Laeotaekhun

At least my reasoning raises itself above the level of subjectivity. But, you should continue to believe what you wish. Living in a self erected bubble must be heaven! Did you realise, for example, that Davie Provan had retired or that the UK no longer uses L.S.D? Is it any wonder that supporters of clubs, elsewhere, regard Scottish Football as being somewhat parochial? And, just for you (knowing how much you love them)!

I think, if you check, that they have said they will be pursuing all avenues open to them, of which past directors, of RFC, represent only one avenue. If I was, in any way, associated with anyone who had executive/non executive responsibilities, for RFC, (Administrators,SFA/SPL et al) I would not be sleeping soundly. HMRC seem determined to use RFC as a test case in just how far they can go to recover monies stolen from the taxpayer. This would then allow them to use the RFC case to pursue many other football and none football investigations.

Simple. Any creditor of RFC should be championing each and every attempt to hold those responsible, legally, liable under criminal or civil law. HMRC are, merely, better placed to pursue matters than most others and ensure other government agencies do the same. The local florist, unfortunately, does not have the same "clout" but the consequences, for them, could be far graver!

I'm not a supporter of RFC, or any other Scottish Club and I'm not trying to "pass the buck", merely speculating on the way that HMRC might view events, in an attempt to recover revenues.

I'm not blaming the SFA/SPL for the troubles of RFC. However, what I am suggesting is that both organisations may/could be held, legally, liable because of their negligence. I have no allegiance to the former RFC, or any other Scottish Club, I was only speculating upon the way that HMRC might view matters, in an attempt to maximise recovered revenues. No more, no less.

I think that you appear to being, deliberately, obtuse. I have replied to each of your points below. As I said, "just a thought"!

I did not wish to imply that I had any type of "inside" information, because I don't. However, my understanding is that is the legal responsibility of any organisation to ensure that members adhere to their own rules/regulations and also the law of the land (not just assume that they are doing so). Now, from where I sit it would appear that both The SFA and SPL have paid lip service to those requirements and would, therefore, appear to have been negligent. Regarding White, I do, though, remember a quote (although not the name of the person quoted - although was a senior figure) who, when asked, about how White had been allowed to pass the "fit & proper persons" test, when he had been disqualified, previously, said that "nobody told us". Hardly the words of someone who's organisation takes their responsibilities seriously. Negligence = financial liability and quite rightly so!

So, let me get this right. 1) You do not believe that The SFA & The SPL have any responsibility for ensuring that their members act within their own rules/laws and the laws of the land. & 2) You do not believe that they were negligent in allowing a previously disqualified director to pass their "fit & proper person" test. Is that correct?

I said it was "just a thought" but it was based on law. If someone can be proven to have been negligent and that negligence then impacts (financially or otherwise) upon a third party then that individual/organisation becomes liable for the consequences of their negligence. Please explain how you believe that to be "rubbish".

Just a thought. Given the vigour with which HMRC seem determined to investigate the actions of all of the players, in the saga, (Directors, Administrators etc) with a view to recovering as much revenue as possible, I'm wondering how easily the officials at the SFA & SPL are sleeping in their beds? Why? Well, if they had met their responsibility to, effectively, monitor the actions/accounts of RFC, in the years prior to the sale to White and then conducted their "fit and proper persons" test efficiently then, maybe, the whole fiasco could have been avoided. Does this make the bodies & their officials liable, in law, I haven't a clue but I feel that it could be quite likely! Negligence, normally, does! As I said, just a thought!!

If I understand the SFL/SFA rules correctly, NO team will be considered for admittance to the SFL without (at least) 3 years accounts and any team can only be elected to Division 3 (not Division 1). So, for Rangers (under whatever name) to be included in the SFL, in any division, would need to be a hasty re-writing of the existing rulebook.

I'm not Scottish, have no allegiance to any SPL/SFL team but have been, keenly, following the events in this case because HMRC are clearly using this as a test of just how far they can go, when dealing with companies in administration or liquidation, to maximise revenues reclaimed/realised. So, ignoring all of the emotive issues, the most important points (in my eyes) are that there are now investigations being carried out into the conduct of past employees/directors of Rangers FC and Duff and Phelps. Now, if those investigations find that anything untoward existed in D&P's appointment OR in their subsequent actions then every decision they took can be reversed/unravelled, including the sale of RFC assets. From where I sit, their conduct does appear to be questionable in a number of areas and so that scenario is, I think, a distinct possibility if those actions are, also, shown to be illegal or not having been in accordance with their responsibilities. . This would mean that Sevco 2088 and Sevco Scotland or any other company would have to return them (including TUPE transfers) and the whole process would then start again BUT with the disposal being carried out by a court appointed agent. I think this story still has a long way to go, before the final chapter is written, which would make it appear increasingly unlikely that Rangers (under whatever name) will be playing in any league next season. Why would the SFL be prepared to admit an entity when the, actual legality of it is being, actively, investigated and could, consequently, cease to exist at any time?