Thermopylae 15,286 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 I presume this is going to be our grounds for appeal. But the appeal is going to be heard before it's decided whether or not Whyte did fraudulently purchase us.This is like being mugged in the street and then being fined by the police when they EVENTUALLY turn up Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack1690 793 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Tbh, I'd take my chances in the 3rd div. Yes we will be hindered for a few yrs, yes we will have smaller crowds, yes we will have a lower standard of player, yes we probably wont see another european night at Ibrox for several yrs, yes we will have to go to tiny away "stadiums" for few yrs.BUT we will fuck up the whole spl, we will fuck up sfa and best of all we will fuck up the scum. We may have to crawl before we walk again but I, for one, would gleefully watch the spl clubs, the ones that have booted us when we are down, fall like deck of cards. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Shaw 30,119 Posted April 26, 2012 Author Share Posted April 26, 2012 I take it the three titles we won on the trot was just the smokescreen to hide the bigger plan that he has hatched.You missed the point mate , im not talking about last season or the seasons before that , i mean since we went into administration Lawwel has been in my opinion pulling strings to make sure we get the book thrown at us in order to keep us down and gain a clear advantage for Celtic .. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 You missed the point mate , im not talking about last season or the seasons before that , i mean since we went into administration Lawwel has been in my opinion pulling strings to make sure we get the book thrown at us in order to keep us down and gain a clear advantage for Celtic .. Apologies, I didn't realise that you had only recently boarded that particular bandwagon! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 11,453 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 A lesson to us? Fans had no say in Whyte taking over. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loyal Bear 72 363 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 It should be a lesson to us, and every other club in world football. The message should be 'let those who are driven purely by money into your club and you will be punished for it'.Punished by a body who claim to have a duty to test and prevent these people from coming into the club? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Well, to take your first line, if this hasn't taught us a lesson then nothing will. However, if the actions of others are deemed illegal, then finishing a football club off could be a punishment too far. Perhaps football itself needs a constitution that is more rigorous when it comes to these matters.Has there been any credible suggestion that Whyte has done anything illegal? I know that there were unconfirmed rumours of a police investigation. Whatever the findings are, it won't have any bearing on the SFA sanctions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Punished by a body who claim to have a duty to test and prevent these people from coming into the club?There was a test in place - it just wasn't an effective one. Does that negate the rule breaking that occurred? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Double. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnberry18 3,204 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 There was a test in place - it just wasn't an effective one. Does that negate the rule breaking that occurred?That would not be for me to say; obviously there are matters being looked at by the authorities, and it will be up to them to see if anyone has acted rightly or wrongly in the affairs of Rangers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 the trouble is Casey we have broken the bringi.g the game into disrepute rule. its a nonsense rule that allows for anything to be chargeable and the punishments are literally unlimited. there are no rules saying paye must be paid etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebooler 4,509 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Whatever Whyte did when purchasing the club has no bearing on what SFA rules we were guilty of breaking. Why people keep trying to separate the two is a mystery to me. Does every member of a club have to act improperly before the club is deemed to be guilty?What sanctions were placed on celtic fc when one of their senior members of staff was found guilty and sentenced to 2 years in prison? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weird_Beard 99 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 the trouble is Casey we have broken the bringi.g the game into disrepute rule. its a nonsense rule that allows for anything to be chargeable and the punishments are literally unlimited. there are no rules saying paye must be paid etc.I reckon the transfer embargo (which is the one we want quashed) will be due to breaking the non-payments to other clubs rule. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 I reckon the transfer embargo (which is the one we want quashed) will be due to breaking the non-payments to other clubs rule.then it should be removable should we pay. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 the trouble is Casey we have broken the bringi.g the game into disrepute rule. its a nonsense rule that allows for anything to be chargeable and the punishments are literally unlimited. there are no rules saying paye must be paid etc.That may be so, but the rules are agreed upon by all SFA members, so greeting about them after the fact is never really going to be taken seriously. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 then it should be removable should we pay.How are we going to do that when they are already overdue? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 How are we going to do that?rfff? anyway if they are this concerned about that then they should introduce football creditors first rules like England. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnberry18 3,204 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 That may be so, but the rules are agreed upon by all SFA members, so greeting about them after the fact is never really going to be taken seriously.That is not quite the full picture though. There is an appeal process that will take this matter more fully, we hope. The SFA have hardly been unambiguous about all this since that charge against Rangers was made the other night, if press reports and statements are to be believed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 I can see this at cas. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dummiesoot 15,964 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 The previous board who got the debt down and accounts all in order yes thats him. Whats your point?The same guy that failed to realise when he put the late bid in that lloyds wsnted their money back so 25m to the team only would never be accepted. Go figure. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loyal Bear 72 363 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 There was a test in place - it just wasn't an effective one. Does that negate the rule breaking that occurred?Nothing to do with whether the test was effective or not. It wasn't carried out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 That is not quite the full picture though. There is an appeal process that will take this matter more fully, we hope. The SFA have hardly been unambiguous about all this since that charge against Rangers was made the other night, if press reports and statements are to be believed.The Judicial Panel will take the matter more fully than the Judicial Panel did? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Nothing to do with whether the test was effective or not. It wasn't carried out.It was carried out. Rangers sent in the forms. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnberry18 3,204 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 The Judicial Panel will take the matter more fully than the Judicial Panel did? I am not aware of the appeal process at the SFA; but obviously it won't be the same people who declared these charges against Rangers; I would not anyway. (Edit)Ah, I get you now; what I am saying is that to me there is ambiguity here, and if Rangers were to appeal then it would ask for further consideration of various factors which may or may not have been considered. My mistake with the terminology. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 rfff? anyway if they are this concerned about that then they should introduce football creditors first rules like England.The RFFF are not capable of clearing all those. 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.