Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Rangers' started by Rocket, Aug 5, 2012.
Catch a grip by the way...
Jean n trainers wi a shirt n tie
I thought I was as trendy as **** as well....
So a firm that don't know anything about Scottish sports law???
In a word... NAW!
Why, do all Scottish law firms have testimonials from Scottish football club chairmen on their websites?
This is more important than the field they specialise in because...
Because they are even better liars than the lawyers. Look at the ****e fans of every club and persuasion swallow from these characters.
That's why they're paraniod!
That's why they're paraniod!
The lawyers are and should be experts in sports law/regulations, yet you'd quite specifically want them to have nothing to do with football?
Edit: missed Anport's reply to this
FFS, it is Scotland, of course people are going to be pissed off about it and as I said on the first page, it is pretty naive of the SPL to think that people wouldn't be. I would have thought, with them knowing the mentality in Scotland, they would have quite simply appointed a firm with no connections to any club, at least it would have saved 6 pages on a certain website.
When did I say they should have nothing to do with football? Just because you put a laughing face after your statement doesn't mean that I actually said it.
So Duff and Phelps can have a conflict of interest with Craig Whyte, but not some law firm and Lawell?
Full ae ****e.
let me do it - ffs it will take all of 5 minutes!
side letters aye nae? what do they say "wages" aye nae?
Duff & Phelps had a senior partner help Whyte fund the takeover via Ticketus - then they were appointed administrators = conflict of interest.
If HM were involved in work for Rangers in the past, it would be a conflict of interest - as far as I'm aware, they're not.
Perhaps an analogy would work best.
An investigation is to be carried out about the Libor fix at Barclays.
The investigation is to be carried out on behalf of the FSA.
The FSA are not Lloyds and Lloyds are not the FSA.
If lawyers who did casework for Barclays were chosen, there'd be no conflict.
If lawyers who did casework for the FSA were chosen, there'd be no conflict.
If lawyers who did casework for Barclays were chosen, there would be a conflict of interest.
Imagine some nutty Barclays shareholders claimed that "they are Lloyds lawyers - they stand to gain out of our loss - there's a clear conflict of interest", they would be laughed at.
Imagine they then went on to check what schools all their employees went to and pointed to a testimonial from Eric Whatsisname from Lloyds for this firm or the fact that his daughter did her work experience there.
It's fucking nuts.
What if, right, the SPL states that no titles stripped will be awarded to Celtic - Celtic then don't have "something to gain". That would suit me
Then, perhaps, you'll all put the tinfoil back and STFU.
please log in to view this image
i think you mean lylods on that 1st one dude
Which one <unseentypo>?
You don't seem to be getting my point, I couldn't give 2 monkeys' ****s which firm is appointed, but it would have been easier and less hassle if they appointed one with no connections to any club. Surely you can see that?