Ric Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/helping-the-police-with-their-inquiries/ That man is a complete fucknugget, if he told me the sky was blue and water was wet I wouldn't believe him. He has such a hardon for pro-Celtic propaganda to the detriment of fact that he should be ignored at every opportunity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 it says suspension might have to be considered appropiate. or presumably it might not. the original panel verdict doesn't mention the discounting of suspension as being due to the availability of other sanctions. Could be wrong but would it not have been possible for the AT to increase the original punishment had it seen fit? That's usually the case in the SFA appeals process. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 from the scots law thoughts blog Did Lord Glennie Give the AT Any Directions? Other than telling them that, for reasons I will come to, the AT could not impose a signing ban, and that it was restricted to the specific penalties mentioned in Rule of the JPP, he did not give the AT any directions does anyone have a link to the appeal verdict? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 paying for something up front isn't a loan. you can get money back if the games don't happen but that is because of consumer rights. Bullshit. By that reasoning there is no such thing as a loan. You are always paying for 'something' up front, whether it be a telly, a house or cash. Green is 'lending' youz, sorry , Rangers the cash to stay afloat, hence the interest charges. The season tickets do not specify 'which' games they will be entitled to see, so that doesn't wash re consumer rights. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReasonableGeezer Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 paying for something up front isn't a loan. you can get money back if the games don't happen but that is because of consumer rights. Erm NO! actually you cant. Consumer rights don't actually cover you in the event of liquidation. So the peeple will be lucky to get a thing back as they will also become creditors. Think Farepack! How Green can "Lend" money to Rangers (IA), I have no conceivable idea. I'd actually question the legality of a newco route when the CVA is refused. To me it seems pretty much like Fraud. Im not an expert in business law but to basically screw your creditors surely is illegal in some way? Especially as they have bragged on about this being their next option. I heard the Dundee Utd chairman saying that the clubs in the SPL have run out of sympathy for Rangers due to their lack of remorse. Their arrogance will kill them, but they are too busy blaming everyone else. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambopompey Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 So the orcs are launching their season tickets, so forgive me but usually you have an option to buy them on credit/finance, how can a club that is in administration be able to pass the FSC(?) controls for allowing credit when they are in such a dire financial mess, or is it all cash up front for the season tickets? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umbungo1874 Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 from the scots law thoughts blog does anyone have a link to the appeal verdict? My link 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) it says suspension might have to be considered appropiate. or presumably it might not. the original panel verdict doesn't mention the discounting of suspension as being due to the availability of other sanctions. The point I am making, which you have justified here, is that it is possible that suspension could be used by the appellate as a sanction. The appellate have the ability to change the decision of the original panel otherwise there would be no point in it sitting, appeals can bring harsher punishments so long as they are within the confines of availability, just because the original panel considered one punishment too harsh that does not negate the appellate from considering that punishment appropriate, regardless of it's reasoning. You seem to think that because one panel considered the punishment too harsh another panel are bound to follow their reasoning, they are not. You seem to be of the opinion that the original panel's statement legally bars the other panel from revising that stance, it does not as the appellate have stated that the circumstances dictate that the harsher sanction can duly be considered. If Lord Glennie had sent the matter back to the original panel then you would have a very valid point and the original panel should not backtrack on their statement but the appellate would not be backtracking on anything which they themselves have stated. Edited June 8, 2012 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Right T_S_A_R, answer me this. Rangers need a UEFA license to play in SPL next season, newco or not? ^^^^^^^^^^^^true? They CAN'T get one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 The season tickets do not specify 'which' games they will be entitled to see, so that doesn't wash re consumer rights. yes they do. why did celtic have the alkmaar friendly a few years ago that no c**t turned up to? because they were contractually obliged to give their fans another game. my season ticket guarantees me every scheduled spl home game and one home cup game if we have one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Scottish Football Association investigating clubs' finances By Martin Conaghan & Jim Spence BBC Scotland The Scottish Football Association is investigating its member clubs' finances, BBC Scotland can confirm. In a letter dated 9 March, chief executive Stewart Regan requested all member clubs to send a self-declaration regarding their financial records. He asked clubs to declare written agreements with players not lodged in the previous 10 years, by 6 April 2012. The responses are being examined by the SFA's legal team and any issues will be referred to the compliance officer. BBC Scotland has seen a letter dated 9 March 2012 from Mr Regan with the subject "Article 12 - Financial Records", which reminds clubs of their obligations pursuant to Article 12 (Financial Records) and 86.1 of the SFA's Articles of Association (Communications and Inquiries). It draws attention to clubs that there could be a number of examples of non-compliance with the obligations of Article 12.3, which specifically requires all payments made to players in relation to their football activities to be declared to the SFA. Rangers are currently under investigation by the Scottish Premier League over possible 'dual contracts', and the club - currently in administration over unpaid tax debts - delivered documentation to Hampden last week relating to the inquiry, some three months after they were requested. The club is also awaiting the outcome of a First Tier Tax Tribunal over the use of Employee Benefit Trusts, totalling almost £48m given to players, coaches and staff during the period 2001-2010. BBC Scotland has seen evidence, which was submitted to a court, suggesting that 53 Rangers players and staff had side-letters giving undertakings to fund their sub-trusts with cash, which if proven, would be in breach of the SFA's rules. The letter sent by Regan requests all clubs to return a declaration from each chairman that they have complied "without qualification" with the terms of Article 12.3 in the last 10 years. It also sets a deadline of no later than Friday 6 April 2012, to notify the SFA of "any written agreement(s) falling within the scope of Article 12.3 which has/have not previously been lodged with the Scottish FA in the previous 10 years in respect of any current or former players". The SFA told BBC Scotland that it was not in a position to comment on the outcome of its request to member clubs, but confirmed that if any issues arise from the self-declarations, it would do so via the compliance officer references. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18367348 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Right T_S_A_R, answer me this. Rangers need a UEFA license to play in SPL next season, newco or not? ^^^^^^^^^^^^true? They CAN'T get one. as the rules stand at the moment. however if they vote in a newco they can easily ammend the rules. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45 Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 yes they do. why did celtic have the alkmaar friendly a few years ago that no c**t turned up to? because they were contractually obliged to give their fans another game. my season ticket guarantees me every scheduled spl home game and one home cup game if we have one. Your Motherwell season ticket? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambopompey Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 The point I am making, which you have justified here, is that it is possible that suspension could be used by the appellate as a sanction. The appellate have the ability to change the decision of the original panel otherwise there would be no point in it sitting, appeals can bring harsher punishments so long as they are within the confines of availability, just because the original panel considered one punishment too harsh that does not negate the appellate from considering that punishment appropriate, regardless of it's reasoning. You seem to think that because one panel considered the punishment too harsh another panel are bound to follow their reasoning, they are not. You seem to be of the opinion that the original panel's statement legally bars the other panel from revising that stance, it does not as the appellate have stated that the circumstances dictate that the harsher sanction can duly be considered. If Lord Glennie had sent the matter back to the original panel then you would have a very valid point and the original panel should not backtrack on their statement but the appellate will not be backtracking on anything which they themselves have stated. thats what has struck me, moving away from the rangers thing for a second, in the SPL a player can get a 2 match ban but is allowed to appeal, on the appeal the ban can be revoked, reduced, upheld or even increased, so back to rangers, could that not also be the same outcome? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReasonableGeezer Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 The chances of a Newco getting into the SPL are looking pretty slim to say the least. The CoS farce has seriously pissed off the people who they need to vote them in. I reckon its not going to happen. Smoke and Mirrors seems to be the way forward here. Tick Tock. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 as the rules stand at the moment. however if they vote in a newco they can easily ammend the rules. So a newco is the only way Rangers can play in SPL next season (subject to rules changes for this to happen for the newco to get license) ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Your Motherwell season ticket? yes my motherwell season ticket (in saying that i'm renewing at the end of the month) read through my post history if you have any further doubts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 So a newco is the only way Rangers can play in SPL next season (subject to rules changes for this to happen for the newco to get license) ? they can amend the rules for a newco, a cva or even if they are still in admin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 The chances of a Newco getting into the SPL are looking pretty slim to say the least. The CoS farce has seriously pissed off the people who they need to vote them in. i don't think the court thing matters. they are voting with their wallets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 yes my motherwell season ticket (in saying that i'm renewing at the end of the month) read through my post history if you have any further doubts. This thread will do Billy........... Btw, have Rangers registered a ground for the SPL for ext season? 01/06/12 cut off you know. A Newco might not get even that allowed............ 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.