Absolutely GG. I think the guy hit the spot nicely though :aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin
Printable View
Absolutely GG. I think the guy hit the spot nicely though :aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin
I believe it CW who will still own the club then maybe rent it to the Newco until such time they buy it from him, as stated his shares will not be transfered if a CVA fails to go throughQuote:
Originally Posted by Paisley Hibby
No man is going to risk getting sued £25 million on a deal he sells the club for £2 without some security
Charles Green is now officially panicking.......
http://www.tv.rangers.co.uk/articles...254024_2796603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
In everyone elses view it would be a disaster for Scottish Football if Rangers are allowed to get away with it Scot free. About time they just shut up shop.
It sounds like another delaying tactic and they are going to appeal the decision themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by semaj64
Rangers want a punishment that isn't a punishment but looks like a punishment. SFA need to nail this now and prove to Rangers that they don't dictate Scottish football. Man is here 5 minutes and telling everybody what should happen.
there is a meeting on 14 th june at 1 pm for the cva proposals. meeting with creditors same day 10 am , thats what the letter my girlfriend got from duff n phelps duno wit it means but there you go.
If the CVA doesn't go through, and the property is left in the OldCo, with all the debts... that company will have to be liquidated to go toward the debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando7
Taking that further, the property will then be on the open market. CG would have to take his chances in that, but you could see a situation whereby he then owns the lot.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Why is it that they seem to think they can pick a punishment for themselves??
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokesmessiah
coz they arra peepul
Scots law blog response to Charles Green's ridiculous statement tonight..........
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...lly/#more-1236
Offering to take ban from Cup, shocking cheek.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
5 year ban from cup and 11 game SPL suspension is minimum penalty...provided life support aint removed.
As mentioned in the Scots Law Blog, the Appealate Tribunal cannot impose a suspension or ban on Rangers competing in the cup, only ejection and one can only be ejected whilst currently participating (which of course they aren't) - besides if they did, there would likely be a massive backlash by the majority of Scottish Football supporters. The only way forward really is either termination of membership or suspension of membership for a minimum of one season. Either will most likely result in the liquidation of the club currently known as Glasgow Rangers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minder
:violin:
:faf:
:lolrangers:
:bye:
That sentence just rolls off the tongue.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wee Hibby
An 11 game ban will only anger those clubs who put money before integrity. Derhun will play say 5 home games and six away so half the SPHELL will miss out on a home gate against that lot whilst the half won't, unfair screams coming from the lot that miss out. It would therefore mean, in fairness to ALL clubs that any suspension would have to be for 22 games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minder
Only in Scotland would anyone be trying to give a team a part of season suspension?Quote:
Originally Posted by MB62
It has to be relegation to the bottom league, plus a suspension of signing any player for 12 months and a huge fine, minimum.
I agree with you Blackpool, but I do still fear that the punishment will be minimal and Rangers will be the ones smiling in the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs
I agree. But if they are going to go down the route of a part season suspension, the only ways it would work would be either a 22 game suspension, or an 11 home game suspension. The 11 home game suspension would reduce their income whilst not damaging the other clubs in the SPL.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs
Totally agree with you BH. Personally, I would kick them out of the league and never let them back in.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs
As for this, we couldn't survive without them, as has been said many times now by other, it has now become a case of, if we don't throw them out, we might not survive WITH them.
I was talking to an Aberdeen supporter at the weekend and asked if she had re-newed her season ticket yet. He answer was, no danger, not until I find out what is happening with rangers, if they are allowed back in the SPL she will not be going back.
Many other fans seem to be taking exactly the same stance.
Scottish football is at a crossroads here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by easty
In this instance, they might JUST get away with what seems like a lenient punishment. However, the big bomb of the dual-contracts investigation is still pending and that is the one which could easily see them kicked out of football.
Thats the point, we shouldnt be going down any route that has part suspension in it, is this actually in the rules?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergio sledge
They went to court on the basis that the years suspension of signing players was not written in the rules, well i'd bet my last penny part suspension is not there either.
1 year minimum is i think, we wouldn't want to give them a suspension thats not in the rules.
:agree: To be fair to the SFA we're still discussing the crimes for which they thought a year's signing embargo was sufficient - and I tend to agree with them when I set aside the point that it's the despicable huns we're talking about. In the absence of a signing embargo a part season's suspension doesn't seem unreasonable. As MB points out though it would only be fair to the other clubs if it was for 22 games because of the home/away discrepancy and fairness to the other clubs should be the first concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smidge
If they're found guilty of the dual contracts scam though there should be no way back for them because that is prolonged wilful cheating and has no place in any sport.
Would any potential suspension stop them from playing any games or just league games?
If it's just league games, then what's the chances of them lining up a series of lucrative home friendlies for every Saturday afternoon through the period of league suspension? They'd end up with even more money coming in!
Would a possibility of Rangers having to play every home game for a season behind closed doors be an option? means that they still get to play but generate no cash whatsoever from fan revenue.
probably the same impact as a susupension but just means that the team get a 'home' run out every 2nd week and other teams don't have a blank week to fill.
Apart from Celtic, do many other teams take a large support to Ibrox these days?
To be pendantic, it's not part suspension, it's full suspension for a set period or number of games. Suspension is certainly available and I can't see anything in the rules that prevents a suspension being for part of a season. I can't see anything that prevents a signing embargo being used as a sanction either though.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs
On this one, my recollection is that the SFA "inquiry" on dual contracts started almost three months ago. And for the last few months hasn't Doncaster been saying that the inquiry is "ongoing"? And now we discover that Rangers IA / D&P didn't actually respond to the SPL request for info until last week? Who kicks off a major inquiry into wholesale cheating, and then does nothing for three months?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Who would want to play them? All the SPL and EPL and Championship clubs would be busy with their important league games. Those clubs wouldn't want to risk injury to their players by playing against a disgraced team who are serving their punishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney McGrew
Money talks. I'm sure they could get a few foreign teams who start their seasons later on to fly over if a few bob was thrown their way. They'd also be able to get the likes of Linfield to turn up, more legends games etc. An 11 game suspension would only take them into October anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
They'd find a way. TBH, if it meant sticking two fingers up at the rest of Scottish football then they could probably have one half of their squad play they other and thousands of them would turn up.
That's if they have enough players in their squad by then to fill two teams though :cb
That should be SPL rather than SFA, although I can't really see a legitimate reason why it's not the SFA that's conducting the enquiry as I doubt whether the SPL has the power to suspend or expel them from football as a whole rather than just from their own league, and the fraudulent registering of contracts affects the whole of football.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
On top of that, I now have infinitely more faith in the SFA and Regan than I do in the SPL and Doncaster who has shown himself to be inherently dishonest and incompetent IMO. It's vital that the fans of other SPL clubs keep up the pressure on him to do the right thing or resign.
I think suspension means from the whole of football rather than just te league competitions - the SFA normally provide referees etc, so I think any games staged by RFC would have to be unofficial friendlies. And of course, they don't have any money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney McGrew
Yeah you're right. I checked before posting (I get so confused by these two "governing" bodies) and I changed the second reference but not the first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green