Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[youngsy]

Youngsy, the verdict says that Rangers intentionally broke the rules over a ten-year period. That's why it levies a massive fine on the dead Oldco. Clubs don't generally get handed massive fines for not-cheating, and LNS is crystal-clear on his reasons for handing out the fine.

It also says that the SPL's rules* mean that clubs have to be caught cheating while they're cheating, if they're to be punished, and observes it again before it hands down the gigantic fine.

You got off solely because you weren't caught cheating while you were cheating, due to a legal loophole. That's why LNS says you "didn't gain an advantage" - because under the rules, your cheating wasn't cheating. Because you weren't caught at the time.

See?

It's not like this is hard to grasp - it's in the executive summary, the bit that's deliberately easy to read. That's the bit you read, remember?

*Which were plainly drawn up by the type of idiot who didn't think clubs - like Rangers - would try to cheat.

I've asked you to show the quotations you've put forward where they are on the SPL summation,you have failed to do this,simply because you,along with others,cannot and will not accept the findings of both the EBTtribunal and the SPL Commision. Now i accept that not everything at Rangers under Murray was up front but,unlike yourself and others, i was prepared to accept the findings of both commissions,you are unable to accept that, quite simply because of your hatred and bitterness to a football club. Try and accept the summations as they stand,neither you or myself will change them,you may not agree with them but you have to go with decisions,whether youlike it or not. So let's see those quotations that you've very cleverly tried to apply to the SPL Commission. We're not all naive you know.

[Henrik's tongue]

Rangers fans will have to take the stigma of cheating to their graves I'm afraid. All the online hissy fits in the world aren't going to change that.

Lovely.

[youngsy]

Rangers fans will have to take the stigma of cheating to their graves I'm afraid. All the online hissy fits in the world aren't going to change that.

Lovely.

Pish. By the way is that your bluenose missus trying to force a pillow over your face.

[Henrik's tongue]

Pish. By the way is that your bluenose missus trying to force a pillow over your face.

Ask around Scotland about said "pish" ma man.

[flyingrodent]

Show us all where these words of yours appear on the SPL Commission summation. I'll help you out here, they don't, all these words that you have posted show you up to be the bigot that you undoubtably are.

Although fair play to you;you do hide it very well,in saying that some can pick up on exactly what you are. So come on show where the words "because they weren't caught gaining an unfair advantage and playing ineligible players at the time when they were gaining an unfair advantage and playing ineligible players"are on the SPL Commission summation. That's your words,not the SPL Commissions words.So show where those words were stated by the commission. You've just made an absolute cunto of yourself with that statement.

Here's the relevant passage:

Mr McKenzie explained to us that SPL Rule D1.13 had hitherto been understood to mean that if, at the time of registration, a document was not lodged as required, the consequence was that a condition of registration was broken and the player automatically became ineligible to play in terms of SPL Rule D1.11.

He accepted however that there was scope for a different construction of the rule, to the effect that, as the lodging of the document in question was a condition of registration, the registration of the player would be liable to revocation, with the consequence that the player would thereafter become ineligible to play.

He accepted that no provision of the Rules enabled the Board of the SPL retrospectively to terminate the registration of the player. It became apparent from his submissions that Mr McKenzie was not pressing for a finding that Issue 3©, together with the concluding words of Issue 3(b), had been proved.

Right, this is going to be long, boring, wordy and confusing, because it's a bit legalistic. Pay attention:

That's Lord Nimmo Smith deciding that the SPL can't retrospectively declare players improperly registered, no matter how very dodgy their registration. It's the critical part that led him to declare that Rangers "gained no advantage", because cheating isn't cheating if you weren't found guilty of cheating while you were cheating.

The short version of this is that, once a player has been registered, he's registered unless the SPL actively challenge and disprove his registration while that player is registered or, in other words, any cheating club that misregisters players can't be found guilty of cheating unless they were found to be cheating, while they were cheating.

This is the long and short of why Rangers were found to have "gained no advantage on the field" - a crappy little loophole in the SPL rules that prevents retrospective de-registration, no matter how dodgy the original registration was.

And so, to reiterate: The reason why Rangers weren't found guilty of cheating was because they weren't found guilty of cheating while they were cheating.

And that's the finding of Lord Nimmo Smith's investigation, the one touted in the papers as a victory.

Sorry for the long, convuluted explanation, but I was asked to give one.

And I'd also like to see Youngsy prove that I'm a bigot. I've got hundreds of posts on Pie and Bovril and I'd be amazed if anyone could find a single one that suggests I'm anything other than an unnaturally and freakishly neutral Celtic supporter.

Edit: By "unnaturally and freakishly neutral Celtic supporter" I mean "considerably more reasonable and open-minded than most of the partisan pish that passes for chat on fan forums". I think most who have seen my posts would agree.

Edited May 11, 2013 by flyingrodent

[Monkey Tennis]

Flyingrodent's won the day here.

I knew there was something about retrospective termination of registration in the document, but couldn't recall it directly, or be arsed searching.

There it is though. Rodent's paraphrasing about getting away with cheating, because they weren't caught cheating at the time holds up - that's what's happened here.

A (admittedly fairly tenuous parallel) might concern on field cheating during a game. That Aberdeen guy dived for a penalty at the weekend. The officials in charge at the time missed what happened. The authorities can now look back and punish the player with a ban, a bit like Rangers' huge fine, but the result of the cheating - a 1-1 draw - has to stand. Similarly, Rangers get to keep the fruits of their cheating in the same way that Aberdeen keep their point.

Unsatisfactory, embarrassing and certainly suggesting that any resultant gains should be hidden in shame, rather than waved in glory.

[AUFC90]

Flyingrodent's won the day here.

 

I knew there was something about retrospective termination of registration in the document, but couldn't recall it directly, or be arsed searching.

 

There it is though.  Rodent's paraphrasing about getting away with cheating, because they weren't caught cheating at the time holds up - that's what's happened here.

 

A (admittedly fairly tenuous parallel) might concern on field cheating during a game.  That Aberdeen guy dived for a penalty at the weekend.  The officials in charge at the time missed what happened.  The authorities can now look back and punish the player with a ban, a bit like Rangers' huge fine, but the result of the cheating - a 1-1 draw - has to stand.  Similarly, Rangers get to keep the fruits of their cheating in the same way that Aberdeen keep their point.

 

Unsatisfactory, embarrassing and certainly suggesting that any resultant gains should be hidden in shame, rather than waved in glory.

For all the banging on about accepting LNS verdict. There's no way in hell they will accept the past where it basically says they cheated but the rules don't allow them to be punished for said cheating. Selective reading from the bears on this one.

[Bendarroch]

Edit to add: Which makes "Helicopter Sunday" more like "Fraudcopter Bullshit Sunday", to pick one of many, many, fraudulent and bullshit results.

Now. One of us has LNS behind that, and the other is "bitter". Is it me, or you?

LNS declares that no sporting advantage was gained. None. Result? No sporting penalties. None.

You're still hurting - so of course it's you who's bitter. I loved Helicopter Sunday and no amount of rewriting/reinvention of the LNS judgement is going to change that.

[QPSAFalkirkFirm]

The support group leaders that you mention are only there for their own self gratification as regards being around the board,i agree with you on that. What i'm asking Enrico is, as he's banging on about fans doing nothing, what would his solution be for the support to step in and wrest power away from a person that has or had 85% of the shareholding and therefore controlled everything within the club. There was 26,000 shareholders of the PLC holding collectively 15% of the shares, so their voice on all matters of importance was merely a whisper. In effect we were shareholders without real power.

The PLC was liquidated to the sum of £56 million, with the EBTcase the estimated liability was £130 million. What chance had any support group have of settling debts of that magnitude.That level of liability is the very reason why Rangers suuporters of wealth wouldn't come near the club when Murray was looking for a buyer,i'm speaking of people such as Jim McColl,whose wealth is there for all to see. The club was then left wide open for crooks such as Whyte to step forward and do what he did,he had full control and no matter how many demonstrations and shouting the support did there was nothing that we could have done.

McCann came into Celtic when they were on their knees,in fact i remember Dempsey had to pay £1 million hours before the club was about to have the plug pulled by the bank. McCann,to his credit,had a financial plan laid out over a 5 year period,he had the full intent of making a profit from the club and through financial prudency get the club back on it's feet,because of the financial liability at Ibrox that was never going to happen for Rangers from any individual. So for anyone to say Rangers fans did nothing, the reality is there was really very, very little we could do that would have had any significant impact.

I accept all you say but this post typifies the bunker mentality of Rangers fans now. You're so focused on defending the past, like every Rangers fans post I've seen on this topic, you're in danger of letting the future be the same.

Your defence is 'what could we have done?' Well, here's a couple of ideas. In the big world outside of football, what's referred to as the private sector, when shareholders aren't getting a return on their investment they take their money elsewhere. If your board won't listen, sell your shares or at very least stop buying new ones to underpin this insanity.

Secondly, don't buy season books. Don't buy programmes. Don't buy pies. Don't buy replica shirts, bedsheets, lamps, wallets or anything else that feeds the monster that treats you like slaves. Rangers fans pride themselves on being part of something special but in reality they're all scared to lose their favourite seat. You have much more power than you understand. It just takes a leader to make it happen.

As we say in the private sector; failure plus good excuses still equals failure.

Edited May 11, 2013 by QPSAFalkirkFirm

[AUFC90]

Edit to add: Which makes "Helicopter Sunday" more like "Fraudcopter Bullshit Sunday", to pick one of many, many, fraudulent and bullshit results.

 

Now.  One of us has LNS behind that, and the other is "bitter".  Is it me, or you?

 

LNS declares that no sporting advantage was gained. None. Result? No sporting penalties. None.

 

You're still hurting - so of course it's you who's bitter. I loved Helicopter Sunday and no amount of rewriting/reinvention of the LNS judgement is going to change that.

Why was no sporting advantage gained? It's all in the statement.

It seems titles was all that mattered. Being declared cheats is irrelevant to your average bear.

[Bendarroch]

Flyingrodent's won the day here.

You find yourself agreeing with a plastic on a viewpoint that sullies Rangers?

Well. Who seen that coming...

[Bendarroch]

Why was no sporting advantage gained? It's all in the statement.

It seems titles was all that mattered. Being declared cheats is irrelevant to your average bear.

Being declared as cheats by a variety of diddies and plastics is irrelevant to most bears.

We expect it - borne of envy as it fundamentally is.

[GreenockRover]

Show us all where these words of yours appear on the SPL Commission summation.  I'll help you out here, they don't, all these words that you have posted  show you up to be the bigot that you undoubtably are. 

 

Although fair play to you;you do hide it very well,in saying that some can pick up on exactly what you are. So come on show where the words "because they weren't caught gaining an unfair advantage and playing ineligible players at the time when they were gaining an unfair advantage and  playing ineligible players"are on the SPL Commission summation.  That's your words,not the SPL Commissions words.So show where those words were stated by the commission.  You've just made an absolute cunto of yourself with that statement.

 

Here's the relevant passage: 

 

 

Mr McKenzie explained to us that SPL Rule D1.13 had hitherto been understood to mean that if, at the time of registration, a document was not lodged as required, the consequence was that a condition of registration was broken and the player automatically became ineligible to play in terms of SPL Rule D1.11.

He accepted however that there was scope for a different construction of the rule, to the effect that, as the lodging of the document in question was a condition of registration, the registration of the player would be liable to revocation, with the consequence that the player would thereafter become ineligible to play.

He accepted that no provision of the Rules enabled the Board of the SPL retrospectively to terminate the registration of the player. It became apparent from his submissions that Mr McKenzie was not pressing for a finding that Issue 3©, together with the concluding words of Issue 3(b), had been proved.

 

 

Right, this is going to be long, boring, wordy and confusing, because it's a bit legalistic. Pay attention:

 

That's Lord Nimmo Smith deciding that the SPL can't retrospectively declare players improperly registered, no matter how very dodgy their registration.  It's the critical part that led him to declare that Rangers "gained no advantage", because cheating isn't cheating if you weren't found guilty of cheating while you were cheating.

 

The short version of this is that, once a player has been registered, he's registered unless the SPL actively challenge and disprove his registration while that player is registered or, in other words, any cheating club that misregisters players can't be found guilty of cheating unless they were found to be cheating, while they were cheating. 

 

This is the long and short of why Rangers were found to have "gained no advantage on the field" - a crappy little loophole in the SPL rules that prevents retrospective de-registration, no matter how dodgy the original registration was.  

 

And so, to reiterate:  The reason why Rangers weren't found guilty of cheating was because they weren't found guilty of cheating while they were cheating.  

 

And that's the finding of Lord Nimmo Smith's investigation, the one touted in the papers as a victory. 

 

Sorry for the long, convuluted explanation, but I was asked to give one.

 

And I'd also like to see Youngsy prove that I'm a bigot.  I've got hundreds of posts on Pie and Bovril and I'd be amazed if anyone could find a single one that suggests I'm anything other than an unnaturally and freakishly neutral Celtic supporter.

 

Edit: By "unnaturally and freakishly neutral Celtic supporter" I mean "considerably more reasonable and open-minded than most of the partisan pish that passes for chat on fan forums".  I think most who have seen my posts would agree.

Nice work there..... Go to the top of the class oh winged rat.

[captain kirk]

Why was no sporting advantage gained? It's all in the statement.

It seems titles was all that mattered. Being declared cheats is irrelevant to your average bear.

 

Being declared as cheats by a variety of diddies and plastics is irrelevant to most bears.

 

We expect it - borne of envy as it fundamentally is.

Which one is LNS? Plastic or diddy?

[flyingrodent]

What a lot of bullshit on this thread over the past few pages.

The SPL rules are the SPL rules, you may not like the way they are written and like (car crash) Rod you may not understand them but the reason Rangers were found to have no ineligible players fielded was that they had not broken this particular rule.

No sporting advantage gained = no cheating...............the end.

have to say I am extremely dissapointed at certain posters who said they would accept the ruling in full and now seem unable to do so, especially Monkey Tennis, you have slipped way down in my estimation in the past few weeks, cherry picking at its best.

As for the obvious hurt on display from the rodent and idiots like AUFC90 (AKA bairnforever1992) well that is as usually enormously pleasing, no free titles bhoys suck it up.

I accept the ruling in full. The ruling says that you were guilty of deliberately breaking the rules in a serious and flagrant manner, over a period of ten years, and that you can't be punished due to a loophole in the rules that prevents retrospective punishments.

Recall: if that's not the case, it means that Rangers FC are the first club in history to be fined quarter of a million pounds for not cheating. Which is a pretty hard point to explain away.

[AUFC90]

What a lot of bullshit on this thread over the past few pages.

 

The SPL rules are the SPL rules, you may not like the way they are written and like (car crash) Rod you may not understand them but the reason Rangers were found to have no ineligible players fielded was that they had not broken this particular rule.

 

No sporting advantage gained = no cheating...............the end.

 

have to say I am extremely dissapointed at certain posters who said they would accept the ruling in full and now seem unable to do so, especially Monkey Tennis, you have slipped way down in my estimation in the past few weeks, cherry picking at its best.

 

As for the obvious hurt on display from the rodent and idiots like AUFC90 (AKA bairnforever1992) well that is as usually enormously pleasing, no free titles bhoys suck it up.

Only Celtic fans care about your daft ill gotten titles. And from what av seen that's all the rangers fans care about. Doesn't matter that their club has turned into the shit stain of Scottish football.

[AUFC90]

Why was no sporting advantage gained? It's all in the statement.

It seems titles was all that mattered. Being declared cheats is irrelevant to your average bear.

 

Being declared as cheats by a variety of diddies and plastics is irrelevant to most bears.

 

We expect it - borne of envy as it fundamentally is.

Aye am so jealous of your dead club and your new club which is riddled with conmen at the highest level. If I felt the need to support a bigger club, I I would, simple as that.

So u carry on feeling all superior and thinkin everyone wants to be a bear and I'll carry on despising everything your club stands for.

[AUFC90]

What a lot of bullshit on this thread over the past few pages.

 

The SPL rules are the SPL rules, you may not like the way they are written and like (car crash) Rod you may not understand them but the reason Rangers were found to have no ineligible players fielded was that they had not broken this particular rule.

 

No sporting advantage gained = no cheating...............the end.

 

have to say I am extremely dissapointed at certain posters who said they would accept the ruling in full and now seem unable to do so, especially Monkey Tennis, you have slipped way down in my estimation in the past few weeks, cherry picking at its best.

 

As for the obvious hurt on display from the rodent and idiots like AUFC90 (AKA bairnforever1992) well that is as usually enormously pleasing, no free titles bhoys suck it up.

 

I accept the ruling in full.  The ruling says that you were guilty of deliberately breaking the rules in a serious and flagrant manner, over a period of ten years, and that you can't be punished due to a loophole in the rules that prevents retrospective punishments. 

 

Recall:  if that's not the case, it means that Rangers FC are the first club in history to be fined quarter of a million pounds for not cheating.  Which is a pretty hard point to explain away.

But but but no sporting advantage. They keep banging on about accepting the ruling in full but only want to cherrypick a small part of it to back their opinions up. Double standards Imo

[Bendarroch]

Aye am so jealous of your dead club and your new club which is riddled with conmen at the highest level. If I felt the need to support a bigger club, I I would, simple as that.

So u carry on feeling all superior and thinkin everyone wants to be a bear and I'll carry on despising everything your club stands for.

It's really quite difficult to express my abject disinterest in diddy clubs like Ayr. The fascination with all things Rangers I readily understand - it's why you are here of course.

[Bearwithme]

Here's the relevant passage:

Mr McKenzie explained to us that SPL Rule D1.13 had hitherto been understood to mean that if, at the time of registration, a document was not lodged as required, the consequence was that a condition of registration was broken and the player automatically became ineligible to play in terms of SPL Rule D1.11.

He accepted however that there was scope for a different construction of the rule, to the effect that, as the lodging of the document in question was a condition of registration, the registration of the player would be liable to revocation, with the consequence that the player would thereafter become ineligible to play.

He accepted that no provision of the Rules enabled the Board of the SPL retrospectively to terminate the registration of the player. It became apparent from his submissions that Mr McKenzie was not pressing for a finding that Issue 3©, together with the concluding words of Issue 3(b), had been proved.

Right, this is going to be long, boring, wordy and confusing, because it's a bit legalistic. Pay attention:

That's Lord Nimmo Smith deciding that the SPL can't retrospectively declare players improperly registered, no matter how very dodgy their registration. It's the critical part that led him to declare that Rangers "gained no advantage", because cheating isn't cheating if you weren't found guilty of cheating while you were cheating.

The short version of this is that, once a player has been registered, he's registered unless the SPL actively challenge and disprove his registration while that player is registered or, in other words, any cheating club that misregisters players can't be found guilty of cheating unless they were found to be cheating, while they were cheating.

This is the long and short of why Rangers were found to have "gained no advantage on the field" - a crappy little loophole in the SPL rules that prevents retrospective de-registration, no matter how dodgy the original registration was.

And so, to reiterate: The reason why Rangers weren't found guilty of cheating was because they weren't found guilty of cheating while they were cheating.

And that's the finding of Lord Nimmo Smith's investigation, the one touted in the papers as a victory.

Sorry for the long, convuluted explanation, but I was asked to give one.

And I'd also like to see Youngsy prove that I'm a bigot. I've got hundreds of posts on Pie and Bovril and I'd be amazed if anyone could find a single one that suggests I'm anything other than an unnaturally and freakishly neutral Celtic supporter.

Edit: By "unnaturally and freakishly neutral Celtic supporter" I mean "considerably more reasonable and open-minded than most of the partisan pish that passes for chat on fan forums". I think most who have seen my posts would agree.

The part of the LNS document you quote does not say Rangers improperly registered players or indeed "cheated". It says the SFA did not push for such a finding. We don't know what would have happened if the SFA had pushed for such a finding. You can have your own opinion about it of course, but you know what they say about opinions....

As for "no competitive advantage" that refers to not handing over additional documents (or delaying in handing them over). Clearly the team didn't play better because extra letters or whatever weren't passed over (promptly).