Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

As I stated earlier, the only failure on the SFA's part was to trust their members to be honest. What exposed this flaw was rangers breaking that trust. That is, rangers acting against the rules as they stood at the time, in full knowledge that they were doing so.

Following from a previous poster - the speed limit is 70mph. Flawed? Of course it is. Even my people-carrier can do over 100 without breaking sweat. So should all cars be limited to 70? That would ensure no more speeding. Or should the authorities trust the majority to obey the law, and punish those who break it?

With tens of millions at stake dishonesty will always be an issue, the SFA's rules were outdated and out of place. There should be safeguards in place at association level to ensure this doesn;t happen again. Whyte broke the rules, did Murray? I'm 50/50ish on that one, though i reckon it'll come out in the wash soon enough Norm.

Yes restrict it to the speed limit and the bennett mobile can only manage 96 mph ya dick :angry: (thats banter by the way)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SFA have always been next to useless, i doubt that will ever change.

I'll skip the Whyte stuff as thats hindsight and move onto our current owners. If the SFA found out that all wasn't right with the goings on at boardroom level then i'd expect them to step and suspend the club and try to safeguard it. (goes for any other club too obviously)

Mistakes happen but we must learn from them.

Given that Campbell's still lording it over the corridors of power, I'd venture to suggest that the SFA knew more about the inner workings of rangers than they did about any other club. I wonder why they didn't step in to stop rangers doing what they wanted to do? :whistle

If you wanted your lot treating like any other club, can we assume you mean "any other club apart from Airdrieonians"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that Campbell's still lording it over the corridors of power, I'd venture to suggest that the SFA knew more about the inner workings of rangers than they did about any other club. I wonder why they didn't step in to stop rangers doing what they wanted to do? :whistle

If you wanted your lot treating like any other club, can we assume you mean "any other club apart from Airdrieonians"?

Seeing as the man in question hadn't been involved at Rangers for quite a few years i'd say you're talking out your archie again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any news on the shares mate?

Why yes......see the appropriate thread for the fact the was 'agreed conditions' on the sale of 100,000 shares last week for 6p less than value :)

6p x 100,000 is a giro and a half...............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing as the man in question hadn't been involved at Rangers for quite a few years i'd say you're talking out your archie again.

Seeing as he was a beneficiary of the discredited EBT scheme, and part of the group who implemented it, I'd say I wasn't.

ETA: Also, the legal duties of a Director include that of notifying the relevant authorities (legal, not sporting) of any suspected wrongdoing. That's the Directors at the club, not the SFA. Corporate responsibility, it's called. By keeping quiet, they were all complicit. Including your greatest ever, the one who walked away.

Edited by WhiteRoseKillie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing as he was a beneficiary of the discredited EBT scheme, and part of the group who implemented it, I'd say I wasn't.

And so is the leg breaking coont of a bigot manager of Newcastle/Blackburn etc etc............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing as he was a beneficiary of the discredited EBT scheme, and part of the group who implemented it, I'd say I wasn't.

ETA: Also, the legal duties of a Director include that of notifying the relevant authorities (legal, not sporting) of any suspected wrongdoing. That's the Directors at the club, not the SFA. Corporate responsibility, it's called. By keeping quiet, they were all complicit. Including your greatest ever, the one who walked away.

Norman just won't accpet that our EBT scheme was deemed perfectly legal and above board.

Talking out yer backside as per ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

murray - GUILTY!

whyte - GUILTY!

Old rangers board - GUILTY!

rangers supporters (old & new) - GUILTY!

Old rangers players - GUILTY!

Old rangers managers - GUILTY!

SFA - GUILTY!

Scottish "journalists" :lol: - GUILTY!

All other clubs/boards/players/supporters - INNOCENT!!!!!!

Hopefully that will clear up the argument about who was to blame in the "fit and proper person" debate. :thumsup2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Norman just won't accpet that our EBT scheme was deemed perfectly legal and above board.

Talking out yer backside as per ...

1. The EBT scheme has been widely described (including by yourself) as a "loophole" which is now closed. The operation of the scheme by rangers is still the subject of legal action by HMRC (Who I would think DO have legal experts who specialise in Tax Law). To describe them as "discredited" is, imho. fairly mild.

2. When Souness received 30K (iirc), he was employed by another football club. This is outside all SFA and FA rules.

3. If the scheme is proved to have resulted in unfair fielding of ineligible players, it will be a lot more damning of the National Association, given Ogilvie's position(s), than any "failure" by the SFA to conduct rangers' recruitment process on their behalf.

Unfortunately, Bennett, this whole shitstorm is not going away, no matter how hard you plug your ears and sing "la la la".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SFA`s FAPP has a purpose, it failed in this purpose, this really cannot be disputed.

And has green named all his big money backers who own your club? So it could be people the likes of whyte for all you know, I guess if it turns out to be a bunch of crooks that'll be the SFAs fault as well then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny I thought there was a retrial comming up to see if it was legal?

I heard that because the hearing is now upper tier if hmrc win it means they can go after anyone who got an EBT and can go after any other club that exploited the same loophole.

Maybe that's their intention all along

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny I thought there was a retrial comming up to see if it was legal?

I heard that because the hearing is now upper tier if hmrc win it means they can go after anyone who got an EBT and can go after any other club that exploited the same loophole.

Maybe that's their intention all along

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...