Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steakbake

So apparently Whyte got assurances from Regan and Ogilvie over dinner in November that nothing would happen?

Once all this has been sorted out, surely the actions of some of these figures needs to be the subject of an enquiry?

---

Erm, remember this is Craig Whyte making these statements ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

Erm, remember this is Craig Whyte making these statements ;)

---

Rats always turn on each other. If he's 'going down', I'm sure he'll be determined to take others with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

Erm, remember this is Craig Whyte making these statements ;)

---

No smoke without fire!

Here's a disgruntled Huns reply to the sanctions handed out by the SFA

Absolute ****ing joke. Surely to **** there must just be an away boycott against ALL scottish clubs and withdrawal from the scottish cup. Refusal to accept ANY tv deal involving our clubs image rights and refusal to work with any sponsors of the SFA OR the SPL. Hit them all in the ****ing pocket and noone will be signing anyone. They will go into administration, be sanctioned like us and scottish football will buckle

Something tells me there not very happy. :greengrin
Now they blame everyone else for the mismanagement,and are planning a protest march to Hampden on cup final day.

Aye very good Rangers,ma heart bleeds for you so it does,hope you get everything that comes your way +interest :greengrin

Now all we need is Campbell Ogilvie's involvement with Hearts investigated. :aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steakbake

So apparently Whyte got assurances from Regan and Ogilvie over dinner in November that nothing would happen?

Once all this has been sorted out, surely the actions of some of these figures needs to be the subject of an enquiry?

---

More succulent lamb and fine wine I wouldn't wonder.

Just follow followed a few links to HM Rangers Media.

I don't know where to begin.

Might go to international matches now that none of them are going - maybe I'll still have to wait for Harry Potter to do one too.

Lots of nominees being proposed for the RM naughty step.

Loved those suggesting none of their players should play for the national side - they'll have no one worth selecting.

No surprise at the number of death threats being made.

A march to Hampden on Sunday, and chorus after chorus of their melodic singalong songs.

They're spelling and grammur is worse than on here - and what's left of bebo.

I wonder if there's already an increase at the A&E departments around Scotland? Certainly more than a few hissy fits.

Oh and they were a asking how anyone could treat such a fine (not sure if that's a £160k or a £200k fine) upstanding institution in such a way. One of them even mentioned morals.

Up until this I thought it was an absolute cert that the spineless, money grabbing, short term twats in charge of the other SPL clubs would buckle and shuffle them back into the SPL.

Perhaps not:I'm waiti

Putting my very cynical head on which is basically that nothing is done here that can't be a way of helping Rangers .....

Does the 160k fine just make the SFA another non-HMRC creditor and so push HMRC towards sub 25%, so a CVA is easier?

The transfer ban - maybe the powers that be want to be seen to be doing something, so have asked RFC if they believe their youngsters are good enough to stay in in SPL, albeit in the bottom half, for a year. The caveat being that if they are really struggling, they could appeal the ban in time for it to be reduced in time for January so they can get a few guys in to save them.

If Sky want to keep their '4 games a year' deal, but it's possible that RFC are bottom 6, then maybe - oooh what a coincidence - there is a cup tie tha could be shown?

I just can't help think that in 1 year's time RFC will be doing OK.

dash...went to bed early and missed the chance to read the latest....now late for work having had to catch up.....

I get the impression that the message is getting through to the powers that be that the rules have to be enforced..12 month transfer embargo is a real body blow...not only does it sink them but it protects them scavenging other clubs in Scotlands decent players....(make sure our decent U18's are on watertight contracts Rodders)

So long as this ban goes with the licence...and not the club...then there only way out is to try and buy a lower league club...

Anyway the chances of preserving their 'history looks shot.....


You... have got.. no history

Its enough to make my heart go..oh oh oh oh :whistle:

Does anyone know what the Fine Red was that usually accompanied the Succulent Lamb? :dunno:

I think I might save up and get a bottle ready to celebrate the great day when it arrives. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winston Ingram

Up until this I thought it was an absolute cert that the spineless, money grabbing, short term twats in charge of the other SPL clubs would buckle and shuffle them back into the SPL.

Perhaps not:I'm waiti

---

Let's wait for the appeal first. I can see the transfer embargo changing to the summer only or being dropped completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reallapsedhibee

Does anyone know what the Fine Red was that usually accompanied the Succulent Lamb? :dunno:

I think I might save up and get a bottle ready to celebrate the great day when it arrives. :greengrin

---

At the dinner in question, a nice Claret was served.

You can get a decent Claret from about a tenner up (and up) so you need not save for long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reallapsedhibee

Does anyone know what the Fine Red was that usually accompanied the Succulent Lamb? :dunno:

I think I might save up and get a bottle ready to celebrate the great day when it arrives. :greengrin

---

Can only be Chateneauf du Pape!!:greengrin

Regretfully against all logic I can still see laws and regulations being severely bent and even broken to allow them to escape relatively unscathed, but I am beginning to hope that maybe, just maybe.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

Let's wait for the appeal first. I can see the transfer embargo changing to the summer only or being dropped completely.

---

I'm not so sure it will be dropped completely, as it would just stir the rest of the fans up into a frenzy.. :agree:

My Dad always said " let sleeping dogs lie" This will be tomorrow's "Chip Wrapper" :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reallapsedhibee

Does anyone know what the Fine Red was that usually accompanied the Succulent Lamb? :dunno:

I think I might save up and get a bottle ready to celebrate the great day when it arrives. :greengrin

---

I believe that it was Buckfast!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

They are appealling....(cue the Carry On joke)

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/footba...rticle/2746199

---

Revolting, Shirley?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frazeHFC

Its all over rangers media and spreading onto social networking sites. We hear of planned protests that never happen but yeah the plan this time is a march to spoil the SFAs 'showpiece'.

One hun: "police wont allow it. nor should we ruin hearts day out at the final." Hunnery love......

---

Great. Move the game to Murayfield and have them all protest outside an empty ground or they can take a long walk along the M8 :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newry Hibs

Putting my very cynical head on which is basically that nothing is done here that can't be a way of helping Rangers .....

Does the 160k fine just make the SFA another non-HMRC creditor and so push HMRC towards sub 25%, so a CVA is easier?

The transfer ban - maybe the powers that be want to be seen to be doing something, so have asked RFC if they believe their youngsters are good enough to stay in in SPL, albeit in the bottom half, for a year. The caveat being that if they are really struggling, they could appeal the ban in time for it to be reduced in time for January so they can get a few guys in to save them.

If Sky want to keep their '4 games a year' deal, but it's possible that RFC are bottom 6, then maybe - oooh what a coincidence - there is a cup tie tha could be shown?

I just can't help think that in 1 year's time RFC will be doing OK.

---

:agree:

Okay, on the face of it the SFA seem to have handed down maximum penalties for each of the offences proven. However, I can’t help myself being dragged down the conspiracy route. After all, for my entire football supporting life the authorities have never done anything that was not for the benefit of the OF.

So, the SFA have done all they could do in the circumstances and handed down maximum penalties. Actually I think this is smoke and mirrors. The SFA must be walking the thinnest of tight ropes right now between trying to look after their beloved and perceived cash-cow, Rangers but on the other hand they have Fans Groups, UEFA and FIFA breathing down their necks. So they have created the smoke screen by issuing the maximum fine and banning transfers.

Consider this then. Any fine is added to the creditors’ pot which in turn is creeping up to the point where HMRC no longer hold a 25%+ influence. So in reality there is the prospect of this fine being more like £1600 (or 10p in the pound) Hmmmmm? All the better if CW’s fine is added to Rangers’ debt because he won't pay it.

The authorities are also under enormous pressure from fans groups and the very excellent Fans Survey. So they can now argue that Rangers have been punished more than enough so would the fans mind terribly taking a more lenient view and stop minding if a Newco is allowed straight in to the top flight. I want to see how this mess pans out before I get all euphoric about the SFA having grown a set.

Finally, why is it that nobody is highlighting or taking action against the people making threatening and bigoted comments? At the very least this behaviour should be being roundly condemned in the media, but not one sentence about threats to lives and bigoted comments. We have seen them in the links to Rangers websites, they may be happening on other fans forums, I don’t know, but I am delighted that Hibs.net has, IMHO, kept its standards with honest debate and opinion, albeit frequently of a single minded nature, but any hint at OTT and the post is censored or deleted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Falcon

Accountants ! Pah! :greengrin

There are ways round everything and I dont think this makes any material difference to CW's position. How many times have you guys, in your combined (many:greengrin) years, came across a disqualified director who is still running a company with some obscure ******ed relative as the actual MD?

IMO CW is the fall guy who never intended to be there for the long haul anyway. If they can get the CVA approved, which has been the only feasible route mentioned by anyone since day one, his role is complete.

---

Ho Hum, another commoner who thinks he knows better than all-seeing all-knowing accountants. :na na:

The law specifically disqualifies offenders from being directors but says nothing about shareholders. There are provisions regarding shadow directors, but they can be difficult to prove and enforce. In Whyte's case he is 'expelled for life from any participationin Association Football in Scotland'. They can't stop him owning shares in or controlling a club because that's covered by general law, but they can - in theory at least - stop any such club from playing football under their jurisdiction because that's covered by their own rules.

There is a sort of precedent set by our pink pals albeit on a smaller scale - they were fined for comments made by their non-director owner.

Do these sanctions include the charge of alleged use of players signing two contracts or is this a separate matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frazeHFC

Its all over rangers media and spreading onto social networking sites. We hear of planned protests that never happen but yeah the plan this time is a march to spoil the SFAs 'showpiece'.

One hun: "police wont allow it. nor should we ruin hearts day out at the final." Hunnery love......

---

Obviously it has'nt registered with mentally challenged that the Maroon Cardigan wearers voted 97% in favour of emptying the Huns from the SPL. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SunnyLeith

Do these sanctions include the charge of alleged use of players signing two contracts or is this a separate matter?

---

No

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SunnyLeith

Do these sanctions include the charge of alleged use of players signing two contracts or is this a separate matter?

---

Nope this is just the starter. The main course has still to come. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SunnyLeith

Do these sanctions include the charge of alleged use of players signing two contracts or is this a separate matter?

---

Separate.

I learn this morning that the punishments handed down last night came from the panel which heard the disciplinary action and not the SFA themselves. The latter, apparently, are 'shocked' by the severity of the sanctions...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SunnyLeith

Do these sanctions include the charge of alleged use of players signing two contracts or is this a separate matter?

---

I know this won't help much, but maybe someone who has access to the SFA rules can add to it.

CW was found guilty of breaching rules 66, 71, and 105.

Rangers FC were found guilty of breaching rules 2, 14, 66, 71, and 325. A verdict of not proven was reached regarding rule 1.

The double contract question is being investigated by the SPL rather than the SFA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CentreLine

:agree:

Okay, on the face of it the SFA seem to have handed down maximum penalties for each of the offences proven. However, I can’t help myself being dragged down the conspiracy route. After all, for my entire football supporting life the authorities have never done anything that was not for the benefit of the OF.

So, the SFA have done all they could do in the circumstances and handed down maximum penalties. Actually I think this is smoke and mirrors. The SFA must be walking the thinnest of tight ropes right now between trying to look after their beloved and perceived cash-cow, Rangers but on the other hand they have Fans Groups, UEFA and FIFA breathing down their necks. So they have created the smoke screen by issuing the maximum fine and banning transfers.

Consider this then. Any fine is added to the creditors’ pot which in turn is creeping up to the point where HMRC no longer hold a 25%+ influence. So in reality there is the prospect of this fine being more like £1600 (or 10p in the pound) Hmmmmm? All the better if CW’s fine is added to Rangers’.

The authorities are also under enormous pressure from fans groups and the very excellent Fans Survey. So they can now argue that Rangers have been punished more than enough so would the fans mind terribly taking a more lenient view and stop minding if a Newco is allowed straight in to the top flight. I want to see how this mess pans out before I get all euphoric about the SFA having grown a set.

Finally, why is it that nobody is highlighting or taking action against the people making threatening and bigoted comments? At the very least this behaviour should be being roundly condemned in the media, but not one sentence about threats to lives and bigoted comments. We have seen them in the links to Rangers websites, they may be happening on other fans forums, I don’t know, but I am delighted that Hibs.net has, IMHO, kept its standards with honest debate and opinion, albeit frequently of a single minded nature, but any hint at OTT and the post is censored or deleted.

---

No doubt an accountant will be along any minute to reprimand me again. :greengrin

I think that the 12 month deadline and the 4% interest might get round the 10/5p in the £ malarkey.

Lets say rangers did pay £1,600 through a CVA that would leave a balance of £158,400 on the SFAs books. Its been said that any replacement licence would carry forward the sanctions for the whateverco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magpie1892

Separate.

I learn this morning that the punishments handed down last night came from the panel which heard the disciplinary action and not the SFA themselves. The latter, apparently, are 'shocked' by the severity of the sanctions...

---

Ah - so an appeal to the SFA might well see some of the sanctions reduced/lifted?

Thinking about it a 12 month signing embargo isn't actually that harsh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magpie1892

Separate.

I learn this morning that the punishments handed down last night came from the panel which heard the disciplinary action and not the SFA themselves. The latter, apparently, are 'shocked' by the severity of the sanctions...

---

Good.

Will the same panel oversee any further disciplinary action?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

Ah - so an appeal to the SFA might well see some of the sanctions reduced/lifted?

Thinking about it a 12 month signing embargo isn't actually that harsh.

---

It's unlikely that the SFA would seek to undermine the punishment set by an independent panel, for various reasons. Unlikely, but not out of the question.

I agree that, considering what hun has done - and what they are additionally accused of, a 12-month signing ban isn't that harsh. There's an open and shut case for hun to get the same punishment as Whyte - banned from any involvement in Scottish Football for ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack

No doubt an accountant will be along any minute to reprimand me again. :greengrin

I think that the 12 month deadline and the 4% interest might get round the 10/5p in the £ malarkey.

Lets say rangers did pay £1,600 through a CVA that would leave a balance of £158,400 on the SFAs books. Its been said that any replacement licence would carry forward the sanctions for the whateverco.

---

Will I do?

I'm in two minds about whether the fine should be considered a pre-administration debt, in which case it would fall into the CVA pot, or an administration cost which the administrators would have to pay in full, thereby reducing the amount available for pre-administration creditors.

There's an argument for both, but I'm leaning towards the former. (I'm not really all-seeing and all-knowing, that was just bluster.)