Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[flyingrodent]

Is it "cheating" to not hand over (or to delay handing over) additional documents or information? Not in any meaningful sense. There was no sporting advantage from not (timeously) handing over the additional documents. Therefore it was correct that there was no sporting punishment.

The Commission found that "not handing over (or delaying handing over) documents" was serious, sustained and deliberate rule breaking, so much so that they fined you quarter of a million pounds as a punishment.

The question of "sporting advantage" was rendered moot when the Committee was told that players could only be found to be improperly registered if clubs openly admitted to improperly registering players.

But let's ask: why deliberately break the rules over a decade, if not to gain an advantage? And what other kind of advantage could a football club possibly gain *except* a sporting one?

Note - if the answer is "minimising the tax bill", then you're answering your own questions here. If you have to deliberately break the rules in order to lessen your tax bill, then you're only saving money by deliberately breaking the rules.

And you're a football club.

The only reason why you avoided title stripping is that the rules were drafted on the assumption that clubs wouldn't intentionally try to scam them out of self-interest. Which was pretty naive, given that David Murray owned an SPL club at the time, and that he's been proven to have intentionally scammed the rules out of self-interest.

Edited March 5, 2013 by flyingrodent

[The_Kincardine]

You'd think, but then - that actually is an accurate summary of the Committee's findings.

Maybe or maybe not but it's meaningless.

Don't you see what a farrgo this whole pantomime set up by the self-immolating SPL has been?

Why do you take it so seriously? The premise was flawed. The process was flawed. The conclusions were flawed. It has all been a hugely expensive joke of an exercise paid for by the clubs of the SPL.

The only interesting thing is that fans of SPL clubs are not beeling that their chairmen funded such a costly and vapid exercise.

[Bearwithme]

The Commission found that "not handing over (or delaying handing over) documents" was serious, sustained and deliberate rule breaking, so much so that they fined you quarter of a million pounds as a punishment.

The question of "sporting advantage" was rendered moot when the Committee was told that players could only be found to be improperly registered if clubs openly admitted to improperly registering players.

But let's ask: why deliberately break the rules over a decade, if not to gain an advantage? And what other kind of advantage could a football club possibly gain *except* a sporting one?

Note - if the answer is "minimising the tax bill", then you're answering your own questions here. If you have to deliberately break the rules in order to lessen your tax bill, then you're only saving money by deliberately breaking the rules.

And you're a football club.

The only reason why you avoided title stripping is that the rules were drafted on the assumption that clubs wouldn't intentionally try to scam them out of self-interest. Which was pretty naive, given that David Murray owned an SPL club at the time, and that he's been proven to have intentionally scammed the rules out of self-interest.

The information wasn't handed over (timeously) in order to protect the company's tax position. It's hardly exceptional stuff for a company to be reluctant to divulge information which might hurt its tax position. It's also worth remembering that the payments themselves were not ruled to be illicit.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Bearwithme

[Monkey Tennis]

Maybe or maybe not but it's meaningless.

Don't you see what a farrgo this whole pantomime set up by the self-immolating SPL has been?

Why do you take it so seriously? The premise was flawed. The process was flawed. The conclusions were flawed. It has all been a hugely expensive joke of an exercise paid for by the clubs of the SPL.

The only interesting thing is that fans of SPL clubs are not beeling that their chairmen funded such a costly and vapid exercise.

This line of reasoning doesn't stand up.

Clearly there were irregularities in the disclosure of information that could have impacted on player registration and eligibility.

I can accept the judgement, although it disappointed me and I remain baffled by parts of it. To suggest that no such examination should ever have taken place though, smacks of the arrogance that saw the club sail so close to the wind in the first place.

[bennett]

The claim that "the majority of P&Bers claimed they were going to attend". The evidence of this being complete and utter nonsense will be on this thread from earlier.

Seriously - stop being so silly about it.

That claim is ture, either prove it to be false or stop the revisionist pish.

[Monkey Tennis]

That claim is ture, either prove it to be false or stop the revisionist pish.

It's true that "the majority of P&Bers claimed they were going to attend" that protest at Hampden?

Ok mate - think I'll leave it there.

[bennett]

The Commission found that "not handing over (or delaying handing over) documents" was serious, sustained and deliberate rule breaking, so much so that they fined you quarter of a million pounds as a punishment.

The question of "sporting advantage" was rendered moot when the Committee was told that players could only be found to be improperly registered if clubs openly admitted to improperly registering players.

But let's ask: why deliberately break the rules over a decade, if not to gain an advantage? And what other kind of advantage could a football club possibly gain *except* a sporting one?

Note - if the answer is "minimising the tax bill", then you're answering your own questions here. If you have to deliberately break the rules in order to lessen your tax bill, then you're only saving money by deliberately breaking the rules.

And you're a football club.

The only reason why you avoided title stripping is that the rules were drafted on the assumption that clubs wouldn't intentionally try to scam them out of self-interest. Which was pretty naive, given that David Murray owned an SPL club at the time, and that he's been proven to have intentionally scammed the rules out of self-interest.

Talk about being bitter and a sore loser, remember you never wanted the titles in the 1st place

The players were properly registered, Sandy Bryson from the SFA confirmed that, the whole premise for stripping titles was flawed from the start as LNS had a better understanding of the rules than the fat lawyer did.

At the end of day it's an admin error, nothing more - nothing less.

[flyingrodent]

The information wasn't handed over (timeously) in order to protect the company's tax position. It's hardly exceptional stuff for a company to be reluctant to divulge information which might hurt its tax position. It's also worth remembering that the payments themselves were not ruled to be illicit.

Let's grant most of this and say it's true. It may be commonplace for companies to do anything.

It's definitely not commonplace for football clubs to intentionally break the rules of the game over a period of ten years, in order to profit from tax breaks.

You can tell it's not commonplace, because a) very few clubs have been busted for deliberate, systematic rule breaking an because b) you were fined quarter of a million pounds for it.

And I have to repeat: the only reason you still have those titles is because the SPL rules don't recognise deliberately breaking these rules and not telling anyone about it as cheating, unless you tell people about it.

[The_Kincardine]

This line of reasoning doesn't stand up.

Clearly there were irregularities in the disclosure of information that could have impacted on player registration and eligibility.

I can accept the judgement, although it disappointed me and I remain baffled by parts of it. To suggest that no such examination should ever have taken place though, smacks of the arrogance that saw the club sail so close to the wind in the first place.

Monkey, I haven't a hint of arrogance.

I fully accept that it was perfectly acceptable for The SPL to examine our paperwork during the period in question. This could easily have been done in a low-key way and part of the normal business of a membership-body doing a reasonable check on its members.

What The SPL did, though, was up the ante and employ a group of QCs to do the business on their own behalf. They also introduced a level of hsyteria regarding title-stripping.

I agree that it was fine to ask us to justify how we did contracts. However, the way that The SPL went about it is utterly shameful and should have every fan of an SPL club spitting with rage.

[flyingrodent]

Talk about being bitter and a sore loser, remember you never wanted the titles in the 1st place

The players were properly registered, Sandy Bryson from the SFA confirmed that, the whole premise for stripping titles was flawed from the start as LNS had a better understanding of the rules than the fat lawyer did.

At the end of day it's an admin error, nothing more - nothing less.

If this was all about a simple admin error, LNS wouldn't have called it serious, sustained and deliberate rule breaking and fined you £250,000.

[Bearwithme]

Let's grant most of this and say it's true. It may be commonplace for companies to do anything.

It's definitely not commonplace for football clubs to intentionally break the rules of the game over a period of ten years, in order to profit from tax breaks.

You can tell it's not commonplace, because a) very few clubs have been busted for deliberate, systematic rule breaking an because b) you were fined quarter of a million pounds for it.

And I have to repeat: the only reason you still have those titles is because the SPL rules don't recognise deliberately breaking these rules and not telling anyone about it as cheating, unless you tell people about it.

And I'll repeat: no competitive advantage gained from the broken rules means no real "cheating". You talk up the size of the punishment. Fair enough: there was a large punishment. Time to move on.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Bearwithme

[The_Kincardine]

If this was all about a simple admin error, LNS wouldn't have called it serious, sustained and deliberate rule breaking and fined you £250,000.

It is only idiots like you who see the fine as a slap in the face for rangers. The truth is that it's a slap in the face to the discredited SPL.

What LNS really said was, "Rangers were so wrong and The SPL were so right that I will impose a fine of £250K that can never be recovered" Oh and The SPL bears all the costs.

[flyingrodent]

And I'll repeat: no competitive advantage gained means no real "cheating".

Yes. Because the SPL rules allow you to intentionally break the rules over a decade, so long as you don't tell anyone you're intentionally breaking the rules.

Fairly obviously, if the SPL had realised clubs would do this, they would've closed that particular loophole, but nobody expected a club to deliberately scam the rules for a decade.

But they reckoned without your mob, didn't they?

[flyingrodent]

Seriously - name me another club in world football who have been found guilty of deliberate and sustained rule breaking over a period of ten years.

Puts it in perspective, doesn't it?

[Bearwithme]

Yes. Because the SPL rules allow you to intentionally break the rules over a decade, so long as you don't tell anyone you're intentionally breaking the rules.

Fairly obviously, if the SPL had realised clubs would do this, they would've closed that particular loophole, but nobody expected a club to deliberately scam the rules for a decade.

But they reckoned without your mob, didn't they?

No, there was no competitive advantage because not handing over additional documentation (or being slow in handing it over) didn't help the team on the pitch. Maybe the payments helped the team but the payments were not found to be illicit.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

That's not even a wee bit true though is it Bennett?

I know WRK's already tackled you on this and Bendarroch duly awarded you a coveted greenie, but do you not prefer your posts to carry a hint of truth, in the interests of your own credibility as a poster?

I don't remember much talk about this protest ahead of the posting of the funny pictures. To suggest that "the majority of P&Bers claimed they were going to attend" is about as silly as can be.

Posting utter shit, then failing to provide evidence for it when invited to, is now becoming something of a habit you'd be better trying to shake.

Cheers MT, that really did make me chuckle.

As you'll have noticed, he's gone on to use his normal MO:

Bennett: random bollox which assumes nobody remembers anything more than an hour past.

AN Other: That's bollox.

Bennett: If you can't prove it's bollox, I'm right, I win and my Amigos will back me up and massage my ego.

Strange, lonely life the chap must lead....

[youngsy]

Plainly, then - Rangers were found guilty of deliberate, serious and sustained rule-breaking. That's why you were fined £250,000.

But the committee said it couldn't find that this amounted to a "sporting advantage". This is why you avoided the ultimate penalty.

Why couldn't they find you had gained an advantage? Because the SFA guy said players count as properly registered, even if they are improperly registered, unless players are found to be improperly registered.

What does this mean? It means that intentionally misregistering players doesn't count as misregistering players, unless you tell people that you're misregistering players.

Or, shorter - you can deliberately break the rules but if you don't tell people that you're breaking the rules, it doesn't count as cheating.

Rangers were found guilty of intentionally breaking the rules, but because you didn't tell anyone, it doesn't count as cheating.

This isn't so much "a technicality" as a giant, stomping, roaring Technicalitosaurus Rex, but it's all that stood between you and title stripping.

But even if you ignore all this, which you will, the bottom line remains guilty; serious, sustained and deliberate rule breaking, for which you received a massive fine.

And to repeat - nobody in history has ever been fined £250,000 for not cheating.

You've just posted a big pile of nonsense on this so it's probably better if you leave it alone now because all you're moaning is doing you no good whatsoever and in fact is making you come across as a very bitter,angry idiotic person. To summarise the club was found guilty of non-disclosure but were found that not one of the players registered was illegally or improperly registered. That's the finding of the SPL Commission and with that finding it transpires that the club did not benefit from any sporting advantage so therefore no loss of honours. That's the facts and no matter how much you shout against the findings it does not matter,you won't change it,the SPL have accepted it,perhaps you should do the same.

[flyingrodent]

So the you are saying the SPL had weak rules that are not fit for purpose and this is somehow Rangers fault?

Not only that but you want retrospective punishments applied for rules that allowed Rangers to break the rules?

Not saying that any of what you wrote is accurate but even if it was then applying retrospective punishments would be utterly wrong in that situation, you do realise this yes?

But it's not up to the SPL to think of every way that a club can break the rules, then find ways to prevent it. There's a reasonable expectation that clubs act in good faith, i.e. That they won't intentionally seek to gain by breaking whichever rules they think they can get away with breaking.

Were it otherwise, it would be tantamount to saying that it's the SPL's fault that Rangers deliberately broke the rules. And that's ridiculous, isn't it?

[flyingrodent]

You've just posted a big pile of nonsense on this so it's probably better if you leave it alone now because all you're moaning is doing you no good whatsoever and in fact is making you come across as a very bitter,angry idiotic person. To summarise the club was found guilty of non-disclosure but were found that not one of the players registered was illegally or improperly registered. That's the finding of the SPL Commission and with that finding it transpires that the club did not benefit from any sporting advantage so therefore no loss of honours. That's the facts and no matter how much you shout against the findings it does not matter,you won't change it,the SPL have accepted it,perhaps you should do the same.

The sum total of what you've said there is that if you ignore the Commission's explanation of its verdict, then it sounds far less damning.

And indeed, it's true! If you ignore the fine and the sustained, deliberate rule breaking and the reasons why the the words "sporting advantage" are even in the document, it all looks much, much better for Rangers.

[The_Kincardine]

So this fiasco has cost each SPL club arounf £40K. This is the cost of an additional player for, say, Dundee.

Why aren't fans of SPL clubs furious about how The SPL have pished away their income?