4everGers 82 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 So glad we finely have someone in charge we can trust & back Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
VERITAS VOS LIBREBETS 3,333 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Yes, sadly you are probably correct. (By the way it should be "off" ) No not 'off' - from!CHARLIE SAYS; NO SURRENDER! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Chuck is superb. That is all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marco 1,504 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Odd, didn't think they needed evidence to convict us (or a member of our club) of something. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougied123 222 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Surely there must be some mistake, Rangers staff member innocent? Who'd have thunk it Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCDBigBear 10,832 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 No not 'off' - from!CHARLIE SAYS; NO SURRENDER!Spelling "off" grammatical "from" !! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marco 1,504 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Surely there must be some mistake, Rangers staff member innocent? Who'd have thunk it Nah mate, true to their nature, they've found a not proven verdict. They're not saying he's innocent, just that they have no evidence to back up their charges Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNuts 552 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 NO SURRENDER! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevotrueblue 382 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 awaiting the next CG statement with bated breath,, he's no doubt licking his lips and thinking what next can i be not proven for Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoorie 1,088 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 So the corrupt cabal charge CG but can't prove it?Would love to hear the evidence they tried to provide to back up their original charge and then the corrupt cabal can't prove those charges. CG should sue them for deformation of character. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevotrueblue 382 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Its actually quite funny when you think just how bad they are. THEY brought the charges against him,, THEY produced the evidence to one of THEIR panels,,, then THEY decided that THEY couldnt prove it to THEMselves! Only in Scotland as CG said Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithgersbear 3,225 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Charles Green is just defending the club and some people don't like it. Keep it up Charles. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,399 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I'm presuming the fact he hasnt mentioned the '24 hour sfa statement' is an indication that a deal is getting brokered once he speaks to CO??? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
falwheel 222 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 "“I am pleased the judicial panel accepted today that I had not brought the game into disrepute."Charles green has been found not to have brought the game into disrepute = VictoryThe not proven means to have not brought the game into disrepute, not to be confused with Scottish Law version of the "not proven" verdict.The decision would have been either "proven" or "not proven" not "guilty", "innocent" or "not proven"I am just happy that Charles Green has the good sense to defend Rangers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Surely there must be some mistake, Rangers staff member innocent? Who'd have thunk it he isn't innocent, they just cant prove otherwise :7325: This "not proven" verdict is just another nail in the coffin. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Its actually quite funny when you think just how bad they are. THEY brought the charges against him,, THEY produced the evidence to one of THEIR panels,,, then THEY decided that THEY couldnt prove it to THEMselves! Only in Scotland as CG saidIt's because in their rush to issue a statement about CG's statement......disrepute was all they could think of. They realised pretty fkn quickly that CG will fight these corrup shower of shite all the way, so have backtracked in SUPERB fassion.corrupt to the core and seriously running out of ideas and ammunition. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Bear 283 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Great news and as was mentioned, somebody with an itchy trigger finger to fire off the charges, as if it was instructions, "he opens his mouth, have him again". CG's statement is a change, we have got used to his defiant, troop rallying message. This one to me is just class, still out with the stick against the SPL. Can only echo at last somebody willing to stand up for the club and seemingly take it to them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear78 96 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 This decision is significant! Just remember what he said:"Why is the SPL rushing to judgement now when it has been sitting on the matter for two years? Their haste is particularly difficult to understand when the tax tribunal judgement is imminent. The factual issues in both cases are identical. We have to ask why is the SPL so anxious to issue a judgement in this matter before the tax tribunal’s findings are made public."The position is even harder to understand when one of the reasons the SFA did not pursue any form of disciplinary charge on EBT matters following Lord Nimmo Smith’s April report was because it was felt unwise for the SFA to pursue the matter when the tax tribunal judgement had not been made public. Nothing has changed as the judgement still has not been made public. Why is the SPL rushing ahead when in April the SFA felt it unwise to do so? Love that statement, no one else say's it quite like Charles. I think your right though, I've had the feeling for a while something is changing here. Traynor's article the other week, Ogilvie, rumours about btc, desmond, and now this. It usually does not matter much if your right or not in these football hearings. If you criticise them your normally just found guilty and if you read Green's statement, no one has ever been as critical. Free speech doesn't usually apply to football.I think they are back-peddling because they realise they have made a complete arse of themselves in so many ways and fear where this is heading. They all seem to be trying to appease us now. Maybe it's just them trying to appear less biased before the predetermined findings of the ebt case are made public. I'm just hopeing its linked to these btc rumours. What a day it will be if true Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
foghorn leghorn 608 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 By the way, does anybody know how much this commissioned report is costing the sfa / spl.Probably £100 to £200 grand, what a waste of the monies withheld from our football club.What a waste of money,what a waste of money. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear78 96 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 First picture of Charles Green leaving after the hearinglove it bud Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergi1980 311 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Where does charles get his statements from, legend ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agoram1 42 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Love that statement, no one else say's it quite like Charles. I think your right though, I've had the feeling for a while something is changing here. Traynor's article the other week, Ogilvie, rumours about btc, desmond, and now this. It usually does not matter much if your right or not in these football hearings. If you criticise them your normally just found guilty and if you read Green's statement, no one has ever been as critical. Free speech doesn't usually apply to football.I think they are back-peddling because they realise they have made a complete arse of themselves in so many ways and fear where this is heading. They all seem to be trying to appease us now. Maybe it's just them trying to appear less biased before the predetermined findings of the ebt case are made public. I'm just hopeing its linked to these btc rumours. What a day it will be if true Wot are the rumors mate and where are they coming from? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougied123 222 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 he isn't innocent, they just cant prove otherwise :7325: This "not proven" verdict is just another nail in the coffin.Hope so Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlegKuznetsov 10,816 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I can't help but think that "Not proven" rather than "innocent" indicates that they don't want to clear him because certain people won't accept that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCPRANGERS1 2,997 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 So does this not proven shite mean he's got to go back up? Or is that it? Until the next time they charge him for defending Rangers which he is supposed to do. But these cunts in this country are not used to Rangers opening there mouths and defending themselves. That's what's up with these cunts!If you go by Scottish court of law it means they didn't have enough to find him guilty....although you can bet your bottom dollar they are rhaging they couldnt 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.