Posts: 8,077
Threads: 58
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation:
3
25-08-2017, 11:00
(This post was last modified: 25-08-2017, 11:02 by hibeejim21.)
So SPFL chiefs fine and chuck poor albion rovers out the irn bru cup for an incorrectly registered player,but rangers were allowed to illegally withhold the contract details of over 70 players and staff on their books to no punishment.
Difference being that rovers are a small club run on a tiny budget who have made an innocent mistake,where rangers were running a mendacious tax scheme to gain competitive advantage over their rivals.
What a joke Scottish fitba is.
Posts: 2,774
Threads: 12
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
1
Those are the rules Jim same as Legia Warsaw's xxxx up that saw Celtic given another chance in the champions league, now I agree with what yer saying but that's the way it is.
Posts: 2,774
Threads: 12
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
1
27-08-2017, 22:46
(This post was last modified: 27-08-2017, 22:46 by Fredstersafool.)
This is about playing an eligible player mate not ebt the SFA for once got it right
Ineligible player lol
Posts: 8,077
Threads: 58
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation:
3
They failed to disclose payment of their players,that means the registrations are null and void. Only in scotland would deliberately improperly registering players mean you were not cheating
And it wasn't the SFA that made this decision.
Posts: 219
Threads: 10
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation:
0
Again guys you are making this about Celtic vs dead co and the sfa/spl cabal
Unless your teams get involved that what this will be spun as.
I really expect Hibs and Hearts to get involved, but the usual cowardness toward the zombie hoards shows through.
If Turnbell Hutton was in charge of your club it would be different.
Have any of your fans taken this up with Dempster and Budge??
IF not you are part of the problem not the solution and should be ashamed
Posts: 9,211
Threads: 1,293
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
1
30-08-2017, 15:36
(This post was last modified: 30-08-2017, 15:44 by 0762.)
As said previously edgie, there are factions of Hibs fans that I'm aware of who are not enamoured with Hibs reticence on the subject but Hibs FC officials are relying on the collective 'no response, not interested' of Hibs support in order to avoid the inevitable intimidation and angst that would emanate from this toxic Scottish footie club named Rangers FC should Hibs FC 'go public' on the subject. It proves that intimidation and aggro through different 'channels/sources' actually works in a situation like this (look at Stuart Regan's account alone on the subject and the threats to him and his family - absolutely outrageous!) although IMO it is a criminal act that should be vigorously challenged by the relevant authorities.
Posts: 219
Threads: 10
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation:
0
well its up to your fans to make sure this is pushed
We had to go to a board meeting to get resolution 12 put forward?
Aren't hibs fans one of the biggest share holders??
And while we are there any idea what the foundation of hears position is on this??
Posts: 9,211
Threads: 1,293
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
1
No idea re FOH position although again many of their members not enamoured with the sevco fiasco either. Re Hibs shareholders, sure there is a significant fans' presence but I still think that the collective will of this group would opt for the 'reticent line' although the real paradox is that they unanimously can't stand Rangers FC or the crass behaviour of their fans and media 'hangers-on'!
