Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[glasgow-sheep]

Seems the sfa are getting over much abuse here.

They appointed an INDEPENDENT panel to first decide whether rangers had brought the game into disrepute and what the punishment should be then appointed another INDEPENDENT panel to adjudicate the appeal. Yes they could perhaps have had specified some more punishments for the charge or made the catch all clause more water tight than the CoS has deemed it but it is not their fault their Independent panels interpreted their rules differently to the CoS.

I'm know little about the details and legalities about what the sfa can do now but it seems to me this is all still just a side show to the cva and the btc/ebt/double contracts.

Finally I'm yet to see what punishment the rangers support believe is suitable for the current charges of bringing the game into disrepute which have now been found to be proven three times? What exactly would they think was acceptable? The most sickening aspect of this whole episode seems to be the rangers fans belief that they should infact escape any punishment what so ever.

[chrismcarab]

the panel made a c**t of it by simply creating a punishment that wasnt available to them, its not the rule rangers apparently broke that the club is contesting, it is the punishment that wasnt available to the panel that the club are contesting

it would be like a player being found guilty of blatant diving and the panel giving them a 10 game ban, when there is nothing in the rules saying the panel can make this new punishment

if the SFA and the appeal panel actually used a punishment available to them this wouldnt have went to court

Er, like the Joey Barton ban then, something unprecedented based on a history of offences and one almighty stooshy that when totalled up leaves the panel addressing the hearing to implement unprecedented action in view of the breaches committed? and there's still a big elephant in the room.....

[djchapsticks]

if the SFA and the appeal panel actually used a punishment available to them this wouldnt have went to court

So if they expelled Rangers from the league in the first place, there would have been no appeal forthcoming?

Away and don't talk shite.

[CambieBud]

or simply a cup ban

If that happens then I hope you enjoy watching your team in empty stadiums on Sky next season. Shameful trolling and I bit, but even you must be embarrassed and ashamed to be associated with your own club!

[Claymores]

ocht nonsense.

Green won't lay out a bean more of his investors money than he has to to achieve his aim- asset stripping Rangers and leaving with a handsome profit to show for his "efforts". That is, if he takes over the club at all.

Gennaro Gattuso, for all his keening and whining from Milan, won't be back for a big last payday in Glasgow. The reason? he (nor any other expensive player) is simply not part of Green's plan.

Bollox - McDonald has openly stated his interests - bankrolling the acquisition of new prospects who are retained in consortium 'ownership' then punted-on for consortium profit. Ranjurs incur the costs of 'leasing' them but no gains from sales. McDonald explicitly outlined that he and others have millions to do this with.

[djchapsticks]

Ok - I gave a daft example of someone who could be wearing a jersey by Friday. McDonald has clearly stated thathis interest was to operate as a player owning ring wherein the consortium bankrolls new prospects, retain ownership then pocket the proceeds when they are moved-on.

So, OK, what I was really saying is that they could newco tomorrow, enter negotiations to buy some South American 20 year old striker and have him at Ibrox for the photo opportunity of 6 June when Green assumes financial responsibility.

It's that bad.

I don't believe for a second the entire process is that cut and dried though.

If so, why hasn't NewCo happened yet? Every loose end could be tied up in hours.

[Ivo den Bieman]

This has been an embarrassment for the SFA and I imagine there was a lot of shouting down mobile phones going on, after the CoS judge ruled that the SFA's own rules were too vague for them to impose such a punishment. Bad for the SFA, and a humiliation for the "experts" and the member clubs who failed to see how such a scenario could play.

But the SFA being exposed as incompetent clowns is hardly news. The big news is that rangers lost today whatever the result. We are now in uncharted territory with UEFA / FIFA making noises that they will step in if the SFA fail to do the correct thing here and impose a punishment that is actually more severe than the one Rangers have appealed. The eyes of the regulators are on the SFA and I can't see them being satisfied with a Scottish Cup ban. The SFA have (inadvertantly) set out for a pint of milk at the corner shop and have somehow ended up in the leopard enclosure at the zoo.

Even in victory here Rangers have lost. This hollow victory may mask the truly hilarious glossy brochure's worth of rhetorical flatulence released by Haudit & Daudit today, which they have been pleased to call a "CVA proposal". But the best Rangers can hope for now is that the SFA and they both blink simultaneously and back down. Regardless of the original tribunal's belief that expulsion was too severe a crime, UEFA will not wear a Scottish Cup ban as appropriate IMO. If the SFA now expel them they will have no recourse to any appeal- two different tribunals can find differently as we have seen today. Rangers cannot appeal expulsion as it is written explicitly into the SFA's ruies.

Add into the mix the growing wave of discontent amongst club chairmen at Rangers going to the civil courts, and the drip-drip of toxic revelations from the likes of Mark Daly and the main bloggers, and the picture tonight for them is- at best- no worse and no better than it was this time last night.

I wish folk would calm their jets. Even a guy playing an awful game of poker can by default win the occasional hand.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Ivo den Bieman

[Paquis]

Seems the sfa are getting over much abuse here.

They appointed an INDEPENDENT panel to first decide whether rangers had brought the game into disrepute and what the punishment should be then appointed another INDEPENDENT panel to adjudicate the appeal. Yes they could perhaps have had specified some more punishments for the charge or made the catch all clause more water tight than the CoS has deemed it but it is not their fault their Independent panels interpreted their rules differently to the CoS.

I'm know little about the details and legalities about what the sfa can do now but it seems to me this is all still just a side show to the cva and the btc/ebt/double contracts.

Finally I'm yet to see what punishment the rangers support believe is suitable for the current charges of bringing the game into disrepute which have now been found to be proven three times? What exactly would they think was acceptable? The most sickening aspect of this whole episode seems to be the rangers fans belief that they should infact escape any punishment what so ever.

If you 'appoint' a panel then, by definition, it cannot be independent.

[Florentine_Pogen]

Barcabhoy says:

29/05/2012 at 8:29 pm

For anyone asking, the “nuclear” news is that Souness received much more than £30 K , and more than a single loan payment. On its own it doesn’t seem nuclear, however i would ask everyone to apply an element of logical progression to that news. There is more to come, and for clarity there is no evidence i know of relating to bribing officials, match fixing, or bank misbehavior .

Nuclear is a fairly straightforward matter. Rangers supporters, Scottish football administrators, and the legal authorities in Scotland deserve to know why he received this money a decade after leaving Rangers’ employment?

Why were Rangers putting significant amounts into an EBT scheme on behalf of an ex employee. Is there anything that the authorities should be concerned about. Should there be an innocent explanation it should be put into the public domain.

Remember a loan has to be requested by the employee or ex employee. What made Souness think that he could request a loan from an ex employer when he was at the time one of the highest paid people in the UK. What were the repayment terms? has he repaid ? or has the loan period conveniently been extended by the Trustees to avoid triggering a repayment ?

Lifted from RTC.

[WeeHectorPar]

Oh man, we're going to be here all day picking this one apart

Highlights just from the first few pages - Greens money is a loan, to be repaid by 2020. One of the conditions of his CVA bid is

So can we assume that the CVA is a special type of EBT and Green will ask H&D, HMRC and Ticketus to pay back the loans some time in the future?

[Claymores]

They couldn't legally register any player until they are a member of the SFA.

They can't transfer Rangers SPL share without the permission of the SPL board.

And you seriously think they'll get a 'no' vote? So the notional South american might not be registered until say 10th June after the SPL usher thru the newco acceptance - whoopy-do big drawback of a matter of days (as few days as it takes cockwomble to arrange an extraordinary meeting).

Edited May 29, 2012 by Claymores

[akredz]

Done.

As a result of todays Scottish Court of Session ruling in Edinburgh. I feel compelled to contact yourselves with regards it's outcome in the case of Glasgow Rangers FC versus the Scottish Football Association (SFA).

I find it extremely concerning that a member club, of the association, should take it's National Governing body to the Civil Courts. In response to it's punishment for breaches of the rules of association.

The initial judgement, having already been upheld at an independent appelant committee & having been seen as lenient in the official report. Has today been referred back to the SFA, by the civil court, for reconsideration.

In doing so, this member club not only chose to ignore Articles 62-64 of FIFA's statutes, in treating the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), as being the final arbiter in cases of dispute. But also attempts to ride roughshod over the articles, & rules of association, adopted by the SFA & it's membership. Most recently voted on, UNANIMOUSLY, at its Annual General Meeting in 2011.

It is therefore my opinion, that neither the SFA, or its other member clubs, should be held accountable for the actions of one member in bringing the game into disrepute & as such, FIFA should bring to bear it's full weight behind it's member association.

Not trying to be a smartarse here (honestly) but if you're writing to any kind of professional body, I'd suggest that basic grammar and sentence structure should be adhered to.

[itzdrk]

talking about rangers signings?

• they have 2 transfer embargo's
• yet to agree a CVA
• waiting on hearing the outcome of TBTC
• nae money anyways

[Well Well]

Don't think the SFA can impose a suspended sentence either, because if Rangers get the CVA knocked back and go Newco then the suspended sentence dies with the old club as the SFA will 'forget' to add that the suspended sentence over newco as well

[p&b is a disgrace]

Can you us the part where it says a transfer embargo cannot be imposed. Thanks

A suspension is listed as being a possible punishment. Is suspension defined? The SFA might take the angle that they "suspended rangers ability to sign players over 18?"

[Kyle]

Knicker wetting has hit an all time high in this thread

Still a long way to go. Buckle in, enjoy the ride.

[HibeeJibee]

Does anyone know the possible punishments for taking the original decision to civil court, or is this just classed as bringing the game further into disrepute? They could always tack this on to the original charge and then expulsion may not be deemed too harsh.

I still think it'd be surprising if SFA did this. As things stand the SFA have been standing with, in 1 hand, a panel judgement which it wasn't permitted to devise; in the other hand, a rulebook which gives no right of appeal to outside bodies. It's not particularly solid ground to hit them for going to court, and would surely be appealled by Rangers.

As others have said, Sion were never punished for the act of going to court, albeit they lost.

Very true, as I believe the SFL require 3 years audited accounts minimum in order to join. Big Welcome to Spartans please!!

SFL don't, AFAIA - they do require SFA associate/full membership within 2 weeks of admission.

That's supposed to require 3yrs accounts.

[Newbornbairn]

Hope the SFA suspend Rangers.

By the frickin' neck until dead.

[Claymores]

I don't believe for a second the entire process is that cut and dried though.

If so, why hasn't NewCo happened yet? Every loose end could be tied up in hours.

That ain't a puzzle at all - everybody knows the answer is an extra 2 years European ban for a newco. Green must figure the costs of attempting a CVA would be outweighed by avoiding the extra 2 years. It also keeps the Orcs onside.

[djchapsticks]

Knicker wetting has hit an all time high in this thread

Still a long way to go. Buckle in, enjoy the ride.

Thank the sky fairy that someone else on here gets it. This has legs, there are hurdles to come, lots of them, and much higher than the one today.