Monkey Tennis Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 11 minutes ago, bennett said: Been here before dozens of times. " The tribunal states that the Scottish FA approach to the rules is clear and the SPL should apply their rules in the same manner. "We are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches." (p27) "This is an important finding, as it means that there was no instance shown of Rangers FC fielding an ineligible player. " ".Sandy Bryson, Head of Registrations at the Scottish FA, gives evidence that registrations remain unless revoked and are not automatically invalid due to rule breaches. Yes - Improper, but ultimately found to be valid, as they couldn't be deemed otherwise retrospectively. If everything was correct, what on earth was that record fine for? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 10 minutes ago, Tartantony said: If they were innocent then I'm sure they wouldn't care either way. If they were guilty then of course they wouldn't accept it and do whatever they can to avoid it. Why can't you just admit that your club made an arse of it again and be happy they've got away with it? 2 + 2 = 5. 5 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: Yes - Improper, but ultimately found to be valid, as they couldn't be deemed otherwise retrospectively. If everything was correct, what on earth was that record fine for? Valid and within the association rules. If I recall correctly the SPLs/Celtics legal beagle misunderstood the rules in regards to the registrations of players. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 1 minute ago, bennett said: Valid and within the association rules. If I recall correctly the SPLs/Celtics legal beagle misunderstood the rules in regards to the registrations of players. Take 3: What was the record fine for? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: Take 3: What was the record fine for? Sorry monkey, was sure that I mentioned that. Admin errors was the line used by Scotland's leading law lord. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jdog Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 50 minutes ago, bennett said: The players were correctly registered tho, Sandy Bryson from the SFA confirmed this and Lord William Nimmo Smith agreed. Sandy bryson 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 1 minute ago, bennett said: Sorry monkey, was sure that I mentioned that. Admin errors was the line used by Scotland's leading law lord. I'm not convinced that that's a direct quote, but even if it is, I assume that you're also referring to the same guy who mentioned "no unfair competitive advantage", a claim challenged even by David Murray, so I think we can both dismiss it. The fine was for unprecedented rule breaches in the registration of players. They were therefore registered improperly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepundit Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 2 hours ago, Jdog said: Yes, a club without 3 years audited accounts ( hence no European football) so new club Sevco admitted into D3 ,where teams like Cove and Spartans had failed... Didn't the Cove Rangers and Spartans applications get rejected due to other teams getting more votes? Not sure what that has to do with Rangers, especially when they didn't even apply the same season Rangers did. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 3 hours ago, bennett said: Do the SFA ever get anything right, a QC led legal spent almost a year looking for charges to bring against Rangers at their judicial panel. Only to be told that they'd gotten it wrong again. I've a feeling that a CAS case would also leave them with egg on their faces. But the moon howlers must be appeased at all costs. Maybe we should offer to crowdfund their efforts and really put the wind up them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 7 hours ago, Forest of Dean said: Looks likely that even if this went to CAS and we were judged against that the punishment would only amount to a £5k fine... What a spectacular waste of time and money. I know the The Rangers aren't the brightest bulbs around, but? Who foots the six figure legal bill if Sevco get landed with a paltry £5K fine? And going by previous court shenanigans it is usually Sevco that end up footing the bill. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jdog Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 The *** QCs seemed to have missed Kings latest slap down by a Judge Today... Funny thatno 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 2 hours ago, bennett said: Rangers have merely followed the wording of the five way agreement, that this cannot be dealt with by the SFA. Now considering that the SFA misunderstood this, it's also more than likely that these two charges that have been brought against Rangers are also groundless. They never applied to join the sfl at that time tho. Am I right in saying here that you are using the five way agreement to bolster your argument in favour of Sevco here? The very same five way agreement you and your fellow supporting **** claimed was illegal and should never have been signed in the first place. ****, thick as pigshit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said: I'm not convinced that that's a direct quote, but even if it is, I assume that you're also referring to the same guy who mentioned "no unfair competitive advantage", a claim challenged even by David Murray, so I think we can both dismiss it. The fine was for unprecedented rule breaches in the registration of players. They were therefore registered improperly. The registrations were perfectly valid as confirmed by the eminent Lord William Nimmo Smith. 40 minutes ago, The DA said: Maybe we should offer to crowdfund their efforts and really put the wind up them. Already being done, surprised that you haven't donated already. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 6 minutes ago, bennett said: The registrations were perfectly valid as confirmed by the eminent Lord William Nimmo Smith. Already being done, surprised that you haven't donated already. I'd be awfy grateful if you could post the excerpts and quotes from the SPL commission that will support your demented ramblings Benny. As MT has already posted they got a fine for breaching both the associations rules & regulations on registering players but unfortunately Rangers weren't caught in the act in doing so. And luckily enough both associations had changed their rules & regulations when they eventually got pulled up for it, the SFA & SPL were so stupid they wrote into their rules & Regulations that they couldn't punish clubs retrospectively like they could have done with the previous seasons set rules & regulations. Imagine that eh? Changing the rules & regulations so they can't punish clubs even if they are guilty of breaking the rules aKa cheating. Either a conspiracy or stupidity? you decide? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 Sorry QC but your legal prowess is too much for me, I know when I'm beaten. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 18 minutes ago, bennett said: The registrations were perfectly valid as confirmed by the eminent Lord William Nimmo Smith. Ach Bennett, there's something reassuring in the fact that you're still doing this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: Ach Bennett, there's something reassuring in the fact that you're still doing this. Can't we all just accept the LNS verdict whatever it is..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 6 minutes ago, bennett said: Can't we all just accept the LNS verdict whatever it is..... Christ, no. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CambieBud Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 So what happened to Glib and Shameless today in court? Can someone summarise please 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senorsoupe Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, CambieBud said: So what happened to Glib and Shameless today in court? Can someone summarise please Court told him to comply with the takeover panel, if he fails he could be held in contempt of court meaning Jail time or being banned from entering the UK https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-44908488 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 18 minutes ago, CambieBud said: So what happened to Glib and Shameless today in court? Can someone summarise please Basically King has been told to make the offer or he might get the cold shoulder from them denying King access the banking facilities and the services of an accountant. Supposedly an effective method of compliance but in Kings case Rangers don't have a banking facility and neither do they possess the services of a chartered accountant at the moment. So the Takeover Panel and the Court couldn't even burn the glibs neck red with a blow torch as things stand and as far as King is concerned it is the sum of f**k aw to even get bothered about. An itchy arsehole in public would be more of a nuisance to him at this point in time. He'll do the bear minimal to evade being in contempt of court, no doubt he is trying to syphon out the money he gave as loans to the clumpany to rest in his fictional UK bank account before swiftly proclaiming to the bears he has acquired additional funding from his personal wealth and becomes the blue Messiah again. All hinges on Kings ability to place the £11 million into a UK bank account to make offers to the other share holders to sell. We all know that most of the shares won't get taken up and King might only have to buy a few million pounds worth but his ability to have £11 million in the first place shows he doesn't have it at the moment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.