Highlandmagyar Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 The SFA can just ignore the 'comments' made by the CoS and tell Rangers that the ban stays and they should STFU or else they get chucked out of the SFA. The CoS comments have no legal bearing in the circumstances. just what my flatmate said to me. Mind you he supports Aberdeen, so I didnt take much notice!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CambieBud Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Death of 1000 c*nts. The Bard himself couldn' t have put it better 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 2. T S A R is a Motherwell fan. WTF? T S A R is just acting contrary to the groundswell in his continued desperate bid for attention. After trying to deflect from war crimes in Libya in another thread I'd still rate this piece of 'look at meeee' posturing as a new low. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browni Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 (edited) http://www.bbc.co.uk. .._medium=twitter priceless :lol: :lol: Love it! "The law's an ass!" :lol: :lol: Edited May 30, 2012 by Browni 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Your understanding is wrong, I'm afraid. The Court of Session have found that the SFA's decision is ultra vires and therefore of no effect. If the SFA try to ignore it (which they won't, not least because they would be in contempt of court) then further court action will follow which the SFA will lose. The SFA's only option here is to accept the judgement or appeal against it, they can't just ignore it. Fair enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GirondistNYC Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 1338409156[/url]' post='6288582']Your understanding is wrong, I'm afraid. The Court of Session have found that the SFA's decision is ultra vires and therefore of no effect. If the SFA try to ignore it (which they won't, not least because they would be in contempt of court) then further court action will follow which the SFA will lose. The SFA's only option here is to accept the judgement or appeal against it, they can't just ignore it. Yup 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
54_and_counting Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 The SFA were not the victim yes they were, it was their rules that were broken Rangers (and everyone else) agreed to any disciplinary panel being drawn from a larger list yes but the appeal was conducted by someone chosen by the SFA also was it not? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invalid Probe Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Sorry if this has already been asked. But if the CVA fails, Green has a contractual right to buy the assets for 5.5m 1. How did that come about? If the CVA fails then dont the creditor get to pick over the carcass? 2. Green isn't buying the club is he? He's giving them a loan? Or is he buying it - what the f**k? I'm confused. Is he getting all the assets in return for arranging a loan while the creditors get a share of £0 3. How can D&P arrange a loan for rangers when they are in administration? Is that another breach by the dynamic duo? Some thing smells a little.....again. I asked this and got a reply from a rangers fan. Was hoping for a back-up reply. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 A bit like you being an "associate" Motherwell fan then - No you aren't! i'm a season ticket holder at fir park and a fully paid up member of the well society which is taking over the running of the club. last season i attended 42 out of 43 first team motherwell games, 3 friendlies and 2 u19 games. over the past 3 seasons i've attended 138 first team games out of 143 including trips to france, romania, iceland and denmark. in a few months i will be in either istanbul, kiev, athens or copenhagen watching my team in the champions league so you are as accurate about me not being a motherwell fan as you are about turkey being an EU member. just because i'm not jumping on the uberdiddy bandwagon doesn't mean that i don't support motherwell or have an allegiance to rangers. this thread at the beginning had a lot of interesting comments but has descended into mostly hysteria and baseless claims that are as dumb as the shite posted on rangers media. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invalid Probe Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I asked this and got a reply from a rangers fan. Was hoping for a back-up reply. It was him two posts up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuntoiRab Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Sorry if this has already been asked. But if the CVA fails, Green has a contractual right to buy the assets for 5.5m 1. How did that come about? If the CVA fails then dont the creditor get to pick over the carcass? 2. Green isn't buying the club is he? He's giving them a loan? Or is he buying it - what the f**k? I'm confused. Is he getting all the assets in return for arranging a loan while the creditors get a share of £0 3. How can D&P arrange a loan for rangers when they are in administration? Is that another breach by the dynamic duo? Some thing smells a little.....again. Green paid Whyte his quid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuntoiRab Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 yes they were, it was their rules that were broken yes but the appeal was conducted by someone chosen by the SFA also was it not? Let's get this straight as well as the CL places. Both tribunals, ie 3 people, not one, are picked from a pot of 100, all agreed by all signatories, including Rangers. Rangers signed up for the new disciplinary protocols, BUT it was D&P who disagreed. Maybe you guys have an argument with FIFA on that point! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CambieBud Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Couple of things struck me today. 1. Why would Ticketus go for this CVA? Would they not consider buying Ibrox and renting it back to them at say £3million a year. Not only get all their money back but make a huge profit at Rangers expense! 2. The players who can bail out for a song. Why would anyone not be mortified to be associated with an incidious odious organisation hell bent on destroying everything in their path? Have these players no sense of public shame? If even some of them showed their contempt for their employers by publicly demanding away, I for one would applaud them loudly. They can't all be knuckledraggers at heart. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustyarabnuts Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Alasdair Lamont @BBCAlLamontThe latest revelations from @markdaly2 will appear herehttp://bbc.in/9T0ISn around midnight 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 (edited) Sorry if this has already been asked. But if the CVA fails, Green has a contractual right to buy the assets for 5.5m 1. How did that come about? If the CVA fails then dont the creditor get to pick over the carcass? 2. Green isn't buying the club is he? He's giving them a loan? Or is he buying it - what the f**k? I'm confused. Is he getting all the assets in return for arranging a loan while the creditors get a share of £0 3. How can D&P arrange a loan for rangers when they are in administration? Is that another breach by the dynamic duo? Some thing smells a little.....again. He's buying the company for two quid from Craig Whyte on condition that a CVA is agreed failing which he isn't buying the company and will instead purchase the assets. If a CVA is agreed then he will loan money to the company to pay for it. It's all strictly kosher (within those narrow parameters - whether Rangers fans agree when he starts to take his money back out again is another matter). As far as D&P borrowing money goes they can't increase the indebtedness of the club but I don't think there's anything to stop them refinancing existing debts (essentially turning a bazillion pounds of debt into an £8.5m debt). In any event this is the best offer on the table and therefore the best chance of creditors getting a return (in the opinion of D&P and any one of those creditors is entitled to challenge that in court) and therefore falls within the scope of the administrators' powers. In short, the only people who should be worrying about the proposed new debt are Rangers fans. Edited May 30, 2012 by Pull My Strings 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk. .._medium=twitter priceless The only bit I have an issue with is when he asks why the courts are getting involved in football. The answer, Mr Gilmour, is because football administrators including yourself have been absolutely f*cking useless in taking any sort of action whatsoever! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 yes but the appeal was conducted by someone chosen by the SFA also was it not? You left out the part were rangers only last year were happy with this and signed up to it. Agreeing to disagree when what you agreed to in the first place is not agreeable to you own circumstances because you signed up to it because rangers thought these panels would never be implemented on rangers ? right. Rangers threw the dummy right out the pram after asking for the dummy in the first place !. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 (edited) T S A R is just acting contrary to the groundswell in his continued desperate bid for attention. After trying to deflect from war crimes in Libya in another thread I'd still rate this piece of 'look at meeee' posturing as a new low. i'm happy to address war crimes in libya as long as western sponsored war crimes are held to the same scrutiny, which they are not. the only part of libya that is functioning properly now is the oil industry, quelle suprise! i'm waiting to see what the outcome of the FTT is and how the spl and sfa decide to act. whatever the outcomes are i'll accept them and won't be bitching and moaning unlike 99% of posters on here. my attitudes to scottish football events is influenced by two factors (1) will it effect the long term viability of mfc (2) will it have a positive or negative effect of the performance of mfc on the park. my predictions for this saga: rangers lose the tribunal on the balance of probablities, the contract investigation comes to nothing and a newco rangers are playing in the spl next season and uberdiddy knickers will be thoroughly soaked. Edited May 30, 2012 by T_S_A_R 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
expatowner Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I've learnt two things from this mighty thread today. So have I: 1. Turkey IS a member of the EU 2. Turkey ISN'T a member of the EU. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenolly Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 He's buying the company for two quid from Craig Whyte on condition that a CVA is agreed failing which he isn't buying the company and will instead purchase the assets. If a CVA is agreed then he will loan money to the company to pay for it. It's all strictly kosher (within those narrow parameters - whether Rangers fans agree when he starts to take his money back out again is another matter). As far as D&P borrowing money goes they can't increase the indebtedness of the club but I don't think there's anything to stop them refinancing existing debts (essentially turning a bazillion pounds of debt into an £8.5m debt). In any event this is the best offer on the table and therefore the best chance of creditors getting a return (in the opinion of D&P and any one of those creditors is entitled to challenge that in court) and therefore falls within the scope of the administrators' powers. In short, the only people who should be worrying about the proposed new debt are Rangers fans. Not as clear cut as some may think, if he decides to buy the assets at what any of the major creditors decide as grossly inder value this can be appealed, this is assuming the assets are held by rangers and not whyte, if rangers dont own the ground and murray park etc then they should have been declared insovent and liquidated earlier as trading out pot of administration was never an option 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.