Leaderboard

Oh, I'll have a stab at this one then. You're implying that any panel the SFA use won't be impartial in your favour which in itself negates your points. I'm sure if it were Jimmy Nicholl, Donald Findlay and Campbell Ogilvie there would not have been one peep of protest from Ibrox, but everyone else would be up in arms, just how you like it, all or nothing eh? Try remembering this little lot but please take off those special reading glasses you normally wear, it might help you see things in black and white for a change, wouldn't that be nice? The guilty verdict on 5 out of 6 counts of breaching SFA rules still stands The JP and the AT both agreed that a fine was insufficient punishment for such offences and applied a transfer embargo Rangers won an appeal against the improper use of a transfer embargo at the CoS The CoS sent the matter back to the AT noting that the AT still have the power to impose a further sanction from the available listed options The AT, having already agreed that a fine is insufficient, now have to select - should they see fit - a sanction from the following list A Scottish Cup Ban Suspension of Membership Expulsion You clearly think the world is weighed against you in a unjustified vandetta. How you can see it that way is beyond me but there we have it. There are, frankly, too many reasons for Rangers to be disliked, most of them already noted on this thread, but let's try and keep emotion out of it, it tends to cloud judgement. I'll assume that's the view you have too, but from the other side of the looking glass. The findings of the JP and AT were never in question and Lord Glennie made reference to that. Rangers have put the SFA in an untenable position from many sides. If they impose no further sanction, they are weak in they eyes of every football fan in the world, except Rangers fans, and the system is shown to be corrupt, which in itself will bring the game down with or without Rangers. I'll try to let you see if from a different perspective, one more befitting of your understanding........you might want to top up that coffee, this takes a while...... Back to School with Rangers Rangers are the school bully. For years they've been lording it up and taking sweeties off everyone else. The diddies are the rest of the playground. Too scared and small to stand up to the bully. For years everyone in the playground has hated the bully. No one likes him, but he doesn't care with that big bag of chips on his shoulder. He just carries on taking what he wants and doing what he likes because he's bigger than the rest of the diddies and he has a big family. I mean really big. In every way. One day, the actions of the bully came to the attention of a staff member (the SFA). The staff member was most annoyed with the bully. It turns out this has been going on for years. More and more stories from the playground start to come out and one by one the diddies begin to let the staff member know how they feel about the bully and his conduct over the years. Unsure of how to deal with this situation, the staff member goes to the school counsellor (the JP) who is hearing all of this for the first time. The counsellor, who works in the school as a volunteer, goes to look up the school rules to see what punishment can be handed out. The rules say that the pupil can be given 100 page essay, not allowed to play in the Schools Football Cup, suspended from school or expelled. There is also the power to impose any sanction the counsellor deems fitting although this doesn't give any further indications of what that might be. The counsellor reports back to the staff member, who coincidentally looks after the school football team. The counsellor thinks that a 100 page essay is far too lenient. Restricting the bully from playing football will damage the teams chances of winning the schools cup and raising funds and suspension or expelling the bully wouldn't be good for the schools reputation. It was also noted that suspension or expelling the bully would likely cause the bully himself unknown damage, even in the short term, given the current situation at home. In this instance, the counsellor decides to invoke the power to determine a suitable punishment because of the special case this presents. So the bully is given a 100 page essay and detention after school while everyone else gets to go home. This serves to restrict the bully from causing the same problems and hopefully learn from the experience, while still allowing him to play football to keep his spirits up and not bringing the schools reputation into question. Most of the diddies seem pleased with this outcome and everyone is prepared to move on. The next morning, bully shows up at school with his dad. The dad is demanding to meet the counsellor and wants to know which staff room he is in. The counsellor is quite shaken having not expected this reaction given that the misconduct of the bully was so bad, it could have seen him expelled. The bully asks his dad not to keep embarrassing him and to please go home. Via the bakery. Later that day, the bully and the counsellor agree that the matter should be taken to another more senior member of staff, the Head Teacher (AT) who is better qualified than the counsellor to rule on the original findings and that they will both await his decision. Having heard all the facts from both parties, it doesn't take the Head Teacher long to realise that, in the circumstances, the counsellor was attempting to keep the staff member happy by still allowing the bully to play football, not getting the bully into even more potential trouble at home through suspension or being expelled and ensuring no lasting damage to the schools reputation. The Head Teacher concludes that the volunteer counsellor was being fair with the punishment and asks that the bully accept this second opinion so that they might all prepare for the new school year which is due to start in 8 weeks time. The school bully is furious now. The entire family, including uncle Sandy, have waddled to the steps of the school in protest and the whole matter gets a little out of hand for a few days. A few days later, after a whip round from the family to raise the necessary funds because Grandad (Green) came up a bit short on his promises, the bully proceeds to take his case to the Council (Lord Glennie). The Council is not impressed with the school volunteer counsellor or the Head Teacher for imposing a punishment on the bully that was not specifically mentioned in the school rules. The Council noted that the bully does not deny any of the guilty verdicts but nonetheless that was not why the bully was complaining. The bully had insisted on being given a punishment from within the rulebook. The Head Teacher, the counsellor and the staff member all concede to the Council's decision that the matter be returned back to the Head Teacher with the bully receiving no detention as it is not stated in the school rules as an available punishment and that the matter of any further punishment is for the Head Teacher to deal with. Much whooping and eating of cakes ensues as the bully and his family celebrate their big win. Meanwhile, all of this negative publicity has attracted the attention of the Department of Education (FIFA) who have been in contact with the school to insist the matter is dealt with quickly and effectively. Now that the matter has returned to within the confines of the school, to deal with it logically would be to apply one of the remaining sanctions listed, therefore the bully's punishment is warranted as having been properly selected from the options available - exactly the bully wanted. If this is dealt with in the appropriate manner, then the Department for Education will leave the matter to the Head Teacher. If it isn't then the Head Teacher, counsellor and staff member can expect a visit from HMiE about putting their school in order. The Head Teacher has been forced into the position of being compelled by their own findings to apply a further level of sanction above the most lenient option of the 100 page essay, now that the Council at the request of the bully have ruled out detention, or risk the diddies complaining, the staff feeling unsupported and the counsellors being hung out to dry. Everyone knows the rules of the game now thanks to the bully being, well, bullish. The argument has come full circle and it's back to what to do about the bully's behaviour. For which the bully has never once said sorry. I was wrong. So the moral of the story? If you are a bully and get caught, take your punishment and learn from your mistakes. Bringing your family to school to back you up shows how weak you really are. The willingness to flaunt the rules for years and then hide behind them when its suits serves to justify that even further as the actions of a coward. But some bully's never learn. This bully might even go back to the Council and tell them they were wrong too, that it should be the counsellor not the head teacher that has to decide their fate. And isn't that where it all started, applying fair and reasonable sanctions in light of the bully's own personal circumstances, looking at it as a special case? More circles. Like clocks, all ticking and no talking. Or maybe ever decreasing circles, like the ones you get circling a drain........ And breathe So, back to your question using simple logic No.8: How does Regan know what sanctions? Easy. Regan, me, you and everybody knows what the sanctions are. What, if any will be imposed? No, no sir. That should be what in particular will they choose to apply? That's the £13million pound question..... in the words of Jim Bowen, " and Bully's special prize......awww, look at what you could have won...."

So much so he even made it onto The Simpson's recently !

Yeah, I really think we should know who are Greens Pay Backers ....could they be from Wisconsin by any chance !?

Hector inspector has a plan to save all of Scottish Football.

East Fife

Also, sad news for Cowden that our games with them have dropped even lower on the "rivalry stakes" after the annoucement of a friendly against Lochgelly Albert.

I suppose it was only a matter of time before we were wombled err........ rumbled.

I have been covering this case (including the incredibly long trial) for work and wondered after today's verdict if it would end up on here Rangers was mentioned one day in evidence. The guy that got convicted used to live in a rather large property and I very nearly burst out laughing when someone in court referred to it as "the big house". There was no demand for it to stay open though. After sentencing I spoke to the HMRC guy involved in the case. After I'd finished interviewing him I thanked him and said "Now, hurry up and finish Rangers".

Is there someone lined up to put in the hundreds and thousands needed to form a newco(ne)??

Today, Duff & Phelps released the results of the 20th April creditors’ meeting. It is clear that the resolutions, as they stand, are now as modified by HMRC, rather than as originally framed by Duff & Phelps. As is not surprising in this saga, matters are not clear yet. There is some discussion about whether or not the resolutions allow a sale of the assets of Rangers to Charles Green without further creditor approval. I frankly do not see the point of the tightening up of the Resolutions, unless it gives HMRC power to “interfere”. Why would they have revised the Resolutions to put in place their own liquidator, if only to allow a sale of assets at an alleged knockdown price? I think there is enough ambiguity, as I mention below, to meet the requirement of HMRC which is that a CVA needs to be approved by creditors; an asset sale needs to approved by creditors; and if those options are gone, because Mr Green walks away, then BDO come in as liquidators. http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/duff-phelps-finally-release-the-results-of-the-creditors-meeting-on-20-april/

How about a game of "spot the difference" ?

Are Rangers dead yet? I need cheered up after we signed Tokely.

Time for you to wake up and smell the coffee. The CVA will be rejected, the SFA and SFL will hand down heavy punishments for your clubs cheating and HMRC will win the BTC, Charles Green will do a bolter and Rangers will die, they will no longer exist. Someone responsible ( a rarity at Ibrox I know) does know what's going to happen, I'm told by an enlightened friend (who is also a hvn) that a Lanarkshire based 2nd Division club has already been sounded out about becoming a newco rangers of sorts, HMRC under no circumstances will agree to the CVA and will have Rangers assets seized and liquidated, Charles Green will disappear off the scene and despite Doncasters best efforts the EBT, coupled with the BTC nonsense will see the end of Rangers. To be honest, it's no more than your vile institution deserve, they've been cheating in this country for so long as I can remember.

Jeez, hope he hasn't been reading p&b

2 + 2 ? Depends who you're asking. If it's Green it'll be 6, if it's H&D it could be anything, I'd reckon 4, plus 100,000 in an EBT.

EGIL FUCKING OSTENSTAD..OVER £300,000...WE DESERVE LIQUIDATION FOR THAT ALONE!!!!!! I fucking knew i would be better not looking at that list...DAN FUCKING EGGEN...I HAD FORGOTTEN HE 'PLAYED' FOR US AT ALL!!!

In fairness it asks what school your PC went to first.

Playing left back for England!

? What did the donkey get famous for???????

I do so hope you are wrong. As that story has been doing the rounds at Broomfield for a couple of months now.Our chairman is a known bun fan,a rumoured seat on a new Rangers board.The fact we have no debt,and if that joker Greenback gets Ibrox for pennies,it may just be coming true. Some may say it is karma over what we did for buying up Clydebank.Difference is we went tits up trying to fund a new stadium to meet the ever goal post changing SPL's criteria.We certainly didn't find ourselves in this position by not paying the tax man.

as long as she doesn't sing it won't matter.

In 5 years time, once the saga is over. Any new person to p&b should be directed to the diamond forum for this one thread. It must be read from start to finish before they are allowed to post

Let me take a stab at this one, Lord Glennie's report will be sent to the appellate tribunal for consideration. He states in his report that the SFA's QC's argument that the sanctions available to the panel were either too light or too harsh was not correct because of the following statement made by the appellate panel after upholding the embargo. He therefore believes that in the absence of the sanction of player registration embargo the appellate could go back to their original thought that suspension would have had to be considered as an option. So Regan knows that the only two options, in absence of an embargo are suspension (which the appellate said would have to be considered due to the seriousness of the misconduct) or expulsion. ETA T_S_A_R ye dickwad! I quoted this before wrongly as Lord Glennie's words and you ripped me a new one for getting it wrong, you too my little fvckwit had it wrong, Lord Glennie used a quote from the appellate tribunal to show that the QC's argument that sanctions befitting the misconduct were unavailable was incorrect. I shall repeat myself so you and No8 can "get it" the sanction of suspension can be considered now because the context of the lesser sanction (embargo) is not available. :D :D GIRUY

Third division forum for this pish!

I'm mocking them up with Clip Art as we speak.

So, that's 5 years for £635,000. Which means it's 1 year for every £127,000. Therefore £4 million is as near as damn it 31.5 years. Oh well, if he keeps his head down and the toilets immaculate, Craigy boy could be back out in 2031. As for Murray's 550 year sentence though...

In spite of your trolling, No8, I honestly get the impression that you and the Club you support could not give a f**k if that were to happen. This is about something far bigger than some petty parochial rivalry but the greater good of the game in this Country. Not all of us want Rangers punished properly because they are Rangers........but because they have broken numerous rules and deserve to be punished. but carry on with your "scorched earth" policy.........it didn't do the Wehrmacht any harm on their retreat from the Soviet Union !

just surrender this time

Maoam?

It looks to me like the reason they went to CoS, ignoring CAS, was time-related, CAS may have taken too long to overturn the decision. IMO the whole premise of Green's takeover is the "buy'em and sell'em" strategy, and if they can't do that the whole thing falls at the first fence, so they HAD to get rid of the transfer embargo. However, Beecher's Brook awaits, as does The Chair, and I suspect Green's horse thinks it's in a flat race.

What, no posts in half an hour? The Big Thread must stay open!

Cheers, I clearly don't understand taxation. Signed C Whyte

I thought that the SFA had to apply a sanction that was on their approved list, that's why they went to court. Is a cup ban in wahtever form on the list? And on the subject of renaming the training ground, how about "Lumley Park", cos it's one thing that DM didn't completely f*ck?

Possibly, if the burden of proof was 'beyond reasonable doubt' but that is not necessarily the level required here. What would need to be decided was if the payments were purely discretionary, i.e. was it up to the Trust (who were effectively acting on behalf of Rangers) what payments would be made. To believe that is to stretch credibility to a ridiculous degree. Many rational people would decide that the probability was that the sums being paid were not discretionary. If the sums being paid were part of an agreed amount then, effectively, there were secondary contracts whether these can be physically produced or not.

Hemingway was also responsible for..........: "I believe in the Free Masons, it is a noble organization." .......

Your interpretation of what's happening here is so off-base it's hilarious.

Nah, after liquidation it'll be named "The SFA school of excellence"

I know it's not fashionable to agree with Rangers fans on this thread, but I'm going to break the mould and agree with you. Anything in the mainstream media - whether positive or negative for Rangers - is pure speculation. The truth is we're waiting on several parties to make a decision based on the information they have presented to them. It's out of Rangers hands, it's out of the SFA's hands also at this moment in time. FIFA are 'watching' - that's it. They'll only pile in if they feel the punishment doesn't fit the crime - whether that be too harsh or too lenient. It's a waiting game at the moment. There's no news of note regarding Rangers and everyone is twisting statements remotely related to the topic to suit their agendas. Nothing to see here - or certainly not until the judicial panel make their decision, the BTC is decided, the CVA is voted on and dual contract investigation results are revealed.

This thread urgently needs some hard news. The last thirty pages have been like trying to unicycle across a boggy field.

You mean that odious wee cant Jimmy Bell ? Here's a pic of him and Wiggy Smith at last years SashFest.

McKee, is that you?

Is he under eighteen and can he play left back?

Portsmouth's administrators laid off 30 within a week. I don't want to see people lose their jobs, but I cannae believe that every single person other than Gordon Smith is essential to Rangers business.

In fairness Ric, there are many cunts out there so it would be easy to get confused who we're speaking about. But there's only one Cockwomble. Motherwell?

How has Green progressed with taking Rangers' name into Asia and other developing markets? Turning that back on Scotland it would similar to me finding a football top of a Malaysian club that synonymous with racism, bigotry, cheating and corruption and is hated across the entire country. £45? Oh yes please!

Give the f**k over. It's called living in your means and your club couldn't do it,. Imagine the shagger and whittaker (both apparently on £20k pw) were punted in feb Just for giggles, say that was 16 weeks ago. Saving 40k x 16weeks 640,000 Say Doris is on £15k p/a to clean the offices etc You could pay 42 dorises for 2 muppets

Stewart Regan said: "It is important that club owners take more responsibility to ensure that they sell their club to an individual or individuals who act responsibly and within the rules of football. "The Scottish FA governs the whole of football and rather than spend millions of pounds on investigations into any number of prospective purchases across the game at all levels - which would be better kept within the game - it is important that the onus is on those involved in the sale of the club." A well intentioned attempt, but unfortunately quite meaningless. 'within the rules of football' is an interesting quote. So news that the Mubarak family want to buy into Albion Rovers is great news for the SFA as long as they keep to the rules of football. When people come to sell football clubs it is usually a distress sale. Owners might go into the purchase of a club with big plans of winning leagues, cups, signing better players, but the reality is usually the very opposite. Just like David Murray was against the wall and would have sold to ANYONE and tried frequently to sell to anyone, most others have had similar experiences. So how to do it - if you are dodgy? Well get the purchaser to provide property valuations (£100 million?) to show his wealth, even "offer" that as security for the offer. A statement of wealth from someone who can confirm he has it today, but tomorrow the money has moved elsewhere. So a million and one ways to tell the story to the SFA which is useless, but defensible on having carried out to a reasonable level of responsibility. The biggest test of a would be purchaser is the cash that would be handed over. Everything else is irrelevant. And then the seller having moved on elsewhere gets called up to the SFA as the new owner is a total schyster and crook. They will do what they did to Whyte, to which of course he gave 2 fingers to. Do we have a fit and proper test? SFA could setup an independent body to carry out the due diligence properly, paid for by the purchaser and seller equally, which would make sense. If the SFA cannot take on this role with the resources at their disposal (including money) what makes anyone think that clubs have the skills to do it, or the diligent willingness? When Regan says it would cost the SFA millions of pounds. If he reckons it would cost the SFA that amount, could clubs do it for less? If so what parts would they miss out to make it cheaper? And can clubs afford it especially if they are selling when in financial trouble? A usual politically driven attempt to create something at arms length which takes responsibility away from the SFA. If it goes wrong they can point fingers at others. But finger pointing is all it will be. This is a well known problem, not just for football clubs. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslater/2011/11/british_test_is_fit_for_nothin.html The reason we have so many American owners in England is they do not meet the fit and proper test to take on an American football team. Never mind the Asian owners who have come with blood money and big egos. Sorry SFA. 0/10 for this one.

I'm saddened to see some people slating The Catty. It's fucking brilliant. I pulled an absolute stinker in there once. She had a tattoo of a panther on her tit. Well, it used to be a panther at some point. Alas, time makes fools of us all. That and gravity. It looked more like she'd been slapped on the tit by a coal miner. I knew it wasn't to be when she ran tried to go into a Subway at the end of the night because she wanted "a fucking kebab and cheese". How could a refined lady like that ever be happy with a simpleton lik me.