barrysnotter Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 In short The Rangers Football Club Limited should not pay the legal costs acquired by the SPL for a case they took out against a different company (The Rangers Football Club PLC) that owned and operated the club in the timeframe that the commission was looking at. Read the summation,you'll see that the Commission differentiated between both oldco and newco. Basically the SPL have made a complete cock up once again,which has enraged many who are anti-Rangers but it's made me laugh at many. :lol: This is where you guys get yourselves all tied up in knots. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 What could or should have the SPL done to help the company in charge on Rangers at the time? Come on Youngsy, they had to carry out an investigation into the company. You know this. The only people who spoke about title stripping was Charlie Green, and rumours have it he was happy to give up the titles for a ticket right back into the SPL! Apparently it was McCoist that told him this would have been unacceptable The SPL doing nothing for the club was in reply that football authorities helped Rangers, show when the SPL did anything for Rangers. As for speaking about title stripping i was referring to many critics throughout Scotland that wanted title stripping to take place against the plc,hence the Commission investigation,which many thought was a foregone conclusion. Many people wanted this club gone,out of existance,never mind title stripping,it didn't happen and that has enraged many,now when the SPL shareholders may have to face up to a £500,000 legal bill that has nothing to do with the present owners of the club i hope they are still suitably enraged. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 :lol: This is where you guys get yourselves all tied up in knots. Why would that be? After all who was fined the £250,000,the oldco or the newco? It was the oldco,The Rangers Football Club PLC. So you tell us all as to why the new owners of the club should be liable for a debt that the Commission have stated they were not even involved in any investigation. I think you'll find that The Rangers Football Club Limited aren't liable for any legal costs and if they are as you are obviously trying to link the two,why then was the £250,000 fine not awarded against the new owners. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 The SPL doing nothing for the club was in reply that football authorities helped Rangers, show when the SPL did anything for Rangers. As for speaking about title stripping i was referring to many critics throughout Scotland that wanted title stripping to take place against the plc,hence the Commission investigation,which many thought was a foregone conclusion. Many people wanted this club gone,out of existance,never mind title stripping,it didn't happen and that has enraged many,now when the SPL shareholders may have to face up to a £500,000 legal bill that has nothing to do with the present owners of the club i hope they are still suitably enraged. The club was fine, it was the company in trouble, so what should the SPL have done? To be honest I've not read anything about this £500,000 bill. So I can't really comment on it, but from what I got from the LNS outcome RFC had been found guilty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 The club was fine, it was the company in trouble, so what should the SPL have done? To be honest I've not read anything about this £500,000 bill. So I can't really comment on it, but from what I got from the LNS outcome RFC had been found guilty. Read paragraph 108 of the SPL Commission summation,it states " We have decided to impose a fine of £250,000 on Oldco". Not on any other party,such as Newco. If there was any legal chance of that happening no doubt it would have. The SPL are pishing against the wind with this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullyforyou Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Read paragraph 108 of the SPL Commission summation,it states " We have decided to impose a fine of £250,000 on Oldco". Not on any other party,such as Newco. If there was any legal chance of that happening no doubt it would have. The SPL are pishing against the wind with this. Have to agree. Nothing to do with the new club and shows the SPL up for the fuds that they undoubtedly are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain kirk Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Thats even better than your "piggery is sectarian" meltdown When in your imagination did that happen? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bookies Love Me Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 :lol: This is where you guys get yourselves all tied up in knots. I don't know about them, but, it sure as f*ck is doing my head in. Same team - not the same team. Same club - not the same club. Same company - not the same company. Can't fine us 'cause we're Newco it's Oldco's debt! But, our history is a continuation of Oldco and you can't take that away! rangers then, rangers now, rangers forever! Make your minds up! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 (edited) I don't see why so many who are anti-Rangers are getting all wound up about the legal costs of the SPL Commission. The Commission already stated that the inquiry was about the operating of the club from the old company,The Rangers Football Club,Public Limited Company,nothing at all to do with the new company operating the club,The Rangers Football Club Limited. It's all there in the summation from the Commission and it seems that the SPL have shot themselves in the foot with this. Right then Youngsy. I understand the above arguments, but surely you've the brains and the decency to recognise the injustice in this "we're the same club with the same history; but we're not the same when it comes to paying for former misdeeds" stuff. I'm actually serious. I've said already that I recognise a continuation, but morally, you really can't defend a position that keeps the good stuff, and ditches the bad. Personally, I'd take either alternative - 'keep the history, but pay for wrongdoing'; or 'walk Scot free from the wreckage, but admit to starting afresh. I'm not arguing that you're brand new, yet must pay up; but what you want would be equally unfair. Seriously Rangers fans, how do you reconcile this desire to have and eat cakes, on any moral basis? Edited April 3, 2013 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Surely the fine against the Oldco - for being found guilty of - in non-legal speak- 'at it' - decided on by LNS and the costs of the tribunal are 'football debts' (what else can they be?) and Chucky agreed to pay all football debts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Surely the fine against the Oldco - for being found guilty of - in non-legal speak- 'at it' - decided on by LNS and the costs of the tribunal are 'football debts' (what else can they be?) and Chucky agreed to pay all football debts. Chuckie also said there would be a queue of internationals lining up to sign for rangers after Euro 2012. Chuckie also stated Adidas were excited about having rangers as their biggest sponsorship deal. Chuckie also stated that all those trophies are his - he bought them. Chuckie also stated that a CVA was necessary to prevent rangers' history dying. I wouldn't hold my breath for him paying any money he can possibly weasel out of. If that fucker told me it was Wednesday, I'd check my calendar. Green and rangers are a perfect fit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Right then Youngsy. I understand the above arguments, but surely you've the brains and the decency to recognise the injustice in this "we're the same club with the same history; but we're not the same when it comes to paying for former misdeeds" stuff. I'm actually serious. I've said already that I recognise a continuation, but morally, you really can't defend a position that keeps the good stuff, and ditches the bad. Personally, I'd take either alternative - 'keep the history, but pay for wrongdoing'; or 'walk Scot free from the wreckage, but admit to starting afresh. I'm not arguing that you're brand new, yet must pay up; but what you want would be equally unfair. Seriously Rangers fans, how do you reconcile this desire to have and eat cakes, on any moral basis? Newco forced to pay oldcos footballing debt BUT Spl withold footballing monies owed to the oldco. How do you reconcile that? Any fair minded person would be utterly disgusted at the behaviour of the footballing authorities in this country against a member club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Newco forced to pay oldcos footballing debt BUT Spl withold footballing monies owed to the oldco. How do you reconcile that? Any fair minded person would be utterly disgusted at the behaviour of the footballing authorities in this country against an associate member club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 I know, how dare Rangers be forced to pay back football debt that it ran up. You don't think you should have paid money to the clubs you ripped off, but in the same breath outraged you didn't get a penny for the likes of McGregor Aye, very good 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 (edited) Chuckie also said there would be a queue of internationals lining up to sign for rangers after Euro 2012. Chuckie also stated Adidas were excited about having rangers as their biggest sponsorship deal. Chuckie also stated that all those trophies are his - he bought them. Chuckie also stated that a CVA was necessary to prevent rangers' history dying. I wouldn't hold my breath for him paying any money he can possibly weasel out of. If that fucker told me it was Wednesday, I'd check my calendar. Green and rangers are a perfect fit. This may have been asked and answered so apologies in advance. Who legally owns said (replica) trophies? Green fronts a consortium, so presumably they are not his personal property. Does the "club" own them or the "company" or someone/something else? Could they be melted down and sold as scrap? Silver commands a high price at the moment., 14 to 15 pounds per ounce. There might be enough to pay a few bills. Edited April 3, 2013 by cyderspaceman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Right then Youngsy. I understand the above arguments, but surely you've the brains and the decency to recognise the injustice in this "we're the same club with the same history; but we're not the same when it comes to paying for former misdeeds" stuff. I'm actually serious. I've said already that I recognise a continuation, but morally, you really can't defend a position that keeps the good stuff, and ditches the bad. Personally, I'd take either alternative - 'keep the history, but pay for wrongdoing'; or 'walk Scot free from the wreckage, but admit to starting afresh. I'm not arguing that you're brand new, yet must pay up; but what you want would be equally unfair. Seriously Rangers fans, how do you reconcile this desire to have and eat cakes, on any moral basis? They don't give the proverbial flying f**k. They are ra peepul. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 You have to laugh at Monkey boy. All this from the guy who said beating Rangers was great but knowing you had benefited from cheating made it all the sweeter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 You have to laugh at Monkey boy. All this from the guy who said beating Rangers was great but knowing you had benefited from cheating made it all the sweeter They didn't benefit from cheating, though did they? And I don't think MT claimed they did. They benefited from a poor official's decision. And yes, that was fucking funny for all who have suffered from rangers' "good relationship" (copyright John "walked away" Greig) with the authorities over they years. Almost as funny as rangers not having many fans left in the ground to actually watch extra time and penalties.... Almost. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 My God...you do see the irony of a 'supporter' who has not attended one single solitary game in Scotland having a go at supporters leaving the ground early 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 My God...you do see the irony of a 'supporter' who has not attended one single solitary game in Scotland having a go at supporters leaving the ground early Bendarroch was saying after his unfortunate incident that he probably won't be going to games anymore. Does that mean he can no longer call himself a fan of rangers? Fucking idiot. 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.