Super Cooper 0 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Yes, as per post #47. From an initially good statement to a complete and utter embarrassment. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 From an initially good statement to a complete and utter embarrassment. From an understandable but immature and essentially pointless reaction to a loudmouthed oaf to one which might refocus energy on more important matters. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 From an understandable but immature and essentially pointless reaction to a loudmouthed oaf to one which might refocus energy on more important matters. Onerous contracts and protecting their manager. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 From an understandable but immature and essentially pointless reaction to a loudmouthed oaf to one which might refocus energy on more important matters. I'm sure that's the reasoning. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Onerous contracts and protecting their manager. Well, could be. I was meaning supporters' energies and focus. I just assume the board(s) are by default useless so can't see any point in commenting on them; it seems very unlikely that they had anything to do with the original statement. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) I wonder when the last time is a non old firm team spent over £200k on a player. I doubt we'd get that much for many of our players, if any aside from Wallace and Macleod. Edited December 9, 2014 by Ser Barristan Selmy 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Statement 1 from Rangers RANGERS has received today the decision of the SPFL Compensation Tribunal and are content with the fee Dundee United have been ordered to pay for the training and development of Charlie Telfer who was at the Club for a period of 10 years. The payment awarded, which was significantly higher than Dundee United’s final offer, vindicates the Club’s decision to take the matter to a Compensation Tribunal. Dundee United introduced a late argument stating Rangers should only be awarded compensation for the training and development of Charlie Telfer for 2 years instead of the 10 years that he was with the Club. They argued the Club in its current form has only existed for two years. It is disappointing Dundee United tried to pursue this tiresome, legally incorrect and provocative argument given that it has been repeatedly confirmed by the football authorities in Scotland and beyond that administration and liquidation of the companies that owned the Club did not break the continuity of the Club’s history or its record of honours won. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dundee Utd publicly say they didn't use new club argument According to the DR, their lawyer contacted Rangers to remove this from their statement. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rangers revise statement RANGERS has received today the decision of the SPFL Compensation Tribunal and are content with the fee Dundee United have been ordered to pay for the training and development of Charlie Telfer who was at the Club for a period of 10 years. The payment awarded, which was significantly higher than Dundee United’s final offer, vindicates the Club’s decision to take the matter to a Compensation Tribunal. http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/8235-club-statement -------------------------------- Almost reminds me of Charles Green trying to play the siege mentality card. Daniel Stewart used to f**k up their announcements and have to correct them through incompetence. In this case, it seems as though someone is lying. Updated regards why it was changed. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-forced-u-turn-charlie-telfer-4778953 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 There are many important Rangers topics to discuss and the new club/old club argument is certainly one of them. We have won this battle although the message is taking far too long to penetrate many of the thick skulls in the Scottish game, but if we had somehow lost, there would have been no reason for any of us to be on this forum, or even for this forum to exist. We are the same club so we are all still here. If we were a new club, why would we even be supporting it? If the old club had really died, we could have a brand new club of our own rather than one that some say Charles Green and friends started up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 What a shambles. How on earth could we get this wrong and have to retract such a simple statement? Was there no proof and it was just a case of the Scottish media printing stuff from 'sources' at Dundee Utd? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 What a shambles. How on earth could we get this wrong and have to retract such a simple statement? Was there no proof and it was just a case of the Scottish media printing stuff from 'sources' at Dundee Utd? They were obviously reading Gunslinger saying it repeatedly on here! 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.