No8. Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I think Rangers and Whyte were fined separately, with both together totalling 160k. Could be wrong though Whyte was fined £200,000 and banned from Scottish Football for life...He told them to chase themself and unsurprisingly wont be paying a penny. How could anybody do business with that crooked b*****d again!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Can people stop coming up with this rubbish about Spartans being banned from the Scottish Cup for improperly registering a player. They weren't banned, they were thrown out after fielding an ineligible player in their 2nd Round match. It's a completely different scenario. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonsilitis Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Putting aside other considerations such as the CVA failing, further punishments for dual contracts etc, etc, what could the SFA dream up? Would suspending them for half a season be practical? There would be an 11 team SPL for the first 20 games then Rangers are admitted on a points deduction (currently 10 but maybe should be more). That would place them in the bottom half at the split and almost certain to be relegated. Circa 25 points is the usual bottom team points total but teams have been relegated with more (Caley had 37 points) so with 16 matches and starting at -10, they would only have 38 points available max. It would mean teams in the SPL having two less games but maybe thats the price to be paid? Oh and, maybe Rangers could negotiate with the SFA to accept a signing embargo on a voluntary basis as an alternative? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 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? I was asking a question ya clown. Hibee Jibee has answered it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 The air is certainly a bit cleaner today. No H*n apologists spouting their "Scottish fitba' needs RaPeepul" pish. They've gone all quiet. Chick Faeces gone quiet. Fatty Traynor starting to sing from a different songsheet. Billy Dodds currently having reconstructive surgery. It's going to be a beautiful day. Oh yes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Would suspending them for half a season be practical? Do you really need to ask that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 For those that keep blogging expulsion and suspension are too severe and the panel do not have that option left neither do they have the option for leniency. The SFA argued in court that the tribunal considered all other options in the rulebook other than expulsion or suspension were too lenient. They did not wish to see the ultimate sanction or suspension applied as that was all that was left to them (and it was available to them just go as Hajduk Split and the Croat FA ... ) They wanted to show 'leniency' and used the rule (which the SFA believed to be valid) to create a 'fitting punishment' rather than suspend or expel. Rangers effectively removed that option and told them in no uncertain terms .. we arrra peppul ye cannae dae that tae us .. nooo f offf """ Now unless these chaps at the tribunal and SFA think that's acceptable given the gracious way that they have dealt with this bunch of tax dodging, cheating scum ... then to my mind there is only one sanction coming regardless of the added bonus that FIFA are watching and in consultation .. RANGERS ARE DEADER THAN A DEAD THING ROASTING IN HELL !!! Put the champagne beside the ice-cream and jelly !!!!! BUT unfortunately the panel put in writing that expuslion was too severe. With option 1 already at the max (fine) this leaves only option 2 - cup ban ban in the written rules. You have to remember that it is the Appelate Panel now left to decide - options 1,3,4 ruled-oot by what the original panel did -3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 What's the punishment for taking the SFA to court, which is a breach of the rules? I don't know the legalities but were they not blocked by SFA rules from taking it to the court of Arbitration? If so then they were left with no option but to go to the CoS where they won their case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 BUT unfortunately the panel put in writing that expuslion was too severe. With option 1 already at the max (fine) this leaves only option 2 - cup ban ban in the written rules. You have to remember that it is the Appelate Panel now left to decide - options 1,3,4 ruled-oot by what the original panel did Not quite. It was considered as too severe then. Under reconsideration, it might not be now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 (edited) IIRC it was actually the combination of the Laurentia and Baltica continents that formed Scotland, the former being the one associated with the current Northern American continent. Edit: OOooh, and the Highlands of Scotland have some of the oldest rocks on Earth, at over 3 billion years old. Laurentia, Baltica and Avalonia combined to form the Euramerican Supercontinent, an event which caused the deformation of the existing 'Scottish' landmass to cause mountain building (as opposed to forming that part of Scotland). At no point has Scotland been part of Baltica though and sediment covered continental Scottish land (the northern part Laurentian) existed well before this. Trust me. Indeed, the Lewsian Complex is indeed some of the oldest rock in the world. The Torridonian Sandstone contains simle algal stromatolites up in Assynt which are the oldest 'fossils' in Europe . Anyway... Edited June 1, 2012 by Hedgecutter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=221711&st=20 they want to pay off the smaller creditors, well they cant get everything wrong i suppose , good on them if they do 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I was asking a question ya clown. Hibee Jibee has answered it You didn't ask a question - look back - you tried to imply £160,000 was ultra vires. w****r for spouting such SHITE 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karpaty Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 http://croatiantimes.com/news/Sports/2012-03-29/26046/Hajduk_Split_suspended_from_football_league So Hadjuk Split kicked out of the Croatian league.. seemingly for crimes not even ont he Rangers scale. Get Rangers to f**k. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owsley Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 That's a good way of thinking - Rangers in SPL 2012-13 but getting pumped by newboys RossCounty I doubt they'll be in the SPL next season. If you take the EBT investigation alone, if they are found to have had improperly registered players, that's a season of 0-3 defeats, starting from possibly 2000/01. Can you be posthumously relegated? Whatever the correct term, if they are still alive they should be demoted. I believe it would then be up to the SFL as to what league they would go into as apparently the SPL can only demote a team it can't say, off to the Third Division for you. Or perhpas the SFA would say, mmm twelve years of being in a division you shouldn't have been in, off to the Third Division you go. On second thoughts, no, you're dead. Sorry. Just toooooo many offences. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 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 sandstone, limestone with some lavas in the lake District etc. However, 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. Copied and pasted from RangerMedia, IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuyahoga Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 (edited) Spartans got banned from the Scottish Cup, and the East League Cup for a single document being improperly signed. That's how lowly a punishment they rate the cup ban. The SFA found Rangers guilty of... (Bringing the game into disrepute) - Failing to disclose Craig Whyte was disqualified to act as a director for 7 years. - Failing to comply with Stock Exchange rules by failing to disclose Craig Whyte's disqualification. - Failing to lodge annual accounts by 31st December 2011 - Failing to hold an AGM by 1st January 2012 - Failing to pay HMRC PAYE, NIC and VAT - Failing to pay Dunfermline by 21st February 2012 for SPL match played on 11th February 2012 4) Not acting in the best interests of the game by failing to pay Dunfermline. 5) Failing to pay Dundee Utd for a Scottish Cup match. 6) Failing to pay the SFA for a Scottish Cup match. --- As you can see, a Scottish Cup ban doesn't quite add up. Throw in a lost appeal, a civil court and FIFA asking questions and the SFA have only one decision to make. Guaranteed 1 year suspension or there will be a rebellion by the other clubs. Although this is the fair and appropriate outcome, I still don't think that the SFA will take this action knowing that they would be considered as being responsible for landing the killing blow. I think they might take action which would stop just short of this yet still leave room for further sanction within a relatively short space of time. The current disrepute charge relates only to the issues over the last 12 months as highlighted by KillieJimbo. However, we all know that there is much, much more to come out which should end up in front of the SFA - BTC, dual contracts, bungs to Souness plus the potential other "nuclear" issues etc etc. I reckon the panel will come back with a 2/3 year exclusion from the Scottish Cup PLUS expulsion from the SFA SUSPENDED for a period of, say, 5 years. This provides a bit of time for the administration/liquidation process to run it's course without the SFA being responsible for derailing this process. Then, over the next few months, as further charges are brought, expulsion will follow.....although the SFA will be hoping that they pass away through natural causes before they have to take the final action. However, the big danger is if the CVA fails (as it surely will). If a Newco is formed then these charges and sanctions cannot be brought. This brings us back to SPL and the chairmen - NO TO NEWCO IN THE SPL. Are you listening Mr Johnston? Edited June 1, 2012 by cuyahoga 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Not quite. It was considered as too severe then. Under reconsideration, it might not be now. Fingers crossed! I always thought the signing ban was so kind as well! Knowing the tosspots were trying to find a mug to by Rangers with the guarantee the Orcs couldn't bad mouth you for not signing Drogba! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Copied and pasted from RangerMedia, IMO. You got me. We all know God made Scotland with a click of his fingers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby_F Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Still plenty to talk about, after all today is June 1st which means Rangers players go back to full pay and can trigger clauses in their contracts with the admin to leave for 25% of their true value. Running costs will have just sky rocketed again. Yes, but why's that a problem? The more they spend now, the less the creditors get. Doesn't affect H&D, doesn't affect Green, doesn't affect Ally's war chest... any increase in costs is being dumped on the people who've been wronged already. It really is gobsmackingly shocking. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 You didn't ask a question - look back - you tried to imply £160,000 was ultra vires. w****r for spouting such SHITE 'They couldn't have got this so wrong could they?'...Or words to that affect...It was a question which has been answered already by a couple of posters on here 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.