Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Bendarroch]

Britney on Scotland tonight the now.

Fucking lovely -

[No8.]

It was a stitch up from start to finish. There was never a case to answer but they hoped loding the tax case would help their cause...we won that and this witch hunt should have ended there and then. It is an absolute disgrace this has reached this stage.

Even with Rangers not defending themselves ... even with a hand picked panel by the SPL for the SPL... Even with Celtics lawyers used to gather the evidence they couldn't get a guilty charge against Rangers.

They knew if this went to court we would win again. It would have ruined them financially and this is why i hope we appeal...f**k building bridges with those corrupt to the core b*****ds

[~~~]

You can see the seethe on Chris Grahams face.

Pleasing

Is anyone left outside Ibrox who doesn't have an "anti rangers" agenda

[Fotbawmad]

Britney on Scotland tonight the now.

Fucking lovely -

Unlike Chris Graham, he doesn't talk out of his arse to nearly the same extent.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Fotbawmad

[~~~]

It was a stitch up from start to finish. There was never a case to answer but they hoped loding the tax case would help their cause...we won that and this witch hunt should have ended there and then. It is an absolute disgrace this has reached this stage.

Even with Rangers not defending themselves ... even with a hand picked panel by the SPL for the SPL... Even with Celtics lawyers used to gather the evidence they couldn't get a guilty charge against Rangers.

They knew if this went to court we would win again. It would have ruined them financially and this is why i hope we appeal...f**k building bridges with those corrupt to the core b*****ds

[youngsy]

In general though, why do the fans keep having to try and convince everyone how big they are and crow about it?

I have spoken to many a Man U, Liverpool fan etc and have never experienced them feel the need to try and justify the size of their clubs. They know where they stand in the game and are happy with it. They would happily chat away about football in general but obvioulsy arent too clued up on Scottish football as, despite what the media up here would have you believe, they dont generally pay much attention to it.

This is in my experience of course.

Your experience of Man Utd fans is very much different from mine then because in the many years i've lived here they've mostly always tried to put across how big they are in the game, especially since they started to be successful under Ferguson. I do agree however that for the most part English fans don't take any great interest in the Scottish game, although there have been a few interested in what has happened at Rangers.

[flyingrodent]

and yet Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage

Do you want me to admit (again) that I am embarrassed the club I support got into financial difficulty and could not pay those creditors?

Ok I admit it (again)

How many more hail marys?

The Commission, of course, said that they didn't find any evidence that Rangers gained an unfair advantage, which is a very different thing to "did not gain any unfair advantage".

So the question is - if they weren't gaining any unfair advantage, why not just hand over evidence of side-payments to the authorities? Why bother busting a gut to hide these letters from HMRC?

And more to the point, if undisclosed payments aren't used to gain an unfair advantage, why even bother having a rule against them in the first place?

At brass tacks, the decision is - Rangers intentionally broke the rules in the full knowledge that they were doing so, and deliberately attempted to conceal the fact that they were breaking the rules... But because we can't prove they benefited from breaking the rules, we can't punish them.

Now, that's a damn odd decision, isn't it? Since when did anyone need to demonstrate that a criminal has benefited from his crime, before punishment becomes a possibility?

[youngsy]

The directors tried to hide it, I'll ask you also. have you read the verdict?

How could the directors try to hide it when it was in the yearly accounts?

[Double Jack D]

I have to admit I'm finding this ruling to be a bit difficult to take.

The players were registered but the second contracts were not notified to the SPL. The rule appears to be that the SPL would have to revoke the registration had they been aware of the second contract. However, had they been aware then there would've been no wrongdoing as the second contracts would have been registered with them. What a mindfuck!

Ultimately SPL rules are not fit for purpose and SPL are not aware of own rules. Rangers correctly found not guilty as players were registered therefore no competitive advantage gained. Overall result is the Scottish game loses another wedge of credibility due to the inadequate SPL governance.

There needs to be a wholesale change in how things are run and the people in charge. The game is lurching from farce to farce. We have 3 organisation running the game, none of which are fit for purpose.

I don't know the answer but the game up here will be finished unless there is drastic and fundamental change, and soon.

[~~~]

How could the directors try to hide it when it was in the yearly accounts?

Did you read the verdict?

[flyingrodent]

Or, more plainly - it was proven that Rangers intentionally conspired to break the rules on player registration by offering cash bonuses, then deliberately concealed evidence that they had done so from the authorities.

But according to the Commission, this doesn't mean that the players weren't registered properly, because the players weren't found to be improperly registered at the time.

So the Commission are saying - you can intentionally break the rules; deliberately keep evidence of your rule-breaking from the authorities, and so long as they don't catch you doing it at that time, you get to keep everything you can grab while breaking the rules?

I guess I'll never understand the law. Loans you never have to pay back; laws that are only broken if you're caught red-handed breaking them. It makes no sense to me but then, I'm not a judge.

[Celtic Rebel.]

Your experience of Man Utd fans is very much different from mine then because in the many years i've lived here they've mostly always tried to put across how big they are in the game, especially since they started to be successful under Ferguson. I do agree however that for the most part English fans don't take any great interest in the Scottish game, although there have been a few interested in what has happened at Rangers.

Aye,especially after wrecking the city.

[saint john]

The Commission, of course, said that they didn't find any evidence that Rangers gained an unfair advantage, which is a very different thing to "did not gain any unfair advantage".

So the question is - if they weren't gaining any unfair advantage, why not just hand over evidence of side-payments to the authorities? Why bother busting a gut to hide these letters from HMRC?

And more to the point, if undisclosed payments aren't used to gain an unfair advantage, why even bother having a rule against them in the first place?

At brass tacks, the decision is - Rangers intentionally broke the rules in the full knowledge that they were doing so, and deliberately attempted to conceal the fact that they were breaking the rules... But because we can't prove they benefited from breaking the rules, we can't punish them.

Now, that's a damn odd decision, isn't it? Since when did anyone need to demonstrate that a criminal has benefited from his crime, before punishment becomes a possibility?

A team playing a cup-tie fields a player who has not been registered correctly.

The player gets sent off in the first minute, giving no advantage to the club who subsequently go on to win the tie.

Will the club be expelled from the cup competition?

Will it depend on which club he plays for?

If he plays for the full 90mins and scores a hat trick will that make any difference to any investigation?

[Half Rice Half Chips]

Because they did not disclose the paperwork for some perfectly legal payments, an admin error, one that did not give them an advantage on the field of play.

Quarter if a mill fine for an "admin error"?

f**k me, that's some admin error.

[~~~]

In order to strip us of titles, they have to prove we won those titles unfairly on the field of play, the prima facie evidence was a sham, there were no dual contracts, there were no improperly registered players, we were correctly found not guilty on this regard, we gained no advantage on the field of play, we did not cheat.

The only people who mentioned Title stripping has been Rangers!!!

The evidence was not a sham, you have been found guilty, have a read of the verdict.

[Celtic Rebel.]

Or, more plainly - it was proven that Rangers intentionally conspired to break the rules on player registration by offering cash bonuses, then deliberately concealed evidence that they had done so from the authorities.

But according to the Commission, this doesn't mean that the players weren't registered properly, because the players weren't found to be improperly registered at the time.

So the Commission are saying - you can intentionally break the rules; deliberately keep evidence of your rule-breaking from the authorities, and so long as they don't catch you doing it at that time, you get to keep everything you can grab while breaking the rules?

I guess I'll never understand the law. Loans you never have to pay back; laws that are only broken if you're caught red-handed breaking them. It makes no sense to me but then, I'm not a judge.

As the saying goes 'The law is an ass.'

[~~~]

Quarter if a mill fine for an "admin error"?

f**k me, that's some admin error.

An admin error made year after year for over a decade

[Bendarroch]

Unlike Chris Graham, he doesn't talk out of his arse to nearly the same extent.

Britney's arse appears to be stuck right in the middle of his face - he's talking complete and utter shite. He looks distraught.

Chris Graham telling all listening that Rangers supporters are feeling good today is a simple statement of fact.

[youngsy]

Did you read the verdict?

Never answer a question with a question; now can you explain how the directors could try to hide any of this when it was all in the yearly accounts?

[flyingrodent]

In order to strip us of titles, they have to prove we won those titles unfairly on the field of play, the prima facie evidence was a sham, there were no dual contracts, there were no improperly registered players, we were correctly found not guilty on this regard, we gained no advantage on the field of play, we did not cheat.

So, you were found to be deliberately breaking the rules of the game by using side-payments and you've got off on the player registration issue because the Commission couldn't find evidence that your intentional cheating gave you an on-the-park advantage?

If you're not gaining an advantage, why bother cheating in the first place? Do bear in mind that you have actually been found guilty of cheating here, rather than innocent.

Can you explain to me why any sane human being hearing this wouldn't conclude that you're a bunch of cheating conmen who have slithered away from punishment on a farcical legal technicality?

If there's any other conclusion to be drawn here, I certainly can't see it. The only accurate headline tomorrow is "Commission - We Can't Punish Cheating Frauds Rangers, For Bullshit Reasons".