Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[flyingrodent]

...I admit rules have been stretched to make sure that a club with 50,000 fans did not simply disappear, but it was done for common sense reasons, I am sure that logic will continue, the SPL and more importantly the SFA are tired of this whole saga, it is time to move on, to me (you can probably understand) the simplest thing would be for them just to drop it, however another part of me actually wants it to go ahead, a verdict would be good for both sides. If guilty then a monetary fine is the simplest path to get to this 'lets move on scenario' anything else is a huge can of worms and will just lead to decades of continued bad feeling and not just from Rangers and her fans. Money also gives something back to the game, none of the other punishments on offer do.

Correct me if I have that wrong, but is Tedi saying that Rangers should not be held accountable for the flagrant abuses of its former owner because

1) Rangers have lots of fans

2) Rangers fans won't like it if their club is held accountable for the flagrant abuses of its former owners

3) Holding Rangers accountable etc. would be complicated and long-winded, and Rangers would resist any attempts to hold them accountable, and

4) An unprosecuted Rangers will give lots of money to the league, whereas a busted Rangers might not?

I mean, I can actually see the SPL and SFA going for this deal. They are, after all, unscrupulous, money-grubbing hacks with an eye on the bottom line, every time.

But it's surely worth remembering this proposal - basically, an offer of a substantial and ongoing bribe to look the other way rather than investigate wrong-doing, with implicit threats - the next time one of the P&B Teds starts wittering on about "corruption" in Scottish football.

If anyone wants to know what the word "corruption" means, then "agreeing to look the other way when wrong-doing is done, because it's in your own interests to do so" is more or less bang on the dictionary definition.

Accepting that deal wouldn't just mean that Rangers used to corrupt the Scottish game. It would mean that it continues to, and that every league club in the game is complicit in that corruption.

[SS-18 ICBM]

The adventure continues...

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Of course I am not saying we should not be held accountable, you just made that up, I am happy to correct you.

Your post reads very much that Rangers have already been found guilty. You will not mind then if I point out that we have not been found guilty of anything.

If on the off chance we are (after any appeal process) found guilty then I am simply pointing out that a fine is on the list of punishments, the SFA/SPL would not be breaking any rules nor would they be guilty of corruption if they decided this was the appropriate punishment in the best interests of the game.

So your point no 4;

4) An unprosecuted Rangers will give lots of money to the league, whereas a busted Rangers might not?

If they are found guilty and the punishment is a fine, then they would indeed be prosecuted and not as you state unprosecuted.

You will notice how even though I presume Rangers to be innocent I still have the decency to suggest they may well be guilty, perhaps when commenting on things you might also allow the possibility that despite your obvious view and wishes, that Rangers may indeed be cleared of any wrongdoing.

What are they doing in the Third Division, then, Tedi?

It's not decency to suggest they may be guilty - just remove the blue goggles for a bit, and listen to people other than your fellow bears, and the UberBear Charlie Boy. Maybe, I dunno, read the whole 145 pages of that FTTT verdict, including the dissenting opinion from Dr. Poon, and realise that, technicalities aside, they cheated as hard as they could in order to be the pre-eminent force in our game - and failed.

Then, maybe, have a bit of gratitude that at least you've got some kind of ur-rangers to follow at all.

[flyingrodent]

Of course I am not saying we should not be held accountable, you just made that up, I am happy to correct you.

Your post reads very much that Rangers have already been found guilty. You will not mind then if I point out that we have not been found guilty of anything.

If on the off chance we are (after any appeal process) found guilty then I am simply pointing out that a fine is on the list of punishments, the SFA/SPL would not be breaking any rules nor would they be guilty of corruption if they decided this was the appropriate punishment in the best interests of the game.

So your point no 4;

4) An unprosecuted Rangers will give lots of money to the league, whereas a busted Rangers might not?

If they are found guilty and the punishment is a fine, then they would indeed be prosecuted and not as you state unprosecuted.

You will notice how even though I presume Rangers to be innocent I still have the decency to suggest they may well be guilty, perhaps when commenting on things you might also allow the possibility that despite your obvious view and wishes, that Rangers may indeed be cleared of any wrongdoing.

Well, you've set it up here, Tedi - IF Rangers are found guilty, THEN this is what should happen. When the situation is posed like this, the question of Rangers' guilt is irrelevant - you're talking about a scenario in which they ARE guilty. If that's the case, then the relevant question is, what should be done?

And the penalty for fielding ineligible players has been established, cemented in concrete and encased in Carbonite over the years, unless I'm mistaken - immediate punting out of the competitions in question, at a bare minimum, whether it was intentional or accidental. I can't think of any situations where this didn't happen in the last thirty years, although that's not to say that it never has.

Which means that, IF Rangers are found guilty of fielding many, many ineligible players, THEN all those titles and cups pretty much have to go. Anything less would look and smell like a total wimp-out; any suggestion that the panel accepted the kind of deal you're suggesting, for the reasons that you're suggesting them, would amount to only one thing - corruption.

And, to reiterate: Corruption = Failing to act properly when wrong-doing is brought to your attention, because it's in your interest to ignore it.

[flyingrodent]

The SFA / SPL have a range of punishments open to them, 19 if I am correct

Title stripping is one

A fine is one.

If the SFA decide that a fine is the appropritae way to go IF Rangers are guilty then you cannot call it corruption just because you do not like the punishment they chose.

This is true. On the other hand, the panel would have a hell of a lot of explaining to do to justify why Spartans or whoever got booted out of the cup for committing an offence that Rangers would've committed with relative impunity, hundreds of times, over a period of years.

Which is not to say that no such justification could conceivably exist.

On the other hand, the punitive strategy that you are suggesting really is the definition and practice of corruption. I don't think it's up for debate, really.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Because they were voted into the 3rd. It had nothing to do with being guilty or innocent, it was not a punishment either.

We were talking about the SPL not HMRC and even in that case despite Dr. Poon`s opinion, the decision went in favor of Rangers, at some point you are simply going to have to accept this.

So when do you play us next? What do you mean, Killie aren't in the Third? How's Europe going for you? Eh? Not playing in Europe this season? WTF is that all about? Oh, yes.....

The club you used to follow is dead, Tedi. Charlie is currently testing how far he can push the "phoenix" rules.

"Talking about the SPL and not HMRC"? So why have you lot been banging on about the FTTT result for the last few pages then? You all reckon that the FTTT result (which most of us do accept, and which was not a total success for EITHER side) gives you some kind of precedent when the SPL commission sits. Do none of you see the difference between the Law and the rules of a sporting body? Evidently not, as some of you are already planning to spunk some more fans' money in an attempt to "see them in court". The appeal body in this case is the SFA - remember, the SFA that allowed Charlie to carry on with the Long Con?

[WhiteRoseKillie]

The SFA / SPL have a range of punishments open to them, 19 if I am correct

Title stripping is one

A fine is one.

If the SFA decide that a fine is the appropritae way to go IF Rangers are guilty then you cannot call it corruption just because you do not like the punishment they chose.

Tedi - in the instance that rangers are guilty of fielding ineligible players:

The SFA have already fined rangers - for not paying taxes, thereby bringing the game into disrepute. This offence was committed in one season.

IF they are found to have repeatedly and knowingly fielded ineligible players for a number of seasons - institutionalised cheating, as the layman might term it - do you really think a fine is appropriate? Because I don't think you'll find anyone not affiliated to rangers or the new club who would think so. After the initial tribunal, your lot have made it absolutely fucking crystal that they'll only accept punishments which are in the book.

"Be careful what you wish for", as a wise man fat arsehole once said...

[Double Jack D]

It seems the Rangers fans can't quite grasp that the SPL investigation is not whether the 2nd Contracts/ EBT's were legal it's whether they were properly registered with the SFA. If they weren't then any player who had one is ineligible and the SFA/ SPL have the right to punish the offending club.

If the SPL find Rangers guilty then there is clear precedent for this in terms of points deductions for league games, expulsion from cups and fines. The extent of the punishment should be dependent on the extent of illegible players fielded over the period.

If they are found guilty to the extent that all players who had an EBT were not properly registered then I would expect them to lose titles, cups and be fined heavily.

If they are found not guilty the stench of corruption will be intense.

The defence of "but the trophies were won on the pitch" is about the funniest thing I've read on this whole thread. Genius!

Edited January 21, 2013 by Double Jack D

[bennett]

It seems the Rangers fans can't quite grasp that the SPL investigation is not whether the 2nd Contracts/ EBT's were legal it's whether they were properly registered with the SFA. If they weren't then any player who had one is ineligible and the SFA/ SPL have the right to punish the offending club.

If the SPL find Rangers guilty then there is clear precedent for this in terms of points deductions for league games, expulsion from cups and fines. The extent of the punishment should be dependent on the extent of illegible players fielded over the period.

If they are found guilty to the extent that all players who had an EBT were not properly registered then I would expect them to lose titles, cups and be fined heavily.

If they are found not guilty the stench of corruption will be intense.

The defence of "but the trophies were won on the pitch" is about the funniest thing I've read on this whole thread. Genius!

I'd reverse that a bit too, to bring in non Rangers fans, there is a lot of confusion regarding the two investigations. There obviously is a bit of over-lapping between the two and nowhere as black and white as many believe.

In the end it'll come down to the small print and whichever side makes best use of the wording used in the various regulations.

Reading between the lines it looks like Rangers don't expect to win the SPL hearing and will appeal it further.

Just guess work on my part, i have no legal or financial expertise.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

This is why it is impossible to debate with you.

You ignore the subject being discussed in some pointless scheme is discuss something else.(1)

You start posting about Killie, post silly pictures and then start the boring old your club is dead routine.(2)

Have a look at Rodent`s posts, note how he stays on subject, makes good points, note how he does not attempt to ridicule and then maybe you will start to understand why he gets way more respect than you can ever hope to achieve.

1. Time for some editing - that makes absolutely no sense.

2. I didn't post about my team, I mentioned them in context - the context being rangers' current position in the league.My reason for mentioning Killie, and it could have been celtic, St Mirren or Hibs, is that this time last year, those are the teams rangers were playing. That's who they would still be playing had something cataclysmic not happened to them. Something which you blithely dismiss as "they were voted in,It had nothing to do with being guilty or innocent, it was not a punishment either." Damn right it wasn't a punishment - it was just another example of special treatment.

Your club is dead. A club which was incorporated into a company which is in liquidation. A club which you and the rest of the bears will scream like bitches you've got nothing to do with if any punishment comes out of this case. Your cherry-picking of the good bits/denial of the criminality and cheating would be funny if it were not so despicable, and were it not for the damage it caused to the game in Scotland, and myriad innocent creditors.

the Fliedermaus' posts are always well presented - doesn't stop you from wilfully ignoring the points you don't know/like the answers to. Do you respect him more than me? Strangely, I'm not going to lose any sleep over that.

Edited January 21, 2013 by WhiteRoseKillie

[WhiteRoseKillie]

There were effectively 3 questions.

(1) Allow Rangers into the SFL. voted 29/1

(2) Start in SFL3. 25/30 voted for this

(3) Start in SFL1 5/30 voted for this

The SFA wanted to Rangers to be fast tracked, the Fans did not

So yes you are missing something.

Also missing that brilliant PowerPoint presentation to convince the SPL to let a new club straight in.

Also missing the threats of violence against clubs and persons willing to speak out against plans to fast-track them.

Also missing the first five months of this story, after rangers were put into admin by their owner. Oh no, that's you, Tedi, isn't it?

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Off Subject, deflection.

Off Subject, deflection.

Off Subject, deflection.

The subject was the SFL vote.

The subject, my hard-of-comprehension little Orc, is the Administration and liquidation of rangers. The clue is in the thread title. I realise you didn't know anything about this till that chap in Bar 67 tipped you the wink (just after the Tribute Act got clearance), but some of us were following the story long before Charlie Boy's attempted reincarnation and adoption of the Orcish Scriptures.

Everything that has happened since last February is intertwined and connected - especially your lot's attempts to rewrite history. The SFL vote was the Last Chance Saloon for Charlie and his Players, and even to be admitted in the basement was preferential in the extreme. "Making new friends" my arse - offer Charlie a place in the SPL next year and he'll snap your fucking hand off - while you and the rest of the Horde try to convince us that that's what the plan was all along.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Same hopeless debating style.

predictable you are.

Any chance of training me up in the technique of altering posts then criticising the bits I leave in, no matter how little resemblance they bear to the original?

Or the ever-reliable deflection and denial approach?

Maybe reveal to us the secrets of ascertaining whether a source is reliable or a "tic wet dream"?

[Henrik's tongue]

predictable you are.

^^^ Yoda.

[Henrik's tongue]

f**k off, Yoda must be a tim, he is green, even his light sabre was green.

Good taste he has.

[Ken Fitlike]

There is no argument.

UEFA are updating Rangers page with information which makes it impossible to argue that they see Rangers as a new club, the ECA are the european club association, funded and recognised by UEFA.

ECA probably kept Rangers Mark II in the 'associate members' sheddie oot the back, as a wee joke, just as a stark warning to all their proper big clubs what can happen if you allow your club to be run by charlatans, con-men, tax-dodgers and all-round arrogant rule bending bully boys.

[flyingrodent]

I know who the ECA are I just never heard rangers fans talk of their relevance before nor I have I ever heard a rangers fan say that club and company are different before all this shite.

I know what you mean. The father-in-law is a Bun: a good lad usually, although he's one of those ones that usually only remembers he is one after they've won an OF game.

The last two months though, he's showed up at our place once a week and announced that Rangers had 45,000 bums on seats at Ibrox, or whatever. "Biggest crowd in the country", he keeps saying.

You only used to get one of two bits of football chat out of him, back when his team were in the top flight: either "Your team got walloped the other day" if they'd just beat us, or "Scottish football is pure sh*te and I dinnae watch it" if they hadn't.

And now, the mysterious obsession with turnout. Who knows? Maybe there's a poster on P&B who knows exactly what I'm talking about...

[bennett]

I know what you mean. The father-in-law is a Bun: a good lad usually, although he's one of those ones that usually only remembers he is one after they've won an OF game.

The last two months though, he's showed up at our place once a week and announced that Rangers had 45,000 bums on seats at Ibrox, or whatever. "Biggest crowd in the country", he keeps saying.

You only used to get one of two bits of football chat out of him, back when his team were in the top flight: either "Your team got walloped the other day" if they'd just beat us, or "Scottish football is pure sh*te and I dinnae watch it" if they hadn't.

And now, the mysterious obsession with turnout. Who knows? Maybe there's a poster on P&B who knows exactly what I'm talking about...

Thats quite similar to most of the green and greys i know.

Pre season it was how much they were looking forward to this season, what fun they were going to have with 60,000 at the Pigge ... Parkhead every week, life was going to be one big party. Reality being a half empty stadium with no one really giving a f**k.

Oh how they bragged about how hard life would be for us, a maximum of 10,000 fans watching us toil at a deserted Ibrox while tumbleweed blew around the stadium. Funny how things turn out.

Infact i don't know any Celtic fans who still discuss Celtic, even after their CL games it's still all about the Rangers.

We've fallen back in love with football while Celtic fans have all became financial wizards and legal beagles.

[bennett]

If they dont turn up their club dies again, simple really. Also its the only thing they get too lord over Celtic fans even if Celtic have had more through the turnstiles and earn a lot more from it. Also they are winning so its good, even if it is against part timers.

If rangers get to the SPL and are finishing well behind Celtic and are getting charged twice what they are now, we will see how many turn up every week.

During Celtics 3 in a row our average crowds were in the upper 40,000's.

We don't expect to challenging Celtic for quite some time yet.

[SS-18 ICBM]