bennett 3,091 Report post Posted April 2, 2013 Rangers were found to be at fault were they not? The party at fault always pays the legal bills. The company running the club now should pay, simple. Lord Nimmo said so when he said there were penalties appliable to the club. The booming SPL will just have to find another way to pay Celtics fat low level paper gatherer It isn't our bill 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bennett 3,091 Report post Posted April 2, 2013 About the 3rd time in 10mins he's used plastic as abuse, the mask easily slips with his type though. Thats even better than your "piggery is sectarian" meltdown 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
No8. 1,107 Report post Posted April 2, 2013 Yet you accepted the findings and celebrated them and paraded them as an end to it all , yet when it comes to paying its nothing to do with you it's the oldco? Oldco when it suits. The oldco pushed for the enquiry? 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
youngsy 488 Report post Posted April 2, 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. So the way i read it is this; every club that is a member of the SPL,that will be the 12 that play in the SPL,is a shareholder of that league and may well have to pay up in equal terms to clear this cost. If that's the case then that's even more pleasing to add to the fact that our titles remain in the record books. Quite how the inhabitants at the piggery in the east end of Glasgow will feel about that i'm not quite sure,a bit annoyed perhaps. Edited April 2, 2013 by youngsy 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
barrysnotter 31 Report post Posted April 2, 2013 Rangers were guilty, The Rangers took Rangers assets, The Rangers should take Rangers liabilities. In short, The Rangers should cough up the legal fees. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
youngsy 488 Report post Posted April 2, 2013 Rangers were guilty, The Rangers took Rangers assets, The Rangers should take Rangers liabilities. In short, The Rangers should cough up the legal fees. 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. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeyWellFan 1,427 Report post Posted April 2, 2013 The Rangers should pay up and show some gratitude with a gesture towards the SPL. They are forgetting they wouldn't be kicking a ball this season if the footballing authorities in this country hadn't made an exception for them. I'm sure it won't make much of a dent in that £23 million they supposedly have. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
youngsy 488 Report post Posted April 2, 2013 The Rangers should pay up and show some gratitude with a gesture towards the SPL. They are forgetting they wouldn't be kicking a ball this season if the footballing authorities in this country hadn't made an exception for them. I'm sure it won't make much of a dent in that £23 million they supposedly have. Aye very good. The SPL did the sum total of f**k all for Rangers,they instigated an investigation into the PLC, which had to be supported by it's member clubs as shareholders, to appease the cries from many to strip titles,they failed so tough on them,so now they may have to live with the financial consequences of their failed action. -1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeyWellFan 1,427 Report post Posted April 2, 2013 (edited) So much hatred for the SPL. You can almost taste it. You weren't hard done by boys, no matter how much you think that was the case. Edited April 2, 2013 by MikeyWellFan 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
~~~ 4,915 Report post Posted April 2, 2013 Aye very good. The SPL did the sum total of f**k all for Rangers,they instigated an investigation into the PLC, which had to be supported by it's member clubs as shareholders, to appease the cries from many to strip titles,they failed so tough on them,so now they may have to live with the financial consequences of their failed action. 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 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
youngsy 488 Report post Posted April 2, 2013 Lets face it this is pure desperation from the SPL, they have no money. Harper Macleod will be demanding to be paid regardless of Car Crash Rod`s complete misunderstanding of the rules. The SPL are 100% liable for these costs. it will be their name on the invoice. They were 100% sure that LNS would pin something on the newco, they were wrong. They now present the newco with an identical bill that they have no chance of getting paid and do not have the money to pay legal fees in order to take the newco to court. They have spent the oldco`s prize money along with the transfer fees they recieved that are due to the oldco, if not they would have just taken the money from this. They are as Charlie has already said trading while insolvent, no wonder the desperation for reconstruction. So much hatred for the SPL. You can almost taste it. You weren't hard done by boys, no matter how much you think that was the case. Answer this; who was the company that was fined? 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
~~~ 4,915 Report post Posted April 2, 2013 They are as Charlie has already said trading while insolvent, no wonder the desperation for reconstruction. Proof of this? I wouldn't take Charlie Green word on it, after all it wouldn't be the first time he's came out with a statement and been proven wrong Unless you believe what he said in my sig 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
barrysnotter 31 Report post 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
youngsy 488 Report post 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
youngsy 488 Report post 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
~~~ 4,915 Report post 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
youngsy 488 Report post 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bullyforyou 6 Report post 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captain kirk 179 Report post Posted April 3, 2013 Thats even better than your "piggery is sectarian" meltdown When in your imagination did that happen? 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bookies Love Me 288 Report post 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
