one song with the word fenian in it in front of almost 50,000 Rangers supporters and maybe 200 ex pats from Gibralter where no Catholics are around and our crime is worse than singing terrorists songs and flying terrorist flags? Or at the very least there is a difference?

I'm asking you what you think not what UEFA think?

You're asking me if there's a difference in what way? Morally? In terms of the UEFA rule book? If it's the rules then yes. I'm not sure there's would breach article 14 (although it would depend on the specifics, so singing something specifically anti-British or using a derogatory term for protestants then it would, if it was a starry plough then it probably wouldnt).

Genuinely not trying to be difficult here, I don't understand in what way you want me to quantify if there's a difference between them