Zappa 0 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 This is a case for the RFFF if ever there was one and if the RFFF does challenge it then they can't harm the club as it's the fans that are challenging the embargo,no?. I don't think it could work like that Ian. If the RFFF get involved it would only be to pay for the legal fees, but the lawyer/s would be representing the club. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,279 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 If a transfer embargo is not a viable sanction for UEFA, how can it be one for the SFA. They are saying we shall play with 5 senior players and 8 youngsters, and possibly sign u18s only for a year? I call this restraint-of-trade. If they impose this ban on us, the RFFF needs to threaten to sue the SFA - at a minimum. And sue them if they actually impose a ban and ask for forfeiting the rights of legal challenges. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gribz 743 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Why are we not fighting back a bit? The SFA havent even released our previous players for their new clubs, they should all be called back in for training! I think Green has been dignified up until now but if he accepts the transfer ban then that will change. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Why are we not fighting back a bit? The SFA havent even released our previous players for their new clubs, they should all be called back in for training! I think Green has been dignified up until now but if he accepts the transfer ban then that will change. To be honest I can accept the transfer ban as i actually believe you should not be allowed to buy players if you have not paid for the ones you already have. I would be mad if another team did that. What I will never accept is that we give up our lawful right to challenge unjust punishment through the legal system. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gribz 743 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 To be honest I can accept the transfer ban as i actually believe you should not be allowed to buy players if you have not paid for the ones you already have. I would be mad if another team did that. What I will never accept is that we give up our lawful right to challenge unjust punishment through the legal system. I see what you are saying but the newco hasnt any outstanding debts for any player. And even if a bit of understanding came in and said we are still Rangers then how can we compete with no squad? There has to be common sense saying - get a squad of 20-25 containing a minimum amount of younger players in place by a certain date then the transfer ban kicks in. This i could probably accept. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54andcounting 0 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) For what it's worth btw. My son-in-law who is a tim who just came back from a two week family holiday (my daughter married a catholic) was in a bad mood because when he found out Rangers were in the 3rd division then that must be the end of kicking Rangers up the shitehole. Now he's smiling again (he f**kin' is btw) with all this 'new' crap about this transfer embargo pish, seems the whole thing is about keeping the scum over at porkheid happy to the detriment of Rangers fans. It's still a septic v Rangers thing...sporting integrity was always an excuse as a cover. Those bhastards hate us. the fenien minded are somehow in control of our destiny. Edited July 17, 2012 by 54andcounting cant sphel 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54andcounting 0 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 the fenien minded are somehow in control of our destiny. Always had this term banned for some reason? thank f**k I cant sphell... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,279 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 the fenien minded are somehow in control of our destiny. Always had this term banned for some reason? thank f**k I cant sphell... It is banned? I know that West-of-Scotland definitions have been subject to change of late, but I c&p something from the German board's "All you need to know about Rangers" section. EDIT ... just noted that the word is indeed "*****"-ed. Alas, you know what should be there. ****** Let’s start off with the definition of the word in one of the world’s leading publications on the matter: James MacKillop’s - Oxford Dictionary of Celtic Mythology. Neologism (DB, i.e., a new meaning for an older word) coined in 1804 by charlatan scholar Col. Charles Vallancey. Although apparently derived from Féni, a name for early, landed freeholders, Vallancey used it as an anglicization for fianna (DB, i.e., "warrior band"). In many 19th century writers, e.g. Sir Walter Scott, ****** pertains to stories of Fionn mac Cumhaill. The ambiguous reference to both fianna and Fionn persists in the naming of the ****** Cycle. In 1858 "******" was adopted as an alternate name for the Irish Republican Brotherhood, a secret revolutionary society dedicated to the overthrow of English authority in Ireland. Never fully quashed, ****** activity in the British Isles and North Amercia peaked in 1866-7. In the 20th century "******" popularly denotes Republican anti-British activity, especially in the six counties of Ulster, still part of the United Kingdom. (ODoCM, p.210) When a Rangers supporter uses this term, s/he does not refer to anything else but the terrorist group mentioned above or their supporters. No anti-Irish sentiments or the like, as modern day press- and media folk like to impart into anything the Bluenoses sing or utter. The Bears usually denominate the Celtic support as ******s (much like the latter call themselves too (sic!)), as well as anyone connected to the I.R.A., which essentially is nothing but a successor of these “******s”. The term as such is not religious or sectarian, unless used in the context of Roman Catholics of Irish descent. Other than common opinion, the latter is not the pre-eminent notion when common Rangers supporters address those of Celtic as ******s. For the Celtic support revels in the traditions of the "******" I.R.A. terrorists, glorifying their personnel and deeds in many a song. People who are responsible for the deaths of more than 1,800 British citizens. BTW, you can just call them scum and everyone knows who is meant. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 886 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I generally just call them anti-Rangers and leave others to work out what type of person I'm talking about. The use of any language deemed sectarian by the authorities (correctly or otherwise) detracts from any argument you try to make in public. You're better off ditching it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 To be honest I can accept the transfer ban as i actually believe you should not be allowed to buy players if you have not paid for the ones you already have. I would be mad if another team did that. What I will never accept is that we give up our lawful right to challenge unjust punishment through the legal system. Possibly agree to pay the football debt in full on the understanding that there are no further restrictions on transfers. Also agree that for a set period (ie. 1yr) all transfers will be paid in a single payment. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.