Bairnforever1992 Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 SPL commission begins hearing into Rangers' use of EBTs to pay players "Popcorn at the ready" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 He's not going to fight it because he's not going to win it. He's full of shyte and the only ones lapping it up are the Sevconians. He talks a great game but when it comes down to push vs shove he walks away. Green might have felt some embarrassment at having to state the blindingly obvious in public. The SPL have no jurisdiction over The Rangers. Happy days 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) So Charlie reckons he bought the history of the old club and the tribunal can't do anything to Newco as they are not responsible for the actions of Oldco.That may be true but the tribunal will be taking away titles from Oldco which simply means that part of the history Chas thought he had bought won't exist any more. Not really much to appeal against, is there? Edited September 11, 2012 by WeeHectorPar 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Green might have felt some embarrassment at having to state the blindingly obvious in public. The SPL have no jurisdiction over The Rangers. Happy days That is the point, new club, but they do have jurisdiction over the titles which were won by oldco. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 ^^^Rattled Far from it. Green's statement could not be clearer - the SPL can ram their pish anywhere that liewell tells them to. It's got nothing to do with us 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Longer interview from CG Yet more hilarity. 1.22 in "well you've got to listen to your fans, we did that" 3.02 "I've never listened to the fans" The guy hasn't got a scooby, just making it up on the fly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Far from it. Green's statement could not be clearer - the SPL can ram their pish anywhere that liewell tells them to. It's got nothing to do with us Because you are not Rangers, Green bought some replica trophies and and some certificates which were awarded to Rangers. All he has are relics of a dead club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 One thing I don't understand is why the SPL and not the SFA are running the dual contracts investigation. Given that the SFA hold and administer registrations and are the overall governing body, surely it would have made sense for them to investigate it and avoid this inevitable juridstiction pish that we are seeing. Am I missing something obvious here? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 1.22 in "well you've got to listen to your fans, we did that" 3.02 "I've never listened to the fans" The guy hasn't got a scooby, just making it up on the fly. If he claims to be all things then the Sevconians can cherry pick what they like and discard what they dislike. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 One thing I don't understand is why the SPL and not the SFA are running the dual contracts investigation. Given that the SFA hold and administer registrations and are the overall governing body, surely it would have made sense for them to investigate it and avoid this inevitable juridstiction pish that we are seeing. Am I missing something obvious here? Legitimate point, however, SFA used "we'd be an appeal channel" reasoning. Also, it's for SPL to decide who it recognises as its tournament winners, thus not SFA. And... in the first instance at least... it's for league bodies to ajudge if their competition rules have been breached. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 That is the point, new club, but they do have jurisdiction over the titles which were won by oldco. And this lie hasn't stuck and wont stick. Except in the voided minds of diddy clubbers and the plastics. This is The Rangers we're talking about, son The club has had a number of owners - Green is the figurehead for the new owners and not about to hand over something he paid for. And most certainly not on instruction of liewell and his acolytes. Who would? The SPL? Only they would try and hold a case against a body they have no jurisdiction over. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 And this lie hasn't stuck and wont stick. Except in the voided minds of diddy clubbers and the plastics. This is The Rangers we're talking about, son The club has had a number of owners - Green is the figurehead for the new owners and not about to hand over something he paid for. And most certainly not on instruction of liewell and his acolytes. Who would? The SPL? Only they would try and hold a case against a body they have no jurisdiction over. "Except in the minds of diddy clubbers and plastics" does that mean that the only place Rangers are a continuation is in the small and narrow minds of Sevconiains? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 One thing I don't understand is why the SPL and not the SFA are running the dual contracts investigation. Given that the SFA hold and administer registrations and are the overall governing body, surely it would have made sense for them to investigate it and avoid this inevitable juridstiction pish that we are seeing. Am I missing something obvious here? I thought the SFA would have a conflict of interest as they allowed these EBTs to be used and knew all about them and the players were registered with them. If it transpires that the players were wrongly registered does that not show them as being incompetent? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) The club has had a number of owners - Green is the figurehead for the new owners and not about to hand over something he paid for. And most certainly not on instruction of liewell and his acolytes. Who would? The SPL? Only they would try and hold a case against a body they have no jurisdiction over. It might be for Green/Rangers to take SPL to court to (somehow) prove that what is afterall a concept... being recognised as worthy of honour by an organisation... became his/their property. Not only his property, but that the organisation can't ever change its opinion on who it recognises as worthy of the honour, even if citing suitable grounds (e.g. cheating). And not only that it can't change who it recognises as worthy of honour, but that it doing so is illegal (or causes him sufficient awardable damage that they don't regard it as affordable to do so). That's bizarre. If SPL demands return of replica trophies/flags, that's different... but how did Green purchase SPL's ability to recognise someone as a concept ("champion")? Personally I find it unlikely that once an organisation says "you're official champion", they can't ever change their mind and the concept - "being regarded as official champion" - actually becomes someone else's property?!?! Edited September 11, 2012 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 When did that happen? I obviously missed it. Telt was it? Naw, T E L L T, tellt. From BBC News, 12th June 2012 ( that's this year) Rangers: Football to continue at Ibrox say liquidators Rangers' liquidators insist the club will continue to play at Ibrox. Malcolm Cohen and James Stephen from financial company BDO have been appointed as Joint Liquidators. A CVA proposal from a consortium led by Charles Green was rejected by HMRC forcing the club into liquidation. “The liquidators will seek to protect any remaining assets, maximise recoveries for the benefit of creditors, and investigate the reasons behind the failure of the company.” Rangers' Liquidator Malcolm Cohen "It's important to understand that the appointment of liquidators will not mean the end of football at Ibrox - only the end of the company that ran the club," said Cohen. "The liquidators will seek to protect any remaining assets, maximise recoveries for the benefit of creditors and investigate the reasons behind the failure of the company." Administrators Duff & Phelps plan to transfer the business to a 'newco' set up by Green in the next few days. Cohen continued: "Once this is done, BDO will determine what can be recovered from the remains of the existing company. "It is right that there is a full and robust investigation into why the company failed, together with concerted efforts to recover monies for creditors and the taxpayer. "This may include pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the financial affairs of the company in previous years." Green's consortium have continued discussions with the Scottish football authorities with the SPL holding a board meeting on Monday where issues at Rangers are expected to figure high on the agenda. "We are still negotiating with the SFA and SPL to reach an amicable conclusion to the benefit of Scottish football," said Green. "We need to carry on talking sensibly and get something that works for everyone." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 I thought the SFA would have a conflict of interest as they allowed these EBTs to be used and knew all about them and the players were registered with them. If it transpires that the players were wrongly registered does that not show them as being incompetent? They've been shown to be incompetent throughout this, they even held on to Rangers' players' registrations when they had no reason to. A big change is required at all the bodies running our game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Nothing to do with the old club but at the same time continuity is preserved. The name of this organisation? The Schizophrenic Rangers! Or maybe I should also add Paraniod into the name...... There is no old club,there is however an old company that is known as The Rangers Football Club plc which transferred the SFA Membership to the new company,The Rangers Football Club Limited that know owns the club,thus ensuring continuity of the historical timeline. Whether you or anyone else agrees or disagrees on this continuity is neither here nor there,the relevant football authorities deem it as a continuance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 1.22 in "well you've got to listen to your fans, we did that" (when it suited us) 3.02 "I've never listened to the fans" (when it suited us) The guy hasn't got a scooby, just making it up on the fly. We're Newco (when it suits us, when it comes to paying the piper and taking punishment) We're Oldco (when it suits us, history, titles, fanbase, bigotry, etc, etc) Cherry picking : the main activity at Ibrox these days. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Nothing to do with the old club but at the same time continuity is preserved. The name of this organisation? The Schizophrenic Rangers! Or maybe I should also add Paraniod into the name...... There is no old club,there is however an old company that is known as The Rangers Football Club plc which transferred the SFA Membership to the new company,The Rangers Football Club Limited that know owns the club,thus ensuring continuity of the historical timeline. Whether you or anyone else agrees or disagrees on this continuity is neither here nor there,the relevant football authorities deem it as a continuance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) And this lie hasn't stuck and wont stick. Except in the voided minds of diddy clubbers and the plastics. This is The Rangers we're talking about, son The club has had a number of owners - Green is the figurehead for the new owners and not about to hand over something he paid for. And most certainly not on instruction of liewell and his acolytes. Who would? The SPL? Only they would try and hold a case against a body they have no jurisdiction over. Yes, yes it is. The new club formed after the corrupt and untidy endgame of the club called rangers. Why would Charlie Boy have to buy the club's own history? ETA: The SPL aren't holding a case against anyone. They're investigating to ascertain whether the rules of the competition were broken, and if so, did it affect the awarding of titles. If (in the unlikely event ) there is solid evidence of wrongdoing, it is their right to withdraw those titles and either award them as they see fit, or simply list them as void. Not rocket surgery, really.... Edited September 11, 2012 by WhiteRoseKillie 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.