Jim McLean's Ghost

Because it means more money for his group of clubs? Just because he is agreeing with your position doesn't mean he is doing it for just reasons.

Is the computer intact? If it is and it is just gubbed from a virus or whatever you can put a linux distribution on a USB stick and boot from the USB. This will allow you full access to the hard drive and then you can take off whatever files you need and then do the restore. (Does the hard disk have a recovery partition or will you be installing a clean OS) Here is a guide how to do it

Anything is possible here. It does seem unlikely to have happened from 2000 onwards with greater media coverage but I'm not going to rule it out as false just yet. Let's see what lovely accounting trickery they have been up to. Everyone had said EBTSs were in the submitted accounts, has somebody decided to check out that claim. While I advocate only vacating trophies for EBTs, if falsified accounts and genuine fraud (not just playing fast and loose with the tax code) has occurred I will take great delight in several rangers directors ending up in jail. I hope the prison system has kept up with the DisabIlities Discrimination Act

I thought Alex Thomson was a respected journalist who did his research. Green purchased the assets while Rangers PLC were in administration, more over Rangers PLC are still in administration. Liquidation hasn't started yet and the liquidators aren't in charge of the company.

I wouldn't count on it. Players are still registered to Rangers FC, Duff and Phelps are still in charge of that, contracts may or may not have been TUPED. Players will move on when this is ironed out.

Come on, you really just want to get it up Caledonian curmudgeons don't you

The SPL can't decide what is a continuation club and what isn't only the SFA have that power. The SPL could vote Yes for a newco then the SFA deny the transfer of membership and make newco apply for a new club membership. That would mean Sevco's Rangers officially loses all it's history.

I think that proves that improperly registered players need not carry an automatic 3-0 defeat. What punishment the SPL give out for the EBTs will be interesting.

There are rules to do that, they just haven't been invoked. The chairmen want this two weeks to see what the fallout is and what consensus can be reached before the meeting. There is still plenty of time to get the SPL house in order. The SFL might be under time pressure, I am sure it will be their decision on who gets promoted out of Dundee or Dunfermline (or they could choose to promote no one) and which club gets the open spot in SFL 3.

You know some people should be barred from posting in this thread. Of course Rangers F.C. still exist, not in a pleasant state but are alive and still in administration. The company who holds the SFA membership and owns the SPL share don't have any other assets but it doesn't mean they are dead. We are in the process of Sevco trying to extract assets from Rangers PLC and seeking permission of the relevant authorities to move non-transferable assets.

So if the Rangers end was half full then United wouldn't have charged for the re-arranged game. Steven Thomson broke years of tradition when he charge for a re-arranged match that didn't make it past half time, he did so only out of monetary concerns, that makes him a money grabbing c**t.

The company is liable to pay money back to itself? They still have gotten the tax benefit of when the loan was given so does that really mean anything other than moving money around on a balance sheet.

Writing a letter of a loan statement is acknowledging the loan. Just writing it in your accounts isn't enough, you have to contact the loanee. If I lend you fifty quid and say pay it back whenever. If I do nothing then chase you up 6 years later and I have kept wonderful balance sheets and audited accounts of this loan for the duration it wouldn't matter, you could legally juke it. I need to send something to you inside 5 years.

It can be 1000 years, they still have to write to you every 5 years to keep a claim on the loan.

1. Deduction of wages is not automatic and may not occur immediately 2. The stoppage of employment doesn't mean these loans need to be repaid either meaning that another way would need to be found to pay back the money and if no contact about the debt then it would be expunged. It isn't really relevant here though. The point was that people were saying the EBT wasn't a loan because it wasn't being repaid and had no known conditions of being repaid. A legal EBT could be administered that way. Adding in contractual obligations for pay is where the scheme went wrong, yes? It could be noted then that a Director like Campbell Ogilvie might well have a legal EBT. He is no longer an employee of Rangers so how and when should he pay this loan back?

This was more a statement about loans in general than about fraudulent EBTs. I believe English law has a similar clause. If the EBTs were paid on shore, which is completely legal and the administrators of that loan did not contact the recipients for years the loan would be forgiven. Rangers will be found liable for the BTC plus penalties but I don't think the employees who received this money have a case to answer or money to pay.

That is the law. If a person/company lend you money and there is no contact for 5 years you are no longer indebted. Contact would be any written statement, payment or request for payment.

His problem, all replayed games has costs incurred. He went against years of precedent and gentlemen's arrangements based on actual rules written out for Scottish Cup ties.

Not true. Loans can be made on any condition the lender wants. There doesn't need to be an agreement or timescale for repayment included. More to the facts any EBT over 5 years old which the Rangers Trust have not contacted the person about are automatically forgiven under Scots law.

Whoa boy. United are still c***s for doing that. Every game that I've been to has been abandoned at half time has been free entry. We didn't charge Hibs fans when are floodlights caught fire last season. The time honoured tradition is that if a match is abandoned at half time then the rescheduled fixture is free for all those who attended the original game. Stephen Thomson went for a cash grab plain and simple and he should be condemned for his actions.

The SFA are the only relevant football authority. The SPL isn't a football authority it is a trade group. As such the SFA can punish a football club, the SPL can only punish companies that own football clubs. Usually a merely pedantic difference but in this case it is a big one since the football club is being separated from the company.

This is something that has confused me. Is submitting all contracts to the SFA an SFA rule or an SPL rule or both. If it is an SFA rule Why are the SFA not in charge of the investigation. If we are wiping out trophies surely the SPL ca only deal with league titles.

That would be punishing the newco for the actions of the oldco. The SPL could try and make terms of transfer of share that the newco take responsibility for all past actions but that to me is illegal. If newco were punished with a fine or points penalty I think they would win any court case. The only authority who has the right to punish newco for past actions is the SFA. They don't deal with companies like the SPL, they deal with clubs. Punishments due to a transfer of share are still on the table so really forward punishments of EBTs is irrelevant since the SPL gave themselves open options for punishment and I'm sure they will be looking at all the circumstances that lead to a share transfer being needed. If they chuck them out of the SPL then there will be no avenue to punish the newco for EBTs anyway. The vacating of trophies is good enough for me, a permanent black mark against Rangers.

I think Doncaster is correct to suspend the ruling until they take some legal advice over what is an available sanction for EBTs. This doesn't mean there will be no sanctions if the SPL votes for the share transfer since the SPL just changed the rules so they could impose sanctions on the newco. The SPL certainly can't levy fines or future points deductions for EBTs now so that means if found guilty the vacating of trophies. I don't think trophies should go to runners up, instead there should be no winner so that when anyone looks at a history book they immediately know something was wrong and I don't particularly agree with re-awarding trophies well after the fact since any joy gotten by the new winners is completely false and overshadowed by the feeling of losing at the time.

That was always included in the CVA.