https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-scot...mpression=true
SMSM may be turning against King at last.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Printable View
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-scot...mpression=true
SMSM may be turning against King at last.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Looks like I was right about it not being sensible. Court didn’t like it one bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
http://thenational.scot/news/1636884...m-share-offer/
Still going with the nonsense that Sevco shares can be sold at 27p a share. [emoji23]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I can't believe a section of the Media have finally had the guts to tell it like it is:
"He did so this week with his start-of-season message to fans. Published on the Rangers website, this was intended to fuel a sense of Ibrox grievance that Rangers' financial difficulties are down to vexatious complaints from other clubs and former directors.
It's almost as if the Companies Act 2006 was not crystal clear on him being in the wrong, or that the Takeover Panel was unable to make up its own mind without pressure from the terracing at Parkhead.
Not for the first time, a Rangers chairman in difficulties has appealed to the faithful to back him against the perceived injustices of the outside world. And not for the first time, many of the Rangers faithful have failed to distinguish between the interests of their club and those of its chairman. "
(From the BBC link posted earlier)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keekaboo
That'll be the Business/Economy Editor of the BBC barred from Ipox then.
Basically King's just taking a leaf out of 'Stupor Ally's play-book as he did with his infamous demand for names of the SFA disciplinary-panel - it's an under-handed message to the hordes to 'Let the death-threats begin' !Quote:
Originally Posted by Keekaboo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
Or Chuckles Green and his claims that anybody that didn't agree with him was an anti-Rangers 'Bigot'.
Some of their knuckle dragging Fans still use the term as a defence mechanism.
I'm not sure that Charles Green believed that, more inclined to think he was playing them for the fools that they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keekaboo
As is King.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not a shadow of a doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Think he was lucky that the really hard hitting stuff was only in the print version not in his Reporting Scotland report.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hackett
I took this from the bottom of this article but I think they are very important questions.
https://thecelticblog.com/2018/07/bl...mpression=true
—————————
Is every professional club in Scotland subject to the same disciplinary code?
We are going to find out very soon, but the existence of a document which essentially gives one of them a sort of blanket immunity from past sins is something no other football body in the world would permit. It is clear that Sevco has conducted itself in a truly appalling fashion throughout its short history, with everything from statements that bring the game into disrepute and for which nothing was done, to the behaviour of its fans about which nothing is ever done.
The club does seem to exist in a world where rules don’t apply … perhaps that’s because they have it in writing.
Does the SFA have a disciplinary process that applies to only one club and if so why, and how can they possibly justify that?
As an adjunct to the first question this is vital.
Because Sevco does not seem subject to the same processes and procedures as only clubs either. How can it be that this investigation took so long in the first place? What made this different from every other allegation that the Judicial Review Board has to consider? Politics, yes. But the way this was done still stinks. It took an age to report in the first place, and now the case has been handed off elsewhere?
Can all member clubs of the SFA refuse to have their rule breaking adjudicated by the National Association?
Vitally important.
Sevco is actually telling the SFA that is has no right to open this case, and the SFA has somehow, perversely, agreed to put that question to another body. Is this to be the norm for clubs which come up before the beaks? What makes Sevco so special?
That they’ve been allowed to do this suggests that the answer to question two is a yes … and if that’s the case, then surely that’s discriminatory against all the rest? Or are we wrong? Is the answer to question two a no … and the answer to this one a yes instead?
And where does that leave our game?
Are UEFA aware of, and comfortable with, a legal agreement between the SFA and Rangers which takes authority out of the hands of the SFA?
This might well be the most important question of all of them.
The SFA rulebook exists in the shadow of the UEFA one, and it is formed out of the FIFA statutes. Are we really expected to believe that an agreement which indemnified one club from sanctions, or let a non-national association body adjudicate them, when all other clubs are treated according to the regulations we all live by, would meet the approval of the European governing body?
It is almost inconceivable that UEFA would agree to that.
The Five Way Agreement itself is a violation of UEFA regulations, which clearly and concisely cut through the whole “club versus company” argument on which the Survival Lie depends.
Their definition of what “a club” is leaves no room for doubt; they make no distinction between the two which means that when Rangers died they were gone and Sevco is a different entity.
That they give the club the same coefficient points as the old one appears to be a flat contradiction of policy, but it flows from the SFA’s own position on the matter.
But that position is based on a document which does make clear distinctions between Sevco and Rangers, and sets them out clearly.
It is the basis of the Survival Lie, yes, but it also contradicts itself in the number of times it clearly separates the two entities … the Five Way Agreement is actually the enshrining of a lie which all involved freely admit is a lie.
It is a document that says “we know Rangers died but this document will commit to treating Sevco as if they were Rangers … except when that would be inconvenient for us.”
Which is to say that UEFA allows Sevco and the SFA to maintain this fiction on the clear understanding that the sins of Rangers will be paid for by the current Ibrox club. If the SFA has given Sevco immunity from those charges then, yes … I think UEFA would have a problem with that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
... and yet the silence from UEFA almost drowns the cacophony of noise from Sevco
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...d8b23651d5.png
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Clumpany making fun of Sevco now...... :greengrin
https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/20...ics-statement/
[QUOTE=Ozyhibby;5474624]I took this from the bottom of this article but I think they are very important questions.
https://thecelticblog.com/2018/07/bl...mpression=true
—————————
Is every professional club in Scotland subject to the same disciplinary code?
We are going to find out very soon, but the existence of a document which essentially gives one of them a sort of blanket immunity from past sins is something no other football body in the world would permit. It is clear that Sevco has conducted itself in a truly appalling fashion throughout its short history, with everything from statements that bring the game into disrepute and for which nothing was done, to the behaviour of its fans about which nothing is ever done.
The club does seem to exist in a world where rules don’t apply … perhaps that’s because they have it in writing.
Does the SFA have a disciplinary process that applies to only one club and if so why, and how can they possibly justify that?
As an adjunct to the first question this is vital.
Because Sevco does not seem subject to the same processes and procedures as only clubs either. How can it be that this investigation took so long in the first place? What made this different from every other allegation that the Judicial Review Board has to consider? Politics, yes. But the way this was done still stinks. It took an age to report in the first place, and now the case has been handed off elsewhere?
Can all member clubs of the SFA refuse to have their rule breaking adjudicated by the National Association?
Vitally important.
Sevco is actually telling the SFA that is has no right to open this case, and the SFA has somehow, perversely, agreed to put that question to another body. Is this to be the norm for clubs which come up before the beaks? What makes Sevco so special?
That they’ve been allowed to do this suggests that the answer to question two is a yes … and if that’s the case, then surely that’s discriminatory against all the rest? Or are we wrong? Is the answer to question two a no … and the answer to this one a yes instead?
And where does that leave our game?
Are UEFA aware of, and comfortable with, a legal agreement between the SFA and Rangers which takes authority out of the hands of the SFA?
This might well be the most important question of all of them.
The SFA rulebook exists in the shadow of the UEFA one, and it is formed out of the FIFA statutes. Are we really expected to believe that an agreement which indemnified one club from sanctions, or let a non-national association body adjudicate them, when all other clubs are treated according to the regulations we all live by, would meet the approval of the European governing body?
It is almost inconceivable that UEFA would agree to that.
The Five Way Agreement itself is a violation of UEFA regulations, which clearly and concisely cut through the whole “club versus company” argument on which the Survival Lie depends.
Their definition of what “a club” is leaves no room for doubt; they make no distinction between the two which means that when Rangers died they were gone and Sevco is a different entity.
That they give the club the same coefficient points as the old one appears to be a flat contradiction of policy, but it flows from the SFA’s own position on the matter.
But that position is based on a document which does make clear distinctions between Sevco and Rangers, and sets them out clearly.
It is the basis of the Survival Lie, yes, but it also contradicts itself in the number of times it clearly separates the two entities … the Five Way Agreement is actually the enshrining of a lie which all involved freely admit is a lie.
It is a document that says “we know Rangers died but this document will commit to treating Sevco as if they were Rangers … except when that would be inconvenient for us.”
Which is to say that UEFA allows Sevco and the SFA to maintain this fiction on the clear understanding that the sins of Rangers will be paid for by the current Ibrox club. If the SFA has given Sevco immunity from those charges then, yes … I think UEFA would have a problem with that.
All valid points but with Uefa/Fifa being exposed to breaking their own rules and guilty of mass corruptions you have the answer
Sorry what have Celtic said?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
It's in relation to Sevco reducing Celtic's ticket allocation against them. Developed into a bit of a tit for tat but there is a link to the statement in the second line.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
Sorry, I saw that on STV newsQuote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
Totally agree with Celtic on this one. Just chopping away tickets without some sort of dialogue is poor. But we’ve come to expect this sort of behaviour from the Rangers now
I thought they (King/Hun) were in court for (whatever's their latest crime/offence ??) something yesterday or am I just getting lost in all their legal shenanigans ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
King Hun?
Is that the new title for whoever's in charge of The Rangers?
We reduced Sevco's allocation last season, and will hopefully do so to both cheeks this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
Leaving aside the hyperbolic statement from Sevco, was there much dialogue between the clubs?
Going by Celtic's statement then no and that's what pissed Celtic off. Seems this was a unilateral decision by Sir Glib and Shameless, probably to grab some extra season ticket money now......Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyrie
I meant when we cut Sevco's allocation, but you're right that there should always be a dialogue first regardless of the clubs involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
Sorry mate, misunderstood your question.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyrie
Poorly worded by me, but between us we've clarified what I was trying to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
Sevco getting bent over by the courts and Mike Ashley again :faf::faf:
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/footb...udge-1-4775813
Looks like Ashley used expensive silks and the the Rangers are coughing up to cover it.
Pleasing.
[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s the Lafferty bid money now spentQuote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
Follow Follow should be a hoot right now :greengrin
Love the last line....
"Mr Justice Phillips has been told the boycott is over."
... at which point His Lordship burst into song...... "The boycott's over, why don't you go home?"
Or "Hello hello we're no the boycott boys"......Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
£185k for their legal fees and being told to pick up the vast majority of Sports Direct £350k costs 😂😂Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
Just checked ... it is. :lolrangers:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
So after paying Ashley £3M not to go away they have to pay his lawyers £500K and allow Ashley to keep selling Rangers strips.When is Park going to realise that King is an expensive liability.
If Sevco settled last week I imagine that is the reason that the deal for the Man City defender fell through. They first said he failed a medical then SG stated they couldn't agree terms. Lol all the money just disappeared into Ashley's pocket, bwahahahahahaha............ Wonder how Sir Cumference Traynor will spin this one...... :greengrin
What they need now is an *extremely* staunch STATEMENT! :faf:
Brilliant so they paid £3m to be allowed to sell mugs n pens and then paid half a million more in lawyers fees to find out that they had paid £3m to be allowed to sell mugs n pens!
Half a mill is painful enough but the loss of the Hummel shirt deal must put a nice wee dent into their future revenue forecasts as well. Forecasts that already assumed an over spend and required a rights issue.
Of course the share issue can’t proceed either due to the unfinished business brought about by the pesky ToP.
So all in all it’s looking pretty encouraging over Ibrox way [emoji23]. And you do have to wonder just how long this pantomime can continue before it collapses on itself once more.
Don't think they have lost the Hummel deal? It's about where the shirts are sold I thought? #toomuchinfotokeepupQuote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
The European games will have given them a huge boost on several levels - on-pitch morale and big funds.
When they are knocked out of Europe there will be a lot of gnashing and wailing. When they have their first domestic bad results under Gerrard they will go to pieces and when it dawns on them that they won't be challenging Celtic they will implode.
Yeah it's not so much the Hummel deal collapsing, as sales of Hummel shirts are likely to nosedive now as the Gers fans love nothing more than a Mike Ashley Boycott.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
They'd rather buy hookie strips made in Turkey rather than buy genuine tops in Sports Direct.
Don't think Hummel will be too pleased tonight...sold a pup by the Glib/Shameless Liar.
Yeah but if its SD that will be selling them how many shirts will actually be sold?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
Not sure I share your confidence but I certainly hope you are right....... :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Springbank
And there is no chance JD sports or anyone else will ever bid for the Sevco deal again. Mike now has them forever. Lovely.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ach yeah of course [emoji1303]Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
That’s the big one!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
After rousing the rangers fans into a frenzy of hate towards Mike Ashley,the rangers board now have to kiss his ass :greengrin
I wonder if the penny will drop with the fans regarding the £3mill fanfare pay off?
Do you think they will now work out,it was for costing SD money via club statements?
Cant wait for the next club statement :greengrin
:greengrin Ashley has played a blinder here: Sevco/King will now have to tell the neanderthal bigots that SD are great ("a valued and trusted partner", "a high quality retail operation" etc) and encourage them to buy the official merchandise there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glesgahibby
One wonders if Hummel and JD Sports might have a legal case here. [emoji7]
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
They've got to have suffered some serious brand image and therefore reputational damage being associated with such a toxic brand as sevco, never mind the unsellable shirts?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Ashley himself could be seen in a bad light here.
Oh wait a minute.
Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
In my eyes their image was tarnished the minute they agreed to produce an orange shirt for those mutants So they've made their Bed and now they can lie in itQuote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
More full them for not doing due diligence on Kings track record Or maybe they consulted the Authorities that be here that had already carried out thier due Diligence , and passed him as Fit and Proper or whatever the phrase is
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I concur.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronniekirk
They're all in the same cesspit, just for slightly different reasons.
Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
Against Sevco? Not sure Hummel would go forward but JD must be spitting feathers at this point. I hope that have already advanced money to Sevco - good luck getting that back :greengrin:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Hummel might have a case if the boycott continues.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
Just putting it out there in case Mr Hummel reads this board.[emoji16]
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Indeed - he may have a sting in his tail....... :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It would seem that the GASL forgot to tell Hummel of the Sports Direct clause. That would be a way out for Hummel if they wanted it. Surely withholding vital information would be a breach of contract by Sevco. Maybe Hummel could get them into court. That would be funny.:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
I don't think the courts will accept payment in instalments that includes juice bottles ... and for the aged among us, jeely jars!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
Hummel strips to be sold out of Binns? (Pun intended)
House of Fraser offered cash injection by Mike Ashley - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45013977
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Given his huge stake in Debenhams why would he want to help HOF? Maybe he collects lost causes because he’s now involved with three.
Aye OddbinsQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
stick them next to the lingerie section and call that floor Raunchy and Staunchy clothingQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
😂Quote:
Originally Posted by Springbank
Quote:
Originally Posted by Springbank
Oi!
:grr:
I like rude undies but that's just taking it too far!!!
[emoji23]Quote:
Originally Posted by Springbank
How about in the food Hall?
Somewhere between the fruit and cake departments.
Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
Latest from Phil Mac, it's worth reading for the last line alone.....:greengrin
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/0...le-settlement/
:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
I like the bit where JD are considering their legal options........:not worth
This is an open door for the loyalist crew IMO. Nothing the club produces with the Rangers FC name or logo on it can be sold without Mike Ashley hoovering up a huge slice of the proceeds. If they had their wits about them and with the tacit approval of the club ( which they would surely have given the amount of pandering to the 'Billy boy' element their board have indulged in recently ) all the fans have to do is themselves produce the strip they have always wanted all along …… an orange top with King Billy proudly astride his white steed as the badge ….. find an alternative outlet to sell it and pass on any profit to the club as a gift.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronniekirk
If I was a rabid knuckle dragging currant bun I know that's what I would do and there wouldn't be a thing Mike Ashley could do about it :greengrin
Why yes indeedie and if Paul Murray and Sir Glibness were personally liable (since the legal action was against them personally was it not?) then they better start holding out the begging bowl :faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Just when you thought this lowlife couldn't stoop any further.....
https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/...s-sand-castle/
I see they've signed yet another player!
Some Croatian fella they played against last week! :confused:
Where's the money coming from?!
Hopefully just pushes them towards Admin2!
They got another £1m in gate receipts for qualifying for the 3rd round, plus the UEFA Europa prize moneyQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyboy
I don’t believe for a minute they’ve paid £2m for him though
In the short-term, the money is coming from the same sources as ours is. UEFA prize-money and big attendances at home. The latter is more than double ours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyboy
The problem will arise if they don't get to the EL groups.
Call me an old cynic but £2.2M? Really? It's funny how Sevco can afford all sorts of money when they're dealing with clubs local journos can't (or can't be arsed to) contact. Then when it's Hibs or Hearts they're suddenly struggling to get a few hundred grand together. :rolleyes:
The Scottish press have reporting all of The Rangers' signings as "deals worth" to give the illusion that they're spending big bucks to compete with Celtic. The reality is that the prices quoted cover any fees paid to clubs plus the players' salaries over a number of years (any may well just be made up up anyway :greengrin )Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Seemingly Simon Jordan said on Talk Sport this morning, that he knows that Rangers have access to a “Honey” fund
Wonder who’s backing them, if this is the case
Its kept in a tin that used to say "Honesty Box" on the outside of it until they rubbed some of the letters off...Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
Have given up trying to keep up with what goes on there . It's clear they are trying to now go for second spot and seeing how close they can get toQuote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
Celtic this Season . Financial Transparency is never going to apply ,as they just shift money around via soft loans and goodness knows what else
They are trying to give Gerrard as much backing as possible to get to the Group Stages as that's why they need to achieve
But unlike a normal Honey Pot they don't seem to get stuck they just keep taking it seems to me
That would be the missing ST money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain G
Clever.:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by oneone73
Their new player is Barisic. The club is boracic.
I see the red card for Morelos has been rescinded.
The good news is that you can now kick your opponents and just get a yellow card. Seems a strange decision which I am sure will come back and bite the authorities on the butt cheeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Trips
I think it's a bit of common sense tbh. The kick was petulant, not violent - it wasn't excessive force and he wasn't trying to hurt or injure McKenna; who used a great deal more force on Morelos.
No issue with it being downgraded to a yellow.
No great surprise - it's the Hun, the hard-done-by club !Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Trips
a hunny fund?Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
Stevie G was right - I cant believe talkSPORT let that kind of sectarian banter on the radio in the 21st Century
I'd love to see the reaction if Scott Brown did something similar to one of The Rangers players in an Old Firm game.Quote:
Originally Posted by vince1973
It's a first victory for Stevie G - his comments about the poor victimised Rangers nobbled the authorities into a corner where this was the only reasonable outcome.
The downside for them is that they will have Morelos available for next week.
Don’t think reasonable is the right word but I know what you mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
I think inevitable was the word I was looking for rather than reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
[QUOTE=Stevie Reid;5503335]I think it's a bit of common sense tbh. The kick was petulant, not violent - it wasn't excessive force and he wasn't trying to hurt or injure McKenna; who used a great deal more force on Morelos.
I would be fuming if i was that linesman, Morelos kicked the defender off the ball, the fact that it wasnt a very good kick is here nor there, have the officials now got to figure out what his exact intent was with a violent conduct decision?
[QUOTE=Ralphy C;5503438]Of course they have to.How can you be sent off for violent conduct if you don’t establish if it was violent.I would have been enraged if one of our players had been sent off for that particularly when McKenna got off after having started it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie Reid
[QUOTE=Ralphy C;5503438]:agree: I was always under the impression that intent was the key issue - so even if it was a fresh air shot, aiming a kick at another player is violent conduct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie Reid
[QUOTE=ancient hibee;5503459]He kicked him off the ball, how could that possibly not be violent. I thought it was soft at the time but once its given and you decide to review it the only decision to make is did he kick out and clearly he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralphy C
[QUOTE=GloryGlory;5503476]Well remember John O’Neil sent off for exactly that. Fresh air shot. Hibs appealed as his lace was undone on his boot. Think we claimed he was trying to free his foot from the lace 😂Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralphy C
Maybe he was but appeal was rejected
But now clearly it’s okay to lash out at an opponent. Let’s see how they treat the other 11 clubs
I always knew Winnie The Pooh was a bearQuote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
The Rangers Winnie the PoohQuote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
The Hibs winnie The Cup
21st May Haiku
:not worthQuote:
Originally Posted by Springbank
Just seen on Twitter that West Brom have put a bid in for Tavernier
Aye, and Windass also, reportedly. £5 million for the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorrie
Correction, Ipswich have bid for Windass, allegedly. £2 million.
Rangers have knocked back the Tavernier bidQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba