Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[bennett]

Norman stamps his feet and cries.

Shame that.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

I predict his answer will be 'Never heard of speculating Bennett' even though he was clearly stating it as a fact.

You are familiar with conditional phrasing and speculation, Bennett? The issue here is what would you deem appropriate IF there were irregularities - I have not stated that there were, how many there were, or for how long. I simply asked of you and your fellow deflectors rangers posters what you might deem to be fit punishment IF such irregularities had occurred.

How can you add detail to speculation, or alternatively why would I embroider any speculation?

Normans nothing if not predictable

Well done, Mystic Smeg.

[hellbhoy]

It was an easy question for you to answer, i'll take that as a 'you haven't a f**king a clue and are making shite up again'.

You supply the ammo dude ! how many people got EBT's ? once you have that then subtract 80 from that number and then you have your answer to how many were settled out of court.

One person equals one case Benny.

You find something that says there was only 80 recipients then Rangers have truly won the BTC outright

[Henrik's tongue]

Lance Armstrong would not have helped his case by pointing to a French street map.

[Fotbawmad]

I think you could argue that legally loans are not payments.

This where I think the SPL case will fall down, the SPL will have to declare that these loans were payments in order to find them guilty and then punish. If Rangers can create a legal argument to the contrary then the SPL are pretty fucked, I believe the SPL already know this, the unknown part, is the few that Rangers did admit, what were these for and to whom?

Tedi your gaps in knowledge when it come to legal matters are plain for all to see. The FTTT had to decide on whether they believed the EBTs were genuine loans. This is an issue we could spend the next 100k posts arguing as to whether they could ever be considered loans in the letter of the law. Even though everyone involved knows they clearly aren't'.

However, that has little to do with the SPL commision. All they have to decide on is whether they thought your players were given side contracs. Something which is far simplier to prove, and something you can't legally take to court and certainly not have any chance of winning.

[Monkey Tennis]

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.

If wrongdoing on what you concede is an unprecedented scale is proven though, surely the game is required to do what's right, rather than what's simplest, or most lucrative?

Anyway Ted, I can't see us agreeing, but I appreciate the discussion.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Monkey Tennis

[hellbhoy]

You supply the ammo dude ! how many people got EBT's ? once you have that then subtract 80 from that number and then you have your answer to how many were settled out of court.

One person equals one case Benny.

You find something that says there was only 80 recipients then Rangers have truly won the BTC outright

^^^^^ no takers then !

Ah well OK I'll supply the info for Rangers fans as usual

There were in total 111 cases of EBT recipients through out the life of the trust fund

63 were Footballers

24 were Rangers Staff and Management

24 were Murray Group Employees

And there are around 30 cases that did not go through the FTTT and put in the list of cleared accusations !

Which of these recipients above off the 111 people were plead guilty to before the BTC concluded on 80 off them ?.

[killingfloorman]

Nothing that has happened in the past year has happened in the past (well at least on this scale), 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.

I agree. How about 500million quid (one for each fan) per year x 20 years worth of offences?

Deal?

[killingfloorman]

Ok Deal

Cash ok?

Bank of monopoly is open on Monday, seems about right based on your facts above

Hoist with your own petard - amigo

[Umbungo1874]

My gaps are obviously no wider than yours

The FTTT found in our favour, at some point you are simply going to have to accept this fact.

I clearly disagree with your everyone involved knows.

Of course we can take the SPL to court if they declare these loans as payments and this is something they need to do if they are to declare that we had side contracts.

Side contracts and loans clearly cannot be associated together, I imagine the chances of winning to be quite high if the SPL try to claim otherwise.

The SFA are the appeal body so why would you go to court?

[Umbungo1874]

oh that precedent has already been passed

Pish

[Skudbook]

The only precedent that was made,is that the SFA must stick to their own list of punishments.

[Ally88]

The only precedent that was made,is that the SFA must stick to their own list of punishments.

The only precedent set was that blackmail is an acceptable way of doing business for the sfa.

[Ken Fitlike]

The only precedent that was made,is that the SFA must stick to their own list of punishments.

Yeah, the sfa tried to cut Old Rangers a bit of slack, by not going for the Suspension or Expulsion routes - both on the 'list of punishments'

Old Rangers showed their appreciation of that sympathetic decision by squealing like horrible sqealing things.

[killingfloorman]

Yeah, the sfa tried to cut Old Rangers a bit of slack, by not going for the Suspension or Expulsion routes - both on the 'list of punishments'

Old Rangers showed their appreciation of that sympathetic decision by squealing like horrible sqealing things.

We can only hope that the authorities have learned their lesson and stick rigidly to the rule book, even if that means that expulsion from the game is the only option left to them. After all, the berrzz are insisting that the rules should be adhered to.

[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.