Club statement | Resolution not deemed competent

[Amato 3,039]

Anne Budge at reconstruction meeting

[born a blue nose 91,324]

13 minutes ago, Rfc52 said:

Dempster is a Rangers supporter. Her nephew goes on our bus 

That leaves more questions than answers now 😂 you’d think she would want to be in amongst it 

[KingKirk 25,888]

I'd take Leanne at Rangers before Robertson any day of the week.

 

[Gascoigne8 3,400]

1 hour ago, British_Empire said:

What a farce that task force is. 

Right at the start they basically say it will be determined by the UK's chief medical officer's advice ... but set up a wee group giving themselves cute little titles as if they are pioneer'ing a revolutionary Scottish football masterplan or something.

Jim farrys think tank

[McEwan's Lager 31,081]

26 minutes ago, British_Empire said:

I want her nowhere near us.

She's no friend of ours (despite people saying she comes from a Rangers family) - she's never done us any favours - nor should she I hear folk say as she's Hibs head honcho, but she's never made one decision on sporting integrity that we are involved in. 

Cutting our allocation at Easter Road on several occasions whilst not coming close to selling out the other home sections is another sore one.

Same goes for that Ian Maxwell too. Bluenose my fucking arse.

Stewart Robertson might have even been on the Motherwell board that took the decision to fire us down the leagues and refuse us automatic footballing licence transfer too.

Why rewards these pricks with jobs at Rangers?

Only one I'd take is the guy from Inverness.

This is an incredibly ridiculous post.

[Gascoigne8 3,400]

2 minutes ago, KingKirk said:

I'd take Leanne at Rangers before Robertson any day of the week.

 

Id take bernadette devlin before robertson 

[RFC55 110,587]

19 minutes ago, born a blue nose said:

That leaves more questions than answers now 😂 you’d think she would want to be in amongst it 

She's employed to do a job mate. Look after your club first. 

She will be doing as told, hibs were going to vote no and changed late on. That's not her doing but a board decision 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,479]

51 minutes ago, Dickie said:

So what do you want to do throw a whistleblower to the wolves? Who the fuck do you give the evidence to? 

I've been clear, I want us to push for an ii and to hold firm our evidence until we get it and are satisfied with the integrity and competence of the investigators.

No whistleblower thrown anywhere.

[magic8ball 27,904]

1 hour ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Not disputing that. Nor us demanding the ii.

All I've said is it's a bit daft demanding someone is suspended for information you hold but wont share with others. A view we'd mock if someone else made similar demands with info they wouldn't disclose.

I tend to agree with that ,even if the organisation was above board they wouldn’t be suspending anybody on an allegation without evidence 

There is however enough out there already to justify the suspensions even without us requesting it,

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,479]

35 minutes ago, Malvern said:

We cannot ask them to resign but we sure as hell do not need them investigating themselves.

You are not disciplined you are removed from the process and told to go home until a final decision is made, whether it be by independent investigation or legal means. Any suspicion of corruption needs to be stamped on and until it is independent it is useless.

You know Rangers have asked for the suspension of the 3 named individuals. Is that a part of a disciplinary process or just removed from this process? If it's the latter (its not) what keeps them out the building, away from communicating with others etc?

4th time I think. If scum wanted key personnel from football authorities suspended based on info they say they had big wouldnt disclose should those people be suspended. A yes or no is all I'm asking for.

 

 

 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,479]

2 minutes ago, magic8ball said:

I tend to agree with that ,even if the organisation was above board they wouldn’t be suspending anybody on an allegation without evidence 

There is however enough out there already to justify the suspensions even without us requesting it,

Your view. I believe it warrants investigation to establish facts not suspension after a game of join the dots into titbits.. 

[Sweetheart 8,458]

I believe there is enough evidence in the public domain to start a independent review. I remember that Peter Lawwell’s wrote a letter days after Mark Daly’s  BBC documentary asking for a independent  review. Below is the precedence that the SPFL can start an independent review based on information being reported in the media.

Quote

The sun 7 Sep 2017, 16:20

By Robert Collins

--------------------------

LETTER OF THE LAW 

Read every word of celtic chief Peter Lawwell’s ‘Rangers EBT’ letter to SFA boss Stewart Regan and then-Uefa supremo Gianni Infantino Lawwell's secret letter - sent just months before Gers' liquidation - hinted that title-stripping should be an option in probe into EBT saga

celtic chief Peter Lawwell wrote to the SFA’s Stewart Regan about Rangers’ use of EBTs – and sent it to the highest echelons of Uefa. FIFA president Gianni Infantino – general secretary of European football’s governing body at the time – was given a copy of the 2012 correspondence.   As were SFL supremo David Longmuir and SPL chairman Ralph Topping, who two months ago said the SPFL was confident it could block any legal challenges to ‘EBT era’ trophies won.

Lawwell called for a judicial review into the saga and asked that ‘retrospective sanctions’ be considered if wrongdoing was established. He acted just days after Mark Daly’s controversial BBC documentary The Men Who Sold The Jerseys.Details of the letter – sent shortly before Gers’ liquidation and printed in full below - emerged in The Times.

PETER LAWWELL'S LETTER TO SFA CHIEF EXECUTIVE STEWART REGAN IN FULL

Dear Stewart,

You will already be well aware of the BBC Scotland programme broadcast on Wednesday 23rd May relating to various events at Rangers, and other media coverage in a similar vein.

The situation at Rangers has clearly attracted a huge level of exposure and comment over a number of months, none of it favourable. The SFA has already conducted one inquiry, with a subsequent Judicial Panel Hearing and Appeal. The SPL is attempting to investigate issues associated with the Rangers EBT, although I gather is still trying to obtain all the relevant information.

Wednesday evening’s programme and other media articles have now placed the affairs of Rangers in relation to payments to players under even greater scrutiny. The BBC and others now appear to have access to detailed documentary evidence to support the statements made. If the allegations of “double-contracts” for players are true, and a breach of SFA and/or SPL rules is established, the eligibility of those players to have competed in domestic league and cup competitions will be called into question, in turn, the integrity of the football results achieved by using those players would by necessity also fall into question.

Any wrongdoing then established would have to be subject to fair and proportionate sanctions, including retrospectively, if appropriate. However, at a higher level, in our opinion this whole affair is causing lasting damage to the reputation and integrity of Scottish football. We have, to date, supported both the SFA and the SPL in their efforts to deal with the situation. We appreciate fully that this has not been an easy task for either body. But the interests of fairness and Scottish football now demand that the SFA act decisively.

The initial inquiry should now be reconvened, or a new independent panel led by a judge or senior lawyer should be formed, to investigate and report upon the Rangers EBT issues and consider whether there has been any further breach of the Association’s rules, including those on disrepute. The roles of individuals (past and present) subject to the jurisdiction of the Association should also be examined. This should take place as quickly as possible, irrespective of the SPL’s own investigations.

I look forward to hearing from you with confirmation of the SFA’s intentions. A copy of this letter is being sent to the Chairman of the SPL [Ralph Topping], the Chief Executive of the SFL [David Longmuir] and to Uefa [Gianni Infantino] as these issues may be relevant in the context of Uefa Financial Fair Play, the eligibility of players participating in competitions organised by these bodies, and the wider responsibilities of these organisations to protect the integrity of the game.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Lawwell.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/1529746/celtic-peter-lawwell-Rangers-ebt-letter-sfa-stewart-regan-uefa-gianni-infantino/

 

 

[bluenoz 31,354]

4 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

I believe there is enough evidence in the public domain to start a independent review. I remember that Peter Lawwell’s wrote a letter days after Mark Daly’s  BBC documentary asking for a independent  review. Below is the precedence that the SPFL can start an independent review based on information from being reported in the media.

 

You know how to do your homework sweetheart.

[Malvern 11,329]

6 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

You know Rangers have asked for the suspension of the 3 named individuals. Is that a part of a disciplinary process or just removed from this process? If it's the latter (its not) what keeps them out the building, away from communicating with others etc?

4th time I think. If scum wanted key personnel from football authorities suspended based on info they say they had big wouldnt disclose should those people be suspended. A yes or no is all I'm asking for.

 

 

 

The bloody UK Home Office Minister of the UK was sent home until an investigation into bullying allegations was done. I am pretty sure the  SPFL catholic party are not immune to the same treatment.

A suspension is to allow an investigation, who the hell said sack the thieving scum cunts?

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,479]

4 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

I believe there is enough evidence in the public domain to start a independent review. I remember that Peter Lawwell’s wrote a letter days after Mark Daly’s  BBC documentary asking for a independent  review. Below is the precedence that the SPFL can start an independent review based on information from being reported in the media.

 

I'd have thought the authorities investigating a member club is fairly standard and differs a bit from them agreeing to independent investigators investigating the Board.

[Malvern 11,329]

1 minute ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

I'd have thought the authorities investigating a member club is fairly standard and differs a bit from them agreeing to independent investigators investigating the Board.

Not if the SPFL board is suspected as being corrupt.

[Dickie1963 2,372]

I hope that we have asked for oan. And will push for one.

[British_Empire 9,648]

48 minutes ago, bluenoz said:

I'm pretty sure Hibs did not want to vote YES. Sure, the fans wanted Hearts relegated but there may be something untold there. They have been very quiet.

That might be true, but the fans don't run the clubs. I wanted Rangers to challenge the resolution by 10am on Friday there and fight celtic getting handed a title, but they never. The majority of the fans I'd guess the same.

[British_Empire 9,648]

34 minutes ago, McEwan's Lager said:

This is an incredibly ridiculous post.

Tell me why then. Fuck having cowardly bastards that can't vote for what's right at our club. We've enough of them as it is.

Surprised, no I'm amazed in fact that that's even up for debate. Giving the likes of her a job at Rangers. Ffs.

[stfu 596]

1 hour ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Its a disciplinary process. What are they getting disciplined for? If they were disciplined based on no evidence it could lead to them claiming against the spfl! You've still not answered about if another club demanded someone be suspended for something only they knew - you agree this should happen?

I wholeheartedly agree we should be pushing for the ii.

Suspension is not a punishment nor a sign of guilt,  employment law uses suspension on full pay in order to carry out the investigation. 

 

[Hadron Collider 31,498]

17 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

I believe there is enough evidence in the public domain to start a independent review. I remember that Peter Lawwell’s wrote a letter days after Mark Daly’s  BBC documentary asking for a independent  review. Below is the precedence that the SPFL can start an independent review based on information being reported in the media.

 

I really hope we bring the fucker down. Cunt that he is. 

[Blumhoilann 6,712]

19 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

I believe there is enough evidence in the public domain to start a independent review. I remember that Peter Lawwell’s wrote a letter days after Mark Daly’s  BBC documentary asking for a independent  review. Below is the precedence that the SPFL can start an independent review based on information being reported in the media.

 

Hadn't seen that before SH,great find and more evidence as to whom runs the SPFL 😞

 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,479]

11 minutes ago, Malvern said:

The bloody UK Home Office Minister of the UK was sent home until an investigation into bullying allegations was done. I am pretty sure the  SPFL catholic party are not immune to the same treatment.

A suspension is to allow an investigation, who the hell said sack the thieving scum cunts?

Who is the Home Office Minister of the UK and what were the circumstances?

You mentioned sacking when all along I've been discussing what Rangers have - suspensions.

Think you missed the question I'd asked about if the scum demanded suspensions based on stuff they knew but not disclosed, should the folk they accuse be suspended.? 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,479]

13 minutes ago, Malvern said:

Not if the SPFL board is suspected as being corrupt.

So the spfl have rules for themselves being subject of investigations as available and standard as rules about them investigating members?

[Malvern 11,329]

3 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Who is the Home Office Minister of the UK and what were the circumstances?

You mentioned sacking when all along I've been discussing what Rangers have - suspensions.

Think you missed the question I'd asked about if the scum demanded suspensions based on stuff they knew but not disclosed, should the folk they accuse be suspended.? 

Home Secretary is Priti Patel.

Suspension during an investigation is normal in most other walks of life (on full pay), maybe not in yours.