comment by New Magnum. The Mild Drover (U16400)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by New Magnum. The Mild Drover (U16400)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 1 minute ago
'Other Member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns' Douglas Park.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He doesn't say that Rangers showed them it though. U is correct about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is implicit in the statement. But, whatever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You said he said it though and he doesn’t say it!! Are you incapable of admitting to getting it wrong!! Is it some timmy prerequisite that you cannot admit being wrong!!! FFS!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I refer you to my previous response.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And that was wrong as well!! You never originally said it was implicit in the statement! You clearly said the Park said it!! He clearly did t say it and you are wrong!! Why can’t you guys just admit to being wrong FFS!! Do you think god is going to strike you down or something!! Just admit that you got it wrong FFS!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And BTW, that makes you a liar!! You read what he said and decided to misinterpret him to say he said something but he didn’t!! A bare faced liar who cannot admit to being wrong!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why can’t you admit that you got it wrong?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Make up your mind.
Is he wrong or a liar?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither.

‘ He is both! I thought at first he just read it wrong and would apologise for his mistake!! The fact he now says it was implied means he did read it wrongly and then lied about it!! No chance if any of you egotistical and hypocrite pwicks actually admitting to any wrongdoing though is there!! ’

You’ll be apologising to me then?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Make up your mind.
Is he wrong or a liar?

--
He might not be either FFS.

He might be stupid and not have understood it and now its pointed out still doesn't.

Though I guess that would just make him wrong or an accidental liar

Does it fekn matter ????

comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by New Magnum. The Mild Drover (U16400)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by New Magnum. The Mild Drover (U16400)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 1 minute ago
'Other Member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns' Douglas Park.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He doesn't say that Rangers showed them it though. U is correct about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is implicit in the statement. But, whatever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You said he said it though and he doesn’t say it!! Are you incapable of admitting to getting it wrong!! Is it some timmy prerequisite that you cannot admit being wrong!!! FFS!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I refer you to my previous response.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And that was wrong as well!! You never originally said it was implicit in the statement! You clearly said the Park said it!! He clearly did t say it and you are wrong!! Why can’t you guys just admit to being wrong FFS!! Do you think god is going to strike you down or something!! Just admit that you got it wrong FFS!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And BTW, that makes you a liar!! You read what he said and decided to misinterpret him to say he said something but he didn’t!! A bare faced liar who cannot admit to being wrong!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why can’t you admit that you got it wrong?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Make up your mind.
Is he wrong or a liar?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So Park did say that he shared the evidence with other clubs!! You are definitely a liar!!

comment by (U22371)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by New Magnum. The Mild Drover (U16400)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by New Magnum. The Mild Drover (U16400)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 1 minute ago
'Other Member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns' Douglas Park.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He doesn't say that Rangers showed them it though. U is correct about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is implicit in the statement. But, whatever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You said he said it though and he doesn’t say it!! Are you incapable of admitting to getting it wrong!! Is it some timmy prerequisite that you cannot admit being wrong!!! FFS!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I refer you to my previous response.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And that was wrong as well!! You never originally said it was implicit in the statement! You clearly said the Park said it!! He clearly did t say it and you are wrong!! Why can’t you guys just admit to being wrong FFS!! Do you think god is going to strike you down or something!! Just admit that you got it wrong FFS!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And BTW, that makes you a liar!! You read what he said and decided to misinterpret him to say he said something but he didn’t!! A bare faced liar who cannot admit to being wrong!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why can’t you admit that you got it wrong?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Make up your mind.
Is he wrong or a liar?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So Park did say that he shared the evidence with other clubs!! You are definitely a liar!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ll ask again then, seeing as you ignored my question earlier.

The 2 clubs that are backing rangers have not seen the evidence rangers have-their words.

Rangers say that there are other teams that have seen it. Why did none of them back rangers when they made their call for the EGM, nor has any other team backed the calls that rangers have made for suspensions and the serious allegations that they’ve made?

Silver

I've damn near got a similar beard atm anaw?

POV, they might be drinking as much as the rest of us?

That’s the way I see it too

Hearts and Stranraer I’ve both confirmed that they haven’t been privy to the information Rangers claim to hold.

Have Rangers shared it with anyone else? I genuinely don’t know but I’d find it pretty unbelievable if they have and the club(s) haven’t said so. Furthermore why would they share it with any other club(s) but exclude Hearts and Stranraer who are onside with them?

Makes absolutely no sense at all.

So in essence I don’t believe Rangers have shared their dossier with anyone else at all expect perhaps their advisors.

comment by Insufferable-Piffle, just in case, I'm sorry! (U4388)
posted 27 seconds ago
POV, they might be drinking as much as the rest of us?
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Anything, it seems, is possible just now.

But again, that's just a guess?

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 3 minutes ago
That’s the way I see it too

Hearts and Stranraer I’ve both confirmed that they haven’t been privy to the information Rangers claim to hold.

Have Rangers shared it with anyone else? I genuinely don’t know but I’d find it pretty unbelievable if they have and the club(s) haven’t said so. Furthermore why would they share it with any other club(s) but exclude Hearts and Stranraer who are onside with them?

Makes absolutely no sense at all.

So in essence I don’t believe Rangers have shared their dossier with anyone else at all expect perhaps their advisors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty much agree.

I believe they have something, I’m just not sure it’s as strong as they possibly need it to be.

We’ll find out soon enough.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

they might well have something but i think it will all be in some sad attempt to get the league cancelled without celtic as champions.

it has to be massive if they are calling for suspensions

'Other member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns'.
This sentence has a subordinate clause with two qualifiers. Take away the subordinate clause or the qualifiers and you change meaning of the sentence.
Take away the subordinate clause, 'who have seen the evidence we hold' and the sentence now reads 'other members share our concerns', which is totally different in meaning from the original sentence.
The two qualifiers are a) 'those [members] who have seen the evidence' and b) [the evidence] 'we hold'.
If you take away the second qualifier ('we hold' )the sentence then reads 'Other members, who have seen the evidence, share our concerns'.Now that is precisely what some claim the sentence is saying. But the second qualifier[the evidence] 'we hold' is equally important. And the reason it is important is that it tells you who has the evidence and in this case 'we' - Rangers - have the evidence.
If Rangers 'hold' the evidence, how do others get it? One of three ways: steal it, it is shown to them or given to them by Rangers.
The idea that Rangers 'hold' the evidence is supported also by later references to 'having a dossier of evidence'.

comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 3 minutes ago
That’s the way I see it too

Hearts and Stranraer I’ve both confirmed that they haven’t been privy to the information Rangers claim to hold.

Have Rangers shared it with anyone else? I genuinely don’t know but I’d find it pretty unbelievable if they have and the club(s) haven’t said so. Furthermore why would they share it with any other club(s) but exclude Hearts and Stranraer who are onside with them?

Makes absolutely no sense at all.

So in essence I don’t believe Rangers have shared their dossier with anyone else at all expect perhaps their advisors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty much agree.

I believe they have something, I’m just not sure it’s as strong as they possibly need it to be.

We’ll find out soon enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don’t think we will though. I think they realise now that this earth shattering dossier isn’t as earth shattering at all and will prove to be a major disappointment.

I believe enough clubs will come forward to scupper their demands before they have to release anything and that lets them off the hook to go to their fan base and continue the myth that everyone is out to get them and that there’s a cover up.

I hope I’m wrong and we get to see this dossier of course

comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 1 minute ago
'Other member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns'.
This sentence has a subordinate clause with two qualifiers. Take away the subordinate clause or the qualifiers and you change meaning of the sentence.
Take away the subordinate clause, 'who have seen the evidence we hold' and the sentence now reads 'other members share our concerns', which is totally different in meaning from the original sentence.
The two qualifiers are a) 'those [members] who have seen the evidence' and b) [the evidence] 'we hold'.
If you take away the second qualifier ('we hold' )the sentence then reads 'Other members, who have seen the evidence, share our concerns'.Now that is precisely what some claim the sentence is saying. But the second qualifier[the evidence] 'we hold' is equally important. And the reason it is important is that it tells you who has the evidence and in this case 'we' - Rangers - have the evidence.
If Rangers 'hold' the evidence, how do others get it? One of three ways: steal it, it is shown to them or given to them by Rangers.
The idea that Rangers 'hold' the evidence is supported also by later references to 'having a dossier of evidence'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s not your work, is it?! Be honest!

Ginger-I thought much the same. But, if the SPFL are so sure of themselves, then they’ll let this run it’s course to ensure that the dossier of evidence is released to all the clubs. Rangers have said they will release it in plenty of time before the meeting. I think that means they have a week from now to do that, to make sure they comply with their statement.

comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 4 minutes ago
'Other member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns'.
This sentence has a subordinate clause with two qualifiers. Take away the subordinate clause or the qualifiers and you change meaning of the sentence.
Take away the subordinate clause, 'who have seen the evidence we hold' and the sentence now reads 'other members share our concerns', which is totally different in meaning from the original sentence.
The two qualifiers are a) 'those [members] who have seen the evidence' and b) [the evidence] 'we hold'.
If you take away the second qualifier ('we hold' )the sentence then reads 'Other members, who have seen the evidence, share our concerns'.Now that is precisely what some claim the sentence is saying. But the second qualifier[the evidence] 'we hold' is equally important. And the reason it is important is that it tells you who has the evidence and in this case 'we' - Rangers - have the evidence.
If Rangers 'hold' the evidence, how do others get it? One of three ways: steal it, it is shown to them or given to them by Rangers.
The idea that Rangers 'hold' the evidence is supported also by later references to 'having a dossier of evidence'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Other clubs might also be holding evidence or even have their own invoices. Sorry dossiers.

comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 1 minute ago
'Other member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns'.
This sentence has a subordinate clause with two qualifiers. Take away the subordinate clause or the qualifiers and you change meaning of the sentence.
Take away the subordinate clause, 'who have seen the evidence we hold' and the sentence now reads 'other members share our concerns', which is totally different in meaning from the original sentence.
The two qualifiers are a) 'those [members] who have seen the evidence' and b) [the evidence] 'we hold'.
If you take away the second qualifier ('we hold' )the sentence then reads 'Other members, who have seen the evidence, share our concerns'.Now that is precisely what some claim the sentence is saying. But the second qualifier[the evidence] 'we hold' is equally important. And the reason it is important is that it tells you who has the evidence and in this case 'we' - Rangers - have the evidence.
If Rangers 'hold' the evidence, how do others get it? One of three ways: steal it, it is shown to them or given to them by Rangers.
The idea that Rangers 'hold' the evidence is supported also by later references to 'having a dossier of evidence'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What a load of uneducated, googled schite!! You quite clearly said that Park had said in his statement that he shared the evidence with others!! Park clearly did not say this and only said that others had seen it!! Maybe it was one of those clubs that saw it and then shared it with Park!! Whatever, Park did not say he shared it!! For the life of god just admit you were wrong!! Your refusal to admit being wrong has just led you to being a liar and fookin stupid to boot!! You could have just got away with being wrong but it looks like all you tims have ego issues!!

comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
Ginger-I thought much the same. But, if the SPFL are so sure of themselves, then they’ll let this run it’s course to ensure that the dossier of evidence is released to all the clubs. Rangers have said they will release it in plenty of time before the meeting. I think that means they have a week from now to do that, to make sure they comply with their statement.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah I get that but St Mirren for one have already stated their position. There are significant rumblings from many clubs in Leagues 1 and 2 I believe.

Enough of them come forward before the due date and it’s fait accompli. Rangers dossier like Aberdeen’s vote becomes irrelevant.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by (U22371)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 1 minute ago
'Other member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns'.
This sentence has a subordinate clause with two qualifiers. Take away the subordinate clause or the qualifiers and you change meaning of the sentence.
Take away the subordinate clause, 'who have seen the evidence we hold' and the sentence now reads 'other members share our concerns', which is totally different in meaning from the original sentence.
The two qualifiers are a) 'those [members] who have seen the evidence' and b) [the evidence] 'we hold'.
If you take away the second qualifier ('we hold' )the sentence then reads 'Other members, who have seen the evidence, share our concerns'.Now that is precisely what some claim the sentence is saying. But the second qualifier[the evidence] 'we hold' is equally important. And the reason it is important is that it tells you who has the evidence and in this case 'we' - Rangers - have the evidence.
If Rangers 'hold' the evidence, how do others get it? One of three ways: steal it, it is shown to them or given to them by Rangers.
The idea that Rangers 'hold' the evidence is supported also by later references to 'having a dossier of evidence'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What a load of uneducated, googled schite!! You quite clearly said that Park had said in his statement that he shared the evidence with others!! Park clearly did not say this and only said that others had seen it!! Maybe it was one of those clubs that saw it and then shared it with Park!! Whatever, Park did not say he shared it!! For the life of god just admit you were wrong!! Your refusal to admit being wrong has just led you to being a liar and fookin stupid to boot!! You could have just got away with being wrong but it looks like all you tims have ego issues!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever

comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 7 minutes ago
'Other member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns'.
This sentence has a subordinate clause with two qualifiers. Take away the subordinate clause or the qualifiers and you change meaning of the sentence.
Take away the subordinate clause, 'who have seen the evidence we hold' and the sentence now reads 'other members share our concerns', which is totally different in meaning from the original sentence.
The two qualifiers are a) 'those [members] who have seen the evidence' and b) [the evidence] 'we hold'.
If you take away the second qualifier ('we hold' )the sentence then reads 'Other members, who have seen the evidence, share our concerns'.Now that is precisely what some claim the sentence is saying. But the second qualifier[the evidence] 'we hold' is equally important. And the reason it is important is that it tells you who has the evidence and in this case 'we' - Rangers - have the evidence.
If Rangers 'hold' the evidence, how do others get it? One of three ways: steal it, it is shown to them or given to them by Rangers.
The idea that Rangers 'hold' the evidence is supported also by later references to 'having a dossier of evidence'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You are a smelly fooking stupid liar!! That sentence has 7 words in it!! Take away words 4 and 5 and you are a stupid liar!!

There's another possibility. That the evidence comes from other clubs in the first instance - yes, ICT, I'm looking at you.

So, they have seen it but it's not been shared by Rangers.

They are scheitebags and are using Rangers as the big bully for their own self-interest?