Any chance of the male of this particular sub species giving withdrawal a go?
They are a dying breed anyway as society moves on, but any form of contraception has got to help[emoji6]
Sent from my HTC One mini 2 using Tapatalk
Printable View
The one guy speaking sense and pointing out to them what the reality of the SFA punishing Hibs would have meant for Sevco is subjected to sectarian abuse and the others are talking about boycotting the Scottish cup and even away games coz that'll hurt the other clubs, forgetting that for the last 4 years they got by just fine without a visit from the knuckle draggers and having their seats ripped up and bogs vandalised.
I used to think the old joke ..... Q ... 'what's red white and blue and has an IQ of 150? ... A .... 'a hundred and fifty Rangers supporters' was just a joke, but now I'm not so sure :faf:
Just gets funnier and funnier
http://www.scotzine.com/2016/10/rang...tish-football/
Very true though
Excellent article. Isn't it amazing that this is what very single fan of very single club in Scotland thinks yet the piss poor scottish main stream media still pander to the lowest common denominator within the Hun fanbase. Both the media and the Huns are an embarrasment
According to the BBC (in the middle of an article, no headlines) there was fighting on the pitch after the Hull v Salford Rugby League match. Wonder how much press coverage that will get?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/37488691
http://bit.ly/2cKroBq
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Surely the SFA would be in front of us and the huns for legal action no? Security was their concern, they hired the equipment from TFC and since they themselves have failed to implement strict liability I can't see any claim against the clubs making it to court tbh.
There's no way Glasgow City Council should have to pick up the bill though.
Given that the company (TFC Scotland) have had their insurance claim rejected on the grounds that the damage was caused by a "riot" then I would say the SFA are liable instead of the clubs since strict liability was rejected. If the only reason that the council has been mentioned at all is because of some archaic 200 year old legislation then that's wrong imo. Why should the council be held liable for an event organised and hosted by the SFA?
The claim against the council from the company that supplied the led boards looks pretty flimsy (not unlike their hardware) but any case by the council against the clubs is even weaker imo.
It raises the question of why TFC would consider raising action against the council (on the grounds of ancient bylaws) rather than the organisation that contracted them in the first place and ultimately failed to ensure the hardware survived the event they organised. Maybe to protect future contracts perhaps? Or maybe the wording of the contract that the SFA signed protects them from any liability for damage caused by supporters?
Either way, this weeks outcome of disciplinary action against the clubs leaves the SFA more exposed than Hibs are. I hope :greengrin
I am certain the court of session would not in a million years hold either individual club liable for fans entering the field of play and damaging equipment.
Liability for securing the perimeter of the pitch and field of play will most probably rest with the SFA and Police Scotland.
Both individual clubs would have been required to hire their own security to police the perimeter of the pitch if liability for securing the perimeter of the pitch had fallen upon them.
I put it the SFA private security and Police Scotland were liable for securing the perimeter of the pitch and field of play and any proceedings would name them both as Co-Defenders.
:aok:
Maybe someone in the Council just wants to noise The Rangers up
A piece by Brodies the lawyers following the riots in England a while ago and how that would work in Scotland.
http://www.brodies.com/node/1668
It was a secret vote and only a handful of clubs were in favour. I would guess these 'for' clubs are lower league.