Under Articles 94.1 and 95, the Tribunal expelled Craig Whyte for life from any participation in Association Football in Scotland.
So who is guilty if CW remains 85% owner of Rangers. urely ownership = participation?
Printable View
Under Articles 94.1 and 95, the Tribunal expelled Craig Whyte for life from any participation in Association Football in Scotland.
So who is guilty if CW remains 85% owner of Rangers. urely ownership = participation?
It's true. I'm not sure who, but there's about five of them that can walk under various scenarios (Whyte still being at the club, still in admin, stuff like that) and this number almost certainly identifies as McGregor, Whittaker, Naismith, Davis and Laffable. These were the players who needed to take wage cuts to keep the club afloat as they were on the biggest wedges.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Lose them and not be allowed (even if they had any money/still exist as a club) to sign replacements and it's a bottom-six club. Which will be delicious to see.
He will have to sell his shares.... :cbQuote:
Originally Posted by CentreLine
I'm sure I read somewhere that ownership ≠ participation.Quote:
Originally Posted by CentreLine
It's not like CW will be hanging about anyhow.
Will the signing ban cover "Rangers 1012" though? With Rangers FC going down the swanny an a matter of weeks, surely this 12 month ban is a nonsense.
And still the investigation into dual contracts to be concluded by the SFA. What will the punishment be for that ? :greengrin
Well, that's just it though. But if any newco is seen to be circumnavigating footballing punishments as well as stiffing the taxpayer and countless creditors it's going to make even more of a stink.Quote:
Originally Posted by AberGreen
We're dreaming that these fines will be paid, or that hun will exist in its current form in 12 weeks, let alone 12 months, but I think these censures have made hun's overall situation worse. Which is to be applauded, obviously.
With UEFA breathing down their neck, I do not believe that the SFA will let Rangers or newco away with anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by AberGreen
Someone call the undertaker.
I thought it was the SPL that were conducting the investigation, and would then report to the SFA? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
If so, does anyone know which stage it is at?
And if he doesn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Or is the SFA still at it? Meaningless punishment placing a financial fine on a bankrupt club but having been seen to impose the maximum? Preparing the ground for Newco and forcing CW's hand getting him to sell? Without that sale things get very muddy for them, no?
Regards the fine for Craig Whyte then what powers do the SFA really have, I mean we all know he will not pay, but it's not like a parking fine or a court fine that if you do not pay you can go to prison. So really just a paper exercise as he will not pay and the SFA can do nothing to make him pay?
BBC journo says that it doesn't stop white being a shareholder, just a chairman, etc.
And any ban WILL transfer to a newco if SFA allow the license to be transferred to a newco
Maybe the SFA could take the fine money from TV revenues etc for SC participaton?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnbc70
The teddy bears on Rangers Media are taking it well ;-). Follow link at your own risk...
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/inde...ntry1059973898
The swallow swallow thread on this is comedy gold.
"Speaking about the punishment, Whyte said: "Tell me how it is going to affect me? I couldn't care less. It makes no difference to my life whatsoever - and good luck collecting the money."
Has someone hacked the BBC website or has he actually said that?!
On the the 23rd April 2012, the Scottish Football Association finally appear to have grown some balls. There is hope for our game yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw
You have to applaud this poster for his remarkable insight :Quote:
Originally Posted by bringbackbenny
' ****** them. No one likes us.'
:na na:
I think the Huns will appeal against the 12 month signing ban simply because they're going to lose so many players come the summer. That's the bit which will hit them hard. They're not going to be bothered about yet another liability to not pay.
And whether it's real or fake, the Whyte quote is very believable. He didn't even bother to put a case for a postponement to prepare a defence.
Amazing news the BK & BM be pulling out tomorrow defo 12-month transfer embargo :thumbsup:
Oh I hope so, between him and Vlad I don't know who I admire the most :greengrin :devil:Quote:
Originally Posted by LancashireHibby
just whipped this from a thread on swallow swallow
http://forum.followfollow.com/images/icons/icon1.gif Enough is Enough
Liquidate the bloody club and leave the shi*ehole that is Scotland forever.
How can such a corrupt body run a sport.
Crooks and bigots in charge at SFA. Now it is totally clear.
They can all fe*k off. If any fan of Rangers goes to another away game, they need their head tested.
words fail me :greengrin
now they want to destroy the SFA, and everyone else :faf:
They are appealling....(cue the Carry On joke)Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyrie
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/footba...rticle/2746199
I would say that ownership = control and control must = participation. I wonder if the SFA can enforce their fine given that CW has been banished. It's surely not a legal sanction so I reckon Whyte could just tell them to do one.Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
Assuming my first sentence is right this makes the administrators job a bit easier in the sense that they now have a solid argument that RFC's shares are worthless in CW's hands Rangers cannot exit administration as a football club as long as CW owns the club. On the other hand the signing embargo in particular means that the value is greatly reduced. I wonder if the fine becomes an administration debt - will the SFA only get keechpence in the pound if a CVA is achieved?
I must admit I am shocked at the severity of the punishment. I didn't believe SFA would be so harsh. Didn't think they had it in them.
Sure they haven't sneaked in a penalty for the dual contracts as well or are they just trying to make us believe they are tough before letting us down?
Cue another delay in naming a preferred bidder. All the while bringing Ra Peeple's Club closer to liquidation. All good! :aok:
This one is none too happy eitherQuote:
You have to applaud this poster for his remarkable insight :
' ****** them. No one likes us.'
:na na:
Come in Agent Murray, your job is doneQuote:
Complete non-co-operation with the SFA and/or the Scottish national team is the bare minimum I expect from our leaders from here on in.
F every one of them - and double f the Edinburgh ******* who led us to this dark place
The dual-contracts are being investigated by the SPL. The SFA will be the appeals body, IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
"http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/publ...ault/laugh.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by bringbackbenny
You can't make this lot up.
Let them get on with it, cream always rises."
S*** floats
:lolrangers:
Rangers Media can cheer you up :)