Keith Jackson:

[crucible 0]

Or even more worrying, should this legally binding guarantee prove to false, it's not Green, Ahmad or Murray who will be held to account by the SFA, but the club they were running, i.e. Rangers.

 

I have admitted to paranoia long before but this is a set-up. Why on earth would the governing body settle for a guarantee, written or verbal, instead of insisting on seeing the names on the papers? They ignore the law when it suits them, so there's no point wheeling out the old anonymity cobblers here.

 

We're being set up again, man. We're being set up again.

 

Unfortunately there are those only to willing to fuel this particular fire, who indeed needs enemies.

[chilledbear 16]

Unfortunately there are those only to willing to fuel this particular fire, who indeed needs enemies.

 

The truth seems to be an alien concept to some.

 

Those who feed us with lies and half truths are as much the enemy as anyone else.

[andy steel 0]

Unfortunately there are those only to willing to fuel this particular fire, who indeed needs enemies.

 

If someone is intent on setting fire to your house, would you not take steps to try to stop them? If we find some way to insist that the SFA find out the names of shareholders, it would render any attempt by them to punish the club post facto null and void. They would be in the position of saying 'well, we (the SFA) did nothing while you, the fans, tried to oblige us to take action which we ignored, but we're going to punish your club anyway.' They would be left wide open to private prosecution and I for one would love my day in court.

 

The problem I have is that I don't know how to insist on them doing the paperwork ahead of the bonfire.

[crucible 0]

If someone is intent on setting fire to your house, would you not take steps to try to stop them? If we find some way to insist that the SFA find out the names of shareholders, it would render any attempt by them to punish the club post facto null and void. They would be in the position of saying 'well, we (the SFA) did nothing while you, the fans, tried to oblige us to take action which we ignored, but we're going to punish your club anyway.' They would be left wide open to private prosecution and I for one would love my day in court.

 

The problem I have is that I don't know how to insist on them doing the paperwork ahead of the bonfire.

 

Fit and proper is the responsibility of clubs to ensure and execute not the SFA's, if the SFA find at a later date that they have been misinformed/deceived regan makes it quite clear that sanctions are available.

[Juancornetto 1]

Fit and proper is the responsibility of clubs to ensure and execute not the SFA's, if the SFA find at a later date that they have been misinformed/deceived regan makes it quite clear that sanctions are available.

 

That highly versatile little number called Bringing The Game Into Disrepute would be my bet. One size fits all.

[chilledbear 16]

Fit and proper is the responsibility of clubs to ensure and execute not the SFA's, if the SFA find at a later date that they have been misinformed/deceived regan makes it quite clear that sanctions are available.

 

Are you saying the present Directors or those who have just departed have misinformed/deceived the SFA ?

 

Or may have ?

[crucible 0]

Are you saying the present Directors or those who have just departed have misinformed/deceived the SFA ?

 

Or may have ?

 

No I never said anything remotely like that.

[amms 0]

Are you saying the present Directors or those who have just departed have misinformed/deceived the SFA ?

 

Or may have ?

 

Crucible's all over the place on this subject. He doesn't want to know who owns the club in case it turns out to be Craig Whyte. He doesn't think it is Craig Whyte, but he still doesn't want to know because he's scared Stewart Regan will stride down Edmiston Drive like a modern day Damocles wielding his tyrannical sword and reducing Ibrox to rubble and casting our support out into the wilderness forever. Plus we've no legal right to know and that's what's important in all this.

[andy steel 0]

That was me who said the previous/current directors may have deceived the SFA.

 

I wouldn't be surprised at all if they had, leaving us to deal with the consequences, while every media outlet in the country blames us for liking Charles when he first appeared and seemed like a decent bloke.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Reading some of this stuff is like re-reading To Kill a Mockingbird - Boo Radley is about to jump out on us.

 

I fear hysteria is taking hold of us and preventing us from exercising common sense. Some appear to have forgotten Pinsent Masons have undertaken an in depth investigation into allegations of links between Whyte & Green and found them to be totally without foundation. Furthermore the SFA, who had the option of launching their own investigation into these allegations, decided the Pinsent Masons enquiry was satisfactory.

 

Now when I raised these points on a message board this morning, not for the first time when dealing with this subject the allegation that Charles Green failed to co-operate with this enquiry was thrown at me - thus invalidating Pinsent Masons enquiry. Now I have heard this allegation before but never had its source confirmed or substantiated.

 

When I enquired where allegations of non co-operation were coming from no-one could provide a definitive answer - no links, no sources, nothing. The only suggestion, which appears to be the original source of this allegation, is that such an allegation was in some of the Charlotte Fakes.