Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[bennett]

Ok. As I said, language should be used with precision when possible.

Obviously though, you used this to deflect from my point and made yourself look stupid by describing my post as a rant.

Your post was wrong in a few points, I corrected it.

[bennett]

Who's throwing tantrums?

It would be quicker to list who isn't throwing tantrums.

[Ned Nederlander]

Were you doing that thing of pretending to be an idiot Rangers fan?

Nope, I praised your posts and made a joke.

[williemillersmoustache]

I'm genuinely unclear on this. Forgive my ignorance, but what's the whole deal with the fines? I'd thought the £250,000 fine was to do with oldco and was really just a token thing, issued to register disapproval of the oldco's behaviour. I'd thought there was no anticipation of it ever being recovered. What's this fine that hasn't been paid, that they're being pressed on?

Of course it's a token gesture, but cheat fc haven't paid this while the SPFL have demanded that they do. Same club and all etc.

We're looking for reasons to re-examine or re-open the tribunal. The fact the party found to be at fault has failed to comply with the verdict, seems like a good enough excuse to me. If we needed an excuse.

Rangers admit under the terms of the ‘Five Way Agreement’, which allowed them to participate in Scottish football through entry to the bottom tier, the newco would be responsible for any sanctions imposed on the oldco by Scottish football’s governing bodies.

But they claim the subsequent actions of the SPFL mean they “waived all and any right it may have had to insist upon payment under the clause.” The SPFL dispute that accusation.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/1331979-rangers-await-panel-verdict-on-outstanding-lord-nimmo-smith-ebt-fine/

Edited November 14, 2015 by williemillersmoustache

[bennett]

. If we needed an excuse.

Sporting integrity ma man.....

[Insaintee]

What is 'new' about something the commission knew was in process? What is new about the commission being asked by the SPL to give a judgment irrespective of the outcome of that process?

I think you fail to grasp the meaning of 'new' - not that I'm surprised.

Rangers were not guilty or tax cheating now they are that's new

Also perhaps you missed the subtlety of the COS ruling. Ranger FC did not loan the players anything, instead they paid the players large amounts which were diverted into of shore accounts on the players behalf. Therefore the side letters do not apply to loans but to wages. This means that Rangers were not giving player undeclared loans but undeclared payments.

Of course I expect you to defend your old club. But it's clearly no longer defensible, and the fact that there was some kind of interim ruling cobbled together in a window of opportunity is neither here nor there.

LNS was asked to make a ruling. The SFA and SPFL are completely free to revisit that ruling and also to question the legality of the set up and remit of the investigation.

Clinging to LNS as an excuse not to have your stolen titles stripped is frankly ludicrous

But then I expect nothing else from you.

[Ken Fitlike]

I did ask T_K, but no reply..

Are any Rangers fans proud of 'winning' the debatable ebt titles?

[Monkey Tennis]

Of course it's a token gesture, but cheat fc haven't paid this while the SPFL have demanded that they do. Same club and all etc.

We're looking for reasons to re-examine or re-open the tribunal. The fact the party found to be at fault has failed to comply with the verdict, seems like a good enough excuse to me. If we needed an excuse.

Right, so it is that same sum, which Newco agreed to pay via the five way agreement.

What are the subsequent actions of the SPFL, which have waived their entitlement to the fine, according to Rangers?

Is this to do with withholding prize money, or something else?

[williemillersmoustache]

Right, so it is that same sum, which Newco agreed to pay via the five way agreement. What are the subsequent actions of the SPFL, which have waived their entitlement to the fine, according to Rangers? Is this to do with withholding prize money, or something else?

No idea. I assume it's for Motherwell humiliating them in the play-offs last season or because Chris McLaughlin had the temerity to report on the behaviour of their fans. Not sure it matters?

I know this tack can be criticised for mixing separate issues as appealing a sentence is quite normal in court cases I believe. But look at how many different tribunals, court cases and appeals they are currently involved in. Last count 7/8? Imagine this was a top flight club taking itself, it's chairman, it's investors and the SFA to court. And it's enough of a redneck in the Championship as it is.

The SFA should amalgamate all sporting proceedings into one fandango thus:

Subject "Rangers"

Evidence against: Just look at them

Defence: "We've been punished enough"

Verdict: Cheats, get out.

Back in 2012 the best thing that could have happened would have been sevco taking a year off and sorting themselves into something new and cheating criminal b*****d free. Seeing how Ashley, King, Reagan + Cockwomble are squaring up i'd say it would be in the best interests of the game for cheat fc to take a wee time out right now.

Regarding title stripping alone it's just typical *STAR *STAR *STAR mentality (sorry bear just isn't the right word here). We'll take that bit, it's gospel but not the rest, don't like it. They want their cake and eat it and they want your cake and my fucking cake and eat it too. (I'm an ample fella and no c**t gets my cake by the way).

And that do what you like, come ahead see what happens attitude needs stomped on.

[Njord]

Nicky Clark and his bro arrested in the weeg for carrying a chib.

Stay classy buns....

[The_Kincardine]

Rangers were not guilty or tax cheating now they are that's new

Also perhaps you missed the subtlety of the COS ruling. Ranger FC did not loan the players anything, instead they paid the players large amounts which were diverted into of shore accounts on the players behalf. Therefore the side letters do not apply to loans but to wages. This means that Rangers were not giving player undeclared loans but undeclared payments.

Of course I expect you to defend your old club. But it's clearly no longer defensible, and the fact that there was some kind of interim ruling cobbled together in a window of opportunity is neither here nor there.

LNS was asked to make a ruling. The SFA and SPFL are completely free to revisit that ruling and also to question the legality of the set up and remit of the investigation.

Clinging to LNS as an excuse not to have your stolen titles stripped is frankly ludicrous

But then I expect nothing else from you.

Is this a reasonable distillation of diddy thinking (no laughing, I know it's an oxymoron) on the subject? If it is then no-wonder you're in a total mess over it.

Possibly the single most laughable comment of the entire debacle is you saying, "The SFA and SPFL are completely free to revisit that ruling and also to question the legality of the set up and remit of the investigation." Sadly, I suspect a fair few other diddies and most of the rhabid morons think you're on to something. Since it still hasn't penetrated your obdurate napper I'll restate the options:

• Have a new commission that covers the same ground as LNS and hope it comes to different conclusions.
• Make up rules and apply them retrospectively
• STFU, grow up and move on.

The SPFL are being cruel to the demented brigade here. Their silence is giving them hope and it really is time they tried to at least pretend to be professional and draw this farrago to a close.

Edited November 14, 2015 by The_Kincardine

[mythstoliveby]

Is this a reasonable distillation of diddy thinking (no laughing, I know it's an oxymoron) on the subject? If it is then no-wonder you're in a total mess over it.

Possibly the single most laughable comment of the entire debacle is you saying, "The SFA and SPFL are completely free to revisit that ruling and also to question the legality of the set up and remit of the investigation." Sadly, I suspect a fair few other diddies and most of the rhabid morons think you're on to something. Since it still hasn't penetrated your obdurate napper I'll restate the options:

• Have a new commission that covers the same ground as LNS and hope it comes to different conclusions.
• Make up rules and apply them retrospectively
• STFU, grow up and move on.

The SPFL are being cruel to the demented brigade here. Their silence is giving them hope and it really is time they tried to at least pretend to be professional and draw this farrago to a close.

arrogant deluded hypocritical pseud.

How you doing this evening?

[Ken Fitlike]

Is this a reasonable distillation of diddy thinking (no laughing, I know it's an oxymoron) on the subject? If it is then no-wonder you're in a total mess over it.

Possibly the single most laughable comment of the entire debacle is you saying, "The SFA and SPFL are completely free to revisit that ruling and also to question the legality of the set up and remit of the investigation." Sadly, I suspect a fair few other diddies and most of the rhabid morons think you're on to something. Since it still hasn't penetrated your obdurate napper I'll restate the options:

• Have a new commission that covers the same ground as LNS and hope it comes to different conclusions.
• Make up rules and apply them retrospectively
• STFU, grow up and move on.

The SPFL are being cruel to the demented brigade here. Their silence is giving them hope and it really is time they tried to at least pretend to be professional and draw this farrago to a close.

Those debatable 'titles'. ... Rate your pride on a scale of zero to 1872 million..

[Insaintee]

Is this a reasonable distillation of diddy thinking (no laughing, I know it's an oxymoron) on the subject? If it is then no-wonder you're in a total mess over it.

Possibly the single most laughable comment of the entire debacle is you saying, "The SFA and SPFL are completely free to revisit that ruling and also to question the legality of the set up and remit of the investigation." Sadly, I suspect a fair few other diddies and most of the rhabid morons think you're on to something. Since it still hasn't penetrated your obdurate napper I'll restate the options:

• Have a new commission that covers the same ground as LNS and hope it comes to different conclusions.
• Make up rules and apply them retrospectively
• STFU, grow up and move on.

The SPFL are being cruel to the demented brigade here. Their silence is giving them hope and it really is time they tried to at least pretend to be professional and draw this farrago to a close.

Must try harder

Who is going to stop the reopening of the consideration of Rangers cheating. Such I decision would require the decision of only the SFA, or SPFL and no one else. As such there is no impediment to this being reopened

ETA of course any club that feels that the issue has been inadequately resolved could also take to issue to the SFA/SPFL and /or court of arbitration in sport. I suspect this will happen if the case is not appealed or if the verdict is guilty

Edited November 14, 2015 by Insaintee

[kildog]

Is this a reasonable distillation of diddy thinking (no laughing, I know it's an oxymoron) on the subject? If it is then no-wonder you're in a total mess over it.

Possibly the single most laughable comment of the entire debacle is you saying, "The SFA and SPFL are completely free to revisit that ruling and also to question the legality of the set up and remit of the investigation." Sadly, I suspect a fair few other diddies and most of the rhabid morons think you're on to something. Since it still hasn't penetrated your obdurate napper I'll restate the options:

• Have a new commission that covers the same ground as LNS and hope it comes to different conclusions.
• Make up rules and apply them retrospectively
• STFU, grow up and move on.

The SPFL are being cruel to the demented brigade here. Their silence is giving them hope and it really is time they tried to at least pretend to be professional and draw this farrago to a close.

Cheats!

[dave.j]

Is this a reasonable distillation of diddy thinking (no laughing, I know it's an oxymoron) on the subject? If it is then no-wonder you're in a total mess over it.

Possibly the single most laughable comment of the entire debacle is you saying, "The SFA and SPFL are completely free to revisit that ruling and also to question the legality of the set up and remit of the investigation." Sadly, I suspect a fair few other diddies and most of the rhabid morons think you're on to something. Since it still hasn't penetrated your obdurate napper I'll restate the options:

• Have a new commission that covers the same ground as LNS and hope it comes to different conclusions.
• Make up rules and apply them retrospectively
• STFU, grow up and move on.

The SPFL are being cruel to the demented brigade here. Their silence is giving them hope and it really is time they tried to at least pretend to be professional and draw this farrago to a close.

Tainted titles.

[johnnyc13]

William Austin Nimmo Smith

Level 5 are fully engaged to undermine the desire to strip titles. The last thing the football authorities want is a Judicial Review of the privately commissioned report. Despite what Stephen Kerr and one of the malleable Record hacks would have us believe, there are two mechanisms. A judicial review, as is the case with Mike Ashley’s petition to the Court of Session, contravenes the SFA’s articles of association, which deem that the highest court that clubs can appeal to is The Court of Arbitration for Sports.

As we have seen with the approval of King, it’s possible to transgress one article on 41 occasions and still be deemed fit and proper at an SFA kangaroo court. Paul Murray was approved by the eleven member Professional Gaming Board. Regan,Ogilvie,McRae & Doncaster set up a meeting of eight members with only seven votes, knowing in advance that they would prevail. King’s approval was a shoddy back room deal.

It’s also, incredibly, possible to be serving a suspended sentence for contempt of court, something The Record is studiously avoiding. A cynic might suggest that they don’t want you to know the facts. They have a history of misinformation.

As Ashley’s counsel will point out, how can the SFA justify approving an individual who is under licence for three years on a three months prison sentence. King was convicted of contempt on 22 February 2013. King’s supporters point to the Court of Session ruling as proof that a court has deemed King ‘fit & proper.’ This is typical of how misinformed they are. As a former director of RFC plc, King had to apply for permission to be a director of a similarly named club. There is a five years moratorium on directors of a failed enterprise. This is to preclude a company going out of business one day leaving debts behind with the receivers, then setting up the following day. It was a Companies Act technicality. As we saw with LSE AIM, no NOMAD would represent a man with forty-one criminal convictions who is currently under licence. Ashley’s counsel will hammer this point home at The Court of Session on 4th February.

Those who wish to add gravitas to the report by Mr Smith refer to him as Lord. However this is a misnomer.Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, commonly known as Law Lords, were appointed under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 to the House of Lords of the United Kingdom in order to exercise its judicial functions, which included acting as the highest court of appeal for most domestic matters. To be appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary under the 1876 Act, an individual was required to have been a practising barrister for a period of fifteen years or to have held a high judicial office. Two years experience as a judge in the Court of Appeal, High Court or Court of Session is sufficient to attain the title of Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. Mr Smith retired from the bench on 30th September 2009. The title Lord.ismerely a courtesy, and since he is not active, he is not a Lord of Appeal.

Mr Smith’s report was so flawed that I can understand why successive Rangers administrations have refused to pay the £250,000 fine and costs. Campbell Ogilvie, who was compromised, went out of his way to mitigate his guilt in administrating EBT at Rangers. He refused to cooperate fully with Harper McLeod who were assigned to collate the pertinent information. Sandy Bryson came up with the‘imperfectly registered caveat’ which is a legal travesty. Any junior counsel would raze this nonsense to the ground. The following statement is the central plank of Mr Smith’s report:

“Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed.”

They were in breach of SPL and SFA rules as they were in breach of the laws of the land. As social taxes were not paid they were also in breach of UEFA rules.

This report is fundamentally flawed. A judicial review would set it aside in a matter of months. As a shareholder in Rangers, Mike Ashley could challenge it. As someone who is hell-bent on exposing malfeasance at the SFA, this is one of the options he may choose to explore.

Edited November 14, 2015 by johnnyc13

[The_Kincardine]

arrogant deluded hypocritical pseud.

How you doing this evening?

Dandy, thanks. How about you?

Those debatable 'titles'. ... Rate your pride on a scale of zero to 1872 million..

There are no 'debatable titles', silly!

ETA of course any club that feels that the issue has been inadequately resolved could also take to issue to the SFA/SPFL and /or court of arbitration in sport. I suspect this will happen if the case is not appealed or if the verdict is guilty

So CAS is the new LNS, eh? What's the thinking (I use the term loosely) here? Will a club take Rangers to CAS? Will a club take The SPFL to CAS? How do you envisage this happening in practice?

William Austin Nimmo Smith

Level 5 are fully engaged to undermine the desire to strip titles. ..............

........As a shareholder in Rangers, Mike Ashley could challenge it. As someone who is hell-bent on exposing malfeasance at the SFA, this is one of the options he may choose to explore.

Monkey, you asked about tantrums. See the above.

It reads like a therapy exercise wherein the counselor has said something like, "Now, LifeBhoy67, you'll never get back to proper mental health unless you confront your demons. Write down the little you understand about Rangers, EBTs and legal processes on this nice piece of paper. When you've done that we'll do a wish list for Santa and send them both up the chimney together"

Who wrote this, ignorant, confused, stream of conscience dross, Dougal? I'd like to go and laugh at them.

[johnnyc13]

The_Arsehole

[johnnyc13]

The Times (English edition) Oliver Kay, chief football correspondent on the list

"After the court cases, the points deduction, the liquidation (of Rangers Football Club plc) and the demotion to the fourth tier of Scottish football, there are calls for the club to be stripped of the trophies they won while illegally using an employee benefit trust fund to pay players between 2001 and 2010.

Cheating scum.....