Desert Nomad Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Rangers have won a minor court victory: the Big Tax Case and the EBTs/double contracts fraud are the Tyrannosauruses in the living room here. Today's court case is like that bit in Saving Private Ryan where a bullet spangs off the soldier's helmet, and his mate shouts "You lucky b*****d!". Half a second later, POW! Brains all over the camera. Exactly it's like a game of chess and Rangers have just escaped check for the third or fourth time. They are losing pieces all the time & eventually it'll be check mate & game over for RFC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Even OJ's prosecution team had good days in court. OJ was acquitted 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
54_and_counting Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Chief executive Stewart Regan added: "We have discussed the matter with Celtic Football Club and they accept that Neil Lennon was guilty of misconduct. "However, with regard to the timing of the suspension we must accept that if our rules cannot be enforced in a court of law then they cannot be imposed and it is foolish to waste money defending such a point. "We acknowledge that our rules do need updating and I have proposed to our board that we commission a complete re-write of the disciplinary procedures from a legal perspective to address this whole matter. "Whilst we have an obligation to ensure that our rules can be legally enforced, nevertheless it is important for the future of Scottish football that we do not allow our disciplinary procedures to be used as a costly legal playground. "We must ensure we can reach a happy balance where every decision is not subject to an appeal and football can self-govern without constant legal interventions." Stewart Regan said this April last year regarding Neil Lennon's over-lapping bans 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lithgierose Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 40 pages just read and up to date ...... I see the orcs are back in force ramming we won a meaningless legal battle !. Baron Greenback has issued a laughable 9p in the pound CVA to the creditors. I and lot of confused individuals like me ? WTF happens now ?. Now I see why fat Sally was harping on "we take our punishment no matter what" as he obviously thought at worst no Scottish cup run next year as he knew his team had no chance after last seasons fiasco. I haven't been on ra ragers media yet but I'm sure they feel they will come through this debt free and the big tax case will get thrown out and all that blah blah blah. Now the SFA and Rangers are about to go head to head over acceptable punishment.I can't wait to see how big the SFA's balls are now !. It would appear to me that Rangers have been given every opportunity for stalling tactics so next years fixtures in the premier league include the tax dodgers at any cost.Once in the revenue starts and I'm sure Greeny will bleed the fans as dry as possible to pay for an increased "guess what" another improved CVA topped up the the gers fans money.Make no mistake that Baron Greenback will not invest in the club and there will be a rangers for the taking on the pitch. IMHO this fiasco will in all likely still be alive well into next season with more appeals deadlines and fcuk knows what to help bleed more money out the gers fans to pay for past owners mistakes and line owners pockets. Is that for real ? ffs surely the taxman wouldnt accept this amount when its his turn to get paid out. didnt hmrc refuse portsmouth 20p in the £.my tax return is due.9p it is then 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 How much is 'laughable'? Dundee offered 6p Motherwell offered 20p 9p certainly is - when it is only as much as 9p because it doesn't include the BTC which could be another £74m on top of the £56m in the CVA. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p&b is a disgrace Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 It'll be a Scottish cup ban. My understanding is that a Fine, a Suspension or Expulsion are the possible sanctions. Why is everyone touting a Scottish Cup ban. Isn't that just swapping one wrong sanction for another? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Even OJ's prosecution team had good days in court. Er... you do know how that went, right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 My understanding is that a Fine, a Suspension or Expulsion are the possible sanctions. Why is everyone touting a Scottish Cup ban. Isn't that just swapping one wrong sanction for another? Scottish Cup bans were specifically mentioned today in court, I'm sure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Naughty, corrupt, odious - yes. Murderers - not quite. But what about John Grieg and the dead hooker in the photocopier room? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lithgierose Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) 9p certainly is - when it is only as much as 9p because it doesn't include the BTC which could be another £74m on top of the £56m in the CVA. isnt it 8.5 that hughie has put on the table for the creditors.thats to cover 56 million debt. just read that last post again doh.my eyes are bleeding. Edited May 29, 2012 by lithgierose 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBairn Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) http://www.telegraph. ..rgo-ruling.html So they had already 'considered' ending Rangers membership, instead opting for the lenient option. Ah well, time to re-consider and apply the original punishment then. Edited May 29, 2012 by GunnerBairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Oh ye of little faith. They're more fucked now than they've ever been. I agree. Uefa with Roxburgh and Platini's Scottish bitch bag man medal supplier might not be to too happy to impose sanctions on the dark side. However, FIFA have sent out a clear message to the SFA which is. Deal with the big hoose,or we'll fkn deal with the SFA. Too many cards would fall if that scenario were to unfold. So it looks as if liquidation may be the best option for them. Staged managed by duff n phelps with the assistance of Craig Whyte quite brilliantly to enable SFA, FIFA, UEFA Aiden McGeady, basically any cnt to take the blame except Rangers . Craigy and Mr Green should do quite well out of the deal once they sell to Tesco. I wonder if Murray may even be in for a cut once the dust settles over ibrox when the demolition contractors have left. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Chief executive Stewart Regan added: "We have discussed the matter with Celtic Football Club and they accept that Neil Lennon was guilty of misconduct. "However, with regard to the timing of the suspension we must accept that if our rules cannot be enforced in a court of law then they cannot be imposed and it is foolish to waste money defending such a point. "We acknowledge that our rules do need updating and I have proposed to our board that we commission a complete re-write of the disciplinary procedures from a legal perspective to address this whole matter. "Whilst we have an obligation to ensure that our rules can be legally enforced, nevertheless it is important for the future of Scottish football that we do not allow our disciplinary procedures to be used as a costly legal playground. "We must ensure we can reach a happy balance where every decision is not subject to an appeal and football can self-govern without constant legal interventions." Stewart Regan said this April last year regarding Neil Lennon's over-lapping bans Yeah ... but that was different ..... err I think .... was it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glasgow-sheep Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 It cannot be 'independent' if it is appointed by one of the parties in the case. It can only be independent if appointed by a third party which is not involved. The fact that the individuals were qualified or that Rangers had agreed to them is not relevant to the discussion of 'independence'. ok Who should have appointed the panel? What should the punishment have been? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismcarab Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 How much is 'laughable'? How long is a piece of string? The whole thing is laughable. Lets try actually qualifying that. Anything other than full recompense is laughable especially when its going on at the same time as court proceedings about who you can and can't sign with an imaginary war chest. If there's money for players it should be put into the creditors pot and give the poor folks that have been shafted as much as morally and humanly possible. How's that for laughable? Dundee lost an entire squad and back room staff, Motherwell lost most of their team, none of them were looking to sign players they could ill afford while shafting everyone and everything in sight to the extent that Rangers intend to. Hows that for 'laughable' ? Moron. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Is that for real ? ffs surely the taxman wouldnt accept this amount when its his turn to get paid out. didnt hmrc refuse portsmouth 20p in the £.my tax return is due.9p it is then Then Rangers will liquidate and the taxman will get even less. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) Just worked-out - if the CVA offer is 9p in the £ based on the debt excluding the BTC.................add in the full potential amount of the BTC (£74m) and the offer equates to 4p in the £ ROBBING C~*%~#s Not worth bothering about - LIQUIDATE Edited May 29, 2012 by Claymores 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Is that for real ? ffs surely the taxman wouldnt accept this amount when its his turn to get paid out. didnt hmrc refuse portsmouth 20p in the £.my tax return is due.9p it is then They knock back any CVA proposal in England because of the football creditors rule, which doesn't exist in Scotland. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerstly Borate Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 But what about John Grieg and the dead hooker in the photocopier room? Good point. I wonder if a "loan" was requested via an EBT by a an ex-manager to clean up the mess. There's one ex-manager in particular I reckon looks swell in rubber gloves. He'd look "nuclear" in fact... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismcarab Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 It cannot be 'independent' if it is appointed by one of the parties in the case. It can only be independent if appointed by a third party which is not involved. The fact that the individuals were qualified or that Rangers had agreed to them is not relevant to the discussion of 'independence'. And back to my point about 'independent' administrators.......... shhhhhhhhhhhhh you really are pathetic 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.