Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[forever_blue]

*The Rangers

We have always been the rangers

[The DA]

Where are the double standards?  Why are you comparing a situation where players weren't eligible to play versus one where they were?

 

The decision that the Rangers players were eligible to play is beyond logic and beyond parody.  'Imperfectly registered', my arse.  

[forever_blue]

The decision that the Rangers players were eligible to play is beyond logic and beyond parody.  'Imperfectly registered', my arse.

Doon you go pal

Cheerybye xx

[Monkey Tennis]

Where are the double standards? Why are you comparing a situation where players weren't eligible to play versus one where they were?

Because the 'were eligible to play' judgement is massively contentious. It's reliant on a technicality in SPL regulations, to do with the capacity for retrospective reading. Bizarrely too, the decision was reached against a backdrop of Rangers' EBT use being deemed legitimate. At present, that's not the position, yet the titles remain in place on the former premise.

If you really want your club to retain a few trophies among dozens of others on that basis, then I suppose that's up to you. It strikes me as extraordinary though.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Monkey Tennis

[The_Kincardine]

The decision that the Rangers players were eligible to play is beyond logic and beyond parody.

The conclusions of the Smith commission were well documented and published.  You may disagree with those conclusions but the process was transparent and its integrity unimpeachable. So for Ken to talk about 'double standards' and you to say it was 'beyond parody' smacks of sour grapes to me.

[Monkey Tennis]

Fb really is like the kid in a kilt at a wedding who slides around the floor during the buffet.

Ultimately irrelevant enough to be harmless, but still a bit irritating.

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

The conclusions of the Smith commission were well documented and published.  You may disagree with those conclusions but the process was transparent and its integrity unimpeachable. So for Ken to talk about 'double standards' and you to say it was 'beyond parody' smacks of sour grapes to me.

[The_Kincardine]

 Bizarrely too, the decision was reached against a backdrop of Rangers' EBT use being legitimate.

That's entirely immaterial.  The terms of reference given to the commission was to proceed whether our use of EBTs was deemed to be within HMRC guidelines or not - which the commission duly did.

 

Again, you may not like its conclusions but you can't call an enquiry 'bizarre' for acting according to its remit.

[The DA]

The conclusions of the Smith commission were well documented and published.  You may disagree with those conclusions but the process was transparent and its integrity unimpeachable. So for Ken to talk about 'double standards' and you to say it was 'beyond parody' smacks of sour grapes to me.

 

In your heart of hearts, do you not have a wee moral twinge about this?  

 

Your club/company suspected that their use of side letters might be contentious so, to prevent the tax man getting wind of things, you elected not to tell the football authorities either, deliberately breaking their rules.  According to the LNS commission, they couldn't backdate ineligibility, so they let results stand with a wee slap on the wrist fine that was never going to be paid.  If the side-letters had come to light at the time, any impacted player would have been ineligible and all results voided.

 

LNS may have decided there's a statute of limitations for imposing punishments but that doesn't mean the offence didn't take place.

[Erskjne Bridge]

God help us with these scumbags in the Premiership next season. Still, once a cheat, always a cheat.

[forever_blue]

This is wonderful, the BRALT may or may not be gone tomorrow but Ra diddies seem desperate to  give us another day of laughing at their mopery.

 

 

Has one man ever been the cause of so much deserved pain and suffering?

What a beautiful b*****d

[forever_blue]

God help us with these scumbags in the Premiership next season. Still, once a cheat, always a cheat.

^^^^ mrs pumped by a bear type post IMO

[The_Kincardine]

In your heart of hearts, do you not have a wee moral twinge about this?  

 

Absolutely we had a moral case to answer.  We overspent and we used an imprudent remuneration plan.  The consequence of being skint and of being chased by HMRC was administration which was absolutely our own fault and a fair moral judgement.

 

So LNS dealt with the legal case and the bailiffs dealt with the moral one so I say we've had our just deserts.  Time for The Diddies to agree with me and move on.

[Erskjne Bridge]

^^^^ mrs pumped by a bear type post IMO

Lol. Usual thick bigot reply.

[The DA]

Absolutely we had a moral case to answer.  We overspent and we used an imprudent remuneration plan.  The consequence of being skint and of being chased by HMRC was administration which was absolutely our own fault and a fair moral judgement.

 

So LNS dealt with the legal case and the bailiffs dealt with the moral one so I say we've had our just deserts.  Time for The Diddies to agree with me and move on.

 

And do you think LNS dealt with it satisfactorily?  Was his 'too long ago, can't do anything about it now' approach fair?  Do you think Rangers got off lightly?

[The_Kincardine]

And do you think LNS dealt with it satisfactorily?  Was his 'too long ago, can't do anything about it now' approach fair?  Do you think Rangers got off lightly?

I was more than a little sceptical about The LNS enquiry as I suspected it could be a bit of a set up.  However, his lordship conducted himself with aplomb and was fair, reasonable and even-handed.  Above all, he was transparent.  Anyone who questions the enquiry clearly has an axe to grind.

[Monkey Tennis]

That's entirely immaterial.  The terms of reference given to the commission was to proceed whether our use of EBTs was deemed to be within HMRC guidelines or not - which the commission duly did.

 

Is that entirely accurate?

I thought the commission was then instructed to proceed on the basis that the scheme was operated within HMRC guidelines because that was the existing judgement.

I didn't think it was instructed to proceed on the basis that any such judgement was immaterial.

It's an important distinction. Have I got that wrong?

[Monkey Tennis]

I was more than a little sceptical about The LNS enquiry as I suspected it could be a bit of a set up.  However, his lordship conducted himself with aplomb and was fair, reasonable and even-handed.  Above all, he was transparent.  Anyone who questions the enquiry clearly has an axe to grind.

And yet, you've said before that the whole EBT endeavour was clearly done in pursuit of sporting advantage, something you see as the duty of any football club.

Transparency needn't necessarily equate to fairness. The contradictions in your own stance are evidence of this.

[THE KING]

You predicted back in 2012 that this would happen in the 'next few years' it didn't, you got this wrong.  Hilarious that here you 4 years later setting yourself up for the same ridicule.

Almost as funny as you believing your racist hero that Rangers had paid all their small creditors lol...got that list proving it yet?...4 years and counting

[The_Kincardine]

And yet, you've said before that the whole EBT endeavour was clearly done in pursuit of sporting advantage, something you see as the duty of any football club.

Gaining sporting advantage IS the duty of every club.  Sometimes you do it wisely and sometimes you don't.  My main point was that the phrase, "Gained a sporting advantage" is nonsense.  Who hasn't tried?