Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[bennett]

Agent Johnny stop giving me greens, you'll give the game away mate.

[cyderspaceman]

Statement in response to comments from Rangers FC

Tuesday, 06 August 2013

I am actually surprised to see the SFA replying like this. Their normal stance is to say nothing if there is nothing to say or if they would merely be repeating information already available.

This statement is a sensible approach IMO. Clarifies things before the knuckle draggers get too het up.

(Having said that, it won't stop them)

[Apache Don]

My favourite part was this bit.

"Rangers' lawyer, in contrast, specifically asked for the club to be fined in respect of Charge 3, or Rule 14(g). He did not lead evidence of Rangers' financial position or ability to pay any fine."

That indeed, is a particularly good bit.

Complaining about getting something they 'specifically asked for'. Pure class that club, pure class.

[bennett]

That indeed, is a particularly good bit.

Complaining about getting something they 'specifically asked for'. Pure class that club, pure class.

The club was in administration and with no money, yet they asked for a fine? Nice to see that clubs can dictate to the SFA what punishments they'll get .... "We'll take a fine please" while Hearts and Dunfermline go for "we don't want a fine" and the SFA obeys like a well trained collie dog.

Yer maw...

[stonedsailor]

Statement in response to comments from Rangers FC

Tuesday, 06 August 2013

Scottish FA spokesperson:

In response to the recent public comments from Rangers FC, and in particular Craig Mather and Ally McCoist, the Scottish FA offers the clarification requested with regard to Insolvency Rules under the Judicial Panel Protocol.

As yet the Scottish FA has not received a formal, written request for clarification by Rangers.

Notwithstanding the fact that a full note of reasons was published by the Judicial Panel Chair, Gary Allan QC, at the time of the determination - disseminated to the club directly, and to the public via the media we are happy to reiterate the salient points in the interests of clarity and transparency:

The Disciplinary Rules of the Judicial Panel Protocol provide a sliding scale of sanctions, with a suggested tariff of low-end, mid-range, top-end and maximum. This reflects the potential variations in seriousness of any breaches and any aggravating or mitigating factors.

Rangers were fined £50,000 for a breach of Rule 14(g) based on the panels view that the evidence presented on both sides merited a sanction at the maximum end of the tariff. This was evidenced in the Note of Reasons:

Page 30 At the time of the first withheld payment in September 2011 Rangers FCs financial situation was such that it could have made the payment due to HMRC.

Page 33 The non-payment was a deliberate act in furtherance of a decision of the Chairman and director of Rangers FC not to make payment as a negotiating tactic in the resolution of the Big Tax Case.

Page 56 In the case of the non-payment of tax (which was possibly by the smallest margin the most serious breach) the massive extent of the failure and the intentional and calculated manner in which it was carried out aggravated the breach even further.

Rangers were placed into administration following the deliberate non-payment of social taxes, despite in the evidence provided - having the money to do so when the decision was first taken to withhold the money. This was not a feature in the Heart of Midlothian or Dunfermline Athletic cases.

Contrary to Mr Mathers statement, Rangers registration embargo was applied in a separate rule breach, Rule 66 Bringing the Game into Disrepute.

The administrators in the two other cases (Heart of Midlothian and Dunfermline Athletic) submitted that fines would be inappropriate as the clubs effectively had no money and any fine could jeopardise attempts to save the club. They made submissions on their clubs' financial position to reinforce their view.

Rangers' lawyer, in contrast, specifically asked for the club to be fined in respect of Charge 3, or Rule 14(g). He did not lead evidence of Rangers' financial position or ability to pay any fine.

Rangers did not appeal the fine.

Note the cleverly worded response, when referring to the club who did the mudslinging they are entitled Rangers FC, when referring to the club who were fined it's Rangers. Why the distinction?

[Apache Don]

Douglas Fraser @BBCDouglasF

Jim McColl statement on #Rangers: I'm not wanting to join board or increase 'small' stake. Duty bound to other businesses to focus on them

So does this mean big Jim has walked away???

Nothing changed. McColl at no time mentioned any desire to join board. He is behind moves for change but has only stated his desire for Paul Murray and Frank Blin to replace Stockbridge and one of the non execs. Interestingly doesn't appear to be looking to remove Easdale.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Apache Don

[AberdeenBud]

Rangers held back social taxes despite having the money to pay them. This was not the case for Hearts and Dunfermline.

Conspiracy.

[captain kirk]

The club was in administration and with no money, yet they asked for a fine? Nice to see that clubs can dictate to the SFA what punishments they'll get .... "We'll take a fine please" while Hearts and Dunfermline go for "we don't want a fine" and the SFA obeys like a well trained collie dog.

Yer maw...

Makes rangers greetin about ,,how come we were fined any ther weren't. Look rather fukin stupid.

[hellbhoy]

http://m.thedrum.com/news/2013/08/06/independent-reviewer-reopening-case-against-rangers-fc-most-successful-football-clubAdvertising Standards Authority ruling withdrawnIt doesnt rain but it pours. The Independent Review Process of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has looked into the ASAs recent, and widely reported, ruling on Rangers Internationals claim on football titles won by a liquidated club. The Review found that it was a procedural flaw for the ASA to have relied on an extract only of a report sent to it by the advertiser.Further, the review process ruled that there was also the risk of a substantial flaw of adjudication in the distinction that had been made between club and company, especially in the light of previous ASA decisions about companies that change hands and the circumstances in which the new company could or could not trade off the reputation of the old company.The Chairman of the ASA, Lord Smith of Finsbury, as decided to reopen the ASAs investigation into the case and to withdraw the published adjudication, which favoured the advertiser. Withdrawing this adjudication does not infer that a different outcome will subsequently be reached. To use a football analogy, its half time and theyre all square.An interesting, and potentially critical part of the story, is that after the initial ASA decision was issued, the clubs web site noted that their submission to the process included information that a panel of the London Stock Exchange supported their claim.The Stock Exchange subsequently appeared surprised at this assertion, so much so that the club promptly withdrew the claim from the web article.

Looks like rangers have been caught talking shite again

http://m.thedrum.com/news/2013/08/06/independent-reviewer-reopening-case-against-rangers-fc-most-successful-football-club

The verdict result has also been removed from ASA's website ! glorious http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/6/The-Rangers-Football-Club-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_224406.aspx Tedi will be furiously googling ASA's website now to find it

[aofjays]

Makes rangers greetin about ,,how come we were fined any ther weren't. Look rather fukin stupid.

They already looked stupid. Now they look like shit stirring fannies.

[williemillersmoustache]

Makes rangers greetin about ,,how come we were fined any ther weren't. Look rather fukin stupid.

Not stupid, calculated, spiteful, vindictive and disgraceful. Exactly the same as SuperDuperAlly asking who are these people? When he knew fine well. Just to get a reaction from the neanderthal support.

This abhorrent foetid disease of a new club needs eradicated from this earth. Hang your heads in shame TheRangers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q

[Apache Don]

Statement in response to comments from Rangers FC

Tuesday, 06 August 2013

Scottish FA spokesperson:

In response to the recent public comments from Rangers FC, and in particular Craig Mather and Ally McCoist, the Scottish FA offers the clarification requested with regard to Insolvency Rules under the Judicial Panel Protocol.

As yet the Scottish FA has not received a formal, written request for clarification by Rangers.

Notwithstanding the fact that a full note of reasons was published by the Judicial Panel Chair, Gary Allan QC, at the time of the determination - disseminated to the club directly, and to the public via the media we are happy to reiterate the salient points in the interests of clarity and transparency:

The Disciplinary Rules of the Judicial Panel Protocol provide a sliding scale of sanctions, with a suggested tariff of low-end, mid-range, top-end and maximum. This reflects the potential variations in seriousness of any breaches and any aggravating or mitigating factors.

Rangers were fined £50,000 for a breach of Rule 14(g) based on the panels view that the evidence presented on both sides merited a sanction at the maximum end of the tariff. This was evidenced in the Note of Reasons:

Page 30 At the time of the first withheld payment in September 2011 Rangers FCs financial situation was such that it could have made the payment due to HMRC.

Page 33 The non-payment was a deliberate act in furtherance of a decision of the Chairman and director of Rangers FC not to make payment as a negotiating tactic in the resolution of the Big Tax Case.

Page 56 In the case of the non-payment of tax (which was possibly by the smallest margin the most serious breach) the massive extent of the failure and the intentional and calculated manner in which it was carried out aggravated the breach even further.

Rangers were placed into administration following the deliberate non-payment of social taxes, despite in the evidence provided - having the money to do so when the decision was first taken to withhold the money. This was not a feature in the Heart of Midlothian or Dunfermline Athletic cases.

Contrary to Mr Mathers statement, Rangers registration embargo was applied in a separate rule breach, Rule 66 Bringing the Game into Disrepute.

The administrators in the two other cases (Heart of Midlothian and Dunfermline Athletic) submitted that fines would be inappropriate as the clubs effectively had no money and any fine could jeopardise attempts to save the club. They made submissions on their clubs' financial position to reinforce their view.

Rangers' lawyer, in contrast, specifically asked for the club to be fined in respect of Charge 3, or Rule 14(g). He did not lead evidence of Rangers' financial position or ability to pay any fine.

Rangers did not appeal the fine.

The above very clearly explains why Rangers copped the max fine and why Hearts & Dunf were not fined.

Of course, the last part (in bold) does at first seem incredulous but not when considered in proper context of case.

It is not at all ridiculous that given the circumstances - The Tribunal's serious view of the offences '2cnd only to match-fixing' - that Rangers' lawyer would not want to have the imposition of a fine removed from list of possible sanctions, lest they be hit with suspension/expulsion. Perfectly sensible for them to favour the fine.

[Burma]

This genuinely feels like Armageddon.

[Taxi for Ben]

They already looked stupid. Now they look like shit stirring fannies.

Please don't stereotype us RIFC fans. We are not all former RFC fans.

[AberdeenBud]

But all the Bears on here said Mather and Sally were perfectly entitled to question the SFA?

Sent from my C5303 using Pie & Bovril mobile app

[Apache Don]

Please don't stereotype us RIFC fans. We are not all former RFC fans.

Taxi for Ben? Aye he'll be oot in a minute mate, wi he's arse in a plate.

[Apache Don]

But all the Bears on here said Mather and Sally were perfectly entitled to question the SFA?

Sent from my C5303 using Pie & Bovril mobile app

If I remember correctly, not just bears eh?

[Jimmy85]

What a fucking laughingstock The Rangers are This is comedy gold.

[aofjays]

Please don't stereotype us RIFC fans. We are not all former RFC fans.

No probs but I was referring to TRIFC not the fans.

[~British Patriot~]

On a serious note folks, has anyone heard from AWRA/BP/LWF??? Gone very quite

LWF? Aye alright you.