Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[youngsy]

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 sum total of what i've said is the fact that the SPL Commission found the club guilty of non-disclosure of payments over a period of time,that's indisputable and accepted. However what you patently ignore is the fact that the club was found to not have broken any rules as regards playing players that were ineligible to play. That's a fact of the Commission findings, something which pains you very much to accept.

The whole crux of this case was about finding Rangers guilty of playing ineligible players and the removal of honours,that did not happen,rendering every point you try to make otherwise completely null and void. I suggest that you try and get over this because it seems to be eating away at you.

Edited March 6, 2013 by youngsy

[captain kirk]

That's the word that makes it "sectarian" any other part of it is fair game and isn't banned.

Again I love the irony of a Celtic fan trying to take the moral high ground here you little peasant.

There's one for you who sees nothing wrong with TBBs , a song about a sectarian anti semetic racist gang of murders , the gang that introduced the kkk to Glasgow according to him it's ok to sing about being TBBs as long as you don't use the f word.

I look forward to you condemning him although I wont hold my breathe.

Ps I'll dig out other bears who ok this song too if you need it?

So just explain what point you raised many times. While you're at it please point out just where, "all rangers fans on here still see no problem singing it"

Just to make it clear I have been on here for 6 years. During that time I have never seen one single Bear trying to justify a sectarian song: quite the opposite.

Now if you truly disagree then please give supporting evidence. You can't.

[flyingrodent]

The sum total of what i've said is the fact that the SPL Commission found the club guilty of non-disclosure of payments over a period of time,that's indisputable and accepted. However what you patently ignore is the fact that the club was found to not have broken any rules as regards playing players that were ineligible to play. That's a fact of the Commission findings, something which pains you very much to accept.

The whole crux of this case was about finding Rangers guilty of playing ineligible players and the removal of honours,that did not happen,rendering every point you try to make otherwise completely null and void. I suggest that you try and get over this because it seems to be eating away at you.

Having a quick look through this thread from last night, a few things jump out pretty starkly.

First, you can't credibly accuse me of "ignoring" the Commission's finding that Rangers players were legally registered, when I repeatedly acknowledge that and then recite the Commission's reasoning in reaching that decision.

The Commission itself stated that players were legally registered because under the then-existing rules, a player is regarded as properly registered unless he was found to be improperly registered *at the time*. That's a giant, glaring loophole and it's the reason why your titles weren't stripped. It's not in doubt that you were deliberately breaking the rules on player registration, because you were found guilty of serious and intentional rule breaking.

This isn't up for debate, by the way. It's an accurate summary of the Commission's findings.

Secondly, isn't it interesting that a bunch of guys who have no trouble wrapping their heads around Italian business law and so on when it suits them, are suddenly overcome with confusion when it comes to such a comparatively simple issue?

I mean, you seem to be fine with people noting the Commission's conclusions, but outraged when anyone explains the reasons why they say they came to those conclusions.

You can say "no sporting advantage", but the second you look at *why* they said that, it's all calls to close the thread, and pretending not to understand and accusations of obsession and so on and on and on.

Isn't that odd? It looks a bit like it's me who understands this report, and you lot who are desperately trying to avoid its conclusions. But I thought this report was correct in all ways, unimpeachable and unquestionable?

Now, that is strange.

[10 CC ICT]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-21652353

Probably old news but lolololololololololololololololololol

[thelegendthatis]

The sum total of what i've said is the fact that the SPL Commission found the club guilty of non-disclosure of payments over a period of time,that's indisputable and accepted. However what you patently ignore is the fact that the club was found to not have broken any rules as regards playing players that were ineligible to play. That's a fact of the Commission findings, something which pains you very much to accept.

The whole crux of this case was about finding Rangers guilty of playing ineligible players and the removal of honours,that did not happen,rendering every point you try to make otherwise completely null and void. I suggest that you try and get over this because it seems to be eating away at you.

Youngsy, as one of the few "The Rangers" supporters here with a brain (one that works) I would like your opinion on the EBTs.

If we agree that the old Rangers gained no advantage in attracting better players than they could have done otherwise, why did Murray bother with EBTs?

They obviously came with an overhead in setting up, administering and reporting etc. There was also the risk of them being found unacceptable by the SFA, SPL or HMRC. This concern is shown in their non disclosure at the time.

Why then go to all that bother if no advantage was to be gained?

I could ask Tedi or No 8 but I know would only get a same old, same old garbled Rab C Nesbitt style answer.

[Double Jack D]

The sum total of what i've said is the fact that the SPL Commission found the club guilty of non-disclosure of payments over a period of time,that's indisputable and accepted. However what you patently ignore is the fact that the club was found to not have broken any rules as regards playing players that were ineligible to play. That's a fact of the Commission findings, something which pains you very much to accept.

The whole crux of this case was about finding Rangers guilty of playing ineligible players and the removal of honours,that did not happen,rendering every point you try to make otherwise completely null and void. I suggest that you try and get over this because it seems to be eating away at you.

Having a quick look through this thread from last night, a few things jump out pretty starkly.

First, you can't credibly accuse me of "ignoring" the Commission's finding that Rangers players were legally registered, when I repeatedly acknowledge that and then recite the Commission's reasoning in reaching that decision.

The Commission itself stated that players were legally registered because under the then-existing rules, a player is regarded as properly registered unless he was found to be improperly registered *at the time*. That's a giant, glaring loophole and it's the reason why your titles weren't stripped. It's not in doubt that you were deliberately breaking the rules on player registration, because you were found guilty of serious and intentional rule breaking.

This isn't up for debate, by the way. It's an accurate summary of the Commission's findings.

Secondly, isn't it interesting that a bunch of guys who have no trouble wrapping their heads around Italian business law and so on when it suits them, are suddenly overcome with confusion when it comes to such a comparatively simple issue?

I mean, you seem to be fine with people noting the Commission's conclusions, but outraged when anyone explains the reasons why they say they came to those conclusions.

You can say "no sporting advantage", but the second you look at *why* they said that, it's all calls to close the thread, and pretending not to understand and accusations of obsession and so on and on and on.

Isn't that odd? It looks a bit like it's me who understands this report, and you lot who are desperately trying to avoid its conclusions. But I thought this report was correct in all ways, unimpeachable and unquestionable?

Now, that is strange.

Exactly.

The report is clear that Rangers broke the rules regarding disclosure of payments to players. A serious breach of SFA rules resulting in a fine of £250k, a fine greater than anything any club in Scottish football has ever seen.

However, the players were properly registered because to be ineligible the registrations would have to be revoked by the SFA. The SFA, being unaware of the additional payments, had no reason to revoke them at that time. Perversely, had rangers declared them to the SFA then no rules would have been broken.

This shows a rule not fit for purpose. It categorically does not show an admin error.

LNS has got the report spot on and it is a damning indictment of old Rangers and the SFA rules regarding player registration.

[Bendarroch]

a giant, glaring loophole and it's the reason why your titles weren't stripped. It's not in doubt that you were deliberately breaking the rules on player registration, because you were found guilty of serious and intentional rule breaking.

This isn't up for debate, by the way. It's an accurate summary of the Commission's findings.

Secondly, isn't it interesting that a bunch of guys who have no trouble wrapping their heads around Italian business law and so on when it suits them, are suddenly overcome with confusion when it comes to such a comparatively simple issue?

It is, of course, up for debate. Firstly, we could debate just how serious the issue was, because the panel concluded that no sporting advantage was gained. They had many options before them to punish us - they chose a fine for the oldco. Serious enough, of course, but not the end of the world. They could have expelled us from the game, stripped titles - any number of things.

They didn't.

And, secondly? You'll find that everyone understood you at the first time of asking. You were roundly mocked. But, how many times have you rattled the cage now? At the, what, 31st, 44th or 57th time of asking - it's clear you are still howling at the moon.

Maybe if you made the point another hundred times, with slight variations on your theme, approach and attack, you might find some new ways to be mocked for behaving like a bairn who's dropped his cone.

I can't disagree the rules the SPL have are a nonsense - but, you already knew that. Didn't McBride drive through them when he managed to get yella-fang a reduced ban? And didn't McBride slaughter the SPL for having an inept rule-book?

He did. I just don't recall the plastics howling at the SPL's moon when it suited you for the SPL to be pish at that they do.

[AUFC90]

To summarise. Guilty on all accounts. Biggest fine ever imposed. No further punishment because they didn't catch them in the act. Yep confirmed cheats but a fantastic victory. Cheering at the rooftops for being the biggest cheats in Scottish football ever. Well done them

[Bendarroch]

To summarise. Guilty on all accounts. Biggest fine ever imposed. No further punishment because they didn't catch them in the act. Yep confirmed cheats but a fantastic victory. Cheering at the rooftops for being the biggest cheats in Scottish football ever. Well done them

Wibble, wibble...

[AUFC90]

Wibble, wibble...

Nope, merely summarising what happened

[Ken Fitlike]

Nope, merely summarising what happened

The most perverse thing of all is that THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO SHAME. As confirmed by the The Rangers contributers to the BRALT.

'gained no sporting advantage' - their aren't enough WTF??s in the world to do justice to that.

These people don't wish to simply participate in sporting competition like everyone else. They just want to do their arrogant WATP schtick with flute band music playing in the background.

Roll on the next administration.

[AUFC90]

The most perverse thing of all is that THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO SHAME. As confirmed by the The Rangers contributers to the BRALT.

'gained no sporting advantage' - their aren't enough WTF??s in the world to do justice to that.

These people don't wish to simply participate in sporting competition like everyone else. They just want to do their arrogant WATP schtick with flute band music playing in the background.

Roll on the next administration.

Yep that is the worst thing of all. They don't give 2 craps about anyone. If they both leave for England tomorrow I'll be out on the street partying

[AUFC90]

The most perverse thing of all is that THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO SHAME. As confirmed by the The Rangers contributers to the BRALT.

'gained no sporting advantage' - their aren't enough WTF??s in the world to do justice to that.

These people don't wish to simply participate in sporting competition like everyone else. They just want to do their arrogant WATP schtick with flute band music playing in the background.

Roll on the next administration.

U just need to take a quick glance on their forums regarding john Daly to confirm that this club are out-dated and hate-filled. Stranraer had the right idea

[Bendarroch]

'gained no sporting advantage' - their aren't enough WTF??s in the world to do justice to that.

Tell it to the judge.

And we did participate in the competitions 'just like everybody else'. They declared we had no sporting advantage. Just like everybody else.

And you want to talk about arrogance whilst declaring you know better than the law lords and two QC's?

A WTF from a plumber, librarian, truck driver or jannie isn't cutting it in the credibility stakes.

[bennett]

Yep that is the worst thing of all. They don't give 2 craps about anyone. If they both leave for England tomorrow I'll be out on the street partying

Get a life party boy.

[Bendarroch]

Yep that is the worst thing of all. They don't give 2 craps about anyone. If they both leave for England tomorrow I'll be out on the street partying

I think it's fair to say that you don't give '2 craps' about our club.

Diddy clubber - can dish it out, cannot take it back.

Wibble, wibble...

[AUFC90]

Tell it to the judge.

And we did participate in the competitions 'just like everybody else'. They declared we had no sporting advantage. Just like everybody else.

And you want to talk about arrogance whilst declaring you know better than the law lords and two QC's?

A WTF from a plumber, librarian, truck driver or jannie isn't cutting it in the credibility stakes.

Answer 2 questions then without deflecting. If no on field advantage was sought, why do it?

Also, bearing in mind rangers admitted to the FTTT that the purpose of the EBTs was to attract better players, how on earth giving Steven Davis 1.4 mill tax free to entice him to sign isn't gaining an advantage. A straight answer to those 2 would be nice.

It clearly stinks to high heaven so forgive me for thinkin the lord had too much bevvy when he came up with that nonsense

Edited March 6, 2013 by AUFC90

[bennett]

I just had a quick look at the FF thread you alluded to.. Those many P&B folk who also belong to FF can see the thread here:

http://forum.followfollow.com/showthread.php?t=942757

Looks to me like most folk agree with the contemt of what Chuck said but disagreed with his attitude.

Is that the grass the person beside you or be banned yourself thread? (pop up blockers doing it's thing)

While i agree with Charlie about banning anyone for singing or chanting anything sectarian, he employs stewards and pays the police to deal with them. It shouldn't be up to other fans to sort them out, just another example of Charlie not thinking things through properly.

[bennett]

Answer 2 questions then without deflecting. If no on field advantage was sought, why do it?

Also, bearing in mind rangers admitted to the FTTT that the purpose of the EBTs was to attract better players, how on earth giving Steven Davis 1.4 mill tax free to entice him to sign isn't gaining an advantage. A straight answer to those 2 would be nice.

It clearly stinks to high heaven so forgive me for thinkin the lord had too much bevvy when he came up with that nonsense

You really need to get over it.

The FTTT cleared us and LNS declared there was no cheating.

Keep on spewing and

[AUFC90]

I think it's fair to say that you don't give '2 craps' about our club.

Diddy clubber - can dish it out, cannot take it back.

Wibble, wibble...

If my club had cheated for years and caused untold damage to the game, yes I would give a f**k