[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

Although, your reasoning is still significantly above the standard of 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)!

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

Im sure they will. HMRC have already said they will pursue past directors of Rangers FC.

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.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

But if the SFA knew what Rangers were up to with double contracts, long before Whyte was even heard of?

Who should be interested? HMRC?

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!

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

OK. So where is the evidence that is wasnt monitored correctly? None of the governing bodies have any obligation to pour over the financial goings-on of any of its members.

I think that you will find that your opinion is incorrect if you check the facts.

It is a legal requirement that the member of any organisation meets the criteria stipulated by law.

Ignorance of the law can never be used as a defence.

Well, no not really. The footballing authorities can hardly punish individual fans, but they can punish the clubs. How its relevant to what you are trynig to claim I dont really know

You gave a couple of (IMHO) ridiculous examples of what referees/police could/should not be held accountable for.

I, merely, gave you a "real life" example of something for which clubs are held accountable.

Clubs arent employees of the SFA, nor are the SFA in any way the equivalent of the CEO of a company. Amazingly false analogy.

I never said that they were.

However, if you had taken the time to digest what I wrote you would have discovered that they were/are in a position to block the appointment of any club Director/CEO and (if they did not) can/should be held accountable for subsequent wrongdoings, assuming always, that they should, reasonably, have known that any said Director/CEO should not have been appointed based upon his historical data.

To allow an individual who had been disqualified, because of fraudulent acts, from being a director to become RFC CEO is negligence - nothing more, nothing less!

How, for example, would you view a local authority who appointed a convicted paedophile as head of childrens services?

My analogy stands!

Err, they did reverse their position and have said he isnt a "fit and proper person". Its in the findings of the original disrepute panel, along with his fine and ban.

After how long?

Again, the rules, as they stand, are that anyone wishing to own a football club has to submit that they are a "fit and proper" person. Whyte didnt, he was punished. The SFA give no guarantee, nor are they under any obligation, to do further checks. Whether or not they should be is a whole other argument, but one thats irrelevant in this context. Theres no liability on the governing bodies, under the current rules.

So, to ignore requests for information means that someone will pass?

Imagine the reaction of the SFA/SPL if someone applying for employment (I know Whyte was not an SFA/SPL employee) submitted a blank CV.

The incompetence beggars belief and incompetence = negligence!

This line was peddled months ago, by Rangers fans, desperately looking for a way out. It was wrong then and its wrong now ... hence the smiley

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.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

How many forensic accountants would it take to check out every shareholder and every director of every Scottish Football Club, and who would pay for them?

The SFA can only rely on the information they are given, and act when it it is shown to be false.

This blaming the SFA for their troubles is another wheeze dreamt up by the Entity formerly known as etc....

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.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

I think that you appear to being, deliberately, obtuse.

I have replied to each of your points below.

1) The governing bodies oversee football. They set the rules and govern the members. If the members break the rules then they are punished in accordance with them. That doesnt, however, make the governing body responsible for the members actions.

Oh yes it does, if the organisation can not be seen to have used it's best endeavours to ensure that their rules/regulations/law of the land were complied with!

Ignorance of a member's behaviour is no defence if it was not monitored correctly.

Is the referee responsible if a player is sent off? Are the police responsible for the acts criminals commit? Or the judges who sentence them?

You would be better asking yourself why Football Clubs are held liable for the behaviour of their supporters!

2) As the rules stand, its up to the member to submit their "fit and proper person" information fully. Whyte didnt and was punished for it. Again, in what way are the governing bodies responsible for the, deliberate, non-disclosure of a member?

So, you would appear to believe that if an Insurance Company (say) was to employ a convicted fraudster, as it's CEO, then the company would have no liability for, his/her subsequent, fraudulent acts.

Is that correct?

IMHO that argument would be laughed out of court!

You state that "Whyte was punished for it".

The only way that the SFA/SPL could have retained any credibilty (and absence from liability) would have been if they had reversed their position that he was a "fit & proper person".

For a senior official to be quoted as saying "nobody told us" (about his, previous disqualification) only makes matters worse and demonstrates negligence.

Lets take a look at what you actually said though ...

If you'd like to point to where in the SFA or SPL rules it states that the governing bodies are responsible for monitoring the financial goings on of its members or how the "fit and proper person" test wasnt carried out according to the current rules Id be very interested to see it. Until then, we'll have to presume youre talking rubbish

In the light of what I've posted above, I don't think that I need to respond to that one.

To be honest, I thought we'd got past all this "it was the SFA/SPLs" fault about 4 months ago

Maybe, you wish - the use of a smug smiley does not make you correct and can only make people question your knowledge/objectivity!

As I said, "just a thought"!

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

Not sure how to frame the question here, but if senior officials of the SFA were told that Rangers (and another club) were running double contracts and did not do anything about it, would that take us into this area of liability and negligence. This was 3 years ago. With witnesses.

message me if you want to discuss offline.

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!

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

That bit may well be true. The rubbish part is the bit about the SFA or SPL having any obligation towards the running of one club, or the fact that the mismanagement of the club could be a reflection of the governing bodies.

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?

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

I have a feeling you're talking rubbish.

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".

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

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!!

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

SAY NO TO NEWCO PART II

Surely any re-organisation of the league system would require all SPL and SFL teams to vote on it. In which case we still have to make it clear to our clubs that we do not want a re-structuring of our leagues, purely to benefit the newco. We can't accept this constant shifting of the rules. Any newco can only apply for SFL3 as per the existing rules.

I'm actually for a re-structuring but for the correct reasons. By all means let's have serious talks about it but no changes to take place for at least two seasons.

The argument isnt over yet.

Posted the above two days ago. Nothing's changed except that several SFL clubs have already said no to this rule bending. The BBC are reporting old news.

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.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

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?