Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Bairn4Life]

I was discussing this with a friend last night and if this was the case then possibly some of the events below could have happened. This is entirely speculation on my part and it would be good if anyone has access to teams accounts going way back to find out which teams did in fact bank with the BOS.

Murrays influence on other clubs could work like this

• Player X plays well against Rangers and uncle Walter wants him for his team, Murray gets BOS to put some pressure on player X's club to reduce their overdraft quickly at the next bank review and the only way they can do this is to sell player X
  
• When player x's club then go to sell the player, Rangers come in with an offer, below valuation but Murray then uses his friends in the media to unsettle the player
  
• If a bigger offer comes in Rangers are not concerned as they find out via the bank who are kept informed by the club
  
• Rangers up their offer and the bank put pressure on the club to sell to Rangers
  
• The media suddenly run a "I always wanted to play for Rangers story" on player X
  
• Uncle Walter gets his man, the bank are happy as are the media.
  
• If Player Y does not fit into Uncle Walters plans then stage 1 still happens and pressure is put on club Y's team to sell him, thus weaken their team
  
• Murray can use the media to say the player is unhappy and needs to move on.
  
• With his bank contacts Rangers would also have been able to know the wage limits of all the clubs, possibly getting budget information and just having a competitive advantage.
  
• I would doubt if BOS would have told a club to lose a game but with this case anything is possible
  

As i say all of the above is just speculation on my part, but does anyone agree its possible?

This would only be possible if other clubs banked with the BoS wouldnt it?

[Paramour]

1338124099[/url]' post='6277378']

But if you added the two of them together......

Lamentably, the answer would be 'one'.

[DuntoiRab]

http://www.channel4. ...s-trophies-go?.

'faded moonbeams'

No no no no.

Ut cannot be allowed for AUFC to win by default, WFAANW is too big for Scottish Ayrshire football, too precious.

Boycott I tell ye!!

[welshbairn]

http://www.channel4....s-trophies-go?.

'faded moonbeams'

[7-2]

I was discussing this with a friend last night and if this was the case then possibly some of the events below could have happened. This is entirely speculation on my part and it would be good if anyone has access to teams accounts going way back to find out which teams did in fact bank with the BOS.

Murrays influence on other clubs could work like this

• Player X plays well against Rangers and uncle Walter wants him for his team, Murray gets BOS to put some pressure on player X's club to reduce their overdraft quickly at the next bank review and the only way they can do this is to sell player X
• When player x's club then go to sell the player, Rangers come in with an offer, below valuation but Murray then uses his friends in the media to unsettle the player
• If a bigger offer comes in Rangers are not concerned as they find out via the bank who are kept informed by the club
• Rangers up their offer and the bank put pressure on the club to sell to Rangers
• The media suddenly run a "I always wanted to play for Rangers story" on player X
• Uncle Walter gets his man, the bank are happy as are the media.
• If Player Y does not fit into Uncle Walters plans then stage 1 still happens and pressure is put on club Y's team to sell him, thus weaken their team
• Murray can use the media to say the player is unhappy and needs to move on.
• With his bank contacts Rangers would also have been able to know the wage limits of all the clubs, possibly getting budget information and just having a competitive advantage.
• I would doubt if BOS would have told a club to lose a game but with this case anything is possible

As i say all of the above is just speculation on my part, but does anyone agree its possible?

Agree it's possible but Rangers and the media have been unsettling players long before Murray got involved. It would also be nigh impossible to prove that such information was being used given that it would surely have been given verbally. Also, whilst obviously bad, I don't think it's in the beyond belief category stated.

Must admit I'm baffled as to what the disclosure would be, partly due to not being a financial whizz kid...even with kid being used to it's extremes...very extremes. What involves 18 years ago, a leading BOS official, Dunfermline, the I of M, not match fixing, is vastly worse than screwing the Treasury for vast sums, will lead to jail sentences and finally kill off Rangers(yay)?

What's the worst you can do in finance other than bring down a bank?

[vikingTON]

Drop it eh - you were owned. The core point in any case was that it was a bit rich for non-OF fans to be the ones twawling sectarian undertones onto P&B.

Erm, no it isn't.

It's rather like Harold Shipman complaining that law-abiding citizens happen to bring up his murder victims in conversation. Celtic are a club and business model built to exploit sectarian, religious division.

[Claymores]

Isn't this a bit of a daft graphic as EBTs (hence the alleged double contracts) weren't applied until 2001. Why should the 98-99 and 99-00 titles etc be depicted?

[DuntoiRab]

What are the likely other BIG revelations to be revealed?

Bribery, match fixing, interfering with other clubs finances via whatever channels, match official pay offs?

Might get very, very juicy soon.

Edited May 27, 2012 by DuntoiRab

[pozbaird]

Pleasing.

[beermonkey]

What are the likely other BIG revelations to be revealed?

Bribery, match fixing, interfering with other clubs finances via whatever channels, match official pay offs?

Might get very, very juicy soon.

That seems the most likely for me....Just my opinion mind.

[WBR]

Agree it's possible but Rangers and the media have been unsettling players long before Murray got involved. It would also be nigh impossible to prove that such information was being used given that it would surely have been given verbally.

Would an EBT be proof enough for you?

[killiecanary]

No no no no.

Ut cannot be allowed for AUFC to win by default, WFAANW is too big for Scottish Ayrshire football, too precious.

Boycott I tell ye!!

Tainted imo

[7-2]

That seems the most likely for me....Just my opinion mind.

Why would they need to?

[welshbairn]

That seems the most likely for me....Just my opinion mind.

I'm still convinced by the alleged massive Masonic cover up of John Grieg being found in the Ibrox shredding room with a dead prostitute.

[7-2]

Would an EBT be proof enough for you?

How would an EBT prove that a BOS official gave Murray confidential information about eg Aberdeen's exact financial situation?

[Paramour]

1338125488[/url]' post='6277443']

How would an EBT prove that a BOS official gave Murray confidential information about eg Aberdeen's exact financial situation?

Would the implication be, for example, during contract negotiations with a player at another club, that Rangers, with knowledge of the players' existing contract, could offer those terms with an EBT on top, thereby securing a player for only nominally more than they were previously being paid?

Seems too sensible, given what has already come out; OF contracts regularly exceed those paid by other clubs by some considerable amount. I don't think therefore that the EBTs were used strategically like this - I've probably missed something though.

[GirondistNYC]

1338122483[/url]' post='6277280']

If you read Dr. Gregory Ioannidis' blog which I posted earlier there are a few interesting points,

1 FIFA and UEFA are clear that sanctions should be imposed against clubs going to ordinary court to seek judgement.

2 He believes that Rangers do have a case and will win it however the court have no power to overturn the SFA ruling.

3 If the court do find in favour of Rangers then it is likely the court will send the case back to the SFA's judiciary panel to deal with it in an appropriate manner, whilst Dr Ioannidis does not specifically state so he believes that the SFA panel will not merely fine Rangers and as we all know they have been fined the maximum amount already and the only sanction left is expulsion or suspension.

My take on it is that the SFA have gone lightly on Rangers for their breach of the rules in that they created a sanction which would allow Rangers to continue to operate but now Rangers are pushing things the only routes open to the SFA for breaches only a little short of match fixing are to let them off lightly and fine them or to take the punishment which was originally considered but deemed a little too far and expel them. I can't see FIFA and UEFA not becoming involved if Rangers are not dealt with in a heavier manner than fines which will not be paid in full if a CVA is agreed.

Rangers were let off lightly and still ended up greeting about it, let them take what is coming to them.

I read it as he thought Rangers had an argument that Internal rules had been contravened, and if the argument was accepted it would be a violation of due process etc. and lead to a reversal and the ball back in the SFA court. He thinks if that happened it wouldn't necessarily be good for Rangers. He seemed to clarify at the end that he wasn't saying it would happen.

I'm not at all familiar with the standards that apply to a COS review of an organizations application of its own rules but I'd imagine it would work like an appeal against an arbitration decision. There, you generally need to prove a) hard evidence of bias or b) clear violation of the rules of the arbitration process. Some Rangers fans seem to think its about a) but the actual case is based narrowly on b).

The importance of the arbitration analogy is that 1) courts generally dislike overturning such judgements if it's clear sophisticated parties agreed to the process (clearly the case here) and 2) courts recognize that the standards that apply to an arbitration panel are not required to meet the standards that would be expected of an actual court of law - the whole point of arbitration is its faster and cheaper (in theory) to full judicial review.

Here, the SFA rules clearly are less than ideal since they effectively have a huge gap between explicit provisions for a lap on the wrist and explicit provision for the death penalty (expulsion). There is language that could be read to be granting discretion, but it's not as clear as it otherwise might be. If the SFA.rules were criminal statutes and a court of law applied the transfer embargo against Rangers they would have an excellent case.

Thing is The SFA rules aren't a statute and the tribunal isn't a court of law. The standards for clarity of the rules should be judged to a lower standard and under the rules there is an excellent argument that given the findings against Rangers a transfer embargo was a reasonable halfway house between Largely irrelevant fines and expulsion. Both the initial finding and the appeal laid out their reasoning for the punishment and that they had considered the explicitly authorized punishment of expulsion - the match fixing comment seems intended to buttress this. IN THE CONTEXT OF A NON JUDICIAL PROCEDURE it seems to be me that if you signed up for a procedure that included the possibility of expulsion its hard to complain when you get a lesser penalty. If the SFA rules only explicitly authorized fines it would be a different story.

The other option for Rangers is to argue that the SFA does have the ability to impose a discretionary penalty but that a one year transfer embargo is too harsh. Problem with this is a) it's not cllear to me based on their statements Rangers are even making this argument and b) if it's a question of fact and degree, rather than clear contravention of rules, the COS should be inclined to defer to the findings of he. Specialized internal procedure rather than in effect here the case against Rangers itself applying SFA rules rather than the actual law - they certainly would be loathe to do so in an arbitration context.

Sorry for the lengthy post here.

[WBR]

How would an EBT prove that a BOS official gave Murray confidential information about eg Aberdeen's exact financial situation?

I mean a member of the media being paid via EBT in relation to unsettling a target signing.

[thenolly]

What are the likely other BIG revelations to be revealed?

Bribery, match fixing, interfering with other clubs finances via whatever channels, match official pay offs?

Might get very, very juicy soon.

Running a drugs fuelled den of prostitution & illegal gambling frequented by international arms dealers and news of the world reporters.

Well they seem to have done everything else

[Captain_Sensible]

I don't think you can assume that the runners up in cup competitions should be regarded as the winners of those competitions.

Wouldn't the semi finalists, beaten by Rangers, have a claim as well? Indeed, any side knocked out by Rangers would have a claim surely?