The responses will probably be confidential until the full 14 days are up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Printable View
The responses will probably be confidential until the full 14 days are up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Well, an Old Firm business plan at least.......any of the rest of us with even a fraction of the **** the Huns are in would have had the doors of our stadiums padlocked and put OUT of business long before now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
The cheats are right about one thing....it certainly is one rule for them and another for us..
That's right - the Yams will just become the Huns.Quote:
Originally Posted by snooky
Aye I'm with you on that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Any other team in the same situation would have been demoted and dealt with by now.
Any other limited company who didn't pay tax or NI contributions would have their doors padlocked and the assets sold before you could say king billy.
There's something fishy about this whole situation, I think duff n duffer didn't realise how much they would be under scrutiny approaching the end-game.
You got to wonder if they thought we would get fed-up and just go away :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by 1875godsgift
It has got to be said that I'm getting a tad sick of the whole thing, but I'm in till the death on this one .. :greengrin
More from Scots Law blog
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...maybe-he-wont/
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
So your not taking the view of most Hibs supporters then .:hmmm:
He's got one thing wrong in that, and it's an important one. He says ST income, transfer fees and SPL money will 'be used to fund the ongoing running costs of the company as it seeks to exit administration.' It won't, the creditors are funding those costs. That income will be put into a solicitor's account for the club's use after it exits administration. And that is despite two of the three categories arising from assets that are with the company now and were indirectly funded by the default of payments to those same creditors.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
That alone should kill any chance of a CVA and any money in that solicitor's account should be treated as an asset of the oldco if a newco is formed.
Edit: Actually, reading the proposal again it's only the ST money and transfer income that's going to be held back.
Agree 100%:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumner
https://twitter.com/bbcchrismclaug/s...22290938884096
Hopefully more bad news for the bigots.
Stewart Regan says it's down to #Rangers administrators to make sure the Charles Green is fit and proper person to run club.
Aye thats a great idea? :rolleyes:
#SFA recieved fax from FIFA today saying they are not breaching rules re #Rangers @BBCchrismclaug 15 minutes ago
I'll attend some cup games but it is SPL no more for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by HibbyAndy
http://www.hibs.net/image/png;base64...AASUVORK5CYII= BBCchrismclaug
#SFA recieved fax from FIFA today saying they are not breaching rules re #Rangers
06/06/2012 15:00
That was my thought exactly...... :top marksQuote:
Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs
I then read a full quote and I guess it makes some sense... :confused:
Scottish FA chief executive, Stewart Regan, said: “It is important that club owners take more responsibility to ensure that they sell their club to an individual or individuals who act responsibly and within the rules of football.
“The Scottish FA governs the whole of football and rather than spend millions of pounds on investigations into any number of prospective purchases across the game at all levels - which would be better kept within the game - it is important that the onus is on those involved in the sale of the club.”
What does this actually mean, who isn't breaking rules?Quote:
Originally Posted by stokesmessiah
The SFA apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Who said they were:confused: or is this FIFA challenging the CoS decision. Curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs
https://twitter.com/#!/BBCchrismclaugQuote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
I think it means bad news. If FIFA is saying the SFA are within their rights to impose the player signing ban on Rangers the appeal panel can re-impose the ban instead of taking the correct decision and suspending the club for a season.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
I read it as FIFA saying that SFA were in their rights to give the ban, but they will still want other action for them taking it to court imoQuote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Although the SFA have already stated that they are required to operate within the laws of the land and so I think they will, as they have done, accept the judgement and come up with a new punishment that is within their power.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
FIFA have taken the view previously that Associations should ignore any judgement handed out by Courts of Law.
In this case FIFA appear to be saying that it is OK for them to accept Lord Glennie's view that the matter be referred back to the Independent Appeal Tribunal.
Which in turn should mean that Rangers get a more severe punishment this time around!
Bad news for who?Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Surely you mean good news?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cropley10
Not if you think a years player signing ban is insufficient punishment.
Added to the 3 years they'll not be playing in Europe, plus whatever sanction they get for going to the CoS?Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
They're toast anyway and might as well be expelled or suspended as they'll soon be liquidated IMHO
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
I'm confused. Is it not good news :confused:.
Regan just on the news saying he's spoke with FIFA and rangers won't be punished for taking them to court
Regan has said that they will not be taking action against Rangers for going to the CoS. :grr:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cropley10
Why would they need to waste their time taking action against a team that's been expelled? :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by gramskiwood