wunfellaff Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Jane Lewis is a BBC journalist - she was the journalist who reported on FIFA contacting the SFA for the BBC website earlier on in the month. What exactly did the supposed statement say? Sounds like it might have been positive for Rangers, with No.8 pointing it out and all the non-OF fans ignoring it? It said nowt, hence lack of interest......'''''phew, its back in fitbas juristiction''''''''''' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p&b is a disgrace Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Not sure this changes much, but I assume that's what No.8 is getting at. I think that was cunty No 8. Give it 5 minutes and reasonable No 8. will take himself to task. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 This 1 is worrying though... Edward Lowe - "No way will the SFA close Rangers down and even the most bitter Celtic fan wouldn't want that to happen anyway. I'm not that bitter but I would take a public shit in the decaying, corrupted, dying mouth of Rangers . E-mail that to him 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 good news all round if FIFA are backing off then to be honest , just incase the SFA make an arse of this 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 This bank holiday has slowed things down a bit. Hopefully tomorrow brings further bad news for the skidmark on Scotland's footballing Pants. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Diamond Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I'm quite sure that 300 Spartans would be more than enough to take on tens and thousands of Orcs. Lol...I can see Gerard Butler now shouting "Tonight we dine in Helen Street" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I'd go with Greenback is super confident the CVA will fail and he buys the liquidated assets for a song and the SFA are bending over backwards to accommodate him with a parachute for his new shiny club with minimal punishments by claiming the newco is not the old co and get voted into the SPL so the fatcats in the establishment SPL/SFA get their TV bonuses for saving the SKY deal !. I dont really see how that can happen. If Green is succesful in transfering the SFA membership and SPL share over to the newco, then the newco is the same footballing entity as the oldco. It would then be subject to the same footballing punishments as if it were still the oldco. How could you argue otherwise? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Lol...I can see Gerard Butler now shouting "Tonight we dine in Helen Street" Dirty tarrier he is 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepitsafe Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 This bank holiday has slowed things down a bit. Hopefully tomorrow brings further bad news for the skidmark on Scotland's footballing Pants. More like it's given them all more "quiet time" to formulate the news they want to break but can't agree on the wording to "appease" the general public. We'll find out more soon, no doubt! Maybe! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 This bank holiday has slowed things down a bit. Hopefully tomorrow brings further bad news for the skidmark on Scotland's footballing Pants. I posted a day or so ago a timetable. Tomorrow is SFA?SPL? meeting on Rangers plus Green meets RFFFFFFFFF as they concerned about him (loan to buy club from club etc etc) wher they ' might ' withdraw support for buying season tickets. Ah found the post I copied it from. Wednesday, June 6 (part 1) The Rangers Fans Fighting Fund have asked to meet with prospective owner Charles Green. Why it's important... Fans have become increasingly concerned about the lack of clarity surrounding Green's consortium, both in terms of the financial methods being used and the men providing the cash. A meeting has been sought to demand answers. If those are not forthcoming, then the influential RFFF will not be in a position to recommend that fellow supporters make season-ticket purchases. That would potentially squeeze a £17million revenue stream of front-loaded money for the consortium headed by the former Sheffield United chief executive. Green originally stated his group numbered around 20 interested parties, but has since said that only 'five or six' have put forward cash. Indonesian businessman Jude Allen and Middle Eastern lawyer Mazen Housammi have been named as members of his Sevco group. The RFFF also want to hear details of Green's financial plans after some supporters were alarmed when the CVA proposal revealed the £8.5m being put forward was a loan to be repaid with interest by 2020. The supporters' wariness is more than justified after the carnage inflicted by Craig Whyte and details of whether Green feels he will be able to keep the current squad together will also be sought. Wednesday, June 6 (part 2) The SFA hierarchy meets to consider the Rangers situation. Why it's important... The legal victory secured by Rangers last week could ultimately lead to a greater punishment for the club. The SFA decided not to appeal the decision of the Court of Session, which ruled that a Judicial Panel did not have the power to hand down a 12-month transfer embargo after finding Rangers guilty of disrepute charges. The matter has now been returned to the Appeals Tribunal for consideration within the narrower range of sanctions - including suspension or termination of SFA membership - they can now apply to Rangers. Hampden insiders claim the only way to prevent the Tribunal from sitting is for Rangers to back down and accept the original year-long transfer embargo. Green, though, could yet try to table some form of attempted compromise to head off a doomsday scenario. Friday, June 8 The earliest date the Appeals Tribunal could sit, although the following week seems more likely. Why it's important... This could be one of the most pivotal moments in the entire Ibrox crisis.Headed by Lord Carloway, the three-man Tribunal will consider what - if any - additional sanction should be applied alongside the maximum £100,000 fine Rangers have already been hit with for the actions of Craig Whyte's shamed tenure. Fears have been expressed that, with FIFA watching, the Tribunal could be backed into a corner whereby issuing only a more stringent punishment than the transfer ban - a suspension or termination of SFA membership - is deemed appropriate. A Scottish Cup ban is another penalty at their disposal. Clearly, the impact of Rangers being kicked out of the game for any period would be seismic. Saturday, June 9 Official opening of the transfer window. Why it's important... Seven first-team players - Allan McGregor, Steven Whittaker, Dorin Goian, Steven Davis, Maurice Edu, Steven Naismith and Kyle Lafferty - had reduced-fee release clauses inserted into their contracts when accepting temporary 75 per cent wage cuts to sustain the club until the end of the season. Those clauses became active last Friday, when the players returned to full pay. Edu can go for £300,000, while Naismith and McGregor are the most expensive at £2m apiece. Rumours abound of those who might be open to leaving, but that will depend on any forthcoming offers. As with so much in this sorry saga, manager Ally McCoist will be left without a say if bids hit the target figures. Thursday, June 14 Creditors meeting to vote on the CVA proposal. Why it's important... Provided Green has lodged the further monies required with Duff & Phelps by this date, the creditors will vote on whether to accept his proposal that would see them pocket less than 10p in the pound. A 75 per cent majority based on a vote per pound of debt basis is required to pass the proposal. HMRC and Ticketus dominate the picture. If both agree, there is nothing the smaller creditors can do to stop the CVA. If either rejects the proposal, then it falls. An acceptance of the CVA would trigger a 28-day cooling-off period before agreement of the creditors was ratified and Rangers could exit administration. Should the CVA fail, then Green has a £5.5m newco agreement in place with Duff & Phelps. Monday, June 18 SPL board meeting to discuss dual contract allegations. Why it's important... Rangers forwarded paperwork relating to their operation of Employee Benefit Trusts to the SPL last week - three months after the documents had been requested. The top flight's lawyers are probing whether those payments should have been detailed within the contract documents lodged with both them and the SFA. They will update board members on their progress on this date. The dual contract allegations carry potentially huge ramifications if proven - and could even lead to consideration of past trophies being struck from the record. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 What happens if Rangers are liquidated and the assets and league share is transferred to a Newco in mid season ? Is that allowable under the current rules or would they be deemed "not to have fulfilled their fixtures" and kicked out ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Dirty tarrier he is ^^^^^deflecting from his own tarrierness imo........... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I dont really see how that can happen. If Green is succesful in transfering the SFA membership and SPL share over to the newco, then the newco is the same footballing entity as the oldco. It would then be subject to the same footballing punishments as if it were still the oldco. How could you argue otherwise? Quite. Or at least that's how it should work...!! The whole point of the transfer is to achieve footballing continuity, and the whole point of it being continuity is that - in footballing terms - it's the same club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 What happens if Rangers are liquidated and the assets and league share is transferred to a Newco in mid season ? Is that allowable under the current rules or would they be deemed "not to have fulfilled their fixtures" and kicked out ? ''current rules'' are different to ''currant rules'' in this day and age apparantly 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Dirty tarrier he is tar·ry 1 (tr)v. tar·ried, tar·ry·ing, tar·riesv.intr.1. To delay or be late in going, coming, or doing. See Synonyms at stay1.2. To wait.3. To remain or stay temporarily, as in a place; sojourn.v.tr. ArchaicTo wait for; await.n.A temporary stay; a sojourn.[Middle English tarien.]tarri·er n.tar·ry 2 (tär)adj. tar·ri·er, tar·ri·estOf, resembling, or covered with tar.<br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 ''current rules'' are different to ''currant rules'' in this day and age apparantly too true, Archie tremendous 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I dont really see how that can happen. If Green is succesful in transfering the SFA membership and SPL share over to the newco, then the newco is the same footballing entity as the oldco. It would then be subject to the same footballing punishments as if it were still the oldco. How could you argue otherwise? I can't argue otherwise but I'm sure lawyers will argue otherwise stipulating some sort of method escaping the old co's punishments somehow ?. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Quite. Or at least that's how it should work...!! The whole point of the transfer is to achieve footballing continuity, and the whole point of it being continuity is that - in footballing terms - it's the same club. even if said share transfer was mid season as opposed to close season ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Agree but in the Traynor v Chic incident; Chic simply reported honestly as to what occurred at the press conference with integrity. Traynor was simply a bully and tried to twist Chics words. I guess if Chic was 6 foot plus and built like a brick shithouse then Traynor would not have been so cocky ... arrogant deluded twat .. I just watched that on youtube and I think the Fat Lamb was under instruction (from Ibrox via the DR) to discredit Chic's reportage. Trying to squeeze a wee bit o doubt from an obvious fact. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I can't argue otherwise but I'm sure lawyers will argue otherwise stipulating some sort of method escaping the old co's punishments somehow ?. How though? As HJ says, in footballing terms, they are the same club. 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.