Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Bearwithme]

Calm down son. The "facts of our justice system" includes the right to appeal does it not? Or do you think that the Old Rangers are above the justice system you obviously know so much about. Diddy team? Nice one.

So much fuss about a club they claim is dead and gone.

The appeal period for the LNS verdict is over. I seriously doubt it will be "revisited" in the fairly distant future.

[Bendarroch]

I accept LNS's verdict 100% here and now. But, should Rangers lose the Upper Tier Tribunal appeal this decision will need to be revisited. The nuance of the case is that if these "payments" are not deemed to be "loans", Rangers would have evaded millions of pounds in tax and NI contributions. It would then follow that they did indeed "gain a sporting advantage" and "employ players they could not afford".

I am not suggesting that they will lose the appeal, but it is a possibility. Do you accept that? Do you accept that LNS's decision would need to be revisited in that eventuality? Do you accept that in that eventuality Rangers would have "gained a sporting advantage"?

So, like I said, the appeal hearing is vitally important in more ways than one, don't you agree?

In reality you don't accept the LNS decision at all.

And that's before any debate on HMRC winning the appeal only for Murray to appeal that decision if it ever happens.

There is no comeback to the LNS decision as I understand it, because there is nothing in the SPL rules that allows for players registrations to be revoked retrospectively.

[AUFC90]

I accept LNS's verdict 100% here and now. But, should Rangers lose the Upper Tier Tribunal appeal this decision will need to be revisited. The nuance of the case is that if these "payments" are not deemed to be "loans", Rangers would have evaded millions of pounds in tax and NI contributions. It would then follow that they did indeed "gain a sporting advantage" and "employ players they could not afford".

I am not suggesting that they will lose the appeal, but it is a possibility. Do you accept that? Do you accept that LNS's decision would need to be revisited in that eventuality? Do you accept that in that eventuality Rangers would have "gained a sporting advantage"?

So, like I said, the appeal hearing is vitally important in more ways than one, don't you agree?

Do you seriously think that if the UTTT goes against rangers that the LNS enquiry will be re visited? The Scottish footballing authorities have already. Shown they do not have the stomach for it. Doesn't matter anyway. We all know they are cheats. Loans my arse

[Cookies71]

I said I would accept 100% this verdict, I have, an appeal changes nothing of this acceptance, it is still 100%

If someone is guilty they are 100% guilty, the fact they decide to appeal does not change this fact, the verdict stands, they are still 100% guilty.

The bottom line is that you really accept neither verdict or at least you are only willing to cherry pick what you accept, the LNS verdict will never be revisited it is 100% over so tell me do you accept the verdict or not? A simple "yes" or "no" is all that is needed.

100% acceptance of an, as yet, unfinalised verdict means nothing. (UTT etc)

And yes I do accept the LNS verdict. It said Old Rangers cheated and they were punished accordingly. I don't buy into conspiracy theories or try and warp findings to suit my own agenda.

Do you accept that Old Rangers cheated as you seem to 100% accept the verdict. Simple yes or no (apparently) will do.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Cookies71

[barrysnotter]

In reality you don't accept the LNS decision at all.

And that's before any debate on HMRC winning the appeal only for Murray to appeal that decision if it ever happens.

There is no comeback to the LNS decision as I understand it, because there is nothing in the SPL rules that allows for players registrations to be revoked retrospectively.

In reality I can assure you I do accept LNS's decision. His decision is correct based on the present circumstances, Rangers are guilty of administrative breaches.

Should those circumstances change significantly, the case needs revisited. As LNS has pointed out, he was effectively looking into a case of "administrative errors" (I.e. failure to fill out the forms correctly), should Rangers be found to have evaded millions of pounds worth of tax, their "crime" in the footballing sense changes from being administrative to something significantly more serious. If that was found to be the case it would need to be investigated. Don't you agree?

I asked Bennett a few questions in my last post, would be interesting to know your answers as well.

I suspect there is a potential route to revisit this but in reality I sense that those in positions of power will have no appetite for it, that does not make it right though.

Nothing is settled until the UTT is settled.

[Fotbawmad]

In reality you don't accept the LNS decision at all.

And that's before any debate on HMRC winning the appeal only for Murray to appeal that decision if it ever happens.

There is no comeback to the LNS decision as I understand it, because there is nothing in the SPL rules that allows for players registrations to be revoked retrospectively.

Moonbeams is virtually broke. There is no reason he would appeal. He'd rather live out the rest of the days in his vineyard in France.

[Fotbawmad]

There were sanctions which could be imposed in terms of the Rules which were capable of affecting Rangers FC as a continuing entity now owned and operated by Newco.

So will you be having a party when Dunfermline die in the coming weeks?

[Cookies71]

No I dont but then as you know the word cheating was never used, piss poor attempt from you.

The word cheating was never used I accept this. do you? yes or no is fine.

Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of the SPL Rules, I accept this do you? yes or no?

and Nimmo also said.

There were sanctions which could be imposed in terms of the Rules which were capable of affecting Rangers FC as a continuing entity now owned and operated by Newco.

Do you accept this yes or no?

Calm down son. All that changing of font size and bolding of letters will give your fingers cramp.

To answer your questions in an adult manner.

Cheating was wrong wording. I'll give you that. Guilty verdict - do you accept that?

As for the rest.......as said above "Nothing is settled until the UTT is settled". If Old Rangers are found guilty of this on appeal then LNS verdict is rendered meaningless - do you accept that?

Nimmo saying "continuing entity" is only his opinion. He was not there to rule on the continuingness of Rangers / Sevco. Do you accept that?

[No8.]

Jelly and ice cream time.

[Cookies71]

Answer my questions then I will answer yours.

I already have..........

Yes, No, No

Now answer mine so clearly (I sincerely doubt this will happen)

Edited March 8, 2013 by Cookies71

[Cookies71]

I'll accept the "finalised" verdict on the 2 points I said No to as, until the UTT case has been completed, this verdict means nothing. If Old Rangers are found guilty on appeal with the UTT case it renders the LNS investigation meaningless.

I answered your questions as you asked. Be a man and do the same in kind.

[Celtic Rebel.]

Hawd on - you actually like the IRA loving bigot?

Aye,so what.?

[Bendarroch]

If that was found to be the case it would need to be investigated. Don't you agree?

Nothing is settled until the UTT is settled.

No, I don't agree. Not least because the SPL rules don't allow for retrospective changes.

And the UTT would settle nothing if either of the losing sides decided to launch any additional appeal. I'm not sure if this stops eventually at the Supreme court or some other court above even that in Europe.

I can be sure I wont be here discussing it for decades to come.

[Bendarroch]

Aye,so what.?

So, it wasn't enough that you already come across as the complete tool.

[Bendarroch]

If Old Rangers are found guilty of this on appeal then LNS verdict is rendered meaningless - do you accept that?

Nimmo saying "continuing entity" is only his opinion. He was not there to rule on the continuingness of Rangers / Sevco. Do you accept that?

Awesome straw-clutching. Well worthy of dolly.

[youngsy]

I accept LNS's verdict 100% here and now. But, should Rangers lose the Upper Tier Tribunal appeal this decision will need to be revisited. The nuance of the case is that if these "payments" are not deemed to be "loans", Rangers would have evaded millions of pounds in tax and NI contributions. It would then follow that they did indeed "gain a sporting advantage" and "employ players they could not afford".

I am not suggesting that they will lose the appeal, but it is a possibility. Do you accept that? Do you accept that LNS's decision would need to be revisited in that eventuality? Do you accept that in that eventuality Rangers would have "gained a sporting advantage"?

So, like I said, the appeal hearing is vitally important in more ways than one, don't you agree?

I can see where you're coming from here but the SPL Commission was not about the legality or otherwise of the EBTs but about side contracts,side letters,call them what you will and as such the crux of the SPL investigation was about the registering and playing of ineligible players on the field of play and the stripping of honuours. So as such the UTT findings won't impact on the SPL Commission findings. In my humble opinion of course.

[barrysnotter]

If that was found to be the case it would need to be investigated. Don't you agree?

Nothing is settled until the UTT is settled.

No, I don't agree. Not least because the SPL rules don't allow for retrospective changes.

And the UTT would settle nothing if either of the losing sides decided to launch any additional appeal. I'm not sure if this stops eventually at the Supreme court or some other court above even that in Europe.

I can be sure I wont be here discussing it for decades to come.

Never mind what the SPL does/doesn't do, we are talking hypothetically here.

So you don't agree that *should* Rangers lose the UTT the material facts surrounding LNS's decision would have changed?

Of course the same applies if there is any further appeal upheld but that is irrelevant.

As for Cookie's comments regarding "final decision, he is wrong. The fact that there is an appeal is irrelevant. Until the result of that appeal, in the eyes of the law, the current tribunal finding is 100% correct, it is not an interim position..

Edited March 8, 2013 by barrysnotter

[Cookies71]

That is not what you said earlier.

You are cherry picking the bits you like along with making up things which are simply not there.

LNS`s verdict was not appealed, it will never change, the deadline has passed.

I accept the verdict 100% you on the other hand do not, your choice, good luck with your appeal in 2 years or so.

Until you answer my questions (as I had the common decency to do for you) your input is meaningless.

[Celtic Rebel.]

So, it wasn't enough that you already come across as the complete tool.

Aye,if you say so,no doubt you have never been with company like Andy Pandy Goram like?

[bennett]

So will you be having a party when Dunfermline die in the coming weeks?

Why? We've been through what they're going through right now and wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Your post does you no favours.