Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[AUFC90]

Tell me, do you have any sort of a social life? And if you do, do you always talk about Rangers then too?

You're not the full shilling lad.

Do.one bigot. No one likes u

[hellbhoy]

Tell me, do you have any sort of a social life? And if you do, do you always talk about Rangers then too?

You're not the full shilling lad.

FCUK ME the irony meter just exploded there after reading your pish stained reply

If I'm not the full schilling then you have definitely got to be the picnic without any sandwiches at all

[As We Rise Again]

FCUK ME the irony meter just exploded there after reading your pish stained reply

If I'm not the full schilling then you have definitely got to be the picnic without any sandwiches at all

So you admit it? I'd go and see your GP pal, there's something not right about you.

I have visions of you being some fat sweaty greasy looking c**t who hasn't seen the light of day in many years, am I right or am I right?

[Ken Fitlike]

They have no right to rule on it, only the SFA have this right and they have already made the situation clear.

what did they say then?

[aDONisSheep]

I'm not sure what ASA can say.

SevCo bought the rights to trade under the name of Rangers and the other chattels that went with it. They paid about £1 (or £3 if you throw in the fact that they claimed to have bought the SPL share and SFA membership IIRC).

The ASA aren't going to look into the underlying process of the dead club to SevCo debate. They are simply going to say, SevCo bought the rights and as such, can use them.

Yours

aDONis

[aofjays]

Norman has an alias

Even if I was WRK (wtf do you call him Norman anyway?) the question still stands, why do think pretending I'm someone else changes anything? Are you 7 or something? Well I supose telling more lies is easier than answering. Shouldn't have expected anything else really. I'll refrain from asking you any further questions that require a reading comprehension level greater than someone in primary 3 since it now appears to be dreadfully unsporting.

[The_Kincardine]

What you appear to be forgetting is why it was chaired by Lord Nimmo in the first place and not by the SPL itself Youngsy ! It was chaired at great expense because of the paranoid Rangers fans claiming it was a stitch up by a kangaroo court.

It was up to the SPL to decide if 1. an enquiry was needed and 2. what form that enquiry took.

The farago that was the overly complicated and hugely expensive LNS investigation was entirely the choice of the SPL. It need not have been the way that it was.

What amazes me is that the Ps & Ds aren't beeling about this and that fans of SPL clubs aren't knocking on Doncaster's door asking for an explanation. The guy has cost each of your clubs the thick end of £50K and what do you do? Demand an explanation or his resignation? Nope - you just blame it on Rangers.

[youngsy]

Problem is yous claim to be the same club. If so, I don't see why they shouldn't be liable for the costs. It was a guilty verdict after all

Oh ffs,read the summation,it explains in detail that The Rangers Football Club PLC (OLDCO) was,and this is the relevant part,the former owners/operators of Rangers F.C., The Rangers Football Club Limited (NEWCO) are the present owners/operators of Rangers F.C. The Rangers Football Club PLC (OLDCO) were the owners of the club whilst the relevant dates of the investigation were being looked at, nothing to do with the NEWCO, try and understand that. There was only one party fined, The Rangers Football Club PLC, the former owners of the club so if you can find evidence as to why the NEWCO are liable for costs, get it posted.

Because quite simply, the SPL have made a huge f**k up of this and are trying to pass the costs on to the NEWCO and whether you like it or not that's the facts and it may mean that every member/shareholder of the SPL are going to get hit for a twelfth of the cost. It is unlikely that any court will rule against The Rangers Football Club Limited on this so the SPL may well have to pay up. Very pleasing indeed.

[youngsy]

What you appear to be forgetting is why it was chaired by Lord Nimmo in the first place and not by the SPL itself Youngsy ! It was chaired at great expense because of the paranoid Rangers fans claiming it was a stitch up by a kangaroo court.

The SPL responded to the Rangers fans claims by having the commission chaired by an impartial source or it would otherwise have been investigated by an in-house board at NO EXPENSE.

But to clarify it a little bit more because the outcome was always going to be what it is,then it has removed from all the other clubs fans that the SPL shat a huge jobby in their underpants by not removing titles from the record books.

So at the end of the day ! who will be paying the court expenses ? it would appear that the primary reason for the costs were the paranoid Rangers fans in the first place and should lie at Rangers door to be paid.Not a lot of money I'd say to keep the tainted history as the SPL & SFA had always intended to thwart a massive piece of social unrest with the bears going loco at losing their tainted history.

It doesn't matter what the reason was as to why Nimmo-Smith chaired the meeting,that's irrelevant. The whole point of the Commission was to investigate any wrongdoing under the rules by the PLC, nothing to do with the present owners, read the summation and you'll see that's confirmed. Only one party instigated this Commission and that was the SPL, not Rangers fans or the present regime,so there can only be one party liable for any costs,again the SPL. The SPL are trying it on here.

[Monkey Tennis]

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

It wasn't cheating.

It was a glaring error. Do you really not see a distinction between the two?

[The_Kincardine]

Seems no invoice has been presented according to shoo, the SPL have asked LNS who should be paying the costs.

That is the end of that then.

Something for the P & Bers to get excited about for a few hours, its funny watching them foam at the mouth.

The worrying thing is that no-one apart from we Bears has come out and said that this was an ill-conceived and atrociously-executed process.

It has cost each of their clubs the price of a player for a year yet not one word of condemnation towards The SPL.

Surely at least one fan of an SPL club can break ranks and see this for the farce that it was? Anyone?

[Monkey Tennis]

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.

Well thank you for the answer.

I think however that it can be paraphrased thus: 'A legal argument of sorts can be constructed to suggest that we can indeed keep the good stuff, while ditching the bad. This suits me, and I'll therefore refuse to address or even recognise that this whole thing could involve a moral dimension.'

For me, that's what sets Rangers apart.

[The_Kincardine]

Taxi for Sandaza

Fork lift maybe more appropriate?

[Monkey Tennis]

Newco forced to pay oldcos footballing debt BUT Spl withold footballing monies owed to the oldco. How do you reconcile that?

Ok No8, I'll admit to not fully grasping this aspect of the story. As you present it, it does indeed sound unfair and if it's called for, believe me, I'll be very happy to criticise the SPL.

I thought it was a case of witholding funds in order to repay football debt, rather than trust Rangers to do it themselves. This sounds eminently sensible, but I'm not entirely clear on this and if I've got it wrong, please advise me.

Can you then return my courtesy by answering my question about how you reconcile the whole 'Oldco/Newco only when it suits' thing?

I've already said that P&Ds can't legitimately do this either. How, in a moral sense, can Rangers get away with it?

[Shades75]

The worrying thing is that no-one apart from we Bears has come out and said that this was an ill-conceived and atrociously-executed process.

It has cost each of their clubs the price of a player for a year yet not one word of condemnation towards The SPL.

Surely at least one fan of an SPL club can break ranks and see this for the farce that it was? Anyone?

Hand up...sir...sir....me....me....please.

I won't say that the investigation was a farce, if there is suspicion of rule breaking then there has to be one, almost regardless of the cost. Else the rules of justice and the purpose of rules become redundant.

The problem, that to be fair I can't remember anyone pointing to prior to the hearing, was that the SPL's rulebook could have been writen more comprehensively by a 5 year old with finger paints.

How, in the name of the wee man, they couldn't manage to have their own rules analysed to make sure that they were water tight is beyond incompetence. I agree that the SPL high heid tins are idiots.

I don't think that the clubs can be blamed though. From all the indications that were made, it looked clear that there was a case to answer. That along with the SPL's desire to proceed would and quite rightly IMO lead them to believe that it was right to do so. There must be at least some faith put in the authorities that they know what they are doing.

It's just a pity that it's Neil fucking Doncaster at the helm.

[AUFC90]

Do not hold yer breath, seems Car Crash Rod had convinced everyone that his totally incorrect interpretation of the rules was real.

They are struggling with this one though, by pushing the idea that Rangers are somehow liable for these fees they are confirming continuation, pretty amusing TBH.

I am not struggling with anything. You guys claim new rangers are the same club. A party were found guilty of breaching football rules. Not.laws of the land but football rules. If New rangers are the same club then surely new rangers didn't disclose side letters? Or was that just the company ? same as when juve broke the rules it was only the company that fixed the matches legally newco aren't entitled to pay anything because they aren't the same club/company but Charles green said yous are. Edited April 3, 2013 by AUFC90

[The_Kincardine]

Hand up...sir...sir....me....me....please.

I won't say that the investigation was a farce, if there is suspicion of rule breaking then there has to be one, almost regardless of the cost. Else the rules of justice and the purpose of rules become redundant.

OK Shades you can answer but take that sweetie out of your mouth first.

I have no issue with Rangers being investigated. There was enough informal evidence to suggest that we had a case to answer. That's fine.

The issue I have is over the form and complexity of the investigation - and this was the free choice of The SPL. The SPL need not have enrolled LNS and his cohorts to ponder and deliberate as they did. An open and frank internal investigation with all findings published and transparent would have been fine.

Investigate us? Sure. That is valid. Turn it in to a quasi-judicial process lasting a year? OK, as long as you know it is costing your clubs the price of a player.

Try and send the invoice to Ibrox? Get to f**k. This was your process so do not try to give us the bill.

[Shades75]

OK Shades you can answer but take that sweetie out of your mouth first.

I have no issue with Rangers being investigated. There was enough informal evidence to suggest that we had a case to answer. That's fine.

The issue I have is over the form and complexity of the investigation - and this was the free choice of The SPL. The SPL need not have enrolled LNS and his cohorts to ponder and deliberate as they did. An open and frank internal investigation with all findings published and transparent would have been fine.

Investigate us? Sure. That is valid. Turn it in to a quasi-judicial process lasting a year? OK, as long as you know it is costing your clubs the price of a player.

Try and send the invoice to Ibrox? Get to f**k. This was your process so do not try to give us the bill.

I'm not to sure that an internal investigation would have satisfied any party tbh. There would have been corruption allegations until the end of time from whatever side "lost". I think it was the right thing to do to have an independent inquiry appointed.

I really do just think that the SPL completely fucked it up because of their inadequate rulebook. I agree that the cost and duration could have been lessened but for different reasons apparently. Doncaster should've been long gone by now. If for nothing else for that fucking haircut.

[As We Rise Again]

Will the " Rangers in the SFL" sub forum continue onto the second division forums ( if league reconstruction doesn't happen) ?

[The DA]

I thought the club was found guilty of not declaring the EBTs but, since it had not gained a material advantage on the field, no punishment was deemed necessary? Since the club was found guilty, they should pay the costs.

Or is this another case of the company not declaring the EBTs?

I get so mixed up