Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[WeeHectorPar]

suspend them by the goolies for the season,awarding opponents 3-0 wins for each game; 2012-13 NIL points=relegation

hopefully they will be dead before then

Sorted that for you.

[Mark Connolly]

Because it's potentially to their benefit, and that's at the heart of the SPL's philosophy.

If Rangers get a one year suspension, then what happens to their current SPL place? Is that suspended or terminated? If the SFA were to expel them, then the SPL would have to follow suit as you have to be in the SFA to play in any of the Pro/Semi Pro leagues, but suspension is not the same.

(If their SPL membership is terminated then I'd envisage the scenario I'd outlined being irrelevant as another team i.e. Dundee could be promoted to make up the numbers, or Dunfermline would be spared relegation. It'd be as normal, 38 games, split etc.)

However, if the SPL are to take Rangers back for 2013-14 after serving a suspension of SFA membership (and therefore being non-playing members of the SPL for 2012-13), then the SPL place cannot be filled without disrupting other leagues - unless you think they can take Dundee for example, leaving Div 1 a team down, then relegate two teams in the summer? That isn't a likely scenario and I don't think the SFL would be too thrilled at having to carry the empty slot for a year when the sinners are an SPL side.

What I'm outlining is a potential 'out' for the SFA to avoid delivering a KO blow to Rangers. That's what they wanted when they conjured up the transfer embargo, with Regan talking this week of the lack of 'pragmatic' options left to them.

Of the tough options remaining:

1. Expel Rangers from SFA (which must lead to SPL membership being terminated).

2. Suspend Rangers from SFA for a period of time (be it a week, a month, 3 months, 6 months, a year, whatever).

It's all about what (2) means for the SPL place.

I would suggest that 'suspension for a season' means an 11 team SPL. The clubs will lose much more money in that scenario than they would if they come back in after serving a six month suspension. Therefore, because it's potentially to their benefit (and self-interest is at the heart of the SPL's philosophy) I would suggest the SPL chairmen would rather only lose them for 6 months, and would quickly forget of the inconvenience of a few extra midweek games.

The SFA can suspend Rangers from its Membership, but I don't see how they can then void all their scheduled league matches during that period of time as that's not a punishment on the list, so that would have to be additional SPL punishment - is that in their rulebook? And on what grounds could they deduct the points?

Could the litigious bears take the SPL to court if they either voided their fixtures while suspended or if they terminated their SPL membership?

A 6 month ban from all competitions with the backlog left for them to fulfill does punish them and it allows the cash-greedy chairmen to keep their current income streams flowing, for now. I'd imagine the SFA don't want rid of them either.

It's a cop-out. Why not force them to play all their games before Christmas? Or between November and March?

A club of that size would have no problem playing 3 games in a week. It is effectively no punishment whatsoever.

[Well Well]

Because it's potentially to their benefit, and that's at the heart of the SPL's philosophy.

If Rangers get a one year suspension, then what happens to their current SPL place? Is that suspended or terminated? If the SFA were to expel them, then the SPL would have to follow suit as you have to be in the SFA to play in any of the Pro/Semi Pro leagues, but suspension is not the same.

(If their SPL membership is terminated then I'd envisage the scenario I'd outlined being irrelevant as another team i.e. Dundee could be promoted to make up the numbers, or Dunfermline would be spared relegation. It'd be as normal, 38 games, split etc.)

However, if the SPL are to take Rangers back for 2013-14 after serving a suspension of SFA membership (and therefore being non-playing members of the SPL for 2012-13), then the SPL place cannot be filled without disrupting other leagues - unless you think they can take Dundee for example, leaving Div 1 a team down, then relegate two teams in the summer? That isn't a likely scenario and I don't think the SFL would be too thrilled at having to carry the empty slot for a year when the sinners are an SPL side.

What I'm outlining is a potential 'out' for the SFA to avoid delivering a KO blow to Rangers. That's what they wanted when they conjured up the transfer embargo, with Regan talking this week of the lack of 'pragmatic' options left to them.

Of the tough options remaining:

1. Expel Rangers from SFA (which must lead to SPL membership being terminated).

2. Suspend Rangers from SFA for a period of time (be it a week, a month, 3 months, 6 months, a year, whatever).

It's all about what (2) means for the SPL place.

I would suggest that 'suspension for a season' means an 11 team SPL. The clubs will lose much more money in that scenario than they would if they come back in after serving a six month suspension. Therefore, because it's potentially to their benefit (and self-interest is at the heart of the SPL's philosophy) I would suggest the SPL chairmen would rather only lose them for 6 months, and would quickly forget of the inconvenience of a few extra midweek games.

The SFA can suspend Rangers from its Membership, but I don't see how they can then void/award all their scheduled league matches during that period of time as that's not a punishment on the list, so that would have to be additional SPL punishment - is that in their rulebook? And on what grounds could they award wins for the opposition?

Could the litigious bears take the SPL to court if they either voided their fixtures while suspended or if they terminated their SPL membership?

A 6 month ban from all competitions with the backlog left for them to fulfill does punish them and it allows the cash-greedy chairmen to keep their current income streams flowing, for now. I'd imagine the SFA don't want rid of them either.

How in hell does a 6 month catch up not punish the other 11 clubs. It would be disastrous. Nothing to do with cash streams. Totally unworkable you forget 6 month suspension would then lead into the winter and you know how fickle our weather is. So with games suspended due to weather as they have been for a good number of years when do you propose the catch up games will be played. We are also moving into Scottish Cup and League Cup games and also the possibility of European games for those Scottish teams still in Europe ( if any I will grant that). Absolutely no chance that a 6 month ban is workeable. Termination of membership for one year and reapply to Division 3. SFL problem then if the wish to involve more teams in their leagues to balance it out. Never a shortage or teams applying before.

[WeeHectorPar]

Can Green not just liquidate Rangers and die of a heart attack start a newco and then avoid ANY punishment..? Ma heid is hurting with all the possible scenarios..!!..I want their membership terminated..nothing less.

EDIT: Forgot about having to reapply to the SPL.

Problem solved.

[Well Well]

All this talk of forcing THEM to play games is also mirrored for the other teams who will be FORCED to play them. Any forcing of games will have a detrimental effect on the other team as well. Remember Rangers have 50 odd players to pick from some of our teams do not have the luxury of such a large squad to chose from.

[Sting777]

Big Chasbo Greens standing with the knuckledraggers will go through the roof after this article. He is good mates with the heir to the thrones missus's ex husband!!! Wonder if The Brigadier is part of the ever decreasing consortium

http://www.dailyreco...86908-23884146/

Edited June 3, 2012 by Sting777

[ayrmad]

Exact same topic within seconds of one another?

How long before we get the rest of the set?

The bottom right would get it.

[ayrmad]

Is this the same SFA who backed down when Celtic threatened them with legal action, claiming that they couldn't afford the court fees?

Good luck with getting nay cash from Whyte.

I think that will be a scoosh.

[makepeace]

todays leggoland...

WHY RANGERS CANNOT BE KICKED OUT OF SFA

THE Independent Appellate Tribunal can not decide to throw Rangers out of the Scottish Football Association.

For if they do, Rangers would be in a strong position to take the whole matter back to the Court of Session and lay it before Lord Glennie again.

And that could open a can of worms and lead to the complete meltdown of Scottish football, with Scottish Football Association’s increasingly bizarre chief executive, Stewart Regan in the dock.

Regan should be very careful. If he agrees to meet the erratic Charles Green to attempt to broker some sort of deal for both the SFA and Rangers to save face, the SFA chief executive could well find himself charged with contempt.

For what the eminent and learned judge, Lord Glennie, sitting amidst the Majesty of Edinburgh’s historic seat of Scots Law, the Court of Session, said was that the sentence had to be sent back to the INDEPENDENT Appellate Tribunal.

Lord Glennie did not suggest or request that the sentence be sent back to the INDEPENDENT Appellate Tribunal. Lord Glennie ordered that it be sent back to the INDEPENDENT Appelate Tribunal.

The one chaired by his colleague, another eminent and learned judge, Lord Carloway.

The difference of course between the Law Lords in this case is that one has the full weight of the Scots Law behind him. That is Lord Glennie. Lord Carloway does not.

But it is the wording of the INDEPENDENT Appellate Tribunal’s findings, which we must assume came from Lord Carloway’s pen and which were posted as a statement on the official SFA website on 16^th May 2012, which is interesting.

And which I believe leaves that INDEPENDENT Appellate Tribunal effectively snookered when it comes to considering any expulsion of Rangers from the Scottish Football Association.

The original INDEPENDENT Judicial Tribunal, chaired by the eminent Queen’s Counsel, Gary Allan said – and again we must assume the words are his - that such a sentence was viewed as being too harsh.

Something the Lord Carloway chaired INDEPENDENT Appellate Tribunal agreed with wholeheartedly.

Indeed, Lord Carloway’s statement said: “The Disciplinary Tribunal rejected the sentence of either expulsion from the game and termination or suspension of membership of the Scottish FA, which would have had a similar affect.

“The Disciplinary Tribunal rejected this as too severe and in this the Appellate Tribunal agreed.

“The Appellate Tribunal observed that serious consideration was given by the Disciplinary Tribunal to imposing one of the sanctions, which would have had obvious consequences for the survival of the club.”

So answer me this.

How can the INDEPENDENT Appellate Tribunal now sentence Rangers to either expulsion from the game and termination or suspension of membership the Scottish FA?

How can the eminent and learned Lord Carloway now say that when he agreed that Rangers did not deserve to be sentenced to either expulsion or suspension of membership of the Scottish FA, he was wrong?

That is a tricky one for M’Lud.

And it is an even trickier one for the increasingly beleaguered looking Stewart Regan.

What to tell FIFA?

How about two words. The second of them….OFF!

The behind the scenes spin on this story would put Shane Warne to shame. But what is the most shameful thing is the lack of a grasp of the facts – or the complete disregard for them - by so many journalists.

In fact, I believe Lord Glennie has set a trap for Stewart Regan and the Scottish Football Association. It is this.

Lord Glennie has said that any punishment which the INDEPENDENT Appellate Tribunal imposes on Rangers may prove to be harsher than the transfer ban which he overturned.

That may tempt some into going for the severe sentence of kicking Rangers out of the SFA and therefore out of world football.

Surely, however, Lord Carloway will offer wiser counsel? Surely he will see the trap?

For should the INDEPENDENT Appellate Tribunal, chaired by Lord Carloway, opt for that sentence, they may have to appear before Lord Glennie in the Court of Session to explain their change of mind.

For Rangers would seem to be perfectly within their rights under Scots Law, to take the matter straight back to the Court of Session.

What a spectacle that would be. An eminent and learned judge, Lord Carloway, appearing before another eminent and learned judge, Lord Glennie, amidst the Majesty of the Court of Session.

I imagine jurists, advocates, lawyers and law students would fill the court to witness such a spectacle.

It would also answer one of the questions FIFA, we are told, have been asking Stewart Regan. Which is, just what is the Court of Session?

Sepp Blatter and his gang of ne’r do well cronies may just find out.

[Disco Duck]

Aye because Ranger's lawyers are so smart ... that's why Haudit & Daudit are encamped in your club raping the finances !!!

Hoi you, they're not my club!

[Homer Thompson]

Because it's potentially to their benefit, and that's at the heart of the SPL's philosophy.

If Rangers get a one year suspension, then what happens to their current SPL place? Is that suspended or terminated? If the SFA were to expel them, then the SPL would have to follow suit as you have to be in the SFA to play in any of the Pro/Semi Pro leagues, but suspension is not the same.

(If their SPL membership is terminated then I'd envisage the scenario I'd outlined being irrelevant as another team i.e. Dundee could be promoted to make up the numbers, or Dunfermline would be spared relegation. It'd be as normal, 38 games, split etc.)

However, if the SPL are to take Rangers back for 2013-14 after serving a suspension of SFA membership (and therefore being non-playing members of the SPL for 2012-13), then the SPL place cannot be filled without disrupting other leagues - unless you think they can take Dundee for example, leaving Div 1 a team down, then relegate two teams in the summer? That isn't a likely scenario and I don't think the SFL would be too thrilled at having to carry the empty slot for a year when the sinners are an SPL side.

What I'm outlining is a potential 'out' for the SFA to avoid delivering a KO blow to Rangers. That's what they wanted when they conjured up the transfer embargo, with Regan talking this week of the lack of 'pragmatic' options left to them.

Of the tough options remaining:

1. Expel Rangers from SFA (which must lead to SPL membership being terminated).

2. Suspend Rangers from SFA for a period of time (be it a week, a month, 3 months, 6 months, a year, whatever).

It's all about what (2) means for the SPL place.

I would suggest that 'suspension for a season' means an 11 team SPL. The clubs will lose much more money in that scenario than they would if they come back in after serving a six month suspension. Therefore, because it's potentially to their benefit (and self-interest is at the heart of the SPL's philosophy) I would suggest the SPL chairmen would rather only lose them for 6 months, and would quickly forget of the inconvenience of a few extra midweek games.

The SFA can suspend Rangers from its Membership, but I don't see how they can then void/award all their scheduled league matches during that period of time as that's not a punishment on the list, so that would have to be additional SPL punishment - is that in their rulebook? And on what grounds could they award wins for the opposition?

Could the litigious bears take the SPL to court if they either voided their fixtures while suspended or if they terminated their SPL membership?

A 6 month ban from all competitions with the backlog left for them to fulfill does punish them and it allows the cash-greedy chairmen to keep their current income streams flowing, for now. I'd imagine the SFA don't want rid of them either.

The SPL rules state that any participating club must be a member of the SFA. However, it doesnt seem to say anything about the status of membership - a suspended member is still a member, after all. Either it is mentioned somewhere else, the rules are badly written, or Im interpreting it wrong

[Homer Thompson]

todays leggoland...

WHY RANGERS CANNOT BE KICKED OUT OF SFA

THE Independent Appellate Tribunal can not decide to throw Rangers out of the Scottish Football Association.

For if they do, Rangers would be in a strong position to take the whole matter back to the Court of Session and lay it before Lord Glennie again.

And that could open a can of worms and lead to the complete meltdown of Scottish football, with Scottish Football Association’s increasingly bizarre chief executive, Stewart Regan in the dock.

Regan should be very careful. If he agrees to meet the erratic Charles Green to attempt to broker some sort of deal for both the SFA and Rangers to save face, the SFA chief executive could well find himself charged with contempt.

For what the eminent and learned judge, Lord Glennie, sitting amidst the Majesty of Edinburgh’s historic seat of Scots Law, the Court of Session, said was that the sentence had to be sent back to the INDEPENDENT Appellate Tribunal.

Lord Glennie did not suggest or request that the sentence be sent back to the INDEPENDENT Appellate Tribunal. Lord Glennie ordered that it be sent back to the INDEPENDENT Appelate Tribunal.

The one chaired by his colleague, another eminent and learned judge, Lord Carloway.

The difference of course between the Law Lords in this case is that one has the full weight of the Scots Law behind him. That is Lord Glennie. Lord Carloway does not.

But it is the wording of the INDEPENDENT Appellate Tribunal’s findings, which we must assume came from Lord Carloway’s pen and which were posted as a statement on the official SFA website on 16^th May 2012, which is interesting.

And which I believe leaves that INDEPENDENT Appellate Tribunal effectively snookered when it comes to considering any expulsion of Rangers from the Scottish Football Association.

The original INDEPENDENT Judicial Tribunal, chaired by the eminent Queen’s Counsel, Gary Allan said – and again we must assume the words are his - that such a sentence was viewed as being too harsh.

Something the Lord Carloway chaired INDEPENDENT Appellate Tribunal agreed with wholeheartedly.

Indeed, Lord Carloway’s statement said: “The Disciplinary Tribunal rejected the sentence of either expulsion from the game and termination or suspension of membership of the Scottish FA, which would have had a similar affect.

“The Disciplinary Tribunal rejected this as too severe and in this the Appellate Tribunal agreed.

“The Appellate Tribunal observed that serious consideration was given by the Disciplinary Tribunal to imposing one of the sanctions, which would have had obvious consequences for the survival of the club.”

So answer me this.

How can the INDEPENDENT Appellate Tribunal now sentence Rangers to either expulsion from the game and termination or suspension of membership the Scottish FA?

How can the eminent and learned Lord Carloway now say that when he agreed that Rangers did not deserve to be sentenced to either expulsion or suspension of membership of the Scottish FA, he was wrong?

That is a tricky one for M’Lud.

And it is an even trickier one for the increasingly beleaguered looking Stewart Regan.

What to tell FIFA?

How about two words. The second of them….OFF!

The behind the scenes spin on this story would put Shane Warne to shame. But what is the most shameful thing is the lack of a grasp of the facts – or the complete disregard for them - by so many journalists.

In fact, I believe Lord Glennie has set a trap for Stewart Regan and the Scottish Football Association. It is this.

Lord Glennie has said that any punishment which the INDEPENDENT Appellate Tribunal imposes on Rangers may prove to be harsher than the transfer ban which he overturned.

That may tempt some into going for the severe sentence of kicking Rangers out of the SFA and therefore out of world football.

Surely, however, Lord Carloway will offer wiser counsel? Surely he will see the trap?

For should the INDEPENDENT Appellate Tribunal, chaired by Lord Carloway, opt for that sentence, they may have to appear before Lord Glennie in the Court of Session to explain their change of mind.

For Rangers would seem to be perfectly within their rights under Scots Law, to take the matter straight back to the Court of Session.

What a spectacle that would be. An eminent and learned judge, Lord Carloway, appearing before another eminent and learned judge, Lord Glennie, amidst the Majesty of the Court of Session.

I imagine jurists, advocates, lawyers and law students would fill the court to witness such a spectacle.

It would also answer one of the questions FIFA, we are told, have been asking Stewart Regan. Which is, just what is the Court of Session?

Sepp Blatter and his gang of ne’r do well cronies may just find out.

Leggo = TSAR?

Did he write this before this argument was proven to be nonsense, or is he just clutching at straws as usual?

[WeeHectorPar]

The SPL rules state that any participating club must be a member of the SFA. However, it doesnt seem to say anything about the status of membership - a suspended member is still a member, after all. Either it is mentioned somewhere else, the rules are badly written, or Im interpreting it wrong

However UEFA might decide that playing against a suspended side was contrary to their rules and ban the offending teams from European competitions.

[Homer Thompson]

However UEFA might decide that playing against a suspended side was contrary to their rules and ban the offending teams from European competitions.

True. Dont get me wrong, Im not suggesting Rangers should, or could, use this as a loophole to remain in the SPL. Although, I wouldnt put it past them trying

[JRS LEFT PEG]

Social media will have its critics as well as enthusiasts but in this H un case its been essential. Imagine what it would have been like relying on the Sun and Record for this story instead of this thread and other blogs . The Record still trotting out pro Rangers guest columnists and Sun editorials telling us of the need for Rangers for the countrys sake . Yes, this would have been well covered up in days gone by but not now. The establishment club continue to get protected by , well, the establishment but we can see through it

[Shuggie_Murray7]

May already have been posted but I can't be bothered going back and looking;

Will the SPL survive without Rangers?

[Doink]

Is Leggo on mind bending drugs?

[Florentine_Pogen]

Is Leggo on mind bending drugs?

Is Sunny D considered a drug ?

[Claymores]

When the SFA holds it's AGM on Wednesday, is there an opportunity to vote on amendments to the rulebook to include a Transfer Embargo as one of the written possible sanctions for Bringing the Game into Disrepute?!?!

Then when the Appellate Tribunal meets on Friday, the way is cleared to reapply the sanction?!

Gets round the CofS ruling and the job's a good un!

Edited June 3, 2012 by Claymores

[itzdrk]

i think were gonna need a big thread afterparty when this is done