Domthenbud 899 Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 17 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. Almost agree. However why are football clubs different to other companies? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domthenbud 899 Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 Anyway what do you all think about this 2011 uefa license. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the cry was no 3,027 Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 17 minutes ago, gazza27 said: Feeding the troll a thought youse all learned by now I know G27 he's better ignored - like the type of tube who stands himself in the pub trying to strike up a conversation and chip away at people for arguments. Just got right under my skin comparing us with them in any way surrounding this eejay the dj and Dave Hedgehog 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenoz 30,681 Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 3 minutes ago, the cry was no said: I know G27 he's better ignored - like the type of tube who stands himself in the pub trying to strike up a conversation and chip away at people for arguments. Just got right under my skin comparing us with them in any way surrounding this I usually enjoy coming on here for an hour or two. But today he really got under my skin but that's his motto. He wouldn't last two minutes in a pub. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Courtyard Bear 41,357 Posted June 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted June 14, 2019 10 minutes ago, Domthenbud said: Anyway what do you all think about this 2011 uefa license. Terrible crime we deserve everything we get, in fact whatever we get isn’t enough. We would’ve been better letting child rape go unchecked at our club for decades, it seems that’s ok. magic8ball, scottyscott1963, Dave Hedgehog and 5 others 8 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malvern 11,329 Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 1 hour 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. Maybe The Dude can write about it in his column, let's see if it gets published without mentioning Rangers specifically. eejay the dj 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenoz 30,681 Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 7 minutes ago, Malvern said: Maybe The Dude can write about it in his column, let's see if it gets published without mentioning Rangers specifically. what column? He's a nobody. Found out..... eejay the dj 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
govanblue 16,847 Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 4 hours ago, The Dude said: Ive got a far bigger readership Since you're obviously doing so well these days, I'll be looking for you in the next few days for your RM Erskine Fund End of Season Fundraiser. Alternatively, you can just pick up by PM with @Zetland and do it the less painful way. I'll need to have a skim through this thread at some point too and pick up with any standout posters on here who in all the excitement may have forgotten to make their own End of Season Donation - or even worse - not signed up to The Fund at all!!! The Dude and Zetland 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigo 32,526 Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 1 hour ago, Domthenbud said: Almost agree. However why are football clubs different to other companies? Pretty clear after the last few years, isn't it, mate? If we're just a normal company then we're not the same as pre-2012. That's not the case, though, because a club has a deeper meaning than your average company. Football clubs are basically the fans. They're a club, an organisation of people, not really a company, in essence. The legal stuff, corporate entities and all of that, are just architectures used to allow the club to function. Football clubs have a deeper continuation even when corporate entities change. That includes things like history, and it means that if we want to regard ourselves as a continuation, we retain the responsibility to properly deal with any consequences of our history. A mere company doesn't have those kinds of concerns. Nobody feels that the moral character of a mere company reflects on themselves the way the moral character of a club reflects on a set of fans. That's the way we should look at any historical wrongdoing, should it ever arise. AlbertzLoyalRSC, Tiger Shaw and Hutton2008 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin 13,608 Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 14 hours ago, coopsleftboot said: We don't need to go in with jackboots.... I'm no statement-meister, but all it needs is something along the lines of; "We at Rangers are saddened and shocked to see our national game being rocked recently through revelations of historic child sex abuse across multiple clubs going back decades. It's clear that a number of individuals managed to ingratiate themselves into senior football clubs, including ours, across the country for a long number of years with the sole intention of doing harm. We welcome the SFA's ongoing enquiry, and we truly believe that this will result in the safest sporting environment in the country for our children, but we don't believe the terms of reference of the inquiry goes deep enough to enable criminal prosecutors to bring perpetrators to Justice. Whilst it's right and proper for the governing body to review historical incidents, learn lessons and improve safeguards, there's also an overwhelming duty to release any findings of criminal acts found during the inquiry to the Crown Prosecution Office. We would urge the SFA to do the right thing in this instance, and Rangers Football Club pledge to support any further criminal investigations thereafter, and would expect that all member clubs and the governing body will show the same commitment. This is an opportunity for our Governing Body and our fellow member clubs to uncover what happened, deal with perpetrators through courts and try to give some sort of closure to the multiple victims. it's the least they deserve from us. Sorry doesn't need to be the hardest word." Neely was immediately fired and reported.... Of course if the original oirish cloob had revealed neelys past he would never have been anywhere near Ibrox in the first place I've seen comments on FF from former pupils of Chalmers and his integrity was never questioned at that school EVER! Harry Dunn I know nothing about the man tbh but Tim's at work keep mentioning him Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 10 hours ago, Domthenbud said: Anyway what do you all think about this 2011 uefa license. Nothing of any note will happen because there's no mechanism to punish us/retrospectively review it. There was also no tax overdue at the time the licence was applied for as it was in dispute with HMRC therefore (under UEFA's own licencing rules) not applicable to the licence application. The SFA will look at what can be done and will probably hit us with a small fine for some technicality. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 10 hours ago, bluenoz said: what column? He's a nobody. Found out..... I've never suggested I'm anything else. I'm just a bloke that folk are daft enough to pay for his opinions on stuff. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ps95v7 387 Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 On 13/06/2019 at 12:41, Swagger said: I gave up on Scottish football a long time ago. Detest the SFA, detest the National team and detest the media. I would happily rather see us play in the lowest league in England. You couldn’t make this shit up. We had our chance to GTF in 2012 but the “Dignified Silence brigade” bottled it wanted to build bridges eejay the dj and Bad Robot 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domthenbud 899 Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 13 minutes ago, The Dude said: Nothing of any note will happen because there's no mechanism to punish us/retrospectively review it. There was also no tax overdue at the time the licence was applied for as it was in dispute with HMRC therefore (under UEFA's own licencing rules) not applicable to the licence application. The SFA will look at what can be done and will probably hit us with a small fine for some technicality. Thanks for that mate. I’m just about done in with this shit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetland 5,830 Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 1 hour ago, The Dude said: I've never suggested I'm anything else. I'm just a bloke that folk are daft enough to pay for his opinions on stuff. I thought that was MP’s & MEP’s! The Dude, Bobby Hume and bornabear 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,286 Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 15 hours ago, Inigo said: Pretty clear after the last few years, isn't it, mate? If we're just a normal company then we're not the same as pre-2012. That's not the case, though, because a club has a deeper meaning than your average company. Football clubs are basically the fans. They're a club, an organisation of people, not really a company, in essence. The legal stuff, corporate entities and all of that, are just architectures used to allow the club to function. Football clubs have a deeper continuation even when corporate entities change. That includes things like history, and it means that if we want to regard ourselves as a continuation, we retain the responsibility to properly deal with any consequences of our history. A mere company doesn't have those kinds of concerns. Nobody feels that the moral character of a mere company reflects on themselves the way the moral character of a club reflects on a set of fans. That's the way we should look at any historical wrongdoing, should it ever arise. Timothy can't have any complaints if it goes in our favour because they hold the boys club near then think nothing of cutting it lose when it suits them Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetheart 8,458 Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 On 14/06/2019 at 18:13, The Dude said: No, what I don't like is folk selectively using the rape of children to win a sporting contest. I mean that's exactly what any sporting sanctions (demotion, points deductions) would be about. Stripping points off celtic in 2020 does nothing to help the victims of child abuse nor does it do anything to actually punish the offenders - unless there's any proof that celtic were corporately responsible rather than it being the actions of individual employees. My mum works with girls who have been the victims of all sorts of horrific sexual abuse and exploitation. I have friends who were abused as kids. This is much more than about firing celtic into the bottom tier but about actually getting some form of justice for the kids up and down the country who were abused. If only folk on here shouted so loud about the peadophiles at Hibs, Partick, Hutchie Vale, Chelsea, Man City, Crewe, Southampton, Falkirk or even the former Rangers employee who died awaiting trial for abusing a player while at Rangers. What are your views on the sanctions Penn State received for covering up child abuse? Quote Five years probation. A four-year postseason ban. Vacating of all wins from 1998 to 2011–112 wins in all. This had the effect of stripping the Nittany Lions of their shared Big Ten titles in 2005 and 2008. It also removed 111 wins from Paterno's record, dropping him from first to 12th on the NCAA's all-time wins list. A $60 million fine, the proceeds of which were to go toward an endowment for preventing child abuse. According to the NCAA, this was the equivalent of a typical year's gross revenue from the football program. Loss of a total of 40 initial scholarships from 2013 to 2017. During the same period, Penn State is limited to 65 total scholarships—only two more than a Division I FCS (formerly I-AA) school is allowed. Penn State was required to adopt all recommendations for reform delineated in the Freeh report. Penn State must enter into an "athletics integrity agreement" with the NCAA and Big Ten, appoint a university-wide athletic compliance officer and compliance council, and accept an NCAA-appointed athletic integrity monitor for the duration of its probation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverAndEver 71,365 Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 15 hours ago, ps95v7 said: We had our chance to GTF in 2012 but the “Dignified Silence brigade” bottled it wanted to build bridges We struggled in Scotland, imagine thinking it would be better in England. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 7 hours ago, Sweetheart said: What are your views on the sanctions Penn State received for covering up child abuse? If youd bothered reading tbe next paragraph on Wikipedia youd see most of that was overturned. It was only the financial penalties really that remained Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiverpoolBlue 1,395 Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 1 hour ago, The Dude said: If youd bothered reading tbe next paragraph on Wikipedia youd see most of that was overturned. It was only the financial penalties really that remained Only because 'Due process' hadn't been followed ... Sweetheart 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyserSoze 14,521 Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 On 14/06/2019 at 18:01, Courtyard Bear said: Well if we had an enquiry I would know if that is correct. I know for a fact it’s true at Scum FC. You really don’t like us mentioning the scum and child rape do you. Have you told the police? Tell the police if you haven’t. The more people contact the police if they have evidence the better. Not a forum, not an MP not the council or the SFA phone the police and tell them what you know. The case builds, the punishment is jail for individuals and a monetary punishment for the club covering it up as well as financial compensation for victims. Not point deductions, no football sanctions or whatever- cash fines and compensation orders and huge amounts too - enough to embarrass them on and off the park. So call the fucking police. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 1 minute ago, LiverpoolBlue said: Only because 'Due process' hadn't been followed ... Regardless of the reasons, the sanctions imposed were later withdrawn. Although it's not quite as simple as 'due process not being followed'. Some were waived as a result of Penn State's "progress" in dealing with the aftermath while others were lifted - to quote the NCAA - to "maintain Athletic integrity. " Either way, many of the sanctions listed by our resident crackpot were lifted. And she's been told this repeatedly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 Just now, KeyserSoze said: Have you told the police? Tell the police if you haven’t. The more people contact the police if they have evidence the better. Not a forum, not an MP not the council or the SFA phone the police and tell them what you know. The case builds, the punishment is jail for individuals and a monetary punishment for the club covering it up as well as financial compensation for victims. Not point deductions, no football sanctions or whatever- cash fines and compensation orders and huge amounts too - enough to embarrass them on and off the park. So call the fucking police. Apparently calling the polis is being an apologist for child rape. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
backup 4,724 Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 Interesting, wonder if liewell got his insurance inquiry idea from here 🤔 Report urges rejection of damning Freeh report on Penn State, but findings kept private for now. Posted Jun 29, 2018 (Charles Thompson/PennLive) By David Wenner | dwenner@pennlive.com A group of Penn State trustees on Friday said they have finished their own investigation into the Freeh Report that led to NCAA sanctions and a severe blow to the university's reputation, and will ask the full board to "reject the conclusions" of the report. They further say they will ask the board to release their report to the public, and to consider seeking return of some of the $8.3 million the university spent on the report by former FBI director Louis Freeh. Freeh's report looked at the university's handling of child sexual abuse allegations against former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, who was eventually convicted of sexually abusing ten boys. For now, their report and its findings will remain private until at least July, when the next meeting of the 36-member board will be held. It remains to be seen how the full board will react to their request, or even consider it. The 11-member group of trustees met during a special session Friday to discuss their report, which they said is the product of more than two years of work. All had run for the board on a platform of challenging the Freeh Report and restoring the reputation of former coach Joe Paterno, who, according to the Freeh report, was among numerous university leaders involved in a coverup of an early instance of alleged sexual abuse by Sandusky But the majority of board members, as well as Penn State President Eric Barron, were conspicuously absent Friday. That left the group which assembled Friday without a quorum needed to take any official action. Trustee Anthony Lubrano, along with a several other board members, had fought the rest of the board and the university for access to source materials needed to conduct the investigation of the Freeh report, eventually going to court. He struck a conciliatory note toward the full board, saying Friday's meeting had been called on short notice, perhaps giving justification for those who didn't attend. Still, Lubrano, whose term on the board is about to expire, had these parting words, "Why did the board of trustees not believe it had a fiduciary duty to verify the veracity of this report that to date ... has cost this university more than $300 million? That is obviously a rhetorical question I will ask myself for many, many years to come." In winning the court fight for access to the source materials, a judge had ruled that much of it had to be kept confidential. That is apparently why the board didn't discuss on Friday the basis of their call to reject the findings of the Freeh report. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 5 minutes ago, backup said: Interesting, wonder if liewell got his insurance inquiry idea from here 🤔 Report urges rejection of damning Freeh report on Penn State, but findings kept private for now. Posted Jun 29, 2018 (Charles Thompson/PennLive) By David Wenner | dwenner@pennlive.com A group of Penn State trustees on Friday said they have finished their own investigation into the Freeh Report that led to NCAA sanctions and a severe blow to the university's reputation, and will ask the full board to "reject the conclusions" of the report. They further say they will ask the board to release their report to the public, and to consider seeking return of some of the $8.3 million the university spent on the report by former FBI director Louis Freeh. Freeh's report looked at the university's handling of child sexual abuse allegations against former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, who was eventually convicted of sexually abusing ten boys. For now, their report and its findings will remain private until at least July, when the next meeting of the 36-member board will be held. It remains to be seen how the full board will react to their request, or even consider it. The 11-member group of trustees met during a special session Friday to discuss their report, which they said is the product of more than two years of work. All had run for the board on a platform of challenging the Freeh Report and restoring the reputation of former coach Joe Paterno, who, according to the Freeh report, was among numerous university leaders involved in a coverup of an early instance of alleged sexual abuse by Sandusky But the majority of board members, as well as Penn State President Eric Barron, were conspicuously absent Friday. That left the group which assembled Friday without a quorum needed to take any official action. Trustee Anthony Lubrano, along with a several other board members, had fought the rest of the board and the university for access to source materials needed to conduct the investigation of the Freeh report, eventually going to court. He struck a conciliatory note toward the full board, saying Friday's meeting had been called on short notice, perhaps giving justification for those who didn't attend. Still, Lubrano, whose term on the board is about to expire, had these parting words, "Why did the board of trustees not believe it had a fiduciary duty to verify the veracity of this report that to date ... has cost this university more than $300 million? That is obviously a rhetorical question I will ask myself for many, many years to come." In winning the court fight for access to the source materials, a judge had ruled that much of it had to be kept confidential. That is apparently why the board didn't discuss on Friday the basis of their call to reject the findings of the Freeh report. Or maybe he got it from Crewe, Man City, Chelsea, Hibs or any of the other football clubs who have conducted their own internal investigations. 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.