Bullyforyou Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Read paragraph 108 of the SPL Commission summation,it states " We have decided to impose a fine of £250,000 on Oldco". Not on any other party,such as Newco. If there was any legal chance of that happening no doubt it would have. The SPL are pishing against the wind with this. Have to agree. Nothing to do with the new club and shows the SPL up for the fuds that they undoubtedly are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain kirk Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Thats even better than your "piggery is sectarian" meltdown When in your imagination did that happen? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bookies Love Me Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 :lol: This is where you guys get yourselves all tied up in knots. I don't know about them, but, it sure as f*ck is doing my head in. Same team - not the same team. Same club - not the same club. Same company - not the same company. Can't fine us 'cause we're Newco it's Oldco's debt! But, our history is a continuation of Oldco and you can't take that away! rangers then, rangers now, rangers forever! Make your minds up! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 (edited) I don't see why so many who are anti-Rangers are getting all wound up about the legal costs of the SPL Commission. The Commission already stated that the inquiry was about the operating of the club from the old company,The Rangers Football Club,Public Limited Company,nothing at all to do with the new company operating the club,The Rangers Football Club Limited. It's all there in the summation from the Commission and it seems that the SPL have shot themselves in the foot with this. Right then Youngsy. I understand the above arguments, but surely you've the brains and the decency to recognise the injustice in this "we're the same club with the same history; but we're not the same when it comes to paying for former misdeeds" stuff. I'm actually serious. I've said already that I recognise a continuation, but morally, you really can't defend a position that keeps the good stuff, and ditches the bad. Personally, I'd take either alternative - 'keep the history, but pay for wrongdoing'; or 'walk Scot free from the wreckage, but admit to starting afresh. I'm not arguing that you're brand new, yet must pay up; but what you want would be equally unfair. Seriously Rangers fans, how do you reconcile this desire to have and eat cakes, on any moral basis? Edited April 3, 2013 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Surely the fine against the Oldco - for being found guilty of - in non-legal speak- 'at it' - decided on by LNS and the costs of the tribunal are 'football debts' (what else can they be?) and Chucky agreed to pay all football debts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Surely the fine against the Oldco - for being found guilty of - in non-legal speak- 'at it' - decided on by LNS and the costs of the tribunal are 'football debts' (what else can they be?) and Chucky agreed to pay all football debts. Chuckie also said there would be a queue of internationals lining up to sign for rangers after Euro 2012. Chuckie also stated Adidas were excited about having rangers as their biggest sponsorship deal. Chuckie also stated that all those trophies are his - he bought them. Chuckie also stated that a CVA was necessary to prevent rangers' history dying. I wouldn't hold my breath for him paying any money he can possibly weasel out of. If that fucker told me it was Wednesday, I'd check my calendar. Green and rangers are a perfect fit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Right then Youngsy. I understand the above arguments, but surely you've the brains and the decency to recognise the injustice in this "we're the same club with the same history; but we're not the same when it comes to paying for former misdeeds" stuff. I'm actually serious. I've said already that I recognise a continuation, but morally, you really can't defend a position that keeps the good stuff, and ditches the bad. Personally, I'd take either alternative - 'keep the history, but pay for wrongdoing'; or 'walk Scot free from the wreckage, but admit to starting afresh. I'm not arguing that you're brand new, yet must pay up; but what you want would be equally unfair. Seriously Rangers fans, how do you reconcile this desire to have and eat cakes, on any moral basis? Newco forced to pay oldcos footballing debt BUT Spl withold footballing monies owed to the oldco. How do you reconcile that? Any fair minded person would be utterly disgusted at the behaviour of the footballing authorities in this country against a member club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Newco forced to pay oldcos footballing debt BUT Spl withold footballing monies owed to the oldco. How do you reconcile that? Any fair minded person would be utterly disgusted at the behaviour of the footballing authorities in this country against an associate member club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 I know, how dare Rangers be forced to pay back football debt that it ran up. You don't think you should have paid money to the clubs you ripped off, but in the same breath outraged you didn't get a penny for the likes of McGregor Aye, very good 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 (edited) Chuckie also said there would be a queue of internationals lining up to sign for rangers after Euro 2012. Chuckie also stated Adidas were excited about having rangers as their biggest sponsorship deal. Chuckie also stated that all those trophies are his - he bought them. Chuckie also stated that a CVA was necessary to prevent rangers' history dying. I wouldn't hold my breath for him paying any money he can possibly weasel out of. If that fucker told me it was Wednesday, I'd check my calendar. Green and rangers are a perfect fit. This may have been asked and answered so apologies in advance. Who legally owns said (replica) trophies? Green fronts a consortium, so presumably they are not his personal property. Does the "club" own them or the "company" or someone/something else? Could they be melted down and sold as scrap? Silver commands a high price at the moment., 14 to 15 pounds per ounce. There might be enough to pay a few bills. Edited April 3, 2013 by cyderspaceman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Right then Youngsy. I understand the above arguments, but surely you've the brains and the decency to recognise the injustice in this "we're the same club with the same history; but we're not the same when it comes to paying for former misdeeds" stuff. I'm actually serious. I've said already that I recognise a continuation, but morally, you really can't defend a position that keeps the good stuff, and ditches the bad. Personally, I'd take either alternative - 'keep the history, but pay for wrongdoing'; or 'walk Scot free from the wreckage, but admit to starting afresh. I'm not arguing that you're brand new, yet must pay up; but what you want would be equally unfair. Seriously Rangers fans, how do you reconcile this desire to have and eat cakes, on any moral basis? They don't give the proverbial flying f**k. They are ra peepul. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 You have to laugh at Monkey boy. All this from the guy who said beating Rangers was great but knowing you had benefited from cheating made it all the sweeter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 You have to laugh at Monkey boy. All this from the guy who said beating Rangers was great but knowing you had benefited from cheating made it all the sweeter They didn't benefit from cheating, though did they? And I don't think MT claimed they did. They benefited from a poor official's decision. And yes, that was fucking funny for all who have suffered from rangers' "good relationship" (copyright John "walked away" Greig) with the authorities over they years. Almost as funny as rangers not having many fans left in the ground to actually watch extra time and penalties.... Almost. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 My God...you do see the irony of a 'supporter' who has not attended one single solitary game in Scotland having a go at supporters leaving the ground early 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 My God...you do see the irony of a 'supporter' who has not attended one single solitary game in Scotland having a go at supporters leaving the ground early Bendarroch was saying after his unfortunate incident that he probably won't be going to games anymore. Does that mean he can no longer call himself a fan of rangers? Fucking idiot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Right then Youngsy. I understand the above arguments, but surely you've the brains and the decency to recognise the injustice in this "we're the same club with the same history; but we're not the same when it comes to paying for former misdeeds" stuff. I'm actually serious. I've said already that I recognise a continuation, but morally, you really can't defend a position that keeps the good stuff, and ditches the bad. Personally, I'd take either alternative - 'keep the history, but pay for wrongdoing'; or 'walk Scot free from the wreckage, but admit to starting afresh. I'm not arguing that you're brand new, yet must pay up; but what you want would be equally unfair. Seriously Rangers fans, how do you reconcile this desire to have and eat cakes, on any moral basis? If the SPL Commission had stipulated that any penalties & costs arisen from the investigation would have carried over from Oldco to Newco at the beginning of the investigation then there would perhaps be an argument that the Newco were liable for all costs,fines,etc but there was no such stipulation. So therefore the Newco can't be held responsible for the costs and people can shout all they want about the morals of it all, this is a business and companies wont pay another companies debt unless it's agreed before the event or ordered to do so by a court of law which is doubtful that this would happen as Nimmo-Smith differentiated between old and new companies. As has been pointed out Lord Nimmo-Smith did not award costs against anyone in his summation so are we all to just accept what the SPL state without challenge,after all at the moment Rangers aren't a member club of the SPL so the organisation has no jurisdiction over the club. I said earlier it seems that the SPL have shot themselves in the foot with this without thinking it through and the shareholder clubs of the SPL may well be liable for the costs of the Commission, after all they wanted the investigation so let them bear the brunt of it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 can't and won't entirely different words WKR You know my circumstances? You know why I don't get to Scotland as often as I would like? You know the slightest thing about my commitments? Nah, didn't think so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain kirk Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 I would not class the SPL`s legal costs raised in pursuing something only they wanted to pursue as football debts, not even as football costs. The ruling by the SFA, not the SPL was for all existing football debts to be be paid, not new ones, so even if these were football debts they would not be included as they did not exist. This is not the newco`s problem, hell even the oldco are not liable for this bill, LNS did not say £250k fine + costs, it was £250 fine, that was it. Why are you, a P & Ber who has always claimed that Rangers are a new club and that club and company are the same thing claiming that the newco should pay this, surely by your logic (not mine) this is like Man City paying Man Utd`s bills? I'm sure if LNS had found rangers innocent and awarded them £10m in damages you'd refuse the money?! If its the same club just pay your debts losers. You love to equate the EBT case to law when it comes to that outcome,,,oh the verdict was not guilty we've been proved innocent. Well do the same here...GUILTY and guilty losers pay the legal costs in law or let me guess your law equation is suddenly out the window here because it doesn't suit? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 You know my circumstances? You know why I don't get to Scotland as often as I would like? You know the slightest thing about my commitments? Nah, didn't think so. Lets go back to the end of the last season. You were on here telling everyone that if Rangers never got kicked out of the SPL then you would not be going to another SPL this season. If they did get kicked out of the SPL then you would buy Killie season tickets for yourself and your family. Just another internet blowhard trying to act big. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 The Rangers should pay up and show some gratitude with a gesture towards the SPL. They are forgetting they wouldn't be kicking a ball this season if the footballing authorities in this country hadn't made an exception for them. I'm sure it won't make much of a dent in that £23 million they supposedly have. Hope your club can afford it's share of the money owed to Celtics fat low level paper gatherer 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.