I'm surprised Ticketus don't fancy it. Why worry about 3 years when you can have a lifetimes worth?Quote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
Printable View
I'm surprised Ticketus don't fancy it. Why worry about 3 years when you can have a lifetimes worth?Quote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
... especially if they can use the money they're suing CW for. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Winston Ingram
How about the taxman accepts the CVA (at the moment the debt is only £40ish million)
Then when the BTC hits they can then issue Rangers with a winding up order, and then they would be the main Creditor.
Would they have more of a say in how Rangers would come out of another admin period if they had 75-100% of the debt ?
The BTC is part of the Creditors, at the amount already claimed by HMRC. It would have to be part of the CVA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingertosser
Another expert's view - more like what me and Croppers have been saying all along...
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/...-coin.17596205
Are you or I Dr. Beech?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
And is the one of us that's not Dr.Beech going to send an invoice to him? :greengrin
We already know that you are Dr Beeching.:na na:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Cav G is just a young whippersnapper!:greengrin
We are all Doctor Beech and Dr Beech is everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
In fact life's a Beech.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...y-McCoist.html
" I left Sheffield Utd with no debts and cash in the bank "
So reads the statement from the Gers latest fantasist saviour. Green left the club in June 1998 and I treated myself to a copy of their accounts for year to June 1998 when i was at Companies House. ( Getting my copy of the Yams comedy book )
Some Figures from the accounts the year he left the club with NO debt.
Operating Loss £ 6,076,000
Nett Current Liabilities £ 4,586,000
Nett Cash Outflow £ 1,353,000
Nett Debt at 30/6/1998 £ 5,437,000
And the weegie football press continue to print any garbage a Hun saviour says without question or checking. You would think after the Motherwell born Billionaire had made total idiots of them they might have been a bit more cautious.
THe Huns and the Hun loving Press deserve each other. :agree:
Fixed that for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Interesting. (but I suspect that it will not make any difference to the way things pan out)
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/l...ers-situation/
I think it's previously been suggested that ANO is already in place. It would be a way for Rangers Leech to make his profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
I like what Dr Beech says and the way he says it. "They will pursue with maximum prejudice" - sounds like something out of a Die Hard movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
I'm less happy with Professor David Hillier of Strathclyde University's take on things.
I did not mean an ANO from within the camp.Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
I meant a new player, yet to declare!
It can be done:agree:
Given the success of the original and the best - Yamematics - and the wealth of material from our beloved Hun friends I thought it was about time we had a sequel.
QUANTUM - To the rest of the English speaking world this would be 'value'. 'Quantum' is to be used to convince the blue hordes that the people deciding the fate of their club are intelligent.
COMPANY VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT (CVA) - A financial instrument to force all creditors to accept whatever 'quantum' of money they find lying under the sofa's of Ibrox players' lounge.
NEWCO - Exactly the same as the OldCo without the debts. Nothing's changed. Move along, nothing to see here.
There's some for starters. I'm sure the more enlightened of you will be able to think up some more.
:wink:
That raises the question of what happens if a cva is declined and an offer appears which beats Rangers Leech's agreed bid to set up a Newco. There's a lot more entertainment to come.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
The NewHuns could still be paying extortionate rent for playing in their 'own' stadium:greengrin
Rangers appeal QC tomorrow is
ONE of the leading legal brains in the UK will spearhead Rangers' appeal against a season-long transfer embargo tomorrow.
Mr Richard Keen QC has been hired to fight the Ibrox club's corner after a Judicial Panel took the highly punitive action for "bringing the game into disrepute" at a hearing last month.
The main thrust for reaching this decision was over the non-payment of PAYE and VAT. They judged that although Craig Whyte made this decision, other directors should have known and done something about it.
Rangers put forward a compelling case that Craig Whyte was acting alone and Mr Keen will be reinforcing this view over the appeals process which could last two or three days.
Sitting on the Appeals panel are Lord Carloway, Spartans chairman Craig Graham and former Partick Thistle chairman Allan Cowan.
Manager Ally McCoist has already indicated how disastrous it would be for the club if the transfer embargo remained as it would not only prevent Rangers from signing players but lead to current stars leaving.
Mr Keen is Dean of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland and famously acted for Al Amin Fhimah, who was acquitted at the Lockerbie Bomb trial in Holland in 2001.
You couldnt write this honestly , Donald Findlay will be involved somewhere as a character witness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZDxk...eature=related
[QUOTE=cad;3227966]Rangers appeal QC tomorrow is
ONE of the leading legal brains in the UK will spearhead Rangers' appeal against a season-long transfer embargo tomorrow.
Mr Richard Keen QC has been hired to fight the Ibrox club's corner after a Judicial Panel took the highly punitive action for "bringing the game into disrepute" at a hearing last month.
The main thrust for reaching this decision was over the non-payment of PAYE and VAT. They judged that although Craig Whyte made this decision, other directors should have known and done something about it.
Rangers put forward a compelling case that Craig Whyte was acting alone and Mr Keen will be reinforcing this view over the appeals process which could last two or three days.
Sitting on the Appeals panel are Lord Carloway, Spartans chairman Craig Graham and former Partick Thistle chairman Allan Cowan.
Manager Ally McCoist has already indicated how disastrous it would be for the club if the transfer embargo remained as it would not only prevent Rangers from signing players but lead to current stars leaving.
Mr Keen is Dean of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland and famously acted for Al Amin Fhimah, who was acquitted at the Lockerbie Bomb trial in Holland in 2001.
You couldnt write this honestly , Donald Findlay will be involved somewhere as a character witness
I wonder how much of the CVA pot his fee will use up.
Mr Richard Keen has a number of areas of current and previous expertise in his playbook.
Most hilariously this one:
"tie Limited v Bilfinger Berger and Others (2011)
Richard is currently instructed on behalf of tie with respect to claims arising out of and in respect of the construction of the Edinburgh Tram Network.
TIE, the company which brought us trams project mismanagement on an intergalactic scale, is of course nothing like Rangers. One is a financially dubious institution, lacking in effective corporate governance, leaderless, has run out of financial control for some years and is now at the mercy of much wider forces. The other is, er,...
I wonder if the Greek government has considered engaging Mr Keen's services too?
found this on a tic site
The Battered Bunnet on 15 May, 2012 at 14:16 said:
Well played Rod Petrie. I think our own Leadership will need to declare Celtic’s position ahead of the vote, but the situation remains complicated by D&P/Green’s insistence on performing the CVA charade.
My sense is that while this CVA charade is being played out, the Green People are busying themselves with creating the structure that will permit NewClub to be Licensed in time for next season. In essence, in a short number of days the SFA and SPL will know the intention of the Green People, but will be bound from revealing that to the rest of us by non disclosure terms.
Meantime, we have the SPL Inquiry into the issue of the invalid Registration of Players by Rangers. D&P, acting in their capacity as Court Appointed Managers of Rangers, are obliged to cooperate fully with the governing bodies of the game, acting at all times according to the various Articles, Rules and Contracts regulating Rangers’ participation in the Game in Scotland.
They are obliged to disclose any and all relevant information requested, albeit that disclosure of documents that form evidence presented to the Tax Tribunal may be subject to restrictions.
Nevertheless, what the SPL have asked Harper McLeod’s top legal brains to undertake is essentially a simple Quality Audit. Such a process is very straightforward, requiring little more than a clear description of the Process and Procedures in question, and a comparison of Rangers’ actions against that Process to determine Compliance.
My understanding is that Rangers registered around 75 players in the period in question whose registrations may be questionable.
The SPL will have provided Harper McLeod with a written Instruction that includes Methodology, Deliverables, Stage Gates and Timescales. A formal brief.
As with any audit, a sample of transactions will have been tested initially. This is a practical approach that prevents unnecessary expense from being incurred. Harper McLeod will initally have tested perhaps 10 Regostrations against the defined Process. The results of this will have been reported on within a short timescale, at which point the Brief reached a Stage Gate, and the SPL will have had a decision to make on whether to proceed or not.
If the testing revealed no breaches of Process,the purpose of the audit has been satisfied,and it is likely that the Instruction will have been terminated, and the book closed.
More likely, the testing has identified one or more breaches of Process, and the SPL decision will have extended the Instruction to investigate all relevant transactions to quantify and qualify the extent of the breaches.
It takes around one hour to audit a transaction, if you’re really, really slow. I’ll betya even BlantyreKev could do one in less than 55 minutes. All you require is the relevant Documents and the defined Process. Follow the trail. Was the Process implemented properly? Yes/No. Tick/Cross. Next.
The initial brief was provided on 5th MArch or thereabouts. The SPL knew the result of the initial testing when they received the draft report weeks ago. It is likely that they have instructed a full audit, which would have been completed within 100 labour hours. Perhaps further issues have arisen, and the Auditors are testing other related Processes.
Whatever the situation, it is a given that the Final Report is not delayed by Harper McLeod’s diffidence or restraint.
The consequences of breaches of Player Registration are profound. A player whose registration is invalid, is INELIGIBLE to play. Rangers are suspected of invalidly registering around 75 players, who subsequently participated in as many as 500 SPL matches.
The purpose behind the breaches in Registration was to disguise a multi-million pound fraud on the Treasury, itself conceived to gain competitive advantage on the football pitch, which subsequently delivered 6 Champions League participations worth some £20M per season.
Additionally, Rangers were awarded an additional £1.5M per season in results related SPL prize money over and above participation fees.
The economic benefits to Rangers of this approach to Tax and Football regulation, is in the order of £50M of payroll costs saved, and in excess of £100M of SPL and UEFA prize money won. Perhaps as much as £200 Million of benefit in total.
During the period of this ‘irregular’ approach to regulation, Rangers Directors Campbell Ogilvie, John McClelland and Martin Bain were at various times Directors of the SPL. McClelland was Chairman of Rangers during the period of acceleration in the use of these schemes while being SPL Director 2003-2005.
He was also a member of UEFA’s Club Competition Committee and a member of the European Club Association.
Martin Bain was an SPL Director from 2008 to 2011, a period in which Rangers use of the Tax scheme continued despite HMRC having determined that it was illegal in 2008, and submitting a £36M demand for payment that same year.
Campbell Ogilvie was a SPL Director for a short period only at inception, while simultaneously a Director of Rangers and Director and then Vice President of the SFA.
Bain and Ogilvie we now know were benficiares of the EBT scheme, in addition to being responsible for implementing it.
Rangers, if the allegation is held, will have breached a number of SPL Articles and Rules, the most significant of which is the undertaking to act ‘in the utmost good faith’ to the SPL and member clubs at all times.
Rangers in such a situation, will have rendered the SPL a meaningless circus since its inception in 1998.
The only reasonable sanction for such a breach of faith is expulsion from the SPL.
The results of this inquiry are germane to the integrity of the competitions run by the SFA, the SFL and UEFA. Each in turn will require to consider any appropriate measures for Rangers having breached their Articles and Rules, and corrupted their competitions in the same manner as the SPL’s.
At face value, the outcome is a given: Expulsion.
However, this is Scotland, and it seems the Rules of the Game are applied to everyone equally, except Rangers, without whom we would….. well, we would have honest competition and a fair Game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando7
That's a really good, interesting post :agree:
I think once this debacle has all been sorted and done and dusted the powers that be at :hnet:should make this thread into a book in time for Xmas :greengrin
We could also send a copy to Sally Mcoist :greengrin
The fact that this has been a very high profile affair and has ran on now for 3 months (with more to come, I think), should mean that the SFA will have great difficulty sweeping this under the carpet as Uefa will be all over them if they try it.
SFA appeal verdict won't be coming. Need more time to deliberate apparently.
Anything that causes more uncertainty in Hunland is good in my book.
Think that was written by Tony McKelvie - worth following him on Twitter for the ins and outs of this sagaQuote:
Originally Posted by Brando7
It also gives the SFA more time to think of an excuse for exonarating Rangers.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
They didn't require more time when it Livingston - they couldn't wait to deliver their verdict!Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
More time to deliberate = more time to justify excusing Rangers and waiving the sanctions in my eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Story So Far...
Or maybe putting it off until after the Cup Final to defuse the Huns assault on Hampden.
I thought the meeting was sceduled for later today.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Strange IMHO when one is as loathesome as the other for me :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by The Story So Far...
It is, but it is expected that a decision might not be reached for a couple of days depending upon the weight of evidence presented by the huns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
It is Jim. However as per usual they may require additional information before arriving at a verdict so that could delay proceedings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
And in any case they would be wise to postpone any verdict until after Saturday's final.
Just emailed Sportsound to see if their apologists can argue with that .. Get the Rangers (and their secterian bile) out! :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
Some one should email RP also.
Some brilliant info there !Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
Paul McConville's blog updated
Rangers Administration – In Court Again on Friday 18th May
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...ay-7/#comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by WindyMiller
The way I look at it is the SFA are just as much on trial as Rangers ,through there sheer incompetence bias and general feckupedness in running Scotlands football clubs the entire fabric of our football is up for a change whatever happens .
You could ask why a footballing governing body Uefa is having to hand out fines for sectarianism for instance , when you, would have thought our own governments stand point would have been the order of the day ,maybe the police didnt get Eck`s note ,Im sure he spoke about stamping this out positive he did ,its just with money being tight ,getting the arrest figures up I see 5,000 -40,000 Celtic and Rangers supporters every week having a sing song must be easy to catch , theyre locked in , on TV and CC TV ,a plethora of photographers its a dawdle to catch them evidence a plenty pictures sound witnesses yet,
I ask myself , maybe Im hearing things when Im at Easter Road or watching a game on TV, I looked in many papers the following day see how many got collared zip ,zilch , heehaw how is that .
Then I thought about integrity ethics , corruption ,lies ,theft, misleading, half truths ,bias ,votes ,accountability ,turning a blind eye , fcek you jack Im alright ,
then I thought hey dafty get a grip thats how its running now government backed to ,be interesting to see what happens at the end of all this if nothing else it proves a hell of a lot about Scotland and how its run,badly ,very badly IMO .
GGTTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
I agree with scottish that the SPL will survive without Rangers although I dont understand his calculation that Hibs would only need 98 additional supporters at each game.
My own calculations show,assuming the Cheats have two games at ER we need to make up a shortfall of 3700 X 2 = 7400 at £28 =£207200. To earn £207200 at category 2 games we need to bring in over the 19 home games 9418 additional customers. Or 496 per game. 248 if we had one Cheats game at ER.
The additional 496 or 248 customers is more than achievable as the league without the Cheats would be more competitive. I believe over a season we (Hibs) would be financially better off due to reduced policing costs,more supporters through the gate by virtue of a competitive league where "sporting integrity" reigns.
Don't expect a reply or any acknowledgement, it doesn't suite their OF saving agendas.Quote:
Originally Posted by TQM
"We're doomed" they'll continue to tell us in the tabloids and on the television. "The big hoose must stay open" they'll continue to say.
He's taken the average crowd for games against non-OF teams and subtracted the attendance at Huns' games (averaged if the team had them at home twice).Quote:
Originally Posted by killie-hibby
Since the away end at ER is full of Huns when they come and the crowd is only 1871 above the average of other games, then ~1500 less Hibbies attend games v Huns than on average, assuming the average away support is ~500.
You would 100% be able to include me in those figures. I don't go to Cat A games now because financially I cannot justify paying over £28 for a game I can watch in the comfort of my house, having already paid for it. However, there is every chance I would be paying £22 quid to go watch Hibs v Dundee for example on a Saturday at 3.00pm rather than NOT watching rangers at 12.30pm on a Sunday.Quote:
Originally Posted by killie-hibby
definately, if he could show that to the oher SPL chairman hopefully it could make some sort of difference when they vote on the newco rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by TQM
The guys point is that the huns do not bring an extra 3800 - the increase in attendance when compared to an average non-OF game is only 1900. Averaging out the top/bottom 6 finshes then we'll lose 3000 huns @ £28 = £84K.Quote:
Originally Posted by killie-hibby
However, factor back in the extra £70K or so for finishing higher in the league then the cash shortfall is only £14K. This can be made up through 35 more punters per game @ £22 or just 40 more season tickets @ £350. :thumbsup:
Let them burn! :flag:
I'm also thinking about it from another angle....
Those teams that vote FOR the Newc, OK, they'll have the Huns at their games (maybe)
They wont however have Us, Celtic, Yams, Dundee Utd, Aberdeen + others AND they'll be losing a lot of their home support as well......
Does losing all that really cover for having the Huns 2 maybe 4 times a season?
:confused:
About sums up the views of the majority of non-OF fans in fact I'll broaden that to say most non-Rangers supporters. Since the latter seem to be the only support in Scotland who assume it is perfectly acceptable to sing offensive sectarian crap. Which their apologists dress up as an expression of their so-called British identity, resembling no such identity I am aware of in the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by cad
Thanks hibs0666 and JeMeSouviens for clarifying the calculations in the OP.
exactly! they dont want to entertain the idea of not having rangers, they make up and only acknowledge stats that suite their own opinion. My favourite being sky would walk away form the t.v deal with no rangers fc involved........well, is there a rangers in the blue square conference? no! but they have a deal. the first thing the other clubs have to do is fight for an even split of the t.v money right down the middle, there going down this route in spain. once this is done, only celtic will suffer financially, even without rangers, and less money coming in from sky, the other clubs will benefit getting an even split of this than a 3% share of the current deal. i agree with tom english if any team in the spl rely on 2 visits from rangers a year then they shouldnt be in the spl.Quote:
Originally Posted by wee_hibee
What I have difficulty understanding is the clamour from Doncaster, journalists, some clubs and supporters, et al, to talk down the SPL product. All they are doing is effectively ensuring that SKY or any other bidder, comes to the table with a laughable offer and an enormous file of quotes. No company can have rubbished their product more thoroughly since the jeweller (was it Ratner?) MD said in public they made big money selling “crap” and the whole business went mammary glands up :crazy:
Does anyone think Doncaster is any more than a mediocre middle-manager, patently out of his depth? Don't expect vision or leadership from him.Quote:
Originally Posted by CentreLine
I Cannae take him seriously since I saw him on that game show the chase.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomoseven
Boy kens his quizzes but its doing an awful job at the SPL imo
Probably not much new for avid followers of this thread but could be worth tuning into:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01j0k6k
No, i would suggest it doesn`t. Clubs need their own support more i would have thought. They are certainly deserving of the clubs respect and consideration more than a few thousand Huns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Alf R
However, i think that the Scottish football fans collective bluff is about to be called. I think they`ll gamble that it`s all talk and the majority of fans will be there next season.
It`s a dangerous game they could be about to play..
What's happened with their appeal today? Cannot see anything on the Beeb nor on here?
I think the hearing is this evening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs Class
Ta. Still assumed it would be like previous matchdays, with a build-up to the event followed by the results later on, but if you were relying on the BBC you wouldn't know it was happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
It takes place this evening but two or three people on this thread said that they think that no decision will be made tonight. Where they heard this I have no idea. This has just been confirmed on the BBC. IIRC it took one one meeting to find them guilty and sentence them but it's going to take several days to listen to an appeal. Something makes me uneasy about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by RossHibs
A lot of fans have just about had it with Scottish football as it is, without all the RFC cairry on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Mark Daly was the first reporter to seriously challenge Whyte ,and caused the Beeb to be banned from match interviews of Rangers.
Doesn't seem to be one of the succulent lamb munchers (sookers?).
I am sure Sir Petrie of Tacheville has a spreadsheet on his computer which has worked everything out to the nearest 1p ;)
Knowing he has means I sleep easy at nights :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01j...mme-broadcasts
Next wed 23 May 2012 20:00 BBC One
Looking forward to this :)
6pm i heard it was on, mind they didnt issue findings till 10pm last time.. I however think this will be delayed till after the cup final to aviod possible march again they were planning for satQuote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando7
You ever get that feeling we have to plan every ****** thing around Rangers instead off telling them what to do ,hopefully they will be getting well telt this evening.
A few posts up the page a bit you will see that I posted on this. There is no thinking a deferral will be made. BBC reported it will take several days to reach a decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando7
good comment from the 'Tic "Quick News" site
-----------------------------------
The Battered Bunnet on 16 May, 2012 at 20:47 said:
At a ‘virtual’ Creditors’ Meeting on 20th April, Duff and Phelps, the Adminstrators of Fubar FC, asked the Creditors of the Company to vote on a series of Resolutions, such that with Creditors would authorise the Administrators to take certain actions on behalf of the Creditors.
Each Resolution required 50% of the total value of the Creditors to vote in favour in order that the Administrators be so authorised.
One of the key Resolutions asked the Creditors to authorise the Admininstrators to sell the assets of Fubar FC in whole or in part without further reference to the Creditors. I have pasted the relevant text below:
17.1.4 That the Joint Administrators can explore any and all options available to realise the assets of the Company without recourse to creditors. The Joint Administrators be authorised to conclude a sale of the whole, or part of the business, property and assets of the Company without having to obtain the sanction of the Company.s creditors at further creditors meetings, upon such terms as the Joint Administrators deem fit and they be authorised to liaise with all relevant parties, bodies or organisations which they deem relevant for achieving that purpose.
The Insolvency Act requires the Administrators to report the outcome of the votes at the Creditors’ Meeting to be notified to the Court and Companies House “as soon as reasonably practicable”.
To date Companies House is showing no such notification, and depsite being in front of Lord Hodge at Court last week, no information on the outcome of this critical meeting was presented. As I write, we do not know whether the Administrators have been authorised to sell the business and/or assets of Fubar FC.
This of course is all very well and good technically, but there is a rather practical aspect to it: According to press statements given in recent days, Charles Green is ‘irrevocably’ obliged to purchase the whole of the business and assets of Fubar FC in the event that the Creditors fail to accept his CVA proposal.
Unless the Creditors have voted in favour of resolution 17.1.4, the Administrators are not authorised to execute this ‘irrevocable’ obligation.
The whole matter of course can be easily clarified if only a witting journalist would ask the Administrators for confirmation that the Creditors approved the relevant resolution that thereby gives them the necessary authority to close the deal with Green.
Over to Scotland’s Media on that one.
One does though wonder what other matters the Administrators are required to deliver against without which the irrevocable agreement with Mr Green is somewhat ..eh, revocable.
----------------------------------------------------------
linky ... http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=...omment-1426008
As Vyvian says " I'm completely bl00dy sick of this"
:greengrin
rangers appeal rejected: not what i expected.
i thought the hierarchy would crumble....
Chris McLaughlin @BBCchrismclaug
#Rangers appeal rejected by #SFA
GET IN :top marksQuote:
Originally Posted by Magnum Hibee
Ewen Murray -
In summary, SFA say punishment handed to Rangers was proportionate to crime and note contracts of existing players can still be extended
Having seen the findings of the report, any other decision would have been farcical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando7
It's a start!. :aok:
Brilliant stuff
1. It was competent for Disciplinary Tribunal to impose the additional
sanction of prohibiting registrations of any new players of 18 years or
older for a period of 12 months.
2. The Disciplinary Tribunal was correct to determine that the conduct
involved - especially the deliberate non-payment of very large sums,
estimated in excess of £13m of tax in the form of PAYE, NIC and VAT -
was attributable to the club as a member of the Scottish FA.
3. The Disciplinary Tribunal was correct also in holding that the
maximum fine available for this breach was £100,000, and on its own was
inadequate as a punishment for this misconduct. It was therefore correct
to select an additional sanction.
4. The sanctions available included expulsion from participation in the
game and termination or suspension of membership of the Scottish FA,
which would have had a similar effect. The Appellate Tribunal observes
that serious consideration was given by the disciplinary tribunal to
imposing one of these sanctions, which would have had obvious
consequences for the survival of the club. The Disciplinary Tribunal
rejected these as too severe and this Appellate Tribunal agrees with
that conclusion.
5. Although the Appellate Tribunal has listened carefully to the
representations from Rangers FC about the practical effects of the
additional sanction, it has concluded that this sanction was
proportionate to the breach, dissuasive to others and effective in the
context of serious misconduct, bringing the game into disrepute. In
particular, the Appellate Tribunal recognises that the Disciplinary
Tribunal decision does not affect Rangers’ ability to extend the
contracts of existing professional players, including those whose
contracts will expire at the end of this season and including also those
currently on loan to other clubs. The Appellate Tribunal observes that
Rangers FC have over 40 professional players in this category.
Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal affirms the decision of the
Disciplinary Tribunal.
The worm has turned. Hopefully the SPL clubs can follow this lead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando7
To the huns :giruy:
Let the blue nose gnashing and wailing begin.:cbQuote:
Originally Posted by Brando7
Next question. Would this punishment still apply to a newco?
Sfa have rejected the Huns appeal
To sanctions put on them
Lol lol lol lol lol lol
Fireworks around Hampden on Saturday however. I hope Strathclyde police are up to the task and don't allow the **** to ruin the occasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop Hibee
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=220487&st=0Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
fill your boots there are a few crackers in here Haha couple of favourites being the dog from BGT has more sense and lets get lots of glamour friendlies instead of away games, Im sure Barca would love the glamour of playing 17 year olds Haha
Good. **** 'em :aok:
I know it is a celtic thing but............................
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-4s-...e_gdata_player
quite amusing
Was in "The Bears Den" earlier and there were lots of comments about how the SFA had seen the might of "The People" and would def back down now. OOOOOOOPPPPPSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS GIRFUY.
I have to assume it is tagged to the clubs licence, so a newco trying to claim it has the old clubs licence would surely inherit the punishments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
At that point the newco surely cannot try and switch over player contracts, which it couldn't do anyway, and will have to make do with a team totally composed of kids. Relegation fodder for sure.
So with these punishments in place there best option is either a brand new club applying to division 3, or buying another club and renaming it.
Its the right decision to uphold the decision but its bad timing with the final due this weekend. Surely it would have made more sense to review the appeal next week! There may be trouble ahead.............
:flag:
Looking on rangers media, there are 1 or 2 saying let's cause trouble on Saturday, but to be fair they are getting shouted down saying it could cause a riot and would play into everyone's handsQuote:
Originally Posted by Green Blood
Won't suprise me now if those Huns do go ahead with their so-called protest this sat. But a good decision by the sfa.
Aw naw. More gnashing of teeth, hair out by the roots and veiled threats of repercussions ............. and that's just Chick YoungQuote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
"See if they were going to hit us with a fine for not paying taxes? Fair enough, I can live with that, even though it stinks, as it was solely Whyte's doing.
But a transfer ban has no relation to the crime. A transfer ban should be placed if we had breached contract with a player, or if we had refused to pay a fee to another club.
It's just a ridiculously strange decision, and one we will remember when they come begging us for something in the future."
Apparently the people are not the brightest sparks in the engine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
I really can't see more than a handful trying anything, which won't get very far
Let's hope the moderates win the day and we don't get some tanked up huns trying to spoil our day out.Quote:
Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw
They will still be able to go to the Court of Session and seek a judicial review of the Tribunal's decision. Although maybe the fact a judge of that court was sitting on the appeal panel may make them think their chances of success might not be that great :greengrin And in any event the court wouldn't substitute the decision of the SFA - at most, it would reduce it and ask the SFA to make the decision again. Nothing to stop the SFA coming tot he same conclusion but with any flaw in the decision making process remedied.
Good news. Glad they stuck to their guns.
They will still be able to go to the Court of Session and seek a judicial review of the Tribunal's decision. Although maybe the fact a judge of that court was sitting on the appeal panel may make them think their chances of success might not be that great :greengrin And in any event the court wouldn't substitute the decision of the SFA - at most, it would reduce it and ask the SFA to make the decision again. Nothing to stop the SFA coming tot he same conclusion but with any flaw in the decision making process remedied.
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw
There seemed to be some sort of solidarity among their players a few days ago but is it conceivable that the likes of Aluko and Naismith will volunteer themselves as martyrs for the cause?Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottB
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/inde...owtopic=220492Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonnyboy
There is no way they will go to the courts. FIFA would come down on them like a ton of bricks. That was the mistake that Sion made in Switzerland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesie
Expect Sandy Jardine to appear on the steps of Hampden on Saturday, wearing a crown of thorns and dragging a cross, in protest at the Gers being crucified by the SFA :devil:Quote:
Originally Posted by hfc rd
Cheat. Get caught. Get punished. Appeal. Appeal rejected. Moan about SFA corruption. *baffled* :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mon Dieu4
Any Rangers fan that starts trouble on Saturday. Can **** off!