McKinnon hearing - Page 8 - General Morton Chatter - TheMortonForum.com Jump to content
TheMortonForum.com

McKinnon hearing


cmdc

Recommended Posts

60k a year for someone without a job for 8 months and who made a right roaring James Hunt of his previous job wants to leaves after less than 90 days in his new position despite being backed to the hilt by his chairman. Greedy , greedy bastard. Has a flat in Glasgow too , so no great commute either. Hope all chairmen/women read the tribunal findings and consider his actions when he gets punted by Falkirk.

Flat in Glasgow was rented by Morton. He also had a club car paid for by Morton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 268
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Take a minute, step back from the laptop and reflect on the reality that everytime you post you are making a complete arse of yourself. It must really hurt, to have it in black and white, that the team you allegedly support acted honourably and won the case. 

 

I wouldn't worry about it. He doesn't have a great record when it comes to predicting the outcome of this type of thing.

You address me by my proper title, you little bollocks! 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally just got chance to read the tribunal findings. Absolutely hilarious him trying to act like a man of integrity afterwards saying everyone knows him in football knows the kind of person he is, when in reality he's just a bold faced liar. Absolutely glorious.

Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things, but only with religion do good people do bad things!

 

32.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Direct quote from someone who is close pals with Taylor and knows the snake well, “Ray is Ray, always looking out for himself and very money orientated I’m not surprised in the slightest if the move was done on the fly”.

 

Glad he has been “officially” found out now. Good riddance and to echo once again, hopefully Falkirk go down, go bust and Ray ends up back up the road on the taxis away from football 👍🏻

 

Reading the tribunal findings aswell, the absolute nick of their chairwoman in this 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally just got chance to read the tribunal findings. Absolutely hilarious him trying to act like a man of integrity afterwards saying everyone knows him in football knows the kind of person he is, when in reality he's just a bold faced liar. Absolutely glorious.

Think someone else said it earlier in the thread but this won't affect his standing overmuch - as long as he's a success.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Falkirk punted Eamonn Bannon as manager over the transfer of John Clark, who made him (Bannon) the scapegoat over them not obeying SFL rules and landing the club with a hefty fine.

 

Surely if that's the case then the Falkirk chairwoman's position must be untenable and she should be held responsible for this debacle.

*insert signature here*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heard yesterday that he had met with the Falkirk people in that very flat while shafting us.

It's all in the spfl report.

 

He drove to his Morton flat in Glasgow in his Morton car where he and his asst manager met the Falkirk rep.

There, they signed contracts and then colluded to concoct a fictitious timeline of events in an attempt to conceal the truth.

 

Snakes are actually noble creatures compared to these c*nts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't get what they're objecting to in all of this. There's not really any version of the accepted events that can vindicate them: the key thing that comes out of it is that Falkirk's officials are really ****in thick and make our lot look like MENSA, which is hardly a defence.

AWMSC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some genius on P&B says:

 

"Appeal will be on the grounds that no breach of rules was proven. Debate will be over "probability" being a strong enough conclusion."

 

That's an interesting one. The original hearing was held by the SPFL; the appeal will be held by the SFA. So they're going after the jurisdiction of the league, basically, in enforcing its own rules.

 

It seems to me extremely unlikely that the SFA will buy it. The SPFL rules tome makes the powers of the hearing body quite clear.

 

I could be wrong but if Falkirk are determined to fight this, it will need to go all the way to a court of law.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47148119

 

Absolute thick ****.

 

Hope it costs them more money and the suspended part of the fine should be enforced if they continue to pursue and lose.

 

Margaret Lang wasn't permitted to represent Falkirk in the original hearing as she was also a witness for FFC. I wonder if the SFA have the same rule? I kind of hope they don't because she seems massively stupid and out of her depth.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some genius on P&B says:

 

"Appeal will be on the grounds that no breach of rules was proven. Debate will be over "probability" being a strong enough conclusion."

 

That's an interesting one. The original hearing was held by the SPFL; the appeal will be held by the SFA. So they're going after the jurisdiction of the league, basically, in enforcing its own rules.

 

It seems to me extremely unlikely that the SFA will buy it. The SPFL rules tome makes the powers of the hearing body quite clear.

 

I could be wrong but if Falkirk are determined to fight this, it will need to go all the way to a court of law.

Am I misreading this or (as this P&B poster puts it) are they seeking to challenge the entire basis of civil hearings that are based a balance of probabilities? That’s a big question for an SFA judicial panel...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...