IS THE WAY AHEAD DAVE KING.

[Loughal]

While the debate between Youngsy,Bennet, Tedi & Timmy is interesting, and carried out without the usual venom that occurs when other such subjects are raised, hope you don't mind me getting back to the threads origional purpouse.

Dave King is conspicuous by his lack of comment recently. Looks like he watching developements to see what his next move will be. King's integrity has been questioned here and elsewhere. Me I was sufficiently hooked to go with him, as there is little else on the horizon cash wise elsewhere. The days of blindly throwing our season ticket cash to those in charge at the moment are gone. At long last thre fans have realised that those they have trusted are beyond trust. They simply throw loyalty in our face after all the swindling we have had to suffer in recent years. It would appear a majority have at long last come to the conclusion that trust has to be earned.

I was ridiculed a few years ago when I first said I did not trust those in charge, as the right people to get our club's respectability back. It matters not whether it takes ten years or more to achieve this, we must get to the stage where we have cleared up the mess, be it old or new club.

I presume Rangers are not going to the USA other than to earn some much needed cash. But just where are they today the CEO is silent, the busmen have stopped pleading to our Loyalty, we want to know the present financial state how serious or otherwise is it?

[BossHogg]

I dunno what Dave`s game, either he has given up or is now applying a completely different tactic but holding out for a DK rescue would imo be completely foolish.

I still will not buy a ST though and for a number of reasons (1) I believe the people who are currently running the club are only interested in short term gain and buying ST`s only benefits them (2) The club will hit admin at some point next season and without CC facilities any money paid across would be lost without recourse.

PAYG for me.

So bought into Kings plan of a ST boycott then...genius.

[BossHogg]

I dunno what Dave`s game, either he has given up or is now applying a completely different tactic but holding out for a DK rescue would imo be completely foolish. I still will not buy a ST though and for a number of reasons (1) I believe the people who are currently running the club are only interested in short term gain and buying ST`s only benefits them (2) The club will hit admin at some point next season and without CC facilities any money paid across would be lost without recourse. PAYG for me.

I would imagine the tax thing will not bother many Rangers fans, very few business men that have generated the kind of wealth that DK has have no skeletons lurking about. What will be important to most Rangers fans is weather or not DK will act in the best interest of the club or like the current board of spivs will it be a vehicle to line his own pockets? Its my opinion that DK already has a lot of personal wealth and could make money in easier ways away from the goldfish bowl that is Scottish Football, if he gets involved then it will be to see a successful Rangers team back competing at the top of Scottish football, basically he is a true fan with a lot of money, so yes I think we would be in far better hands with DK involved. I do not agree that fan ownership is a good idea for the club, the support has deep divisions around a number of issues and I do not see anyway to solve these, fan ownership would be like walking through treacle, I am surprised Dave does not see this or perhaps he does but thinks being honest about it at this stage would not help his cause. Like the OP I would be 100% behind king and will not be renewing till he is involved in some way, zero trust in the current board.

[BossHogg]

I know you are not the brightest, but how did you come up with this captain kirk?

I just gave 2 reasons for withholding ST money, neither of them have anything to do with DK

I know you're not the brightest ,so I'll explain it for you,,whatever reasons you think you're doing it for ,it was Dave Kings plan!

Anyone who boycotted the ST is firmly in Dave Kings side, because forcing Admin only benefits one man.

Morons being played by King and they don't even know it,,,,,,

"Former director Dave King has urged Rangers' fans to withhold season ticket money until they receive assurances about the League One club's future."

[jock001]

Isn't it hillarious how certain posters will utterly flip flop?

Apparently whether Rangers are a new club depends entirely on whether it's a benefit or not. There's plenty that say we have no hisotry but somehow still owe people for oldco's debt.

Now apparently they have the same opinion on the Rangers board. We were apparently all idiots being exploited but now we've turned the tables we're still idiots being expolited.

It's almost as if these people can't make a coherent thought and instead try to live their lives based on the philosophy 'durr, Rangers is bad, durrr'.

[hellbhoy]

Only one person was quoting about anything about law as regards SPL v Rangers tribunal and it wasn't any Rangers fan. Should the UTT go against HMRC will that mean that you will accept that there was no financial doping?

Seriously ?, you expect me to accept there was no financial doping when proven in a lawful court of law that the old club did in fact intentionally break the associations rules for over a decade ?.

The only saving grace here for the retaining of titles is that the associations have written rules that deliberately allow the clubs ill gotten gains to stay at the club because they couldn't retrospectively hand out punitive measures.

So we will have the law of the land proving the old club cheated and the associations who knew the club cheated but couldn't retrospectively punish the club for cheating and you want me to accept that there was no financial doping.

[jock001]

Seriously ?, you expect me to accept there was no financial doping when proven in a lawful court of law that the old club did in fact intentionally break the associations rules for over a decade ?.

When did this happen?

Silly hellbhoy.

The only saving grace here for the retaining of titles is that the associations have written rules that deliberately allow the clubs ill gotten gains to stay at the club because they couldn't retrospectively hand out punitive measures.

Really? Do tell.

So we will have the law of the land proving the old club cheated and the associations who knew the club cheated but couldn't retrospectively punish the club for cheating and you want me to accept that there was no financial doping.

We do?

So it isn't just that you don't have a clue what you are talking about?

[hellbhoy]

When did this happen?

Silly hellbhoy.

Really? Do tell.

We do?

So it isn't just that you don't have a clue what you are talking about?

It's way above your pay grade Jock, I wouldn't expect the average orc to understand such complicated things.

Your first statement shows you didn't read properly or comprehend the sentence, although I posted "when proven" you clearly showed you didn't grasp the content of the sentence. I never did post the verdict was given but asked a question "when proven" and not that there was one.

Your second retort ? FFS do read the quote below in my signature.

Your third ? clearly shows you are of needing further education in the dodgy corrupt dealings with all things Rangers.

[BossHogg]

Eh no Captain Kirk, I outlined the reasons above and neither have anything to do with DK and much more to do with common sense, but what would you know about that.

By the way, you are a previously banned fanny....GIRUY.

Did you decide to boycott ST before King Wanted it...yes or no

[BossHogg]

Isn't it hillarious how certain posters will utterly flip flop?

Apparently whether Rangers are a new club depends entirely on whether it's a benefit or not. There's plenty that say we have no hisotry but somehow still owe people for oldco's debt.

Now apparently they have the same opinion on the Rangers board. We were apparently all idiots being exploited but now we've turned the tables we're still idiots being expolited.

It's almost as if these people can't make a coherent thought and instead try to live their lives based on the philosophy 'durr, Rangers is bad, durrr'.

Oh well, thats Tedi for You!

[jock001]

It's way above your pay grade Jock, I wouldn't expect the average orc to understand such complicated things.

Your first statement shows you didn't read properly or comprehend the sentence, although I posted "when proven" you clearly showed you didn't grasp the content of the sentence. I never did post the verdict was given but asked a question "when proven" and not that there was one.

Your second retort ? FFS do read the quote below in my signature.

Your third ? clearly shows you are of needing further education in the dodgy corrupt dealings with all things Rangers.

Ok. We'll just stick to the first part I quoted as it would take too long for me to explain all the ways you are wrong:

Seriously ?, you expect me to accept there was no financial doping when proven in a lawful court of law that the old club did in fact intentionally break the associations rules for over a decade ?.

A tribunal is not a court of law although it does carry the same weight of judgement. Someone who knows even a little about the law knows this.

The tribunal did not say we intentionally broke any rules, quite the opposite. They said it was a simple mistake yet hellbhoy QC apparently knows better.

While the tribunal did say we broke rules, it also said it was accidental and we gained no advantage but apparently hellbhoy QC knows better than Nimmo Smith QC.

Financial doping wouldn't be decided by a tribunal set up by the SFA anyway. That would be handled by HMRC and a tax tribunal, which we won. Yet hellbhoy QC knws better than the judges and tax experts who sat on the panel.

So in this one thread you've repeatedly lied about what judges and experts have said in legal cases. Given financial advice and stated it as fact and publicly stated as fact things about a publicly traded company which just aren't true.

I'm not entirely sure if lying about judges decisions counts as conspiracy to pervert the course of justice but the other two are definately illegal and definately carry a custodial sentence.

So please, for your own good. STFU and quit pretending to know what you're talking about.

[youngsy]

Seriously ?, you expect me to accept there was no financial doping when proven in a lawful court of law that the old club did in fact intentionally break the associations rules for over a decade ?.

The only saving grace here for the retaining of titles is that the associations have written rules that deliberately allow the clubs ill gotten gains to stay at the club because they couldn't retrospectively hand out punitive measures.

So we will have the law of the land proving the old club cheated and the associations who knew the club cheated but couldn't retrospectively punish the club for cheating and you want me to accept that there was no financial doping.

Which Court of Law would this be that you're referring to? Surely it can't be the FTT on which the verdict went in favour of The Rangers Football Club PLC with a 2-1 majority.

[BossHogg]

http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/203928-the-most-embarrassing-thing-to-happen-in-scottish-football/?p=7973720

I await your apology.

so about 4 months after King started predicting insolvency unless the board sold up to him?.....well done moron.

[BossHogg]

Which Court of Law would this be that you're referring to? Surely it can't be the FTT on which the verdict went in favour of The Rangers Football Club PLC with a 2-1 majority.

and found them guilty on several of the cases with the rest being under appeal not to mention the dozens Rangers refused to contest and had to pay up for.

[youngsy]

and found them guilty on several of the cases with the rest being under appeal not to mention the dozens Rangers refused to contest and had to pay up for.

The FTT verdict was found in favour of The Rangers Football Club PLC. As hard as this is for you to accept that is a fact, also add to that is another fact, that is that not one player was ineligible to play, therefore no sporting advantage was gained, therefore not one SPL title was removed from the records, again as hard as it is for you to accept that is another fact, which is very pleasing because if you didn't care you wouldn't bother replying but you obviously do care and no doubt it bothers you a great deal but, and this is the more pleasing part, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

[BossHogg]

Out of the scores of Rangers fans on this site there's only s handfull of morons who, rather than talk about on the pitch topics have spent most of their life on threads biting like salmon at anyone who mentions "new club" or "tax"

Some of you have spent 2 years of your life on here everyday doing it! Trying to convince yourselves that anyone who posts such bait is "hurting" and "cant accept it" , to thick to see we are just occasionally poking you with a big stick and laughing......keep it up, the new season of reapeting yourselves is almost here!

[youngsy]

Out of the scores of Rangers fans on this site there's only s handfull of morons who, rather than talk about on the pitch topics have spent most of their life on threads biting like salmon at anyone who mentions "new club" or "tax" Some of you have spent 2 years of your life on here everyday doing it! Trying to convince yourselves that anyone who posts such bait is "hurting" and "cant accept it" , to thick to see we are just occasionally poking you with a big stick and laughing......keep it up, the new season of reapeting yourselves is almost here!

So you accept the FTT and SPL Tribunal verdicts. Good to know, you won't need to post anything more about them then. Cheers for that.

[Macshimmy]

Regarding the SPL Tribunal, my understanding is the verdict was:

The players were improperly registered, but because this was not detected at the time, the SPL considered it not actionable.

While setting a very dubious precedent, this issue was then buried for ever and encased in lime along with the SPL, and one dead club.

But, aye the verdict is still 'guilty' even although they let them off. Proving competitive advantage is not something which usually enters into these decisions - If you make a mistake registering players for a cup tie, you are expelled even if they deem it an honest error:

SPARTANS have been booted out of this year's Scottish Cup after they fielded an ineligible player in the second round win over Culter.

A three-man SFA judicial panel today found the East of Scotland champs guilty of playing striker Keith McLeod without the player having been properly registered.

As a result North Junior League champs Culter have been reinstated - and will move on to a money-spinning third round tie at home to Partick Thistle.

It's the second time in three years Spartans have been caught up in an ineligible player wrangle in the tournament.

Ironically McLeod has been with the club for 10 years - but a paperwork mix-up meant he was not registered to face Culter.

[BossHogg]

So you accept the FTT and SPL Tribunal verdicts. Good to know, you won't need to post anything more about them then. Cheers for that.

yes I accept Rangers were cheats.

[Macshimmy]

Regarding the SPL Tribunal, my understanding is the verdict was:

The players were improperly registered, but because this was not detected at the time, the SPL considered it not actionable.

Actually looking it up, they did deem it actionable - they fined oldco 250k

The key argument on 'sporting advantage' was this:

"[sPL lawyer] 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." (p26)

• Mr McKenzie then accepts that the rules could not allow a player to be automatically ineligible.

"'He accepted that no provision of the Rules enabled the Board of the SPL retrospectively to terminate the registration of the player." (p26)

So, essentially - they were guilty, and they got off on a technicality - but then they died, so it's all rosy ;-)