Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Humf]

We need to know der zee list - SFA, Inverness and st Mirren were added recently - we need a consolidated list.................poor McDonald's must be in Admin too after Big Hoose man boycotted

There'd be meltdown in govan if the grafters at Buckfast abbey spoke out against them

[Claymores]

It was said at the time that the £100k fine was completely inadequate hence the addition of the transfer ban. They also said expulsion/suspension was too harsh but given they ignored the obvious sanction of the cup ban it was clearly felt that wasn't enough - we can therefore assume the punishment order is:

1. fine

2. cup expulsion

(attempted transfer ban)

3. suspension

4. expulsion

I'm pretty sure they're not going to ban them forever (it wasn't match fixing, referee tapping etc) so it would seem likely they're hovering between positions 2 and 3. However, if they consider the offence of taking the SFA to court to be part of this one process, it's not a huge leap logically to think this might tip them towards suspension instead of merely banning them from the cup. It's just the ramification of this being certain death which makes it seem unlikely.

I agreed with your analysis UNTIL you leapt to 3 - no Club can survive with a league suspension so it equals 4 and deceased. If PaddyPower were doing bets, I'd put a grand on Cup ban. In a written statement, Truibunal said 3 & 4 were too severe. 1 is already at maximum which leaves 2

[Gaspode]

I think you are being optomistic Gas - fine in already at maximum.

leaves 3 possible outcomes

the original panel said 2 of those were too severe - leaves the only choice of Cup ban unfortunately

When you start to rely on Record or mail it's when I know you're talking pish

That was before they went and stuck 2 fingers up at the judicial panels and to the SFA by running to the CoS. Now there seems to be alot more anger boiling up towards the cheating b'stards.

[stonedsailor]

A fine is not on the cards as RFC has already been fined the maximum allowable under the SFA's rules. It's either expulsion the Scottish Cup or league football. As a Scottish Cup ban would be seen as too lenient, expulsion it is. Happy days! :lol:

I believe you are correct, the key is that the original disciplinary panel had considered expelling Rangrs for breaches just short of match rigging, in their view, they decided to create a new sanction in favour of Rangers to avoid having to throw them out of football but Rangers have now left no choice for the appeals tribunal but to revert to the punishment which was originally considered.

They have killed themselves and the fans funded it, you just don't get any more pleasing than that.

[archie guevara]

I agreed with your analysis UNTIL you leapt to 3 - no Club can survive with a league suspension so it equals 4 and deceased. If PaddyPower were doing bets, I'd put a grand on Cup ban. In a written statement, Truibunal said 3 & 4 were too severe. 1 is already at maximum which leaves 2

Is there a limit to how long they can be banned from the cup? How about 10 seasons? Is that feasible?

[mogodon]

Right. I''m off for my stag weekend....

Passport - Check

Boarding Pass - Check

Smartphone with data roaming and P&B in favourites - check

Rangers die - Please be checked

[WeeHectorPar]

Not quite.

From the exception of Tertiary volcanics like Skye, all things NW of the Highland Boundary Fault (ie Stonehaven, Crieff, Bute) were part of the ancient continent Laurentia which present day North America and Greenland were also part of. The Grampian block SE of Loch Ness (the Great Glen Fault) were shallow marine sediments on the Laurentian (i.e. 'North American' plate) continetal shelf and lateral equivalents to the NW Highlands. The Midland Valley terrane however was a separate volcanic island arc system like Japan which later crashed into it as the Iapetus ocean between Avalonia (England) closed. The final stage involved England on the other side smashing into us and this is what triggered most of the granite formation within the 'Caledonide' mountains, formerly the size of the Himalayas but we're now just seeing the eroded roots of it. These granites were formed ~350 million years before the Atlantic even started spreading.

Iceland is a very recent part of the Atlantic Ridge volcanics splitting up what was previously the amalgamation of these continents with a few more added on. Technically Iceland isn't on any continent as it's on thinner, basaltic Oceanic Crust, not thick continental. Scotland has always been on this side of the Atlantic. We haven't sailed across it, it's simply split us apart from North America. Skye, Mull etc are just two 'ancient' Icelandic style volcanic centres from when this ocean spreading kicked off.

Additionally, only the SE of England has much chalk, most of it's sandstones, limestones etc. Chalk would probably have covered the British Isles (including Scotland) but most of it's been eroded away. Most of England's water comes from underground aquifers and hence the limestones of northern England make the water 'hard' and shyte. Most of Scotland's comes straight off the mountain and stored on impermeable hard rock, e.g. Loch Katrine.

Sorry for that, but I felt it needed addressed.

When this thread is finally produced in book form it will become essential reading for all secondary pupils. It's just incredible that Rangers' going bust should be the basis for the Encyclopedia Scotia.

[Handsome_Devil]

I agreed with your analysis UNTIL you leapt to 3 - no Club can survive with a league suspension so it equals 4 and deceased. If PaddyPower were doing bets, I'd put a grand on Cup ban. In a written statement, Truibunal said 3 & 4 were too severe. 1 is already at maximum which leaves 2

I don't disagree with that, merely listing what the possible punishments were. The tribunal said 3 and 4 were too severe for the previous charge, we don't yet know how Rangers will be dealt with for going outside sport to the law court. If the first charge is now joined by that in the same offence (an uber charge, if you will :-)), there's no guarantee the tribunal will still feel number three (as the next step up) is too severe, especially as we don't know for sure just how much pressure FIFA will put on them to deliver an almighty kick in the balls. However, like you I still think the cup ban will be it. A year seems little though, two or three years possibly more likely.

[No8.]

i thought Rangers were originally fined £160,000 but now i see £100,000 was the maximum fine. Surely they cant have got that so wrong?

There is no way the SFA could defend a suspension or expulsion in a court of law after already saying it was too severe. It would be a waste of time and the SFAs money.

It will be a Cup ban..It is only a matter of how long the Cup ban is for. I would think 1 year is not enough so would go for a 2 year ban.

[Claymores]

That was before they went and stuck 2 fingers up at the judicial panels and to the SFA by running to the CoS. Now there seems to be alot more anger boiling up towards the cheating b'stards.

Don't get me wrong, I just think since level1 punishment is already at the maximum and levels 3 & 4 were put-oot by the orininal panel in WRITING, then the Appeals panel will go for 2 as the sole choice left - IT IS WRONG BUT WHERE WE ARE

[madwullie]

I think Rangers and Whyte were fined separately, with both together totalling 160k. Could be wrong though

[WeeHectorPar]

I don't disagree with that, merely listing what the possible punishments were. The tribunal said 3 and 4 were too severe for the previous charge, we don't yet know how Rangers will be dealt with for going outside sport to the law court. If the first charge is now joined by that in the same offence (an uber charge, if you will :-)), there's no guarantee the tribunal will still feel number three (as the next step up) is too severe, especially as we don't know for sure just how much pressure FIFA will put on them to deliver an almighty kick in the balls. However, like you I still think the cup ban will be it. A year seems little though, two or three years possibly more likely.

They might even throw in a ban on Rangers players playing for Scotland to make it more severe.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Sorry if this has been posted but it's a full time job just keeping up with this thread.

Anyone seen the latest issue of Private Eye? Apparently Hughie is reported as being a one time deputy chairman of a Jersey-registered but Qatar-based company called, wait for it,..... PanCELTICa. No surprise to learn it went tits-up in 2010. The company went into liquidation and shareholders got nothing. Fit and proper person....my arse.

Yes, I've been making sure that the currants' woes are still being reported "in the back". Obviously this thread is more current than the fortnightly "Eye", but for those who feel these crooks may slither out of this, it's good to know that "Slicker" is doing some digging. He's brought a hell of a lot of skullduggery to light over the years, and this fustercluck is just the kind of thing he likes to get his teeth into. Happy days, indeed!

[Gaspode]

Jane Lewis ‏@JaneLewisSport

#Fifa confirm that they've spoken to the #Sfa over the #Rangers situation. Talks will continue and they hope to release a statement today.

[stonedsailor]

I think you are being optomistic Gas - fine in already at maximum.

leaves 3 possible outcomes

the original panel said 2 of those were too severe - leaves the only choice of Cup ban unfortunately

When you start to rely on Record or mail it's when I know you're talking pish

Yes the punishments were considered to severe and that is why the panel created a new sanction, expulsion was considered. Rangers removed the possibility of creating a new sanction, the SFA can now go either a wee bit too severe or way too lenient. The language being used by club chairmen and SFA officials seems very stern I think you will find Rangers being punted very soon.

[WeeHectorPar]

i thought Rangers were originally fined £160,000 but now i see £100,000 was the maximum fine. Surely they cant have got that so wrong?

There is no way the SFA could defend a suspension or expulsion in a court of law after already saying it was too severe. It would be a waste of time and the SFAs money.

It will be a Cup ban..It is only a matter of how long the Cup ban is for. I would think 1 year is not enough so would go for a 2 year ban.

The 160k was an accumulation of fines.

[Highlandmagyar]

Don't get me wrong, I just think since level1 punishment is already at the maximum and levels 3 & 4 were put-oot by the orininal panel in WRITING, then the Appeals panel will go for 2 as the sole choice left - IT IS WRONG BUT WHERE WE ARE

Can the Appeals panel not throw in the fact the CoS stated that they had brought the game into disrepute and as a further charge, they can go for a different punishment?

Or was that dealt with in original decision?

[Claymores]

i thought Rangers were originally fined £160,000 but now i see £100,000 was the maximum fine. Surely they cant have got that so wrong?

There is no way the SFA could defend a suspension or expulsion in a court of law after already saying it was too severe. It would be a waste of time and the SFAs money.

It will be a Cup ban..It is only a matter of how long the Cup ban is for. I would think 1 year is not enough so would go for a 2 year ban.

FFS -how much crapola are you speiling? the were found guilty of 4 charges. 2 censured for but nothing done otherwise. 1 £60k and no further action, 1 £100k and Transfer embargo.

Why are you talking pish?

[HibeeJibee]

Yes, £160k is aggregation of various fines, e.g. includes £50k for going into admin IIRC.

[Handsome_Devil]

There is no way the SFA could defend a suspension or expulsion in a court of law after already saying it was too severe. It would be a waste of time and the SFAs money.

Probably but not for that reason - Rangers took them to court to say you have to punish us by one of the four means listed and won, regardless of which one is handed out now they have already agreed to it being fair. I guess you could go to CAS but Rangers argued (successfully) they had no means to go there either so that doesn't seem logical. So whatever the tribunal decides next, I don't see how Rangers will have any choice but to accept it.