Printable View
[QUOTE=greenginger;3364807]It will be irrelevant as they would have been out of Europe for five years and drop off the coefficent threshhold even if recognised as the same club. If Sevco get back into Europe they will start on the Scottish coefficient and will be right at the bottom.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Are they in financial trouble though?Quote:
Originally Posted by cocopops1875
They will be soon enough lol, I get your point CWG I meant it more as a general statement, like hearts not paying wages and they might get fined seems daft LET'S JUST START DOCKING POINTSQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/the-people-together/
This is just what our country needs. I hope that no netters will be so petty as to emulate some of the misguided souls who have tried to undermine the petition by posting entries with false names and comments not wholly supportive of our country's leading sporting institution.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19708535
So the old chairman says it was well known we were paying people under the counter. Those Celtic people knew all the time so it is their fault.They are all bad.
(By the way if I don't mention dual contracts the press won't say anything bad about us.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
If the Orcs knew their hard eared or otherwise obtained Wonga that was going to used to buy shares in Chuckies new share issue, was going to be deducted from the True Blues and then distributed to the Clubs who had already punished them, then I think the re-capitalision plans may fail.
Love to see it though, perhaps they should wait until they've bought the shares before imposing an eye-watering fine of several millions. :greengrin
Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
:faf::faf::faf: sheesh man you couldnae make that up!
Absolutely laughable. It's so poor, it almost deserves pity. How many hard done by Unionist, Protestant Loyalists want protected status from the dreadful unfairness that dogs their everyday lives AND a simultaneous inquiry into the handling of a football league?Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
This is probably the longest piece I've seen about Rangers in a while, but its interesting.
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...e-gound-rules/
He brings up a few decent points:
1) Rangers FC are a separate entity from the owning company (Oldco and Newco) and thus are a continuation of the club. I know its been debated back and forth on here, but from the way the club is being discussed in the documents from the tribunal, it looks like it is now confirmed as all one thing.
2) From what I can tell, Oldco, rather than Newco, will be liable for any fines etc that may be brought upon the Rangers FC club
3) The SPL has no direct jurisdiction over Newco (as its never been a member of the SPL), but they do over Oldco and Rangers FC (but only during the years that they fell under the SPL). As Rangers FC is a continuing entity, any past digressions CAN be punished and brought onto the club
4) Both Oldco and Newco were going to go to the hearing until they both pulled out at the last second, under legal advice
5) However, if they don't turn up, it will be incredibly hard for them to appeal anything, as it will be easy to argue that they could have avoided an appeal by turning up to the tribunal and arguing their case in the first place.
Yip, the old protagonists are ratcheting up the pressure in the press with their old press buddies giving them the soapbox they need. Clearly, ****ting themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Wait till we start getting the Traynor 'opinion' pieces on the build up to the commission verdict.:rolleyes:
Here's the draft agreement Green was talking about. It looks like the SPL/SFA did want to remove the huns' titles without an inquiry - see page 5.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/f...-title-1340691
The thing is, to get to the stage of a draft agreement as comprehensive as this all parties must have discussed and agreed what was in it. In other words Green was willing to accept the sanctions so long as he got into SFL1. Sadly for him, we've seen that it wasn't within the powers of the authorities to grant that so that provision should not be in the agreement. A surprising lack of competence all round IMO.
Edit: Not sure how that smiley got there....
I see that fat slavering Jim Traynor was spouting more pish in the papers yesterday about the apparently skint SPL.
The mans clearly on suicide watch and shouldn't be aloud anywhere near sharp edges (including paper).
Huns showing their true colours here... http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scot...-race-row.html :rolleyes:
Don't know what they're getting so worked up about. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
It's a well known fact that Rangers fans have a love-in with any current England captain.
Also interesting that he now frequently drops into the conversations on the radio that Rangers in Div 3 was the right thing, he has changed his tune big time and IMO it is staggering that him, Dodds and Dung are still working for the impartial BBC after massively showing their colours during the summer.Quote:
Originally Posted by wee_hibee
Quote:
Originally Posted by stoobs99
Boy! that's hard reading. My head hurts.
I did pick up that the writer reckons that either Charlie Green and his lawyers or the commission and lawyers on their side have been lying about who wrote what to whom and who answered whom and when.
Which means that either Charlie or Lord Nimmo Smith is a liar - or being deliberately devious and economical with the truth and transparency.
This also raises the point that perhaps SuperAlly was the beneficiary of an EBT or two ....
SuperAlly, at the fiddle? Shurely shome mishtake there? :devil:
The Rangers PR machine is in full swing. They are clearly out to muddy the waters and Alastair Johnston's statement last night via RST is a clear case point. He raises some interesting points I admit, but he's still skirting around the real issue - that whether all payments to players were declared in contracts provided to the SPL and SFA. They may have used the EBTs and yes they were declared in their accounts. But were the payments via EBTs included in the contracts provided to the authorities? It is alleged they were not.
It galls me that the media in this country are still giving Rangers employees, past and present, a soapbox without asking them the questions that need answered.
That's spot on, the issue is not the EBT's but rather that all payments relating to the players' employment were not disclosed to the SPL (or SFA, whichever one holds them).Quote:
Originally Posted by moff1875
did you have to say that so 'allowed'? I have a sore head reading all this :wink: :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by wee_hibee
There's also the issue in the eyes of the taxman of whether contractual payments also came from the EBT (which definitely isn't allowed). Silly Dodds confirmed in the Herald that he received an agreed sum of money "after tax" (which had been written in his contract) via the EBT, meaning no tax was paid.Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/...n-tax.17704904
Latest Alex Thomson blog.........
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thoms...2743#more-2743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
I liked his summation:
"Anybody wanting short-cut deals, five-way negotiations and two-tier parachutes should be offered medication by Hampden Park then shown the door in future.
The rulebook’s there – simply apply it without fear or favour."
This is how it should be dealt with. No fudges or obfuscations! If they cheated, they get treated the same as any member club. Glasgow media monkey's, please take note. :aok:
Once again, he gets it spot on! There is a rulebook for a reason - use it. Doncaster and his minions should be charged with bringing scottish football into disrepute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Hoist them by their own petards! :agree:
Just when they thought it was safe to go back in the water ...Quote:
Originally Posted by alfie
It highlights the corruption at the top level and how much "behind the scenes" negotiating was on the go to keep Rangers in the SPL.
The ironic bit is that everything (hush hush) that was discussed with Green was to try and benefit Rangers, and all that he has achieved by leaking this document is to shaft those that were trying to shaft everyone else! They'll probably be removed from office sooner rather than later now and he'll not have anyone left in power willing to bend over and take one for the huns ..
.. unless of course they give the job to Jim Traynor?
In the words (if not the spelling) of that eloquent homogenius Oscar WildeQuote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
'Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by ra peepul for ra peepul'
Boom!! Green's latest statement torn to shreds for the comedy script it is.......
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...s-wrong-in-17/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
We need a nickname for Green along the lines of Mad Vlad. It's all for "horde digestion" in advance of a Sevco share issue I know, but all the same, the guy's statements read like the work of a rambling hun FF poster. Torn to shreds by McConville.
Sounds painful. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by alfie
we live in hope! :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Gettin' Auld
Spiers on Sport: Green and Murray should both testify at SPL probe
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sites/.../gssmall_0.jpg
Spiers on Sport
Graham Spiers
"I am still trying to get my head around the senselessness of Charles Green and Rangers FC refusing to have any truck with the SPL’s investigation conducted by Lord Nimmo Smith into the alleged EBTs misdemeanours at the club.
[/COLOR]
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sites/.../400xY/sdm.jpg
Nimmo Smith has been widely quoted in the past few days, but one plea he made that has virtually gone unnoticed was that anyone associated with Oldco or Newco Rangers, who believe they have a plea of mitigation to make about the club, should come forward and speak to the commission.
What are Rangers so scared of? Why did the club obfuscate in passing on relevant documentation? What is there to hide?
If Rangers are innocent of an alleged dual-contracts scam – and they may well be – then why does the club not step forward and argue its case?
At one stage, with a week to go before the commission’s preliminary hearing of September 11, Green and Newco Rangers were prepared to go and talk to Nimmo Smith. But, with a day to go, they swiftly changed their mind.
To quote Nimmo Smith verbatim from his preparatory notes on the Rangers hearings to be held in November: “Oldco and Rangers FC will continue to have the right to appear and be represented at the hearings and make submissions as they see fit.”
A few pages further on in his notes, and applying his desire to have all evidence and all voices considered in this saga, Nimmo Smith adds: “We [hope] that Oldco, Newco and any other person claiming an interest and wishing to appear will give intimation to that effect. We wish to emphasise that the doors remain open to Oldco and Newco to appear and be represented…”
Never mind Charles Green’s antics, what about Sir David Murray? Given Nimmo Smith and his commission’s desire to establish clear blue water between itself and the SPL, what can possibly stop Murray from coming forward to give his side of the story?
Nimmo Smith chose his words carefully in terms of testimony about EBTs: “…any other person claiming an interest…”
In this Rangers saga, I can think of no viable person who suits those words more than Murray, the man who set the Ibrox club on the fateful course of EBTs in the first place.
Murray avows that Rangers are innocent. He claims this is a stitch-up by people – whoever the heck they might be – to damage Rangers. Murray says the EBTs, the famed “legal loophole” to paying taxes, were used properly and legitimately.
I severely doubt Murray’s interpretation on this but, more than that, I want him to be given his chance to come before the commission to protest his and Rangers’ innocence.
Can someone provide a single valid reason why Murray would not to come before – or present evidence to – Nimmo Smith?
The SPL and SFA have been flawed in their handling of the Rangers case – everyone can see it. But the SPL is trying to make up for that by ensuring that its claim that Rangers FC warrants an investigation will be a claim carried out with the utmost impartiality and clarity.
You have to be a conspiracy theorist of fantasist proportions to somehow believe that Nimmo Smith and his two QCs, Nicholas Stewart and Charles Flint, are “agenda-driven” or “biased” in any way. This commission will once and for all cut through the cant and farrago of this case and reach a judgement on all its available evidence.
Nimmo Smith, Stewart and Flint, apart from their renown in judicial matters, appear to have impeccable credentials. This is a costly exercise for the SPL, but it is worth it. Personally, I will very happily embrace this commission’s guilty or innocent verdict on Rangers, for those very reasons.
In the EBTs/dual contracts controversy, Rangers face two imminent announcements: the tribunal on the so-called “big tax case” and then the Nimmo Smith hearing. The two are subtly linked: one is about EBTs and alleged tax evasion, the other is about player contracts and disclosure.
This story, with its claim and counter-claim, is more complex than anyone could imagine. Rangers could win one case and lose the other, or win or lose both.
My own hunch, given what I’ve been told, is that Rangers have been in the wrong. But far more able scrutineers than me might find otherwise.
Why Rangers FC, Green or Murray would not want to go before Nimmo Smith and present their case, remains baffling."
At least an attempt to ask some questions!