craigkillie Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 I think Doncaster is correct to suspend the ruling until they take some legal advice over what is an available sanction for EBTs. This doesn't mean there will be no sanctions if the SPL votes for the share transfer since the SPL just changed the rules so they could impose sanctions on the newco. The SPL certainly can't levy fines or future points deductions for EBTs now so that means if found guilty the vacating of trophies. I don't think trophies should go to runners up, instead there should be no winner so that when anyone looks at a history book they immediately know something was wrong and I don't particularly agree with re-awarding trophies well after the fact since any joy gotten by the new winners is completely false and overshadowed by the feeling of losing at the time. Why can't they levy a future points deduction? If "Rangers" transfer their share to "The Rangers", then isn't it considered a continuation of the same club in terms of membership? Aren't points deductions and expulsion available sanctions? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Agree, this is by no means a great move by the SPL in terms of their own reputation but they're just praying hard that they can delay making any kind of decision until after the SFA step up and hopefully boot them out making the double contracts thing pretty academic. The complete refusal of the SPL to take any kind of action here though shows them up to be a shambles. The SFA should soon be pressing to have the league disbanded and return to the auspicies of the SFL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) That should go without saying, if they want to claim history and therefore eligibility for the SPL then they must also claim the disciplinary history of the deadco, they cannot claim the good stuff and rid themselves of the bad stuff. That's exactly what they want to do. As said, can't have your cake and eat it. Either you are still Rangers with all the history, including the bad stuff, plus they can't claim only " 2 men" in Murray & Whyte have destroyed the club, but happy to revel in the glory of all the trophies and achievements won under his stewardship. Or They are The Rangers, a brand spanking new club with no debt and no history, starting again from scratch Since they all started, Rangers fans and the club have not shown one ounce of humility. Still trying to act like the bully boys with threats of boycotts etc.. Edited June 15, 2012 by Enrico Annoni 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 So what if Unitedlad has as his team "Other"? Some of us that frequent more than one of the football forums on here do so because we'd rather not put up with the pish from fannyspangles like you saying "you cannae post in here, your team's no in this league"/"oh, so X is your wee team is it" clusterfucktardery from those with IQs that could be beaten with one dart - or Old Firm fans to use the technical term. Oh, I'm using that one! :lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 I don't think trophies should go to runners up, instead there should be no winner so that when anyone looks at a history book they immediately know something was wrong and I don't particularly agree with re-awarding trophies well after the fact since any joy gotten by the new winners is completely false and overshadowed by the feeling of losing at the time. I agree with this part. What about teams that were knocked out in Semis and earlier rounds by a Rangers fielding ineligible players? Just scrub their name off the trophies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indicator Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Just a wee point but, could everybody please stop referring to the 'newco' as R*****s and somebody think up a suitably appropriate name that we can all use in future. We shouldn't be going along with their desire to still be called R*****s. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Gregory Ioannidis @LawTop20 There is no dispute that Old RFC is dead. The new one starts afresh. New VAT Number, new name, new badge, new history. All facts. another person with a strange idea of the concept of history. Gregory Ioannidis @LawTop20 This is a valid legal opinion and everything else to the contrary that has been reported it is utter nonsense. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenockRover Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Just a wee point but, could everybody please stop referring to the 'newco' as R*****s and somebody think up a suitably appropriate name that we can all use in future. We shouldn't be going along with their desire to still be called R*****s. Best one I've seen is T'Rangers - given that a stubborn Yorkshire man now owns the scumfuckwits... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray_of_licht Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Just a wee point but, could everybody please stop referring to the 'newco' as R*****s and somebody think up a suitably appropriate name that we can all use in future. We shouldn't be going along with their desire to still be called R*****s. Fourth Lanark? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Just a wee point but, could everybody please stop referring to the 'newco' as R*****s and somebody think up a suitably appropriate name that we can all use in future. We shouldn't be going along with their desire to still be called R*****s. Here's a few suggestions: Cvnts. Cheats Cheating Cvnts Thieves Thieving Cvnts Criminals Criminal Cvnts Knuckledraggers Knuckledragging Cvnts (Not proud of myself, but wit and subtlety is wasted on orcs, anyhoo) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broccoli Dog Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Let's not be too hasty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaspode Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 FAN ownership of St Mirren appears to have moved a step closer after the 10000Hours group announced they had reached their target for support of their bid. Now we will be able to put the boot into "The Rangers" by being able to vote "No" to the NEWCO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) With respect to his tweets, he has been wrong before. He claimed that UEFA demanded that teams were relegated if they went to the civil courts, which wasn't true. True but this is not a matter of sports rules it is a matter of law. The taxman has already said that newco Rangers cannot be pursued by the law for the wrongdoings of the oldco. We have already seen in this saga that the law of the land supercedes footballing rules and regulations. Why should this be any different? If t'Rangers are admitted to the SPL then they have gotten there through no sporting achievement and have qualified through being no more than a financial pull. More importantly, they will not face sanctions. Rangers set the bar by going to the CoS now their successor must also abide by the law of the land. A couple of phrases I have found myself using throughout this thread are "be careful what you wish for" and "you can't have it both ways" both seem quite apt in this situation. Edited June 15, 2012 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broccoli Dog Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Fourth Lanark? For all the supporters from the emerald isle, Turd Lanark. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 If they are allowed to transfer the share to the newco, then this is effectively no different to me setting up a new company to buy Dundee United while leaving Stephen Thompson liable for the debts. It is the same club under new ownership, and should be subject to the same rules and requirements as under the previous owners. If DUFC were to start with a 10 point penalty next season, and I bought them from ST tomorrow, would I be allowed to say "It's a new company, we shouldn't be subject to the 10 point penalty", Cockwomble, Campbell "I didn't know" Ogilvie et al would tell me to shove my newco up my ar*e. If we are to accept that the new company isn't the same club, then it is a brand new club and should be subject to the same requirements for joining the SFA/SFL/SPL as if we went out this afternoon and set up P&B United. And we all know they can't meet those in time for next season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) Just a wee point but, could everybody please stop referring to the 'newco' as R*****s and somebody think up a suitably appropriate name that we can all use in future. We shouldn't be going along with their desire to still be called R*****s. FUBAR FC ? Trigger's Broom FC (Taken from elsewhere) Edited June 15, 2012 by Florentine_Pogen 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Is what newco Rangers is trying to do any different from me setting up my own team and bypassing every level of football and going straight to the top on the basis that we have more fans than most of you and the TV want's to show us? Yes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45 Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 If they are allowed to transfer the share to the newco, then this is effectively no different to me setting up a new company to buy Dundee United while leaving Stephen Thompson liable for the debts. It is the same club under new ownership, and should be subject to the same rules and requirements as under the previous owners. If DUFC were to start with a 10 point penalty next season, and I bought them from ST tomorrow, would I be allowed to say "It's a new company, we shouldn't be subject to the 10 point penalty", Cockwomble, Campbell "I didn't know" Ogilvie et al would tell me to shove my newco up my ar*e. If we are to accept that the new company isn't the same club, then it is a brand new club and should be subject to the same requirements for joining the SFA/SFL/SPL as if we went out this afternoon and set up P&B United. And we all know they can't meet those in time for next season. But DUFC aren't ra berrz. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 That's exactly what they want to do. As said, can't have your cake and eat it. Either you are still Rangers with all the history, including the bad stuff, plus they can't claim only " 2 men" in Murray & Whyte have destroyed the club, but happy to revel in the glory of all the trophies and achievements won under his stewardship. Or They are The Rangers, a brand spanking new club with no debt and no history, starting again from scratch Since they all started, Rangers fans and the club have not shown one ounce of humility. Still trying to act like the bully boys with threats of boycotts etc.. And the dynamic's actually a Mexican standoff in some respects, since you have to add-in the fact that they wouldn't want to accept they're a new club (no sanctions but no history) yet then lose the SPL share transfer vote anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Good spot. Seems that a UEFA ban, a 10 point deduction and Whyte being in charge was enough of a punishment for him. p***k. When will these p***ks get it into their heads that the Uefa ban is a rule and not a punishment? 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.