Jump to content

Club statement | Resolution not deemed competent


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 27.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

WE have been presented with evidence via a whistleblower that raises serious concerns surrounding the SPFL’s processes relating to its stewardship of the voting on the resolution presented to member C

Hope you dont mind mate but thought I'd give the Hornets nest a wee stir...  

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

They’ll just refuse the independent inquiry unless we show proof there’s reason for it to take place 

If they refuse An Independent Investigation that would suggest to me that they may well have something to hide, If they've nothing to hide why don't they just let Rangers have their investigation and if it's fruitless then they would have the perfect excuse to go after us big time.

Sweetheart, BlueKnight87 and HG5 like this
Link to post
Share on other sites

‘If‘ we have proof of criminality (bribery) an independent inquiry is and would be secondary to a criminal investigation/trial.

Get it out what we have, we can then see if we are pushed back onto the back foot, or indeed have a very strong presentable case in our favour.....so which one will it be ?

Sweetheart likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paisley Blue Loyal said:

Got told a story a few weeks ago by a lifelong bear who's now in his 70's that Wee Bud and his wife have or did have a pub somewhere near there ground and whenever Rangers were playing them they would put on a big pot of soup for the Rangers fans and put a notice up saying FreeHomemade Soup to the away fans only 😂 P.s Sorry for going off topic.

Was called the port brae. Good pub that like many, closed a few years back.

Paisley Blue Loyal likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Theres absolutely no chance in hell they'll be a 16 team league, it requires an 11 yes vote and Rangers will knock it back along with teams like st johnstone, hamilton etc who simply cannot afford to lose a home game against both OF every season

Watch them still try and play the 4 games against each team though ... basically firing a few more games onto our domestic season. They might do away with cup replays to counter-balance it.

Rangers would vote against it but probably be the only ones. The other teams will buckle - as usual. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

 

Thats boilerplate text. Liabilities were paid before clubs last year too. And the year before. And the year before that. 

And according to every club quoted, they were aware it was only advisory. Gardiner said as much too yesterday. 

Until there's some decision made on what the SPFL wold owe, there is no liability from potential rebates yet. 

It doesn't alter the outcome. Its the voting method agreed by clubs seven years ago and has been in use on every vote since. There's no part of it which is in breach of company law. I dont know how to make that any clearer. Having L1&L2 clubs votes combined is perfectly legal and above board. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dave Hedgehog said:

I’m sure an independent enquiry can be asked for by the clubs and the board don’t have a say.

Just need a certain amount of backup and a valid reason. 

There has never been a better reason.

But if they are complicit in voting the way certain parties wanted, as have been claimed, why would they implicate themselves? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, backup said:

‘If‘ we have proof of criminality (bribery) an independent inquiry is and would be secondary to a criminal investigation/trial.

Get it out what we have, we can then see if we are pushed back onto the back foot, or indeed have a very strong presentable case in our favour.....so which one will it be ?

Does offering the services of three or four youth/fringe players constitute “bribery”?

Sweetheart likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, magic8ball said:

They have tried to be clever here ,it’s only the championship and below that’s settled now ,they are still waiting on UEFA calling the big shot ,But very sneakily they are setting a precedent 

Ultimately that is what they are attempting to do.  If you call the winners and losers in the lower leagues, it makes sense to do exactly the same thing in the top league when the time comes.  So obvious that it’s actually embarrassing.  

Blumhoilann and magic8ball like this
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Malvern said:

The dude appeaser will have another mock up in about a few minutes to defend the SPFL and by inference the scum. as to how it cannot be proven or true (or indeed who sent it...).

Mate, you should try actually reading my posts rather than getting sand in your cunt because you read my name at the top of one. 

GWR1979 likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, backup said:

If criminality is known, again any inquiry would be after and secondary to criminal investigation/proceedings, if any.

In that case, could Rangers present the evidence to lawyers and they could facilitate proceedings and an independent enquiry would be forthcoming, even if the majority of other teams don't vote for it anyway? there's a mechanism for it even if the teams don't vote?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Malvern said:

The dude appeaser will have another mock up in about a few minutes to defend the SPFL and by inference the scum. as to how it cannot be proven or true (or indeed who sent it...).

It’s a crop I made from drysdale’s whatsapp post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...