Did you know it's illegal to lie about your attendances?

Templeton7|RFC wrote:

Ed wrote:surely the tickets are cheaper this year? And there must be a limit on season tickets you can sell, they might've upped it this season?

Mine has gone from like £180 to £120, hardly an enormous difference. And yeah, there is a limit.

exactly so they have probably increased the limit for season tickets as it would be harder to sell one match tickets maybe. I'm not sure though but there must be a reason

Ed wrote:

Templeton7|RFC wrote:

Mine has gone from like £180 to £120, hardly an enormous difference. And yeah, there is a limit.

exactly so they have probably increased the limit for season tickets as it would be harder to sell one match tickets maybe. I'm not sure though but there must be a reason

The fans have got what they wanted, the club could have appealed to stay in the top division, but before the original vote had even taken place, we said that we wanted to go to the third division. You can't boot us out and expect to keep our financial benefits. The SPL used to get something like £18million a season from Sky, it's barely even £8million now. The SPL/SFA also plan to restructure the Scottish League System so that we'll be back in the SPL either next season or the following. We don't want that, but we may have to agree. It's not our decision i.e. if we reject then we have to leave scottish football, which would be nice, but we'd need to have something set in stone.

What are the odds some sad zombie typed that letter up?? Look at the date

The Maestro wrote:What are the odds some sad zombie typed that letter up?? Look at the date

What about the date?

EDIT: Just noticed

MickStupp wrote:

The Maestro wrote:What are the odds some sad zombie typed that letter up?? Look at the date

What about the date?

"I refer to your request for information dated 31st August 2013"

Templeton7|RFC wrote:
My point was more, that teams can't just bump up their attendances to make it look good. It's an offence under the Freedom of Information act as the letter states.

Boooooooooring.

Celtic are better than Rangers in everyway so they have to hide their insecurities by talking about their attendances like people care. It's so petty and sadistic, this should be clamped down already on this place it's fucking annoying now

Why do people do that? When a thread is dead as it's been discussed to the max, they decide to bump it up to the top. It has been discussed enough, refrain from keeping it going.

Yeah sure, if you had any cause you wouldn't of posted you cretin

Fonseca and Ed have already said it all but I just thought I'd point out that 41000 is an absolute lie. I was there and no fucking way was there 20000 empty seats. The place was packed to the rafters and I'd be willing to bet there was significantly more than the 48000 originally reported. The date on that letter betrays its illegitimacy.

Is it just me, or do all Newco fans seem to care more about attendances than the actual team/football?

And I thought the Greek club fans on the old EA were bad.

ConorCelticFC wrote:Fonseca and Ed have already said it all but I just thought I'd point out that 41000 is an absolute lie. I was there and no fucking way was there 20000 empty seats. The place was packed to the rafters and I'd be willing to bet there was significantly more than the 48000 originally reported. The date on that letter betrays its illegitimacy.

So you are saying the letter is legitimate then?

Scuba Steve wrote:

ConorCelticFC wrote:Fonseca and Ed have already said it all but I just thought I'd point out that 41000 is an absolute lie. I was there and no fucking way was there 20000 empty seats. The place was packed to the rafters and I'd be willing to bet there was significantly more than the 48000 originally reported. The date on that letter betrays its illegitimacy.

So you are saying the letter is legitimate then?

It quite obviously is, it came from a celtic forum. There are 3 dates on it, the other 2 are correct. Hardly impossibly to hit the 3 when trying to type a 2, you know a typo. And, he is only responding to what celtic wrote in the 2013 date, so maybe it was them who made the mistake.

Scuba Steve wrote:

ConorCelticFC wrote:Fonseca and Ed have already said it all but I just thought I'd point out that 41000 is an absolute lie. I was there and no fucking way was there 20000 empty seats. The place was packed to the rafters and I'd be willing to bet there was significantly more than the 48000 originally reported. The date on that letter betrays its illegitimacy.

So you are saying the letter is legitimate then?

I doubt I'll get a response out of this but no, I was correct. If you betray something you expose it. The erroneous date has exposed the illegitimacy of the letter.

how is division 3

ahlycotc wrote:And I thought the Greek club fans on the old EA were bad.

Wasn't it just one guy?

It's good they got a nice even number at the game like 41,250.

Mouse wrote:It's good they got a nice even number at the game like 41,250.

Are you saying that doesn't happen?

MickStupp wrote:

Mouse wrote:It's good they got a nice even number at the game like 41,250.

Are you saying that doesn't happen?

No. It's unlikely, nearly every club rounds their attendances. Does that not count as lying about your attendance?

ConorCelticFC wrote:

Scuba Steve wrote:

So you are saying the letter is legitimate then?

I doubt I'll get a response out of this but no, I was correct. If you betray something you expose it. The erroneous date has exposed the illegitimacy of the letter.

Nah, I'm pretty sure Steve's right. To betray is to go against, a negative. illegitimate is the negative of legitimate so the double negative would make it positive, or you saying it's legitimate.

Mouse wrote:

MickStupp wrote:
Are you saying that doesn't happen?

No. It's unlikely, nearly every club rounds their attendances. Does that not count as lying about your attendance?

If it's an estimate, then surely that's not lying.

Bogdan wrote:

ConorCelticFC wrote:

I doubt I'll get a response out of this but no, I was correct. If you betray something you expose it. The erroneous date has exposed the illegitimacy of the letter.

Nah, I'm pretty sure Steve's right. To betray is to go against, a negative. illegitimate is the negative of legitimate so the double negative would make it positive, or you saying it's legitimate.

I think what Conor has said makes sense, like if you betray your feelings you reveal them without the intention of doing so.

MickStupp wrote:

Mouse wrote:No. It's unlikely, nearly every club rounds their attendances. Does that not count as lying about your attendance?

If it's an estimate, then surely that's not lying.

If you don't say it's an estimate, technically it is lying.

Who cares though?

Bogdan wrote:

ConorCelticFC wrote:

I doubt I'll get a response out of this but no, I was correct. If you betray something you expose it. The erroneous date has exposed the illegitimacy of the letter.

Nah, I'm pretty sure Steve's right. To betray is to go against, a negative. illegitimate is the negative of legitimate so the double negative would make it positive, or you saying it's legitimate.

Steve is wrong. See Mick Stupp's post. Then kill yourself.

ConorCelticFC wrote:

Scuba Steve wrote:

So you are saying the letter is legitimate then?

I doubt I'll get a response out of this but no, I was correct. If you betray something you expose it. The erroneous date has exposed the illegitimacy of the letter.

Betray isn't synonymous with expose though. To betray something is to be disloyal to it. So if you say that you betraying illegitimacy, that means you are disloyal to the illegitimacy, and therefore legitimizing it. I get what you were trying to say, but I think 'betraying it's legitimacy' would have made more sense.

Scuba Steve wrote:

ConorCelticFC wrote:

I doubt I'll get a response out of this but no, I was correct. If you betray something you expose it. The erroneous date has exposed the illegitimacy of the letter.

Betray isn't synonymous with expose though. To betray something is to be disloyal to it. So if you say that you betraying illegitimacy, that means you are disloyal to the illegitimacy, and therefore legitimizing it. I get what you were trying to say, but I think 'betraying it's legitimacy' would have made more sense.

You're embarrassing yourself. To betray something is to unwillingly expose it. You are clearly not familiar with this sense of the word 'betray.'

Definition:

1. To be false or disloyal to.
2. To reveal against one's desire or will.

You are applying the first, and incorrect, definition of 'betray' to my sentence.

ConorCelticFC wrote:

Bogdan wrote:Nah, I'm pretty sure Steve's right. To betray is to go against, a negative. illegitimate is the negative of legitimate so the double negative would make it positive, or you saying it's legitimate.

Steve is wrong. See Mick Stupp's post. Then kill yourself.

Mick is right, you are wrong. Betrayal is to go against whatever follows. So betraying illegitimacy would be to go against it, making it legitimate.

Bogdan wrote:

ConorCelticFC wrote:

Steve is wrong. See Mick Stupp's post. Then kill yourself.

Mick is right, you are wrong. Betrayal is to go against whatever follows. So betraying illegitimacy would be to go against it, making it legitimate.

Mick agrees that what I said makes sense you fuckwit. You don't know the secondary definition of 'betray.' Read a fucking book.

ConorCelticFC wrote:

Scuba Steve wrote:
Betray isn't synonymous with expose though. To betray something is to be disloyal to it. So if you say that you betraying illegitimacy, that means you are disloyal to the illegitimacy, and therefore legitimizing it. I get what you were trying to say, but I think 'betraying it's legitimacy' would have made more sense.

You're embarrassing yourself. To betray something is to unwillingly expose it. You are clearly not familiar with this sense of the word 'betray.'

Definition:

1. To be false or disloyal to.
2. To reveal against one's desire or will.

You are applying the first, and incorrect, definition of 'betray' to my sentence.

The second definition is pointless, because to reveal something against one's desire or will is a scenario of being disloyal/committing betrayal (or going against).