thelegendthatis
-
Posts
1,239 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Store
Blogs
Posts posted by thelegendthatis
-
-
Get ready for the SPL vote. Get ready for the SPL chairmen to do whatever it takes to vote Rangers to continue in the SPL, no matter what.
We will be fobbed off with this being a chance to change the voting structure, change the distribution of monies, and move to a bigger league.
The real reason will be chairmen doing whatever is necessary to appease a TV company. A secondary reason will be clubs like Kilmarnock who have thousands and thousands more visiting Rangers fans than a small stadium like St Mirren's can take, with chairmen of clubs like that dropping their drawers and taking it for ra' Gers.
We are about to be raped up the arse people... Get ready.
What dates are we looking at now for key decisions?
Duff & Duffer making offer to creditors?
Creditors decision date?
Latest date for Rangers to be in a position play next season?
Date for SPL chairmen to meet to decide if Rangers are in or out?
Nimmo Smith report?
BBC documentary. (Wednesday 23rd May)
Date when player contracts cease?
If we know these will allow us to focus our attention.
0 -
He must be using the same calculator H&D used last week , pe-final bids, when quoted in the Daily Ranger as saying "3 of the 4 bids are at a very advanced stage, in the hands of the lawyers, as are 2 of the others". I worked that out at least at 7 possible bids then, cos the "others" must be more than 2, say 3, and add in the "4" from "3 of the 4", that gives 3 + 4 = 7. Mibbe using accountancy practices like that is how the Gers got in such a phucked up state in the first palce
Some names emerging who will make up the '20 members' of the Green, no sorry green, consortium.
Bennett Arron (currently known as Charles Green, previously known as Craig Whyte, and before that, KA David Murray)
0 -
Thread needs closed IMO
I think you are right Bomber. Some of the posters on here just keep picking on the loyal sons of...whatever it is.
There are only 3 things wrong with Rangers, which can be sorted out very quickly and easily.
1. The people who play for Rangers
2. The people who support them
3. The people who have run the club, and those wanting to.
Other than that, there is nothing to worry about.
Onwards and upwards Bomber
0 -
From the Scotsman
Kerr said: "My initial reaction was that I was extremely disappointed. There was also an element of anger, which I'm sure will be felt across the supporter base."
"When we looked at the reasons for the decision, the rationale behind it and the circumstances in which it occurred, we had a clear view that Craig Whyte was the villain of the piece here. It looks as though the way they have reasoned the case is that effectively the actions of the owner apply equally to the actions of the club. We think that was totally unreasonable."
Quite obviously this idiotic clown hasn't even read the report from the tribunal. If he did (or could?) all would be explained. He talks about "the way they reasoned the case" as if it was a pub chat about who was the best Rangers centre forward ever. The tribunal was based on facts and precedent. Read the damn thing man
How do people like Kerr end up as a spokesman for anything?
He said: "Over the years Rangers have bought players from other Scottish clubs. They have effectively propped them up with pretty sizeable transfer fees. If I was the chairman of, for example, Motherwell or St Mirren, and I had a promising player, I would be thinking that Rangers might be interested in signing him. That money would be very welcome by them I'm sure."
No comment needed.
0 -
This is from Rangersmedia.
Without doubt this is a Chic Young posting (anyone know his id on RM?).
Note the writing style, terms like "it is not that simple", and the bias throughout. Best of all he demonstrates his inability to grasp anything of the financial machinations, with a total lack of understanding of how Scottish football is governed. It is just Chic all over.
Maybe RM will be so impressed they will promise him big bucks to write for them (exclusively) , and leave the BBC.
EBT for Chic.
Quote
OH god the trouble I will get in answering thsi - cause it is NOT that simple.
The simple - anti-rangers view!
By not paying tax we were living beyond our means - - we should have sold players and reduced the wage bill and operated withing our cash means. By not doing this we had better players and a larger squad than we would have otherwise - ergo we could be said to have cheated. - now lets forget that Hearts did similar with no charges - and Kilmarnock (and I am sure a few others)
The less simple view
BUT the less simples answer is that IF all the cash from Ticketus had come in and with a bit of bank support and cash management we could have maintained the squad, paid our taxes and 'every little thing would have been all right' -
NOW a supportive SFA could have bought the second arguement that it MAY have been Shytes fault and suspended sentence until all the myraid of court cases have finished (in about 4 years time) but by then no one would give a fk.
0 -
At what point did Greig and McClelland go?
Was it whilst Rangers were top of the league?
Googled it. 17th October last year, so likely to be when Rangers were top of the SPL. They made an announcement to the Press Association.
Presumably they shut up and didnt express concerns to any Authorities, because at that point their side was 'winning' and rocking the boat then would have upset 'the bears'
Whatever the reasons or logic, it won't make any difference in court. Amazing they haven't tried to spin some tale through the media after the SFA report came out.
Probably spoke to lawyers who would have told them, 'you are done for'. 'Best thing now is just keep your heads down and the police will hopefully move on to bigger stuff. '
And the verdict on Greig, McClelland and Olverson will be ......Guilty.
0 -
From the meeting today. I wish I could've been there, would've been funny as f**k
The Meeting commenced at 5:30 and ran until 6:50. There was an agenda produced by Mr. Green then the floor opened for questions.
2. Meeting with the SFA/ SFA Appeal.
Mr Keen, our Q.C. presented a strong case why the penalties were harsh. The sanctions were not actually in the SFA Rule Books. He stressed we were very likely to lose players. He spoke for one and a quarter hours. The SFA's lawyer then presented his case. Both Mr Green and Sandy Jardine stressed the panel were independent and not "football men". Rangers asked for a quick decision in order that we may plan what to do next. The panel went away for an hour and a half and returned with the verbal decision, to be confirmed in writing, that the decision and sanctions stand
3/4. Deal Structure/ CVA/ Newco and CVA letter issue date.
Mr Green's preferred route is a CVA. Funds are in place to pay the creditors. On or around next Friday Duff and Phelps will write to the creditors with the offer. The creditors then have 14 days to decide if they will accept. If all say yes, Duff and Phelps stand aside and Mr Green pays the creditors, although he will not yet be the new owner. From making their decision, the creditors then have a 28 day cooling off period in which they can change their minds but Mr Green thought it unlikely any would do so having made a decision. Once the debt is settled, Rangers are out of administration. Crucially, the SFA looks upon things differently, and once the creditors accept - not when they get paid - Rangers are, in the SFA's eyes, out of administration.
Scottish football is working to new rules, so it is vital all is settled before the 4th August - or we may face further punishments.
If we go down the newco route, it is along similar lines to Bill Miller's except Mr Green will pay the creditors now. Bill Miller's idea was to pay them off over three or four years.
Mr Green stressed that whatever happens we will not lose the history or the trophies. The Club was founded in 1872 before the days of incorporation. In 1899, we incorporated. In 1981, we re-registered. All with the history intact. All we get is a different number in companies house against our name.
5. Investor information.
Mr Green was looking into the purchase from 18th February. His idea is to have investors owning from 1% to 15%. All 26,000 current fan share holders will be invited to invest
and given 2 or 3 years to fund their investment. The press have found out about Kevin McDonald and Freddie Shepherd and approached them. Both have declared an interest in investing but as yet, have not done so. Mr Green has 5 or 6 people who have already committed to invest and who have paid money to be part of the dream. Some are from the Middle East and some are from the Far East. None are Rangers fans but are football fans. Their dream is to fund soccer academies in the Far East and to see Rangers progress in Europe, where the creation of a European League is seen as a reality.The company will be listed and everyone will be able to see all who invest. At the moment they have asked for privacy.
6. Craig Whyte agreement.
Mt Green has met Mr Whyte on three occasions and has paid him £1 for the Club. He also paid him a second pound so that Mr Whyte could make a 100% profit on the deal. The thing is set in stone and Mr Whyte cannot back out. Mr Green stressed that anything David Murray or Craig Whyte did should be consigned to the history books and we now look forward.
The floor was opened to questions.
Asked what would happen if one, two or three of our recently called up International players got crocked playing for their country and we could not sign anyone because of the embargo, Mr Green and Sandy Jardine expressed their amazement and anger at how the situation may develop. Mr Whyte pointed out to the panel at Hampden that we had three goalkeepers on our books and asked what would happen if they all got serious injury, would we have to field a team without a keeper? No satisfactory answer was forthcoming. They looked at the team sheets and saw almost 40 signed players from 17 years of age up. Sandy Jardine asked them what would happen if all the experienced players left. The answer was that we still had enough on the books to put out a team. Sandy Jardine answered that you cannot blood a youngster too soon. One bad game and he may be finished. But he told the Meeting the people he was talking to were not football people.
Asked if we should plump for Division 3, Mr Green replied that without Rangers there is no SPL and the other Club Chairmen know it. While other clubs fan may want us demoted, their Chairmen are businessmen.
Mr Green stated that while not a test case, if we were Crewe Alexandria or Arbroath, the punishments would not be sever, indeed there may be calls to assist us.
Mr Green stated that there may be a "year of pain" but that we would emerge from it and regain our place. Asked where he saw us in 5 years, he said "top of the League".Mr Green paid great tribute to Ally McCoist, the management team, the players and to Rangers men such as Sandy Jardine and Jim Hannah who had given so much.
Asked about further investors, Mr Green said that he had held meetings today and would hold more tomorrow with Rangers fans keen to invest. They were, he said, major names in Scottish business - and Bluenoses.
Asked about future players Mr Green reminded the meeting that he had built and sold the largest sports agency in the world and still had the contacts. "who would not want to come and play for Rangers?" he asked.
Lastly, Mr Green stressed that it was most important that there should be no disruption to the Cup Final at the weekend. It would not be beneficial to Rangers
What a dodgy guy. Full of half truths that say very little. A slippery salesman. And definitely as Sandy Jardine would say "not a football person".
0 -
McClelland and Greig resigned and stated it was because Whyte wasn't giving them information. That was a pretty big public message and a big step for Greig in particular. Bain was one of a number of directors etc who were sacked because they opposed Whyte. Even the SFA panel report acknowledges that Whyte kept things very close to him. The big deal is over the tax bills Whyte didn't pay. If anyone knew Whyte wasn't paying them, who should they have told? The taxman? They obviously knew their bills hadn't been paid....
That is easy. If not sure call your lawyer, and 2 mins later you know what to do and also what NOT to do. What you do not do is have a moan in the corner while doing nothing. Other than continue to take the money of course.
The SFA tribunal have a view on it based on the evidence they collected..
"There was no information about any other steps he took as director when matters were plainly out of the control of the Board and information and accounts werekept secret from the Board. Similarly, Mr John McClelland and Mr John Greig resigned in October because they knew that they were being excluded andmarginalised at the same time as they had great concerns for the governance of Rangers FC and were deeply suspicious of Mr Craig Whyte before and after hisacquisition of the majority shareholding from MIHL. Other than resignation therewas no evidence that either of these directors took any steps with any person orauthority to do anything about what they knew was happening. Criticism might belevelled at these directors and others. Mr Olverman as Financial Controlleroccupied a very senior role within Rangers FC and as a matter of admission he knewof the non payment of taxes and the somewhat strange practices and secrecywhich was the deliberate policy advanced by Mr Craig Whyte. Though it was no part in the matter before us, and did not impact on our decision on the complaintswhich were before us, Mr Ken Olverman was also aware of an apparently unusual transaction involving Ticketus which had a substantial significance in the exercise of any fiduciary duty which he, as a senior officer of the company, owed towards thecompany, rather than owed towards Mr Craig Whyte."
Totally damning of Greig, McClelland and Olverman.
Enough there for the 3 people named to be looked at officially to see if they are fit and proper to be directors of ANY company in the future.
Usually the excuse is ignorance of what was going on. In this case they DID know, but choose to do nothing.
0 -
But this has nothing to do with the SFA panel's punishement. The punishment for all of that has still to come.
Yes I know. But I think (no evidence) the SFA was keen to hit Rangers with the current tribunal ruling and not shirk things, knowing that there is bigger stuff awaiting. Maybe softening up the Bears for something much worse.
0 -
This is obviously an educated guy. I suspect a PhD from Belfast University, his thesis was on "The Speeches of Ian Paisley"
Naw, all the speeches of Big Ian were IN CAPITAL LETTERS THROUGHOUT. AND OFTEN IN BOLD. BIG BOLD AT THAT.
0 -
Cards on the table time. I don't agree with the transfer embargo. I thought there would have been a compromise solution such as large financial penalty + pay all footballing debts in full from your price money and only then will you be allowed to sign players..I even thought they might make it a 1 window ban but they have decided to well and truly shaft Rangers..Make no mistake that is what has happened here as we all know that the top players will leave on cut price deals in June and there is no way to replace them. Blame Duff & Duffer for that nonsense. The nonsense talked about 40+ professional players is misleading as we have so many youngsters on our books...We couldn't fill a subs bench on occassion this season!! I dread to think what will happen come December/ January when injuries and suspensions start to bite...What happens when we cannot field a team as we simply don't have the players?
That all said what exactly do the Rangers Supporters groups want? The club did wrong and before anybody says nobody knew about the non payments and it being down to 1 man...Pish!! I knew months beforehand that Whyte had not paid 1 outside contractor for work on the stadium. The company that put in the PA system for example were threatening to take it out as they were never paid for it..If i knew i am sure others knew..Including Andy Kerr!
Another attempt to pretend the nonsense started with Whyte. If you knew a few months back, I knew a few years back, as did many others. Believe this or not as you wish.
What I would say is that pretty well every player who signed for Rangers over the last dozen years or so had an agent. That agent would have negotiated the deal, which of course would have included what the player would get 'in his pocket' as part of that contract, Maximizing tax efficiency I think it is called. Legally? Well time will tell.
So any investigation of Rangers' financial control, management and reporting during David Murray's time could do worse that sit down with the various agents involved to understand the basis and detail of the agreements they negotiated.
0 -
Rangers Charity Foundation
The tribunal report from the SFA identifies Craig Whyte clearly as being guilty of behaviour unacceptable in his position as chairman of a company. This also applies to John Greig in his role as a director of Rangers.
Summary and comments from Alex Thomson at http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/rangers-luckiest-club-britain/1533
But if we look at the Rangers charity foundation site we see the following trustees listed.
Trustees
Craig Whyte, Chairman
Craig Whyte became the new owner of Rangers on 6 May 2011 when he concluded a deal with Sir David Murray to become the majority shareholder.
As part of the constitution of the Rangers Charity Foundation, Craig Whyte became Chairman of the Foundation when he assumed the role of Chairman of the Club.
John Greig MBE, Honorary President
John Greig was named the ‘Greatest Ever Ranger’ by Rangers supporters in 1999, having led the Club to honours as both Captain and Manager. John embodies the spirit, passion and determination of Rangers. He is Honorary President of the Charity Foundation.
Jacqueline Gourlay, Trustee
Jacqueline, a graduate of the University of Glasgow and a chartered accountant, has over 15 years experience in various financial and operational roles within the electronics and leisure industries. Jacqueline is a member of the Executive Management Team at Rangers and provides day to day management and direction of the charity's activities working very closely with the Charity Manager. She also currently serves as a Director and Treasurer in another charitable organisation within the voluntary sector.
The obvious question is should OSCR (The charity regulator in Scotland) accept that a charity continues to operate and raise money while the majority of the trustees (2 out of 3) have been accused (without protest) of completely inadequate governance elsewhere? Have a read of http://www.oscr.org.uk/managing-your-charity/trustee-duties/
I would hope OSCR moves quickly as the risk of inappropriate behaviour must be real and significant
0 -
It appears the Rangers 'family' is a little bit disappointed that the SFA has not responded positively to the prompting from Ally and such and stood by their decision.
The list of people and things they hate is getting bigger by the day.
A posting on Rangers Media shows the way forward.
Let us start up our own league(s). Yes a Rangers league - so no SPL or Division 3 for us. This will be ours and we decide who is allowed to join in.
Given the size of our squad, that gives us 4 teams straight away. But we only want to play teams with the same hate list as ourselves. So let's rustle up a couple of teams from Belfast, maybe the glorious boys in blue at Linfield would be up for it, and I am sure the Millwall or Chelsea areas in London would be keen to raise a team or two.
Police our own games with our own security made up of fans who can look after themselves, and for home games at Ibrox the place would be jumping with quality songs without the SFA or Eufa sticking their nose in. Be good to have an Orange march around the pitch before every home game just to get us in the right mood.
We need our SFA equivalent, I would trust the BNP to take on that role.
We could even set up a European tournament against German Nazi team, Dutch fan and Scandinavian Hells Angels teams. Now that would be good. Think of the pure joy away games like that would bring, only no complaining afterwards whether you won the battle or not.
Just like Manchester all over again. Only it would be every fortnight. No more watching Embarrassing Bodies for me on Wednesday at 8 o'clock. .
We don't need clowns like the SFA or SPL to tell us what to do. Show that we do not need these people. Time we stood up for ourselves to do what we want and the freedom to do it 'our way'. We are the people.
(ok I made it up, but I am sure elements of this will appear on Rangers Media at some point)
0 -
Did I read somewhere that the appeal was being funded by the Rangers Fighting Fund? If so it will be a good 50K lighter now, as they hired a top dog QC known as a Rottweiler.
Loads of bark but not much bite in this instance.
He was able to get a Locherbie bomber off, but Rangers was a step too far.
0 -
I believe there is a lot of news helicopters following the Rangers delegation,they are trying hard to evade the media but the skid marks left behind the convoy are a sure give away.
Loving it. This could just be like OJ Simpson all over again.
Once you get a news helicopter following a limo down a motorway, you know the occupants are guilty.
0 -
79? Seventy .. fucking ... nine!
And not one compulsory redundancy? Wheres Richard Wilson when you need him?
If you remember when Duff & Duffer were negotiating with the players so they could help save the jobs of the cleaner wifies and the tea ladies, the agents were there to help this deserving cause up at Murray Park.
And of course they managed to strike a deal that saved the employees who were on minimum wage levels. And Duff & Duffer gave away the family silver, namely the money they would get from selling the players. Without that agreement the club would have been more attractive for bidders who hoped to go down the CVA route, as the new owners could then have sold on players at the market rate, generating funds while reducing wage costs.
http://tw.gs/Uxvcb Even the Daily Record thinking it is a bit iffy.For any Rangers player moving on they will personally get a better deal, and of course their agents will negotiate a MUCH better deal for themselves.
I am curious who these agents are who represent the players on the Rangers squad. They never seemed to be caught on camera as they went in and out of Murray Park.
The Scotsman 16th March: "But as the evening wore on, several of the players' agents arrived at the club's Milngavie training ground to renegotiate the terms of their clients' contracts in line with the mooted agreement and it became clear that stumbling blocks were emerging. There were also issues over what the position of the players would be in relation to their salaries and possible transfer value in the summer."
So who knows what agents look after which players?
Once we know the names we might understand why Duff & Duffer conceded so much of the creditors' value.
0 -
This is it. The simple truth is parents are reluctant to take their children to games if the Old Firm are there, because of the hate and bile that comes with them - and because of the very real fear of their children getting hurt. And it's the people with kids that spend an absolute fortune in the club shop, club catering, etc - the very people they don't want scared away on match days because quite aside from the 'future fans' angle these are the people bringing in a sizeable wad to the club.
So why the hell any SPL club seems to get into its head they "need" Rangers is beyond belief - and there's no denying a lot of it is the propaganda they've been fed by the media up here for decades, combined with the number of "closet" OF fans in all too many board rooms. It's long overdue the time Scottish football manned up.
These 2 paragraphs say it all.
Saying why Rangers should be punished for their wrong doing, but also identifying the basis of Scottish football creating a better (and more successful) future for itself.
0 -
There's ONLY 50 odd players in their squad.
and 7 normal ones?
0 -
That's the part I was kinda coming to - I don't believe they should be allowed to dispose of player assets to fund ongoing running costs - that is just deliberately running down the notional value of a business which is insolvent in all senses of the word.
Unless the new buyer/owner is meeting ongoing costs once the bank balance is truly at 0, then I think they have a duty to proceed with winding-up
Selling a player would have reduced the wage bill (substantially) but also brought in money. That is fine as long as you are keeping the business as a going concern. No different from selling a company car, or office furniture.
Who would argue that getting rid of fringe (or invisible) players like Healy, Lafferty, Fleck would not be a good thing, and I would suggest that it would have made the club much more attractive to would be bidders if 20 or so of the 79 listed here had been moved on in the first few weeks of administration. Now 92 days on, they are still there waiting for their wages to be brought up to date - or else
. (read my signature!)And the management team? All really needed? Doubt it.
But who really wants to take on this lot moving to a CVA
or a Newco???RANGERS SQUAD 2011/12 from SPL site
1 Allan McGregor 2 Dorin Goian 4 Kirk Broadfoot 5 Sasa Papac 6 Lee McCulloch 7 Maurice Edu 8 Steven Davis (captain 10 John Fleck 11 Kyle Lafferty 12 Lee Wallace14 Steven Naismith 15 David Healy 16 Steven Whittaker 18 Carlos Bocanegra 20 Matt McKay 21 Alejandro Bedoya 22 Kyle Bartley 25 Neil Alexander 26 Jamie Ness 28 Salim Kerkar 30 Scott Gallacher 31 Grant Adam 32 Ross Perry 34 Andrew Little 35 Kyle Hutton 36 Darren Cole 37 Christoper Hegarty 38 Kane Hemmings39 Gordon Dick 40 Andrew Mitchell 41 Rhys McCabe42 Kal Naismith 46 Kamil Wiktorski 47 Tom Skogsrud 48 Kim Skogsrud 49 Kyle McAusland 51 Blair Currie 52 Ewan McNeil 53 Anthony Marenghi 54 Robert Crawford 55 Adam Hunter 56 Adel Gafaiti 57 Gregor Fotheringham 58 Lewis MacLeod 59 Sam McMahon60 Joshua Robinson 61 Jack Werndly 62 Callum Wyllie 63 Fredrik Espling 64 Marc Dyer 65 Robbie McIntyre 66 Matthew Clarke 70 Jordan Wilson 71 Stuart Urquhart 74 Andrew Murdoch 76 Darren Ramsay 79 Jamie Burrows
0 -
I would have thought with the explanatory info that came out being so damning, the SFA have pretty much already set out their stall as far as I can see. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they hit them with more - the SFA don't really have anything to lose out of all this.
I would agree totally with your thoughts.
The report very clearly explained the basis of their decisions. It also went into detail of what they did NOT do, to show they were not influenced by others, and not told by the SFA what decision to make. And they obviously were quite insulted that such things should be suggested. Also annoyed they had to spend time and effort explaining they were honest and professional.
So the appeal with not be heard with a sympathetic ear, but they will no doubt play it straight down the line.
Would be surprised if the penalties weren't increased.
Any goodwill Rangers could have had was scuppered totally by McCoist and his demand for names. (Silly boy, totally out of his depth).
0 -
From HMRC's own pages.....
From HMRC's own pages.....<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-family: verdana, tahoma, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(253, 253, 253); "><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-family: verdana, tahoma, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(253, 253, 253); ">Quote
Rejecting a voluntary arrangement
We are also likely to reject a voluntary arrangement where there is evidence of:
• evasion of statutory liabilities or past association with contrived insolvency
• payment of other creditors whilst withholding sums due to the Crown.
• any proposal that requires sale of HMRC debt or does not provide cash dividends
• failure to meet any obligations under a prior voluntary arrangement
• exclusion of creditors who are entitled to receive the same treatment as all others within their class
• a purchaser assuming responsibility for payment of some of the debtor’s debts in consideration for the purchase of the debtor’s assets
• any proposal by any member of any organisation that requires debts owed to its members, to be paid in full, whether inside or outside of the arrangement or before or after the completion of the arrangement when all other unsecured creditors will become bound to accept a compromise of their debt. Here ‘members’ includes any prescribed associate(s) or other creditor(s) specified by
the organisation.<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-family: verdana, tahoma, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(253, 253, 253); "><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-family: verdana, tahoma, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(253, 253, 253); ">That do ya?
That do ya?
Excellent, thanks for that.
Love the last one, which seems to kill Greens' attempt at deciding which creditors will be paid preferentially.
0 -
I'm even more confused now.
Why didn't they sue over Dundee?
One question at a time, unless you deliberately want to cloud things so we can enter into 2 page explanations.
Hopefully at that time they didn't realise just how incompetent were the 2 bodies referred to.
0 -
Aye, but even that is pretty ropey... were the SFA "agreeing" that demotion was "the right thing to do" - or were they accepting that demotion was a punishment which SFL was [1] entitled to apply and [2] was within the bounds of reason to apply? Within their own structure, notably. EDIT: And the bond-thing too.
Even if the former, does the adjudication of an SFL punishment for administration bind them to such adjucations of their own punishments for misconduct & disrepute, particularly when the process has changed in the interim (with Livingston voting yes, btw)?
Even if yes, does that entitle Livingston to sue?
So yep, I'm with you on it being noise-making and not a realistic threat.
Given the lack of tightness and clarity of the SPL and SFA constitutions and wooly rules as demonstrated over the last few months, I would amazed if Livingston don't have a very strong case.
After all they were chucked out a few years back when people like Grorge Peat (
) and Gordon Smith () were the head honchos, and both equally ineffective (I am being politically correct here). When they made up things as they went along, with a view that "it would be all right on the night".0 -
I'm quite sure that I read (possibly on that lawyer guy's site) that HMRC will want to know who the investors are before agreeing to any CVA - reason being that they could be agreeing to receive payment from someone who has had previous for non-payment. What if Mr Whyte happened to be one of these 20 investors? Still think they wouldn't care who was on board?
Are you saying they would refuse to do a deal because Whyte (or any other name you can dream up) was funding it? Whyte is no longer disqualified as a director, nor is he disqualified from making investments. Whatever HMRC does, they have to play strictly to a set of rules.
I have no idea what the rule would be that allows then to say 'we don't like that shifty wee git'.
Can you point us at where we might see such a ruling?
0
Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!
in Celtic v Rangers, Rangers v Celtic
Posted
A grown up analysis of the SFA tribunal and appeal.
In clear English, so would be suitable for that nutter Kerr and the other one, Sandy Jardine.
Excellent blog