TheTaxMan Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 I for one would not want them added to Celtics total. It would be like going twos up after a dirty old tramp on Jessica Alba. You can boast about the F**k, but you still feel really unclean. ^^^^ This. I don't want any titles Celtic didn't win on the football pitch. Withdraw them from Rangers by all means but just withold them for those years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 I for one would not want them added to Celtics total. Nor me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeTeeJag Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Ah a wiki article, you think its factually acurate? here is another wiki article "Rangers Football Club is a football club based in Glasgow, Scotland that plays in the Third Division of the Scottish Football League. Their home ground is the 51,082-capacity all-seater Ibrox Stadium in the south-west of the city.Founded in 1872, Rangers were one of the ten founder members of the Scottish Football League" Wiki is a great source for information, however I always question the validity due to the fact the authors are often not any more informed than people like yourself At least the wiki page here http://en.wikipedia....iki/Rangers_F.C. is endorsed by the SFL version here http://www.scottishf...m/club/rangers/ Why would the SFL do this? Why does Mr Green as you stated feel the need to con Celtic fans? You're right. He's too busy conning the SevCo fans. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Why have you only a temporary license ? quite simply the SFA could have said no license will be issued and could then have got the investigation out of the way and then applied punishment . The SFA/SPL/SFL created this mess, with one eye on the cash cow the difficulty they had was is they did not allow a temporary license there was a fear that money would have been lost to the game. Loss of revenue ergo loss power base of those associations. It is on the grounds that you play along nicely and accept whats coming to you, it was a concession. In your favour if you are found guilty any punishment will exclude suspension or expulsion after the SFA & co. gave you this lifeline so it will be a fine, which I feel is inadequate given the term of wrong doing we are discussing. Rangers have the full license,transferred from the old company to the new company on 3rd August.My link 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 I for one would not want them added to Celtics total. It would be like going twos up after a dirty old tramp on Jessica Alba. You can boast about the F**k, but you still feel really unclean. I would obviously be on first so would not be an issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Rangers have the full license,transferred from the old company to the new company on 3rd August.My link Still not the same club though. The new Rangers, who will begin life in Division Three, needed membership to play any competitive matches and negotiations over inheriting the old club's licence were protracted 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 no? http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/club/rangers/ No. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 No 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnforever1992 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Old club is deid and going to be liquidated, instead you have a new company Sevco. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurcher Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Please show me the document where the SFA state a condition of this licence is "on the grounds that you play along nicely and accept whats coming to you, it was a concession" here - http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10252 Points 2 and 5 are relevant, i.e. they accepted their punishment to get the license, and accepted that the SPL would continue the investigation into the dual contracts and EBTs. - The Scottish FA has received all necessary information and documentation from Sevco Scotland Ltd, including details of the company structure, shareholders, financial projections and business plan. - Sevco Scotland Ltd has agreed to accept all conditions relating to RFC (IA)'s charges of bringing the game into disrepute, namely the 12-month transfer embargo, beginning at 0.01a.m on 1st September 2012, and payment of all outstanding fines and costs. - Sevco Scotland Ltd has agreed to settle all outstanding football debts to other members of the Scottish FA plus clubs under the jurisdiction of other Football Associations. - The Scottish Premier League and Scottish Football League have reached agreement on the purchase of a package of broadcasting rights which will allow the former to include The Rangers FC matches in contracts with broadcast partners. - The Scottish Premier League has reserved its position in relation to the on-going investigation into EBTs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Rangers have the full license,transferred from the old company to the new company on 3rd August.My link Sorry should have been posted the SFL is an associate membership. You were given a hand in due to potential turn over had it beed a diddy club who had committed or being investigated the same flexible attitude would not have occurred. The buying history is a convenient way of keeping you all spending and therefore retaining the turnover of the associations it is part of the big con. As you and others have instigated without a Rangers you'd simply be lost to the game found something else to do on a Saturday with the rivalry a section of Celtic's support would also have disappeared. Sponsorhip would be cut meaning that those in power at the 3 associations income would be reduced and would no doubt have to merge. It is this scenario that you fail to admit to and therefore any punishment you receive would be less than those who were seen as financially insignificant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 I can't believe i've just read through 3 pages of Dhensebhoy, Sucker, Bairnforever etc still recycling the same old tired propaganda that the majority of their ilk have long since abandoned as a bad joke. ..and yet they still can't figure out why we're getting more press and TV time than their own "more deserving" teams -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Sorry should have been posted the SFL is an associate membership. You were given a hand in due to potential turn over had it beed a diddy club who had committed or being investigated the same flexible attitude would not have occurred. The buying history is a convenient way of keeping you all spending and therefore retaining the turnover of the associations it is part of the big con. As you and others have instigated without a Rangers you'd simply be lost to the game found something else to do on a Saturday with the rivalry a section of Celtic's support would also have disappeared. Sponsorhip would be cut meaning that those in power at the 3 associations income would be reduced and would no doubt have to merge. It is this scenario that you fail to admit to and therefore any punishment you receive would be less than those who were seen as financially insignificant. Whether a smaller club with less turnover than Rangers would have been investigated to the same level is not the point of club continuation being recognised or not by the football authorities. The fact is that clubs throughout Europe that have went through the same procedure as Rangers have had the club continuity recognised by the relevant football authorities,in whatever country the club concerned is domiciled in and by UEFA,an organisation that Rangers are a member club of and as a member club are entitled to the same recognition as any other club in this position. The same outcome would have applied to any club if the transference of the relevant FA Membership had taken place before the old company was formally liquidated,if the new company had applied for transference of membership from the old company that is. Also i don't fail to admit to any scenario as regards income from our fanbase to other SFL clubs or indeed to the three ruling bodies,i'm well aware of the income the travelling support can bring to the game,something which has been demonstrated this season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnforever1992 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) Lest we forget! Edited September 10, 2012 by Bairnforever1992 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Yes we accepted the punsihments and the ongoing investigation we also secure the right to appeal how does that relate to SFA state a condition of this licence is "on the grounds that you play along nicely and accept whats coming to you, it was a concession" I dont see that line of text, or anything that would relate to it Finneston is suggesting that somehow we agreed to accept anything that comes from the investigation, that could not be further from the truth So what do you think would be a suitable punishment for the wrongful registration of players over a lengthy period, forget Rangers take it on the basis of any other club, look what has been the punishment to other clubs usually in singular cases in cup competitions. Are you suggesting if Morton were being investigated in identical circumstances the actions of the SFA/SFL or even SPL ( not that that would be applicable as we are pish) would be the same. Given the voting that went on , chairman keeching themselves. armageddon all that bollocks your club were treated preferentially. It will be continually given this status not because the SFA and others are filled with folk wearing blue tinted specs but because without a version of Rangers less money will be in the professional game and that means guys like Regan, Longmuir, Ogilvie, Cockwomble would all be either taking the axe to their own set up. If you didn't agree to take the football debt and accept any consequence of the double contract investigation you would not have been allowed to inhabit the lie. What I have said is I believe the correct action should have been the inquiry verdict and any punishment and then which ever club wished to emerge after that could do so without animosity., knowing the full extent of the crimes and punishments. What happens if they propose an exuberant fine say that periods prize money , would it then be worth retaining the oldco identity ? How much is being the 1873 Rangers worth ? If you were not how many would continue to purchase ST's, merchandise, etc 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Question ..... If you were a shareholder in the dead club, would you not be pissed off at the level of s/t's, merchandise etc for 'rangers' that should be increasing the value of your holding? Instead of your investment being worthless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnforever1992 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) Then why did Rangers lied to the SPL about the players registration side contract. Which is Tax free=Tax evasion, Watch that documentary again to give you a better idea. Had a look at the Old Rangers FC transfer expenditure it is relevant to this day. Overspending means huge amount of debts that will kill the club. Rangers FC expenses loss Including the EBT scheme can double that amount of expenses owed to the tax man. Edited September 10, 2012 by Bairnforever1992 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Capsule Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 I can't believe i've just read through 3 pages of Dhensebhoy, Sucker, Bairnforever etc still recycling the same old tired propaganda that the majority of their ilk have long since abandoned as a bad joke. All I keep seeing is 30 odd pages of you, Tedi and Bendarroch constantly coming out with name calling and "aye, we are the same team" and greenie-ing each other. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 @STVkeith: Rangers say they won't cooperate with the SPL investigation into alleged use of dual contracts, becuase they are no longer an SPL member. So.. Not an SPL member no cooperation.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 So.. Not an SPL member no cooperation.. He says a lot more than that. 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.