LICENCE PROBE SFA to make decision on Rangers 2011 Uefa licence

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,723]

8 minutes ago, Inigo said:

It undoubtedly doesn't look good to have pointed someone towards the liquidators. However, we also don't know if any victims would be entitled to any compensation from us. Rangers haven't done anything that would imply culpability, based on what we know. 

What we, Rangers, perhaps should have said is that a full independent inquiry of all clubs should take place. If we're found to have fallen below standards for protecting children then we'll compensate, as all clubs should. No focus on sellic. A statement that morally focuses on the issue, and on our own responsibilities first and foremost. 

Clearly it looks pretty certain in terms of the spectrum of culpability and extent that sellic would prove to be way, way guiltier than anyone else if such an inquiry happened. So be it. But it has to be established and laid out independently and unequivocally who did what everywhere.  Then we can have compensation or civil actions, depending on who wants to dodge their responsibilities.

Rangers havent released an embarrassing statement saying we're a separate entity, or that we've no responsibility as a club for what happened in those days. This us a leaked email which is about legal technicalities for compensation claims, its not about the club it's about clarity of specific organisation to direct claims to. 

The presented narrative is to make it appear that we're shirking responsibilities as a club. Tbh, I've only heard agreement to this perspective from taigs and now our resident troll.

We havent said anything, let alone about independent enquiries. This is a leaked email and we dont know the full content. 

[Dave Hedgehog 10,673]

1 minute ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Lower than a snakes belly The FUD having a mare. 

Kerryfail Street is a man down 😂👍

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, the cry was no said:

The Dude

For a clearly intelligent person to state that Rangers are "just as guilty" as celtic when it comes to child sex abuse based on referring one alleged victim (obviously there was never any conviction) to the liquidators is truly staggering.

My thought is that Rangers would never be responsible for any compensation as there was never any guilt proven (innocent until proven guilty) therefor rather than waste money on lawyers they referred them to BDO who I'm quite sure will say no guilt, no compo and may need to pay lawyers to contest.

For the record

If any Rangers employee is/was found guilty of child sex abuse I would want us as a club to take responsibility for that.

If we knew about it and never reported it I would want us hammered.

If we actively covered it up and paid hush money I would find it difficult to continue supporting us.

If a succession of managers, directors and senior players knew and said nothing resulting in several more victims I would 100% be finished with the club.

To not only compare but state we are just as guilty as that lot is beyond the pale - have a word with yourself FFS

2

I didn't. I said we were guilty of not taking responsibility, along with virtually every other club that has had allegations made. They've all tried to wash their hands of it one way or another. Whether it's been paying accusers to stay quiet, ignoring allegations completely or anything else, every club that's had staff accused have fucked up in some way.

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Rangers havent released an embarrassing statement saying we're a separate entity, or that we've no responsibility as a club for what happened in those days. This us a leaked email which is about legal technicalities for compensation claims, its not about the club it's about clarity of specific organisation to direct claims to. 

The presented narrative is to make it appear that we're shirking responsibilities as a club. Tbh, I've only heard agreement to this perspective from taigs and now our resident troll. 

We havent said anything, let alone about independent enquiries. This is a leaked email and we dont know the full content. 

Nobody has suggested Rangers had released an embarrassing statement. We have however tried the separate entity line to wash out hands of it. If that's how the club have dealt with any allegations then it's hard to disagree that we have shirked our responsibilities.

Odd that the 'clarity of specific organisation' is an acceptable get out in private but in public. Personally, I think it's a shitty way out regardless of it is in the public domain or not.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,723]

21 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Which convicted criminal was rehired? Torbetts first conviction came a decade after Stein was put in the ground. 

.

[The Dude 20,026]

9 minutes ago, the cry was no said:

The Dude

For a clearly intelligent person to state that Rangers are "just as guilty" as celtic when it comes to child sex abuse based on referring one alleged victim (obviously there was never any conviction) to the liquidators is truly staggering.

My thought is that Rangers would never be responsible for any compensation as there was never any guilt proven (innocent until proven guilty) therefor rather than waste money on lawyers they referred them to BDO who I'm quite sure will say no guilt, no compo and may need to pay lawyers to contest.

For the record

If any Rangers employee is/was found guilty of child sex abuse I would want us as a club to take responsibility for that.

If we knew about it and never reported it I would want us hammered.

If we actively covered it up and paid hush money I would find it difficult to continue supporting us.

If a succession of managers, directors and senior players knew and said nothing resulting in several more victims I would 100% be finished with the club.

To not only compare but state we are just as guilty as that lot is beyond the pale - have a word with yourself FFS

Sorry for quoting a second time but wanted to add something else.

I totally agree on the innocent until proven guilty part. However, if that's the case then given the convictions at celtic have (largely) only just happened and Torbett's first came in the mid-90s, what exactly should celtic have done up until now?

[bluenoz 30,838]

9 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Rangers havent released an embarrassing statement saying we're a separate entity, or that we've no responsibility as a club for what happened in those days. This us a leaked email which is about legal technicalities for compensation claims, its not about the club it's about clarity of specific organisation to direct claims to. 

The presented narrative is to make it appear that we're shirking responsibilities as a club. Tbh, I've only heard agreement to this perspective from taigs and now our resident troll.

We havent said anything, let alone about independent enquiries. This is a leaked email and we dont know the full content. 

Good post mate. 

[bluenoz 30,838]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

Sorry for quoting a second time but wanted to add something else.

I totally agree on the innocent until proven guilty part. However, if that's the case then given the convictions at celtic have (largely) only just happened and Torbett's first came in the mid-90s, what exactly should celtic have done up until now?

said sorry

[Inigo 32,529]

12 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Rangers havent released an embarrassing statement saying we're a separate entity, or that we've no responsibility as a club for what happened in those days. This us a leaked email which is about legal technicalities for compensation claims, its not about the club it's about clarity of specific organisation to direct claims to. 

The presented narrative is to make it appear that we're shirking responsibilities as a club. Tbh, I've only heard agreement to this perspective from taigs and now our resident troll.

We havent said anything, let alone about independent enquiries. This is a leaked email and we dont know the full content. 

Not sure what difference it makes if it's a leaked email. That's not the angle I'd want us to take regardless.

The presented narrative is part of the attempt to equate what we've said to their misdemeanors and to take us down with them, which is clearly opportunism of the worst kind, and clearly doesn't wash. That doesn't mean there might not be an issue with what we said in that email. Not everyone that questions that email response is equating us in any way with them. I sure aint.

[Dave Hedgehog 10,673]

1 minute ago, bluenoz said:

said sorry

👏👏👏👏👏 at the very least 👍

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,723]

16 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Nobody has suggested Rangers had released an embarrassing statement. We have however tried the separate entity line to wash out hands of it. If that's how the club have dealt with any allegations then it's hard to disagree that we have shirked our responsibilities.

Odd that the 'clarity of specific organisation' is an acceptable get out in private but in public. Personally, I think it's a shitty way out regardless of it is in the public domain or not.

The scum released an embarrassing statement.

My comment was to clarify in response to Inigos comment below.

"What we, Rangers, perhaps should have said is that a full independent inquiry of all clubs should take place"....

I'm clarifying the quote used wasnt a statement from Rangers, it was lifted from an email.

[the cry was no 3,034]

5 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I didn't. I said we were guilty of not taking responsibility, along with virtually every other club that has had allegations made. They've all tried to wash their hands of it one way or another. Whether it's been paying accusers to stay quiet, ignoring allegations completely or anything else, every club that's had staff accused have fucked up in some way.

To my knowledge we haven't.

"been paying accusers to stay quiet, ignoring allegations completely or anything else, every club that's had staff accused have fucked up in some way."

Can you show me where we have been guilty of any of these?

No company on earth is going to become embroiled in a compensation litigation for an alleged offence that was never, and can never, be proven. There would be a queue of "victims" a mile long if they thought they only had to say Dunn abused them and we would hand them a bag of cash.

Thats being sensible as a business - not failing to take responsibility 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,723]

33 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Not sure what difference it makes if it's a leaked email. That's not the angle I'd want us to take regardless.

The presented narrative is part of the attempt to equate what we've said to their misdemeanors and to take us down with them, which is clearly opportunism of the worst kind, and clearly doesn't wash. That doesn't mean there might not be an issue with what we said in that email. Not everyone that questions that email response is equating us in any way with them. I sure aint.

It's a private conversation between a lawyer and I'd imagine our legal representatives. It's being presented as we've distanced ourselves to the abused guy who chapped the front doors asking for help. There's been no statement from our club, only ones from the scum denying club and business involvement.

My response to you was to clarify should you (and others reading your post)  have thought the remarks were a statement. It's a critical difference as we dont k ow the content or context of the email quotes, but would from a club statement.

No, not everyone equates us with them. But one poster has.

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, the cry was no said:

To my knowledge we haven't.

"been paying accusers to stay quiet, ignoring allegations completely or anything else, every club that's had staff accused have fucked up in some way."

Can you show me where we have been guilty of any of these?

No company on earth is going to become embroiled in a compensation litigation for an alleged offence that was never, and can never, be proven. There would be a queue of "victims" a mile long if they thought they only had to say Dunn abused them and we would hand them a bag of cash.

Thats being sensible as a business - not failing to take responsibility 

3

Weird then that football clubs done exactly that.

Chelsea - https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/may/17/chelsea-payout-sexual-abuse-victim

Man City - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/03/12/manchester-city-launch-child-sexual-abuse-compensation-scheme/

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

32 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Yes. The two shouldnt even come into the same conversation. If you view the abuse of kids as a chance to get even over 2012 then theres something seriously fucking wrong with you. 

You are the one makng that arguement and trying to twist it to fuck to use on fellow bears. 

They are a sporting entity guilty of serious crimes who should receive many sanctions, including those sporting by the governing body.

It's not about getting even, that's your twisted fantasy to take down fellow bears and all about a level playing feild, right and wrong and if that puts them out of the game, then so be it as they fully deserve it.

Nonce fc are trying very hard to usurp the justice system and the valid claims of the victims. Them trying to cover up crimes the least of it. Justice has to be seen to be done. Matters not if it's nonce fc or whomevver.

If you think otherwise, you are a total fraud.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Blue Avenger said:

You are the one makng that arguement and trying to twist it to fuck to use on fellow bears. 

They are a sporting entity guilty of serious crimes who should receive many sanctions, including those sporting by the governing body.

It's not about getting even, that's your twisted fantasy to take down fellow bears and all about a level playing feild, right and wrong and if that puts them out of the game, then so be it as they fully deserve it.

Nonce fc are trying very hard to usurp the justice system and the valid claims of the victims. Them trying to cover up crimes the least of it. Justice has to be seen to be done. Matters not if it's nonce fc or whomevver.

If you think otherwise, you are a total fraud.

I'm arguing celtic should be punished because we were hammered in 2012? You must be reading different words to the ones I'm typing.

The post I quoted specifically cited getting even as a reason why celtic 'deserve' it.

 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,723]

1 minute ago, Blue Avenger said:

You are the one makng that arguement and trying to twist it to fuck to use on fellow bears. 

They are a sporting entity guilty of serious crimes who should receive many sanctions, including those sporting by the governing body.

It's not about getting even, that's your twisted fantasy to take down fellow bears and all about a level playing feild, right and wrong and if that puts them out of the game, then so be it as they fully deserve it.

Nonce fc are trying very hard to usurp the justice system and the valid claims of the victims. Them trying to cover up crimes the least of it. Justice has to be seen to be done. Matters not if it's nonce fc or whomevver.

If you think otherwise, you are a total fraud.

He has a John Mason outlook on life..

[Inigo 32,529]

13 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

It's a private conversation between a lawyer and I'd imagine our legal representatives. It's being presented as we've distanced ourselves to the abused guy who chapped the front doors asking for help. There's been no statement from our club, only from them denying club and business involvement.

My response to you was to clarify should you (and others reading your post)  have thought the remarks were a statement. It's a critical difference as we dont k ow the content or context of the email quotes, but would from a club statement.

No, not everyone equates us with them. But one poster has.

Sure. Ultimately though after a full independent enquiry, I'd hope that no club, ourselves or whoever, would use legal machinations to avoid moral responsibility. IF anything was found that wasn't right.

As I say, I'm not in the business of equating, but I think it's reasonable to discuss and express concern about leaked emails if there's something in it that looks questionable. Nothing should be off the discussion table in relation to this subject. A lack of full context doesn't justify not doing so. It's fair to say that I'd hope that what the leaked email seems to suggest wouldn't be our attitude in years to come. 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

There was no legal machinations when it came to us. 

The lad that wanted to claim was told the exact legal position, he wouldn’t have a claim against the new holding company no judge is going to award damages against the new company. 

We can argue whether we should’ve offered him any compensation, but I’m sure the company lawyers would’ve laughed at King & Co if they had went to them with that plan. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,723]

Just now, Inigo said:

Sure. Ultimately though after a full independent enquiry, I'd hope that no club, ourselves or whoever, would use legal machinations to avoid moral responsibility. IF anything was found that wasn't right.

As I say, I'm not in the business of equating. But I think it's reasonable to discuss and express concern about leaked emails if there's something in it that looks questionable. Nothing should be off the discussion table in relation to this subject. A lack of full context doesn't justify not doing so. It's fair to say that I'd hope that what the leaked email seems to suggest wouldn't be our attitude in years to come. 

If you bought windows off company A, who liquidated and became company B, and then wrote to company B solicitors for compo would you expect them to pay out or refer you to company A? It's a simplistic way of looking at it, but its also potentially reflective of the situation.

If you dont know the full content of the email theres no way of knowing the jist of the remark. It could actually be taken as a helpful guidance to a complainant to prevent wasted claims against the wrong company (company B above) to ensure the right company was claimed against before money disappeared via liquidation. We simply don't know.

 

[the cry was no 3,034]

14 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Weird then that football clubs done exactly that.

Chelsea - https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/may/17/chelsea-payout-sexual-abuse-victim

Man City - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/03/12/manchester-city-launch-child-sexual-abuse-compensation-scheme/

Given that there has been, certainly in City's case, a major conviction and a huge jail sentence perhaps they felt the need to do something. Still not anything like having one unproven allegation and paying compensation. But in the context of what I said you are obviously correct to show that my statement was wrong - well done.

You seem to be argumentative, somewhat arrogant and for some reason appear to positioning Rangers as being as bad as celtic on this subject which I find bizarre

[Inigo 32,529]

2 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

If you bought windows off company A, who liquidated and became company B, and then wrote to company B solicitors for compo would you expect them to pay out or refer you to company A? It's a simplistic way of looking at it, but its also potentially reflective of the situation.

If you dont know the full content of the email theres no way of knowing the jist of the remark. It could actually be taken as a helpful guidance to a complainant to prevent wasted claims against the wrong company (company B above) to ensure the right company was claimed against before money disappeared via liquidation. We simply don't know.

 

Yeah, possibly. Long term though if anyone deserves compensation, we as a football club should be making sure they get it. Obviously football clubs are different to other companies, and responsibility for these kinds of things transcend legal corporate changes. So yeah, I hope it becomes apparent in years to come that our attitude towards victims that we failed, if there are any, will be that they are compensated one way or another.

[gazza27 15,283]

Feeding the troll a thought youse all learned by now 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,723]

4 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Yeah, possibly. Long term though if anyone deserves compensation, we as a football club should be making sure they get it. Obviously football clubs are different to other companies, and responsibility for these kinds of things transcend legal corporate changes. So yeah, I hope it becomes apparent in years to come that our attitude towards victims that we failed, if there are any, will be that they are compensated one way or another.

👍

[the cry was no 3,034]

42 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Sorry for quoting a second time but wanted to add something else.

I totally agree on the innocent until proven guilty part. However, if that's the case then given the convictions at celtic have (largely) only just happened and Torbett's first came in the mid-90s, what exactly should celtic have done up until now?

Reported the bastard to the police back in the early 70s when they first knew instead of covering it up to protect their "good name" - had they done that many, many young boys would have been saved from the most heinous of crimes.

Reported the USA abuse in stead of covering it up to protect their "good name" - had they done that many, many young boys would have been saved from the most heinous of crimes.

Say sorry rather than claim to be a separate entity and then pay the abc to change their name

celtic don't just stink when it comes to this - they are rancid, rotten to the core, despicable bastards. For anyone to come across as fighting their corner is completely unfathomable