you give up because you've made a **** of yourself. i asked a simple question and you bit like **** (even though i wasn't "wumming") but yeah, call me stupid and walk away, no doubt a couple other cronies will come along and repeat your comments.
No, I give up because you misunderstand everything people post then argue about things that make no sense. Did you used to post under the name TheFanWithNoName? Very similar. Both thick as horse ****.
no, as i said before, i asked a simple honest question but you (like many others around here) are too used to jumping on people, berating them and generally being wee arseholes to see that. that's why your posts were full of contradictions which i picked up and now your embarrassed. why is it always the same story?
So what rules are laid out for the punishment of different circumstances surrounding a club in administration? Or do they just make it up as they go along without making clear why punishments vary from club to club? With numerous clubs going into administration over the last few years you would think that the governing body would have a set plan of what to do. Cash flow problem? We'll fine you when you're at your weakest. New owners not fit to run a club by the criteria we've made up since the appointment? We'll fine you. We'll also breach employment rules to provide a suitable punishment. While we're at it, see those crimes you've been charged with? We'll lets try and have you punished for those before we find you guilty. SFA is an amateur orgsnisation not fit to run a playgroup.
nah mate, you're wrong, it's all us, we're just paranoid. as i said earlier, imagine if the shoe was on the other foot...
Doncaster made a **** of it this morning. He was on 5 live with Nicky Campbell to talk abou the new SPL season and all they talked about was financial problems, sectarianism & the fact they have no sponsor
On the face of it, the fine can seem unfair. The rules were changed at the start of the season re: administration. Rangers have every right to ask why they were fined and Hearts weren't - I suspect they will get an answer and it'll point to the panel's comments at the time of handing the fine out (just short of match fixing, deliberately unco-operative staff and club reps, deliberate witholding of PAYE - Hearts didn't pay their players but Rangers did and witheld the PAYE etc etc etc). There's an argument that the punishment should be the same for every club that suffers an "insolvency event" but (and this is purely hypothetical) that would mean Alloa Athletic being fined the same as Celtic for the same offence - some might see this as egalitarian, some might see it as being proportionately unfair, I'm unsure. Hearts have been docked 50% more points than Rangers were. Hearts embargo has not been delayed until the end of a transfer window (that was PROPER ****ing bizarre). There will be no vote, should Hearts go bust, for an Edinburgh newco to go straight into any division other than the bottom one. I suspect Mather knows what the SFA's response will be and their reasons behind it - I could post a list of the panel's comments on WHY Rangers received such a fine (it wasn't all just because they went into admin - the 50K was part of a larger (160K) fine dished out because Rangers hadn't told them Craig Whyte was banned from being a director, brought the game into disrepute etc etc). Rangers are entitled to ask why they were fined and Hearts weren't - the answer is probably going to be gobbldegook rather than a straight answer but a straight answer given quickly would enable people to discuss whether that's fair or not (5 way agreement being so secret means we don't really know what happened behind the scenes). You won't get a straight answer - I suspect it's because your fine was a compromise where they shat out of taking your license off you - Rangers did not simply go into admin by running out of money - they went to extraordinary lengths to conceal what was going on and were granted licenses despite not meeting the minimum criteria. I see no problem with Mather asking for clarification. Although, the SFA have fined Hearts in the past when Romanov asked for clarification of something he already knew (bringing the game into disrepute) - so, should Mather be doing this, it would only be fair to fine Mather's club/company/holding/whatever similarly.
Any club in administration is there because they are skint . To ask a club in that situation to pay a fine is ludicrous . It was ludicrous when they did it to Rangets and it would have been just as ludicrous to do it to Hearts and Dunfermline Asking for clarification of this ruling in relation to Rangers is pointless . We all know Rangers were a special case and the SFA will make some senseless excuse up because it is abundantly clear that despite all that has gone on in the last few years these desperados haven't got a ****ing clue what their doing and are making it up as they go along . So I would say let them get on with it . However they came about the decision not to fine Hearts ultimately it is actually the only sensible decision they could have come too . Bit of coup that for the SFA .
