Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[williemillersmoustache]

Whether I agree or not with the decision is wholly immaterial.

Totally agree, wasn't actually seeking your opinion as I think it as well known on this as it is well derided. I was wondering why you think this one aspect of the case is so cast iron and irrefutable and yet the bit about paying a fine and accepting punishment is up for challenge and debate?

[The_Kincardine]

What would be wrong with option 3?

Nothing.......but that wasn't the basis on which The SPL asked the commission to proceed.

Are you saying that the FTTT decision really did have a big bearing on the LNS decision?

If you are, that answers your earlier question about what's new.

Again, what I think of the FTT ruling is immaterial.

I'm simply looking at the options The Title Strippers have since revisiting The LNS decision doesn't look possible.

I guess that just leaves having new SPFL rules written about something to do with cheating and have them applied retrospectively; sell stickers on eBay or continue to post pish on message boards and throw tantrums.

[The_Kincardine]

I think you fail to grasp that LNS's wee panel wasn't a court of law, and nothing you, Vicky, Tedi, or any semi-sentient fuckwit say will alter that. Keep using your "precedents" to show us poor fools how this one-off, singular process should be conducted, though.

I haven't mentioned 'precedents'.

[Monkey Tennis]

Totally agree, wasn't actually seeking your opinion as I think it as well known on this as it is well derided. I was wondering why you think this one aspect of the case is so cast iron and irrefutable and yet the bit about paying a fine and accepting punishment is up for challenge and debate?

I'm genuinely unclear on this.

Forgive my ignorance, but what's the whole deal with the fines?

I'd thought the £250,000 fine was to do with oldco and was really just a token thing, issued to register disapproval of the oldco's behaviour. I'd thought there was no anticipation of it ever being recovered.

What's this fine that hasn't been paid, that they're being pressed on?

[johnnyc13]

Good read...

David McCarthy at The Daily Record


If I were a journalist at The Daily Record, as is the case with David McCarthy, who would be the ideal source for an ‘off the record’ opinion on the EBT fiasco? Some might posit that he might look no further than Darryl Broadfoot is his guise as Head of Communications and Corporate Affairs at the SFA. Of course Mr Broadfoot would not be foolish enough to quote ‘double jeopardy‘ as a credible rationale on the record, but if Mr McCarthy chose to run with it as a ‘source’ Mr Broadfoot might be unlikely to demur.

If this is the case, then the SFA are running scared. There is an appetite for titles stripping, but the clubs disadvantaged by David Murray defrauding the exchequer for £10 for every £5 spent by CFC, from 1998 to 2001, will be keeping their powder dry until 2nd December when the twenty-eight day appeal window closes. To hide behind the flimsy and highly compromised Smith report is untenable. The CFC board, if pressed by shareholders to do so, could take this matter to The Court of Arbitration for Sports. However Peter Lawwell and Eric Riley. who are in the tents of the SFA and SPFL respectively, would be loath to cut the guy ropes. If other clubs were prepared to back CFC, or resign from the SPFL on a point of principle, then the consensus for change would be compelling.

The SFA/SPL had a problem with The Discounted Option Scheme (DOS). It was illegal and tax was due. They had to limit the scope of the Smith commission. Mr Smith might have reasonably concluded that the directors who signed off on the illegal DOS might engage in other ‘irregular‘ tax evasion instruments. The deal that best suited everyone was for Rangers to take a hit on non-disclosure, and walk away from the non-payment of social taxes. This would protect Bryson from a charge of negligence and thus allow him to propagate his ‘imperfectly registered but eligible‘ fallback position.

Who would be better placed than Campbell Ogilvie to sell this deal to Rangers? But at this point, the SFA’s carefully crafted cover up begins to unravel. In the past a quiet word from a former executive of Rangers to a current office incumbent would lead to the desired result. If Gordon Smith were having a chat with David Murray, I would be open for the former convincing the latter of the need to pay the fine in the best interests of everyone. I’m fairly certain that the relationship was so tight that they could have patched in Gavin Masterson at The Bank of Scotland to their conference call, and it would have been put to bed immediately.

Unfortunately, Charles Green would not even recognize the jurisdiction of the SPL on an SFL club therefore Campbell’s entreaties were futile. The fine and costs remain unpaid to this day.

The fans on social media are now fully aware of the facts of this SFA/SPFL conspiracy.They don’t have the wherewithal to take this matter into their own hands, so they will be forced to sit on them. CFC are alleged to have lost £17.2m in domestic prize money but who would they sue for its reparation? BDO? It’s not going to happen. Do CFC want five league titles where they were runners-up? I doubt it.

Only a judicial review would remove these Spanish practices from our game. However those with the most to lose are more powerful than those agitating for reform.

[Monkey Tennis]

Nothing.......but that wasn't the basis on which The SPL asked the commission to proceed.

Again, what I think of the FTT ruling is immaterial.

I'm simply looking at the options The Title Strippers have since revisiting The LNS decision doesn't look possible.

I guess that just leaves having new SPFL rules written about something to do with cheating and have them applied retrospectively; sell stickers on eBay or continue to post pish on message boards and throw tantrums.

What are you on about at the end there?

Who's throwing tantrums?

[bennett]

Ok. As I said, language should be used with precision when possible.

Obviously though, you used this to deflect from my point and made yourself look stupid by describing my post as a rant.

Your post was wrong in a few points, I corrected it.

[bennett]

Who's throwing tantrums?

It would be quicker to list who isn't throwing tantrums.

[Ned Nederlander]

Were you doing that thing of pretending to be an idiot Rangers fan?

Nope, I praised your posts and made a joke.

[williemillersmoustache]

I'm genuinely unclear on this. Forgive my ignorance, but what's the whole deal with the fines? I'd thought the £250,000 fine was to do with oldco and was really just a token thing, issued to register disapproval of the oldco's behaviour. I'd thought there was no anticipation of it ever being recovered. What's this fine that hasn't been paid, that they're being pressed on?

Of course it's a token gesture, but cheat fc haven't paid this while the SPFL have demanded that they do. Same club and all etc.

We're looking for reasons to re-examine or re-open the tribunal. The fact the party found to be at fault has failed to comply with the verdict, seems like a good enough excuse to me. If we needed an excuse.

Rangers admit under the terms of the ‘Five Way Agreement’, which allowed them to participate in Scottish football through entry to the bottom tier, the newco would be responsible for any sanctions imposed on the oldco by Scottish football’s governing bodies.

But they claim the subsequent actions of the SPFL mean they “waived all and any right it may have had to insist upon payment under the clause.” The SPFL dispute that accusation.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/1331979-rangers-await-panel-verdict-on-outstanding-lord-nimmo-smith-ebt-fine/

Edited November 14, 2015 by williemillersmoustache

[bennett]

. If we needed an excuse.

Sporting integrity ma man.....

[Insaintee]

What is 'new' about something the commission knew was in process? What is new about the commission being asked by the SPL to give a judgment irrespective of the outcome of that process?

I think you fail to grasp the meaning of 'new' - not that I'm surprised.

Rangers were not guilty or tax cheating now they are that's new

Also perhaps you missed the subtlety of the COS ruling. Ranger FC did not loan the players anything, instead they paid the players large amounts which were diverted into of shore accounts on the players behalf. Therefore the side letters do not apply to loans but to wages. This means that Rangers were not giving player undeclared loans but undeclared payments.

Of course I expect you to defend your old club. But it's clearly no longer defensible, and the fact that there was some kind of interim ruling cobbled together in a window of opportunity is neither here nor there.

LNS was asked to make a ruling. The SFA and SPFL are completely free to revisit that ruling and also to question the legality of the set up and remit of the investigation.

Clinging to LNS as an excuse not to have your stolen titles stripped is frankly ludicrous

But then I expect nothing else from you.

[Ken Fitlike]

I did ask T_K, but no reply..

Are any Rangers fans proud of 'winning' the debatable ebt titles?

[Monkey Tennis]

Of course it's a token gesture, but cheat fc haven't paid this while the SPFL have demanded that they do. Same club and all etc.

We're looking for reasons to re-examine or re-open the tribunal. The fact the party found to be at fault has failed to comply with the verdict, seems like a good enough excuse to me. If we needed an excuse.

Right, so it is that same sum, which Newco agreed to pay via the five way agreement.

What are the subsequent actions of the SPFL, which have waived their entitlement to the fine, according to Rangers?

Is this to do with withholding prize money, or something else?

[williemillersmoustache]

Right, so it is that same sum, which Newco agreed to pay via the five way agreement. What are the subsequent actions of the SPFL, which have waived their entitlement to the fine, according to Rangers? Is this to do with withholding prize money, or something else?

No idea. I assume it's for Motherwell humiliating them in the play-offs last season or because Chris McLaughlin had the temerity to report on the behaviour of their fans. Not sure it matters?

I know this tack can be criticised for mixing separate issues as appealing a sentence is quite normal in court cases I believe. But look at how many different tribunals, court cases and appeals they are currently involved in. Last count 7/8? Imagine this was a top flight club taking itself, it's chairman, it's investors and the SFA to court. And it's enough of a redneck in the Championship as it is.

The SFA should amalgamate all sporting proceedings into one fandango thus:

Subject "Rangers"

Evidence against: Just look at them

Defence: "We've been punished enough"

Verdict: Cheats, get out.

Back in 2012 the best thing that could have happened would have been sevco taking a year off and sorting themselves into something new and cheating criminal b*****d free. Seeing how Ashley, King, Reagan + Cockwomble are squaring up i'd say it would be in the best interests of the game for cheat fc to take a wee time out right now.

Regarding title stripping alone it's just typical *STAR *STAR *STAR mentality (sorry bear just isn't the right word here). We'll take that bit, it's gospel but not the rest, don't like it. They want their cake and eat it and they want your cake and my fucking cake and eat it too. (I'm an ample fella and no c**t gets my cake by the way).

And that do what you like, come ahead see what happens attitude needs stomped on.

[Njord]

Nicky Clark and his bro arrested in the weeg for carrying a chib.

Stay classy buns....

[The_Kincardine]

Rangers were not guilty or tax cheating now they are that's new

Also perhaps you missed the subtlety of the COS ruling. Ranger FC did not loan the players anything, instead they paid the players large amounts which were diverted into of shore accounts on the players behalf. Therefore the side letters do not apply to loans but to wages. This means that Rangers were not giving player undeclared loans but undeclared payments.

Of course I expect you to defend your old club. But it's clearly no longer defensible, and the fact that there was some kind of interim ruling cobbled together in a window of opportunity is neither here nor there.

LNS was asked to make a ruling. The SFA and SPFL are completely free to revisit that ruling and also to question the legality of the set up and remit of the investigation.

Clinging to LNS as an excuse not to have your stolen titles stripped is frankly ludicrous

But then I expect nothing else from you.

Is this a reasonable distillation of diddy thinking (no laughing, I know it's an oxymoron) on the subject? If it is then no-wonder you're in a total mess over it.

Possibly the single most laughable comment of the entire debacle is you saying, "The SFA and SPFL are completely free to revisit that ruling and also to question the legality of the set up and remit of the investigation." Sadly, I suspect a fair few other diddies and most of the rhabid morons think you're on to something. Since it still hasn't penetrated your obdurate napper I'll restate the options:

• Have a new commission that covers the same ground as LNS and hope it comes to different conclusions.
• Make up rules and apply them retrospectively
• STFU, grow up and move on.

The SPFL are being cruel to the demented brigade here. Their silence is giving them hope and it really is time they tried to at least pretend to be professional and draw this farrago to a close.

Edited November 14, 2015 by The_Kincardine

[mythstoliveby]

Is this a reasonable distillation of diddy thinking (no laughing, I know it's an oxymoron) on the subject? If it is then no-wonder you're in a total mess over it.

Possibly the single most laughable comment of the entire debacle is you saying, "The SFA and SPFL are completely free to revisit that ruling and also to question the legality of the set up and remit of the investigation." Sadly, I suspect a fair few other diddies and most of the rhabid morons think you're on to something. Since it still hasn't penetrated your obdurate napper I'll restate the options:

• Have a new commission that covers the same ground as LNS and hope it comes to different conclusions.
• Make up rules and apply them retrospectively
• STFU, grow up and move on.

The SPFL are being cruel to the demented brigade here. Their silence is giving them hope and it really is time they tried to at least pretend to be professional and draw this farrago to a close.

arrogant deluded hypocritical pseud.

How you doing this evening?

[Ken Fitlike]

Is this a reasonable distillation of diddy thinking (no laughing, I know it's an oxymoron) on the subject? If it is then no-wonder you're in a total mess over it.

Possibly the single most laughable comment of the entire debacle is you saying, "The SFA and SPFL are completely free to revisit that ruling and also to question the legality of the set up and remit of the investigation." Sadly, I suspect a fair few other diddies and most of the rhabid morons think you're on to something. Since it still hasn't penetrated your obdurate napper I'll restate the options:

• Have a new commission that covers the same ground as LNS and hope it comes to different conclusions.
• Make up rules and apply them retrospectively
• STFU, grow up and move on.

The SPFL are being cruel to the demented brigade here. Their silence is giving them hope and it really is time they tried to at least pretend to be professional and draw this farrago to a close.

Those debatable 'titles'. ... Rate your pride on a scale of zero to 1872 million..

[Insaintee]

Is this a reasonable distillation of diddy thinking (no laughing, I know it's an oxymoron) on the subject? If it is then no-wonder you're in a total mess over it.

Possibly the single most laughable comment of the entire debacle is you saying, "The SFA and SPFL are completely free to revisit that ruling and also to question the legality of the set up and remit of the investigation." Sadly, I suspect a fair few other diddies and most of the rhabid morons think you're on to something. Since it still hasn't penetrated your obdurate napper I'll restate the options:

• Have a new commission that covers the same ground as LNS and hope it comes to different conclusions.
• Make up rules and apply them retrospectively
• STFU, grow up and move on.

The SPFL are being cruel to the demented brigade here. Their silence is giving them hope and it really is time they tried to at least pretend to be professional and draw this farrago to a close.

Must try harder

Who is going to stop the reopening of the consideration of Rangers cheating. Such I decision would require the decision of only the SFA, or SPFL and no one else. As such there is no impediment to this being reopened

ETA of course any club that feels that the issue has been inadequately resolved could also take to issue to the SFA/SPFL and /or court of arbitration in sport. I suspect this will happen if the case is not appealed or if the verdict is guilty

Edited November 14, 2015 by Insaintee