Mikhailichenko 90 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Who was it that decided to bring this charge against us? Was it the SFA board or the SFA members? Well whoever it was I have a question for them. Why the hell have they not brought celtic up on the same charge for allowing their ned of a 'manager' to run riot without taking him to task? Surely these actions have brought the game into disrepute. Probably more so than ours as the perpetual victims antics are thuggish, unsightly, tiresome and have been broadcast on live television.I ask the question already knowing the answer but the question has to be asked all the same. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 and probably never will be known. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loyal Bear 72 363 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 The same people who decided celtic were not guilty of bringing the game into disrepute with their constant attacks on referees and causing a national referee strike. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pennyarcade 42 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Freedom of information? Surely we have a right to know. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhailichenko 90 Posted April 24, 2012 Author Share Posted April 24, 2012 Who brought the charge though? We all know an 'independent panel' delivered the sentence but who acted as Procurator Fiscal? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilko89 507 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Romanov not paying his players when he can't be bothered as well could easily be classed as bringing the game into disrepute! Causing a referee strike isn't though, definately isn't. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhailichenko 90 Posted April 24, 2012 Author Share Posted April 24, 2012 Romanov not paying his players when he can't be bothered as well could easily be classed as bringing the game into disrepute! Causing a referee strike isn't though, definately isn't.I was trying to think of some more example to put in the OP but my brain is fried. Not much work getting done today. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smile 26,600 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Romanov not paying his players when he can't be bothered as well could easily be classed as bringing the game into disrepute! Causing a referee strike isn't though, definately isn't.Exactly i don't see why this has been overlooked.I'm lying of course its because the seltic football association are after us and no one else. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhailichenko 90 Posted April 24, 2012 Author Share Posted April 24, 2012 The SFA have brought the game into disrepute themselves. No-one else. They had a duty to make sure Craig Whyte was fit and proper, they failed to do so. Yet somehow we're to blame. The SFA are a farcical joke. I've been in dialog with outsiders looking in, believe me they think the SFA are cocking up major time.I've thought this myself. Surely by charging us they implicate themselves as they ultimately decide who is fit and proper. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilko89 507 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Exactly i don't see why this has been overlooked.I'm lying of course its because the seltic football association are after us and no one else. I pointed out to an englishman on twitter that Liewell was on the SFA Board and Riley was on the SPL panel (think i have this the right way round). They're not even hiding it now, it's disgusting! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loyal Bear 72 363 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Romanov not paying his players when he can't be bothered as well could easily be classed as bringing the game into disrepute! Causing a referee strike isn't though, definately isn't.Isn't it? Why not? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilko89 507 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Isn't it? Why not?Because of sarcasm Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhailichenko 90 Posted April 24, 2012 Author Share Posted April 24, 2012 Yeah, you'd certainly think that. But then, they seem to make things up as they go along.This is the only thing we can be sure of just now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 i believe the wording is a "reasonable person"....we will find out the identity of the panel fairly soon i'm sure... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilko89 507 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 i believe the wording is a "reasonable person"....we will find out the identity of the panel fairly soon i'm sure...We always find out who was on these panels within a week or so Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhailichenko 90 Posted April 24, 2012 Author Share Posted April 24, 2012 i believe the wording is a "reasonable person"....we will find out the identity of the panel fairly soon i'm sure...Is this for the panel that delivered our punishment or the individual(s) who brought the charges? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Is this for the panel that delivered our punishment or the individual(s) who brought the charges?Probably the complience offer that brought the charges and that refers to the panel Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loyal Bear 72 363 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Because of sarcasm Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 The fact that such information isn't readily available is really quite poor. Transparency? Utterly ridiculous.Agreed.If they feel they are being fair then why must they lurk in the shadows. As i say their identites will be known soon. The press must have seen people leave the meeting at hampden last night so they must know who they were.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilko89 507 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 The STV news boys on Twitter insist they are 'working' to find out who was on the panel. That suggests that more than a phonecall is needed. Why is more than a phonecall needed? Absolutely farcical. I'm sure the names will come out, but they should've been out last night. Only in football is a defendant punished by individuals it does not know.the meeting was at hampden last night, were no journos there ? I find it hard to believe especially as there was a youth cup final as well....The whole radio scotland crew were there for a start....I fully expect rangers to challenge this through the courts if it got that for...i don't think it will. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilko89 507 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 the meeting was at hampden last night, were no journos there ? I find it hard to believe especially as there was a youth cup final as well....The whole radio scotland crew were there for a start....I fully expect rangers to challenge this through the courts if it got that far...i don't think it will.I take it you are with me that you think the decision will be successfully appealed? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 I take it you are with me that you think the decision will be successfully appealed?Yes....100%The SFA's regulations are so poorly written and managed that any decent lawyer will be able to drive a truck through them.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 You do have to question why they don't already know, but that's Scottish football journalism for you! The problem with challenging this in court is that it very much puts the existance of the club in doubt. A court challenge may drag on too long. It may be too late.If this actually stopped anyone buying us then that would be a worry…surely the interested parties are looking beyond one year from now…. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilko89 507 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Yes....100%The SFA's regulations are so poorly written and managed that any decent lawyer will be able to drive a truck through them.... glad i'm not the only one! Yes, they are ridiculous! Quote Link to post 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.