Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[AUFC90]

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.

 

Of course you don`t bhairn ya silly roaster.

 

Can't wait for that as well, Scottish Cup 2009 final is ours and i'll be laughing all day at the orcs blaming everyone but themselves.

 

How did that turn out for you?  

 

So devastated you started supporting Ayr

A paranoid, delusional sevconian?

Well I never.

I detest both the ugly sister. Your club slightly more. Would be over the moon if yous both disappeared to whichever would have u

[AUFC90]

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.

 

No you just lied or at least added your own warped (extremely) interpretation.

They were fined, were they not ?

[AUFC90]

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.

It's really quite difficult to express how much I couldn't give a shit what your interests are.

And Im only here because there's nothing better to when Im at my work on a Saturday

I just think its pretty funny how a group of fans can turn a damming guilty verdict into a vindication based on 3 words contained in the summary.

Thick or what eh

Edited May 11, 2013 by AUFC90

[AUFC90]

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).

U seem like a normal intelligent guy who also has the ability to read to surely u can admit you were found guilty of cheating but didn't receive full punishment because of a loophole in the rules ? Must've been pretty bad to get the biggest fine ever.

[bennett]

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.

Alas it's only dhensboy pretending to be an Ayr fan, he's never recovered from William Nimmo Smith booting him in the baws.

[AUFC90]

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.

 

 

Alas it's only dhensboy pretending to be an Ayr fan, he's never recovered from William Nimmo Smith booting him in the baws.

I accept the guilty verdict AWRA

[Bearwithme]

U seem like a normal intelligent guy who also has the ability to read to surely u can admit you were found guilty of cheating but didn't receive full punishment because of a loophole in the rules ? Must've been pretty bad to get the biggest fine ever.

However bad it may have been, no on-field advantage accrued as the fine was for not (timeously) submitting additional information. That wasn't "cheating" no matter how much some folk want it to be.

[AUFC90]

U seem like a normal intelligent guy who also has the ability to read to surely u can admit you were found guilty of cheating but didn't receive full punishment because of a loophole in the rules ? Must've been pretty bad to get the biggest fine ever.

 

However bad it may have been, no on-field advantage accrued as the fine was for not (timeously) submitting additional information. That wasn't "cheating" no matter how much some folk want it to be.

10 years of deliberately breaking rules isn't cheating?

[Bearwithme]

10 years of deliberately breaking rules isn't cheating?

There was no "cheating". We're not talking about brown envelopes or the like here. The EBT scheme was disclosed in the published accounts and the club licensing submissions. Other information was held back for the purpose of protecting the tax position.

[AUFC90]

10 years of deliberately breaking rules isn't cheating?

 

There was no "cheating". We're not talking about brown envelopes or the like here. The EBT scheme was disclosed in the published accounts and the club licensing submissions. Other information was held back for the purpose of protecting the tax position.

So breaking rules isn't cheating then. Christ where have I been all my life.

Why were they protecting their tax position ?

[bennett]

Bearwithmwe why are you wasting your time with that fud?

It doesn't matter what you say, he'll keep on parrotting the same old shlte back at you without fail.

Edited May 11, 2013 by bennett

[GreenockRover]

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.

All absolutely valid and well made point. Good post.

Of course, once you chuck (no pun intended) in the nauseous sociology factors of the west of Scotland and all that that means, you can fully understand why they are incapable of coordinated action.

The minute the phrase "we don't do walking away" was uttered by Fat Sally....their fate was sealed.

A 'normal', semi-educated fanbase would have done most, if not all, of what you posted.

Edited May 11, 2013 by GreenockRover

[AUFC90]

Bearwithmwe why are you wasting your time with that fud?

 

It doesn't matter what you say, he'll keep on parrotting the same old shlte back at you without fail.

At least he has a discussion with people. Your input for the last 2 months has been zero. At least we can get a laugh out of your alias

[youngsy]

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.

Perhaps bigot was too strong a word and i apologise for using it. However you have a vindictive attitude and a deep hatred of a football club, without the good grace to accept that the football club in question was cleared of gaining any sporting advantage by the SPL Commission, as well as that you have not got the good grace to accept that the same club won the EBT case by a 2-1 majority, albeit under appeal. Instead in both cases you have tried to spin it round in order to have the version of events that you were hoping for, but never came to fruition, accepted by others. That is showing a hate filled view of any football club simply because you can't accept the findings in both cases.

[Monkey Tennis]

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

Well. Who seen that coming...

Nah, Bendarroch, I'm not having that.

I'm very happy to call it exactly as I see it.

I've accepted continuation, I've acknowledged that the plan to keep Rangers in an enlarged bottom tier was intrinsically unfair on them. I'm arguing with the same posters about how poor a manager Lennon really is on the SPL forum.

I really resent any implication that I harbour affections for Celtic. Please refrain from making any.

[AUFC90]

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.

Perhaps bigot was too strong a word and i apologise for using it. However you have a vindictive attitude and a deep hatred of a football club, without the good grace to accept that the football club in question was cleared of gaining any sporting advantage by the SPL Commission, as well as that you have not got the good grace to accept that the same club won the EBT case by a 2-1 majority, albeit under appeal.  Instead in both cases you have tried to spin it round in order to have the version of events that you were hoping for, but never came to fruition, accepted by others.  That is showing a hate filled view of any football club simply because you can't accept the findings in both cases. 

Do u accept that rangers were acting illegally in the cases they didn't contest?

Do u accept rangers were found guilty of breaking rules and received a lesser punishment because unbeknown to everyone (including your club at the time ) the rules don't allow a player to be retrospectively declared ineligible, ie they had to catch them at the time ?

[Monkey Tennis]

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.

Jeepers Ted - I'm letting everyone down today. Bennett's just had a go at me on another thread for falling short of his expectations. It's good to know I was held in such high regard by you chaps.

Anyway, I do accept LNS's verdict, in that in law, it stands. I simply must accept it and therefore do.

I'm allowed to conclude however that the law is an ass, which is what I'm doing.

[cyderspaceman]

As I see it, the shenanigans surrounding Rangers, The Rangers, Sevco whatever, have left the door wide open for any club to vigorously contest any future attempts by the authorities to mete out punishments for various misdemeanours.

The "whatabout" factor is large and could be called 'setting a precedent'.

I could be wrong, though.

[youngsy]

Do u accept that rangers were acting illegally in the cases they didn't contest?

Do u accept rangers were found guilty of breaking rules and received a lesser punishment because unbeknown to everyone (including your club at the time ) the rules don't allow a player to be retrospectively declared ineligible, ie they had to catch them at the time ?

Your first question,there was no finding that Rangers acted illegally on the EBT summation,they accepted that tax was payable on 30 of the cases so in that respect i accept that there was tax due and as such there was illegal action within the PLC over those 30 cases, however those 30 cases were not considered by the tribunal so that does not change the fact that the PLC had their case upheld by the tribunal by a 2-1 majority. Something that you and many others are struggling to accept.

As for the SPL Commission i accept that the PLC were guilty of non-disclosure over a long period of time,for which they received a very hefty fine. I also accept the finding of the SPL Commision that there was no fielding of ineligible players so therefore there was no sporting advantage gained. That's the finding of both tribunals,i accept their findings as they stand,also i will accept the appeal verdict whatever it maybe. Too bad if you're struggling to accept the SPL Commission findings as well as the FTT.

[AUFC90]

Do u accept that rangers were acting illegally in the cases they didn't contest?

Do u accept rangers were found guilty of breaking rules and received a lesser punishment because unbeknown to everyone (including your club at the time ) the rules don't allow a player to be retrospectively declared ineligible, ie they had to catch them at the time ?

Your first question,there was no finding that Rangers acted illegally on the EBT summation,they accepted that tax was payable on 30 of the cases so in that respect i accept that there was tax due and as such there was illegal action within the PLC over those 30 cases, however those 30 cases were not considered by the tribunal so that  does not change the fact that the PLC had their case upheld by the tribunal by a 2-1 majority.  Something that you and many others are struggling to accept.

 

As for the SPL Commission i accept that the PLC were guilty of non-disclosure over a long period of time,for which they received a very hefty fine.  I also accept the finding of the SPL Commision that there was no fielding of ineligible players so therefore there was no sporting advantage gained.  That's the finding of both tribunals,i accept their findings as they stand,also i will accept the appeal verdict whatever it maybe. Too bad if you're struggling to accept the SPL Commission findings as well as the FTT.

As iv said, I accept the enquires findings. Guilty of cheating but got a lesser punishment due to the rules not being up to scratch. That's what the summary says. Edited May 11, 2013 by AUFC90