pollymac
-
Posts
3,088 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by pollymac
-
-
You said just a couple of posts back it had nothing to do with Finances. Tit!!!!
I just said 'if it...finances'
nae-wit
0 -
It is to do with the non payment of Tax and NI contributions according to Duff and Phelps.
I am quite sure the punishment will be vastly reduced on appeal BUT that is not the point here. This will make Rangers less appealing as an investment to any consortium. Like the SPL rule changes mid season it has been deliberately timed to inflict as much damage as possible on the club. Hopeful;ly this will unite the Rangers support as never before because never before has their support been needed more.
I don't consider myself a radical by any stretch of the imagination but this is too much. I will wait and see what those at the club have to say but i think the time has come when we need strong leadership. No right thinking person can honestly say the punishment fits the crime here.
Why, I do believe you are utterly deluded.
All this talk about 'deliberately' doing this, that and the next - you were all quite cosy with deliberately withholding tax and having various underhand schemes to gain an edge on other teams.
Fitting the crime? If it to do with non-payment of Tax and NIC, you should be kicked out of the league.
Why? Easy: had you been paying your dues you would have been bankrupt in November.
Regarding your 'appeal as an investment' - isn't it a shame that a governing body would seek to punish your club with such a mAAASSSIIVe fine at the same time many of you shysters would stiff creditors out of tens of millions of pounds, including some who have sold players to your club in good faith.
get it fucking roond ye
0 -
Know how you feel.
The end is in sight.
Haudit and Daudit will take their wedge and disappear into the sunset and a brave new day will dawn.
Now what's the plan to get rid of the other cheek?
I think Vlad's half way down that road already.
0 -
One more thing, enjoy yout clubs while they last
0 -
So, does this make Rangers more attractive or less attractive to the queues of prospective owners beating a path to Haudit and Daudit's door?
More attractive, obviously.
Why, even now, there's yet another Far East/North American/European/Russian/Middle Eastern/Deposed Nigerian Prince hurriedly faxing a final first offer to look into getting some air time and/or a few column inches in the Daily Retard.
0 -
Hold on a minute here,
The SFA fail to do there job properly in the first place then hammer Rangers fot it?? Well done
Can't remember Motherwell or Dundee getting a 12 month transfer ban though
Can't remember Motherwell or Dundee lying through their teeth to the SFA.
What you fail to understand is that the SFA haven't fined Rangers a single penny for financial mismanagement - it's all regarding your club aping the rules.
get it fucking roond ye
0 -
register to remove me
Group:
Loyal Bluenose
Posts:
1,872
Rep:
0
Joined:
14-August 08
Posted Today, 04:21 PM
I agree with the OP completly.
Look below though?
Talks the most sense on every thread on there.
0 -
Craig whytes said the sfa have no way of making him pay the fine?
Surely the courts can make him pay it? Haha
I like the concept of banning a guy for life at the same time as fining him.
0 -
Can someone break down what the punishment to Rangers is for? Is this for the double contracts?
Don't know about the rest of it, but the 12 month singing ban has come about after recent renditions of the Billy Boys were recorded by Vince Lunny.
I think.
0 -
re Aluko, and to alleviate their pain:
registration with the Scottish FA of any player not currently with the clubHe can sign.
Of course, as a free agent in few weeks, he can also walk away.
0 -
If Rangers put a £1 surcharge on gates then their loyal fans can pay off the fine in a couple of months.
It would appear that they have, at best (or worst), two* homes games left. Ever. So that's maybe not the best idea.
*subject to confirmation
0 -
So, is Daniel Cousin no signing then?
0 -
Yeah, meaningless and safe decision from the SFA
On reflection though, if a transfer of share in the SPL is used, does that mean the SFA license and by extension these measures are also transferred?
Or would the share be transferred to a NewCo, who, by having a share in the SPL, is automatically granted a new (clean) license from the SFA?
Clear as mud.
0 -
lots of stuff from pmcc
re point five: I was discussing this the other day and wondered if that's what would happen if Haudit and Daudit successfully challenged Agent Whhyte's purchase of the club - would it revert back to Murray and if not, who would own it?
0 -
Of course, the SFA will receive heehaw from Whyte as they've absolutely no jurisdiction over him whatsoever and will be forced to sing for their money from der orkenkind (in administration).
The 12 month signing embargo is rendered worthless in a couple of weeks (days??) time anyway when Rangers FC become Govan Inbreds FC.
Still, I'm sure Regan et al got some very nice chicken satays from their working lunches.
0 -
Disciplinary Proceedings Outcome
Monday, 23 April 2012
A Judicial Panel Tribunal convened to hear the cases against Rangers FC and Craig Whyte today concluded their findings and set out the following outcomes:
Name: Craig Whyte, Director, Rangers FC
Dates: 6th May 2011 to 6th March 2012
Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached: Rules 66, 71 and 105
Outcomes:
The Tribunal found Craig Whyte guilty under Rule 66 and fined him £50,000.
The Tribunal returned a Not Proven verdict in respect of Rule 71.
The Tribunal found Craig Whyte guilty on three separate counts under Rule 105 and fined him £50,000 in respect of each breach.
The above sanctions shall be paid within 30 days, with interest of 4% per annum over the base lending rate of Bank of Scotland plc from the date of determination until paid.
Under Articles 94.1 and 95, the Tribunal expelled Craig Whyte for life from any participation in Association Football in Scotland.
Name: Rangers FC
Dates: 6th May 2011 to 6th March 2012
Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached: Rules 1, 2, 14, 66, 71 and 325
Outcomes:
The Tribunal returned a verdict of Not Proven in respect of Rule 1.
The Tribunal found Rangers FC guilty in respect of Rule 2 and imposed the maximum fine of £10,000 payable within 12 months.
The Tribunal found Rangers FC guilty in respect of Rule 14 and imposed the maximum fine of £50,000 payable within 12 months
The Tribunal found Rangers FC guilty in respect of Rule 66 and imposed the maximum fine of £100,000 payable within 12 months. In addition, the Tribunal imposed a prohibition in terms of Article 94.1 and 95 of the Articles of Association, prohibiting Rangers FC for a period of 12 months from the date of determination from seeking registration with the Scottish FA of any player not currently with the club, excluding any player under the age of 18 years.
The Tribunal found Rangers FC guilty in respect of Rule 71 and imposed a censure.
The Tribunal found Rangers FC guilty of two breaches in respect of Rule 325 and imposed further censure.
Notes for Editors:
The Judicial Panel Tribunal shall issue a note of reasons in early course.
Both Rangers FC and Craig Whyte have a right of appeal against findings of guilt and any sanction imposed, within three days of receipt of note of reasons.
I wonder how and when they'll collect any of the fines.
0 -
COURT 10
Before MR JUSTICE ARNOLD
Tuesday, 24 April 2012
...
...
APPLICATIONS
F.S.A v Plateau Development & Land Ltd & anr
Same v Same
Paradigm Consultancy S.A. & anr
Salha v Qin
Rangers FC v Collyer Bristow
Bollocks, actually posted before making any kind of point whatsoever, or even asking the question in mind: is this regards the cash sitting 'somewhere' in Collyer Bristow's account?
0 -
Unlikely to be the high court, although I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest of these jokers were removed and proper administrators brought in, then we would start to find out a few more truths.
I think it's wishful fantasy, tbh, but yes, the removal of H&D would be erm, I don't know - I think they're doing a grand job and really don't want them to pack up.
0 -
The greatest business minds in the world couldn't make sense of this complete mire of a story.
So, uh, it's good we have the Scottish footballing media to keep us right
Scottish footballing media take on it (thus far):
Craig Whyte is a Brazllianaire
Rangers have no debt now.
Rangers have a bit of debt.
Craig Whyte is a baddy.
Rangers are in administration.
Rangers to exit administration within a couple of weeks (CVA).
David Murray needs some publicity (Craig Whyte is a very very bad baddy).
Rangers are tens of millions in debt, and nobody saw it coming.
Rangers struggling to move out of administration.
Big players manoeuvring to buy stricken club.
Big players to enable Rangers to exit administration within a couple of weeks (CVA).
H&D holding back bid process.
Big players disappear.
Rangers to exit administration within a couple of weeks (CVA)
H&D are baddies too (too close to Whyte).
Big players come back (and propose CVA)
Big players hide.
CVA.
Journalist wins award for being wrong (the most)
next?
Have I missed anything?
0 -
I would think so, for one thing the High Court is a criminal court.
As I said, likely to be pash.
I think they were suggesting it was the High Court in London. Unsure how that would work given that H&D were appointed at the Court of Session in Embra.
0 -
Rumour on KDS that HMRC have applied for, and been granted, a session at the High Court for the removal of Haudit and Daudit.
More than likely pash.
0 -
yes the lower division teams could benefit from the tax dodgers in the 3rd division.However there would be very little chance of promotion as the cheats would most probably walk the league?
There's also currently zero chance of relegation, so with that in mind, I feel it more than balances out. Add in the fact that each league would have one club pushed up the ladder in the first instance and it's truly win-win.
I wonder what kind of support they'd bring to away games? Would Queens Park be looking at 10k+? What about Elgin, Peterhead, Berwick and Stranraer? Full houses?
0 -
Alas, not unless someone can challenge celtic for the title as there'll only be the one CL place after this season, probably for a long, long time.
Boooooo
Really pisses me off that for the first time in almost 20 years, there's a good chance of 1-2 not being Celtic/Rangers, Rangers/Celtic for more than a flash in the pan season and it would just coincide with the first time in about a decade that we'll not have two teams in the CL/qualifiers.
All that tax dodging and share issues has simply brought us round to where we were in 1997/98 - mid 20s ranking in Europe, except this time around most of the SPL are pretty much insolvent.
0 -
Your "understanding" seems to be from the Chick Young school of understanding.
He bought Stockport and all their assets including Edgeley Park and the training ground. He subsequently sold Stockport to a Supporters group (like the ones constantly suggested on Rangers Media, but the transfer didn't include EP or any of the associated costs with owning a facility like that. The Supporters group then ran Stockport into admin a few years later. As someone else mentioned, he has regularly waived the required rent.
Kennedy served on the Scottish Rugby board for a while. Not sure if anyone else will remember the sh*tstorm at Murrayfield when Phil Anderton (later of Hearts) was sacked by the blazer brigade for attempting to run the business properly and make them pay for tickets instead of travelling all over on the SRU's bill. Kennedy came in as a non-exec director, and was part of the group which oversaw the move to a significantly better off-field structure and business model which is slowly starting to produce the goods at youth and pro level (although sadly not at international atm!). He didn't want to bring London Scottish to Edinburgh - it was suggested that he would fund a London-based but SRU-managed pro-team in the English League. This was rejected by the SRU, and would have needed RFU approval anyway.
I can also confirm that Glasgow Warriors are still owned by the SRU and will definitely be playing at Scotstoun (which is also where their offices and training ground are) for the forseeable future.
Glasgow have previously used Murray Park's indoor facility for training during inclement weather, but the pitch at Ibrox does not meet the required size. (The IRB have granted special dispensation for the Commonwealth Games as can be seen in this document).
Aye, the supporters did run them into admin, in much the same way as it was all Craig Whyte's fault that Rangers went into admin.
----------------
One of the most outspoken critics in recent years has been Scots businessman Brian Kennedy, whose bid to take control of London Scottish, move them to Edinburgh and play in the Zurich Premiership four years ago did not find favour at the Scottish Rugby Union. The entrepeneur, whose portfolio includes communications and double-glazing firms, headed to the English league anyway, buying Sale and turning them from a rising challenger to the top flight into one of Britain’s leading clubs.----------------
The rest, yes.
----------------
The front four (???) rows at Ibrox on three sides can be removed increasing the pitch size (they were installed 20 years ago IIRC).
----------------
More on Stockport and the every-giving Brian Kennedy though:
...left County out in the cold, by taking the lease and (getting) the Trust to sign a suicidal agreement leaving them with little or no money with which to run the club.The 'little or no money' bit is a reference to the deals struck upon purchase of the club from Kennedy where sponsorship was provided by Kennedy in return for revenue sharing between Sale and Stockport, which effectively meant that even including the sponsorship deal, the transfer of money between the two outfits was almost wholly in one direction (and it was not towards Stockport).
Stockport would hand over almost a third of transfer income and fully 50% of all conferencing/wedding/venue hire income to Sale/Kennedy.
In the three years immediately after taking control of the club, the supporters trust would pay around £1m to Kennedy, forcing them to borrow and not pay taxes and borrow and... ...not pay more taxes and borrow and then go into administration.
On the other hand, Kennedy did sign a deal that would see three quarters of a million head in the opposite direction. In double that three year period.
----------------
And as far as I'm aware, he's only ever written off that one 'future' chunk of rent from the £100k+ he charges per year. (taken from Vital County)
0
Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!
in Celtic v Rangers, Rangers v Celtic
Posted · Edited by pollymac
I never said that in the post you quoted and call me a tit in, fud chops, where you were clearly having issues understanding the logical 'if' clause I had used.
mea culpa.