Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Do you have an opinion on whether Sevco can be held liable for any offences committed by the previous company in this sphere? If the dual contract investigation finds that Rangers were fielding unregistered players and should have points deducted, then it's possible that they should have been relegated in 11 successive seasons. In that circumstance, it seems to me that removing titles from the old company's record would be an utterly inadequate punishment for their misdeeds.

I hope that the agreement signed to allow The Rangers to take Rangers' SFA membership includes a clear clause which would mean that the new company could receive appropriate punishment for the old company's sins. However, I don't expect that to be so. The dispute about the payment due to Dundee United indicates that the agreement was drawn up in haste without adequate attention to precision. The priority of the football authorities was to have some manifestation of Rangers back in the Scottish game for the current season without losing too much face in the short term. More money for lawyers in the future I fear.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm on that fence again

Even if I was, I'd be rubbing my hands in anticipation of some tasty legal argument, like you say.

I was my understanding that taking responsibility for the double-contract issue was a condition of the SFA licence. Equally, I reckon that that was the SFA's and SPL's intention, despite what some conspiracy-theorists might suggest. I don't think they're smart enough to deliberately draw up something that appears watertight, but actually isn't.

That all said, I am not sure about this whole investigation. If the ultimate sanction is stripping of titles (is it? or is expulsion possible?), what difference does that actually make to anybody, other than to provoke academic pub arguments? If this were the States, the aggrieved clubs would be suing the hell out of the Huns.... but I can't see that happening here.

I might have a different opinion (or be on a different fence) once the DUFC stuff plays out.

[ballengeich]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I was my understanding that taking responsibility for the double-contract issue was a condition of the SFA licence. Equally, I reckon that that was the SFA's and SPL's intention, despite what some conspiracy-theorists might suggest. I don't think they're smart enough to deliberately draw up something that appears watertight, but actually isn't.

That all said, I am not sure about this whole investigation. If the ultimate sanction is stripping of titles (is it? or is expulsion possible?), what difference does that actually make to anybody, other than to provoke academic pub arguments? If this were the States, the aggrieved clubs would be suing the hell out of the Huns.... but I can't see that happening here.

For me this is the essence of future developments. Stripping of titles doesn't inflict any future financial penalty on Green's The Rangers. In fact he'll be delighted if that happens, especially if the verdict is announced around the time next season's tickets go on sale (assuming both he and the club last that long), as it'll be another string to his "agenda" bow. The question is whether the investigation will be able to impose any punishments that affect The Rangers in the future.

My fear is not that the SFA/SPL have deliberately drawn up a less than watertight document, but that they have signed up to something which is inaccurate and ambiguous because of their overriding fear of the financial consequences of Rangers not being present this season. As you remark, lawyers will be salivating at the prospects of a lengthy fight over fines, points deductions and other punishments up to expulsion which the investigating body might feel appropriate in future.

I'm not so certain that Celtic might not sue for loss of earnings.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

For me this is the essence of future developments. Stripping of titles doesn't inflict any future financial penalty on Green's The Rangers. In fact he'll be delighted if that happens, especially if the verdict is announced around the time next season's tickets go on sale (assuming both he and the club last that long), as it'll be another string to his "agenda" bow. The question is whether the investigation will be able to impose any punishments that affect The Rangers in the future.

My fear is not that the SFA/SPL have deliberately drawn up a less than watertight document, but that they have signed up to something which is inaccurate and ambiguous because of their overriding fear of the financial consequences of Rangers not being present this season. As you remark, lawyers will be salivating at the prospects of a lengthy fight over fines, points deductions and other punishments up to expulsion which the investigating body might feel appropriate in future.

I'm not so certain that Celtic might not sue for loss of earnings.

Were that to happen, and they were successful, that would kill off the Huns for good. Whilst CFC say they don't need them, most of the rest of us aren't so sure that they're being entirely truthful.

[magpie1892]

Fat Sally on Football Focus just now saying that Rangers were going to get the 'third, if not second highest average attendances in the UK' this season.

Really? Assume Man U top the pile, you're going to get a higher average than all of Arsenal, Celtc and Newcastle?

You can't get the 52,000 that I will be joining at SJP later today into Ipox for one thing.

[Kaiser1962]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Fat Sally on Football Focus just now saying that Rangers were going to get the 'third, if not second highest average attendances in the UK' this season.

Really? Assume Man U top the pile, you're going to get a higher average than all of Arsenal, Celtc and Newcastle?

You can't get the 52,000 that I will be joining at SJP later today into Ipox for one thing.

Rangers had an average of 46,324 which put them behind ManU (75,387), Arsenal (60,000), Celtic (50,904), Newcastle (49,935) and ManC (47,044) last season.

[magpie1892]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Rangers had an average of 46,324 which put them behind ManU (75,387), Arsenal (60,000), Celtic (50,904), Newcastle (49,935) and ManC (47,044) last season.

From BBC online: "Rangers chief executive Charles Green on BBC Radio Scotland: "To see the turnaround to me and my group has been amazing. I understand they (the fans) have been suspicious. To see the stadium like this, when only Arsenal can get a bigger crowd in Britain, is amazing."

It's obviously catching! That you Charlie is overlooking what will be a bigger crowd at SJP this late afternoon is like getting a knockback from a really tidy lassie and telling her: 'I wasn't really interested anyway'.

[Ozyhibby]

this attendance nonsense is not the point. Nobody said they were not a big club, just that they were a bunch of cheating bar stewards.

[Kaiser1962]

These guys appear to have done some sums as to the cost to each club of Rangers (very poor) manipulation of the tax system. They come up with three amounts, a maximum, a weighted amount and a minimum cost. The source may be a bit suspect but, however, their figures for Hibs are;

maximum £34.8m
weighted £8.4m
minimum £3.6m

Would folk, generally, be in favour of the club suing Rangers?

Rest of the figures are here http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=9104

[Biggie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

this attendance nonsense is not the point. Nobody said they were not a big club, just that they were a bunch of cheating bar stewards.

Exactly...nauseating listening to them spout absolute pish...they just don't get it.

[Onion]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

this attendance nonsense is not the point. Nobody said they were not a big club, just that they were a bunch of cheating bar stewards.

They just don't get it - thick as ****.

[Jim44]

McCoist, with his TV experience and background, seems to think he talks with authority and gravitas, when in reality, he is a very ignorant, stupid person. I know it was in the DR, but apparently he has made noises about the possibility of 'them' snubbing the SPL in three years time, to teach them a lesson.

[LeighLoyal]

The Rangers con does seem to be working a treat, stole £140m, liquidated as a result, but still called "Rangers FC" and allowed the oldco registration by a compliant, weak SFA. They will always be Sevco from now on to me. Rangers died. UEFA know they died and that's why they are banned from Europe. A shame for them that Messrs Regan and Ogilivie don't run UEFA isn't it! Plague and pestilence is too good for all these DOBS.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

These guys appear to have done some sums as to the cost to each club of Rangers (very poor) manipulation of the tax system. They come up with three amounts, a maximum, a weighted amount and a minimum cost. The source may be a bit suspect but, however, their figures for Hibs are;

maximum £34.8m
weighted £8.4m
minimum £3.6m

Would folk, generally, be in favour of the club suing Rangers?

Rest of the figures are here http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=9104

Fair and moral to sue? No doubt.

Sensible and practical? Probably not.

I'm not going to get into the amounts themselves. That sort of spreadsheet-porn would keep some of my colleagues in wet dreams for months.

So, the practicalities:-

1. how much are Rangers going to be sued for? All of their winnings and profits during the EBT years? Seems fair. The potential earnings of the other clubs? Much more difficult to establish.

2. is it to be a class action, or is it every club for themselves? If the latter, there will be many actions competing with each other. The former seems more sensible, otherwise it just becomes an intractable mess.

3. how is the money to be shared out? Is it to be shared between all SPL clubs during that period? What about clubs RFC put out of the Cups? And clubs they put out of Europe? That sort of negotiation could take months to sort out, during which time TRFC would be taking appropriate (and legitimate) action to protect their assets.

4. once such an action started, TRFC would probably be required to set aside a sum in case they lost. That action, by itself, might be enough to tip them over into insolvency again. Wouldn't be helpful.

5. all of the above would take time.... for which read "cost a lot of money", with no guarantee of success. So... do Hibs spend money on it, at a time when we don't have much spare?

Finally, what happens if BDO are successful in having the property sale reversed, or in recovering the alleged market value? TRFC would have no cash to pay out in the above cases. RFC(IL) would have the cash, but we wouldn't have sued them. Even in the unlikely event that we could recover something from RFC(IL), it would only be a small percentage once the other creditors took their share.

[cabbageandribs1875]

i look forward to the day the buns get their REAL punishment/s

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

i look forward to the day the buns get their REAL punishment/s

Don't hold your breath. As far as the media is concerned, Rangers are back. The BBC are treating Rangers' time in SFL3 as an "adventure" in the same way that Enid Blyton's Famous Five had adventures. The BBC Scotland TV news has even amended their football reporting in the news to show the SPL results and then Rangers result on the same screen below the SPL ones. 33,000 Rangers fans have bought season tickets, Rangers are buying players like there's no tomorrow, and the creditors who lost £134m in this footballing scandal have been forgotten. Scottish football is broken beyond repair.

[Mark79]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Don't hold your breath. As far as the media is concerned, Rangers are back. The BBC are treating Rangers' time in SFL3 as an "adventure" in the same way that Enid Blyton's Famous Five had adventures. The BBC Scotland TV news has even amended their football reporting in the news to show the SPL results and then Rangers result on the same screen below the SPL ones. 33,000 Rangers fans have bought season tickets, Rangers are buying players like there's no tomorrow, and the creditors who lost £134m in this footballing scandal have been forgotten. Scottish football is broken beyond repair.

Sums it up nicely. I feel most sorry for the companies/people who got hee haw. They then watch them spending money again like there is no tomorrow. The huns then have the cheek to say they have been treated unfairly??? Wtf. They have treated tgeir creditors extremely unfairly and still exist. Ill bet their are a fair few wee companies that have now gone bust as a consequence. Despise that mob to the core.

[grunt]

Interesting, and clearly stated, take on the Dundee Utd £31k due by Rangers.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...making-trouble

Less than a month into the new Scottish soccer season and the SFA’s newest member club is causing trouble. Before I go on, you may consider the repeated use of “Rangers Football Club” and “The Rangers Football Club” unnecessary. This is actually a necessary distinction to make as “Rangers Football Club” is the club formed in 1872, which is no longer a member of the SFA and will soon be liquidated.

“The Rangers FC” is the new name of Sevco Scotland, a consortium fronted by former Sheffield United FC Chief Executive Charles Green, which purchased the assets of Rangers Football Club in June this year. They are two separate, unrelated legal entities, one of which has purchased the real estate of the other. A fiction has emerged amongst Rangers supporters that somehow the “club” and the “company” are separate and that The Rangers Football Club Ltd has purchased Rangers Football Club from Rangers plc. This is emphatically not the case. There is no legal distinction or difference between the club and the company. They are one and the same.
In 1872, Rangers Football Club was a club. That is, a group of individuals who have come together to form an association with members and are run by a committee. A club’s members pay an annual subscription, and its members are personally liable for any debts incurred by the club. Around the turn of the 20th century, most soccer clubs in the UK incorporated, partly to raise funds and partly to protect members from having to pay debts from their own pockets. Incorporation means that the club sells shares in itself, and the new directors are not personally liable for any debts incurred. So it was that in 1899 Rangers Football Club incorporated. Investors bought shares in the club, which changed its legal status from a club to a private company limited by shares. The new investors owned shares in Rangers Football Club, which was now called Rangers Football Club Ltd, the wording which to this day adorns the gates of Ibrox Stadium. There was, and is, no separate company and club.

In the early 1980’s, Rangers Football Club Ltd was floated on the stock market. This involved another change in legal status, from a private limited company to a public limited company. In the UK, the names of public companies are not allowed to end in "Ltd,” or “Limited,” so Rangers Football Club Ltd became Rangers plc. As a public company, a controlling interest in Rangers plc could be purchased by anyone with the cash to buy the necessary number of shares and a willing seller. So it was that in 1988 a controlling interest in Rangers plc was purchased by David Murray and Rangers plc became part of Murray International Holdings. Then in 2011, Murray’s shares in Rangers plc were purchased by Wavetower, owned by Craig Whyte. After completing the purchase, Wavetower adopted the name, “The Rangers FC Group Limited.”
Neither of these takeovers required a transfer of Rangers’ membership of the SFA to the new company who had bought Rangers plc.

Charles Green’s Sevco Scotland (now The Rangers Football Club Ltd) consortium did not buy Rangers plc, the legal entity formed in 1872.
They purchased Ibrox Stadium, the Murray Park training complex and a car park. That is why Rangers’ SFA membership had to be transferred from Rangers Football Club to The Rangers Football Club. You cannot "transfer" something from yourself to yourself! The Rangers FC did not qualify for SFA membership as they do not have the three years’ worth of audited accounts required, so in a quirky deal, the SFA agreed to transfer the membership of the now defunct Rangers FC to the company who purchased the assets and business of the old club. As a condition of transferring the membership, The Rangers FC had to agree to pay all debts owed to Scottish soccer clubs by the now defunct Rangers FC.

This week, following rumblings of discontent over The Rangers FC signing several players beyond the price range of most SPL clubs, Green announced that The Rangers FC has paid all debts owed by the now defunct Rangers FC. That it seemed, was that. Until yesterday, when Dundee United FC released a statement that, contrary to Green’s announcement, they have still not received their full share of the gate money for the Scottish Cup tie played at Ibrox in February. This statement has sparked a great deal of confusion, with Green claiming that the SPL had earlier agreed to pay the money to Dundee United, which the SPL deny.

The dispute hinges on a letter written by the SPL to Rangers FC on May 18, informing Rangers that their prize money from finishing in second place in season 2011-12 would be withheld and distributed to those clubs owed money by the now defunct club.
Green stated:

“A letter from the SPL to the club—dated May 18, 2012—stated: ‘The board decided to accede to the application of Dundee United and accordingly, the sum will be withheld from the next sum payable by the SPL Limited to Rangers and the sum will be paid by the SPL Limited to Dundee United.’ Why the SPL have not paid Dundee United the outstanding sum as previously agreed is a question that they need to answer. We wrote to Dundee Utd on Monday explaining the SPL had previously confirmed they would pay it.”

Not strictly true. On May 18, The Rangers Football Club did not exist. It was formed on May 29 (as Sevco Scotland) and did not buy the business and assets of Rangers Football Club until June 14. So the SPL wrote to Rangers Football Club at a time when it was still a member of the SPL and clinging on to life by its fingertips. Working on the assumption that Rangers Football Club would still be a member of the SPL this season, the SPL agreed that they would withhold prize money from Rangers Football Club and distribute it to its Scottish soccer creditors.
The SPL’s agreement, then, was with Rangers Football Club. No such agreement was made with The Rangers Football Club, which is a different club, and has no right to the prize money won by Rangers FC last season. Following protracted negotiations, The Rangers Football Club was granted Rangers FC’s membership of the SPL with several conditions, one of which was that The Rangers Football Club would pay any money owed by Rangers Football Club to other Scottish clubs. Charles Green and The Rangers Football Club agreed to that condition but are now claiming that they should not have to pay money owed to Dundee United.

The Rangers Football Club appears to be in clear breach of the agreement by which they were granted membership of the SFA. The SFA must now either act to ensure The Rangers Football Club keeps its agreement to pay Rangers FC’s Scottish soccer debt, or lose control of the situation altogether. Whether there exists the will within the SFA to do so remains to be seen.
Breaking its own rules to admit The Rangers Football Club is turning out to be a major mistake by the Scottish Football Association.

[Caversham Green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Interesting, and clearly stated, take on the Dundee Utd £31k due by Rangers.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...making-trouble

A couple of points on that.

The fourth paragraph illustrates the difference between Sevco now and Hibs in the early nineties (ref our earlier debate).

Charles Green’s Sevco Scotland (now The Rangers Football Club Ltd) consortium did not buy Rangers plc, the legal entity formed in 1872.
They purchased Ibrox Stadium, the Murray Park training complex and a car park.

In our case STF did buy the legal entity that was formed in 1903 from the receivers of Forth Investments, hence there was a continuation of the club.

On the separation of club and company, the various rules and articles always refer to 'club' rather that 'company' so they could be interpreted as giving clubs a separate identity from their operating companies. I don't believe that was the intention, but I reckon there's a valid legal argument for it and it would really need court proceedings to arrive at a firm conclusion. In any case, as I've said a few times before, they should have taken one interpretation or the other and stuck to it rather than the current quagmire of compromise. The last sentence in the quote is absolutely right.

He's also referred to the SPL when he meant the SFA in the second-last paragraph, but he can be forgiven for that - oh for a single ruling body in this footballing backwater.

[Kaiser1962]

Was just considering as many different ways to upset Chuckie and Fat Sally as possible

While it is unlikely to be practical it is clearly going to be considered by some, Vlad would be favourite since it could be argued that, other than Celtic, Hearts have been hit hardest financially. This shows what a difficult job the Independent panel have but they should only be considering the facts and not the potential fall out, which could be quite a bit.

For instance Rangers won four SC's and six LC's in their fiscally enlightened years so would these need to be reversed? If the tribunal finds against Oldhun would there be a case for the clubs who lost these final's challenging to reverse the result if the tribunal dosent? We accept, and can probably prove, that Rangers competitors have suffered financially at the hands of Murray's Tax Scheme we could also ask what about player bonuses? I select finals because undoubtedly thats where the biggest bonuses would have been up for grabs, but this could be extended further to league games.

Whilst I am not a gambler I am sure some of the guys on here would have had a bet one way or the other on the outcome of the big games, what does the bookie do? I genuinely dont know but if it's covered in the bookies favour, which I suspect it might, could this also be challenged?

In a fair and just system these matters would be reconciled to the benefit of the victim's of the sting but we all accept this is unlikely to happen in the real world, while Newhun continue paying over the odds wages and fees whilst simultaneously sticking a digit in the air to everybody else.

Just throwing it out there..........................

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Fair and moral to sue? No doubt.

Sensible and practical? Probably not.

I'm not going to get into the amounts themselves. That sort of spreadsheet-porn would keep some of my colleagues in wet dreams for months.

So, the practicalities:-

1. how much are Rangers going to be sued for? All of their winnings and profits during the EBT years? Seems fair. The potential earnings of the other clubs? Much more difficult to establish.

2. is it to be a class action, or is it every club for themselves? If the latter, there will be many actions competing with each other. The former seems more sensible, otherwise it just becomes an intractable mess.

3. how is the money to be shared out? Is it to be shared between all SPL clubs during that period? What about clubs RFC put out of the Cups? And clubs they put out of Europe? That sort of negotiation could take months to sort out, during which time TRFC would be taking appropriate (and legitimate) action to protect their assets.

4. once such an action started, TRFC would probably be required to set aside a sum in case they lost. That action, by itself, might be enough to tip them over into insolvency again. Wouldn't be helpful.

5. all of the above would take time.... for which read "cost a lot of money", with no guarantee of success. So... do Hibs spend money on it, at a time when we don't have much spare?

Finally, what happens if BDO are successful in having the property sale reversed, or in recovering the alleged market value? TRFC would have no cash to pay out in the above cases. RFC(IL) would have the cash, but we wouldn't have sued them. Even in the unlikely event that we could recover something from RFC(IL), it would only be a small percentage once the other creditors took their share.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Don't hold your breath. As far as the media is concerned, Rangers are back. The BBC are treating Rangers' time in SFL3 as an "adventure" in the same way that Enid Blyton's Famous Five had adventures. The BBC Scotland TV news has even amended their football reporting in the news to show the SPL results and then Rangers result on the same screen below the SPL ones. 33,000 Rangers fans have bought season tickets, Rangers are buying players like there's no tomorrow, and the creditors who lost £134m in this footballing scandal have been forgotten. Scottish football is broken beyond repair.

They haven't, though. Their rights will come back into play once BDO start work.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Was just considering as many different ways to upset Chuckie and Fat Sally as possible



.......................

.... which is perfectly rational and proper

Even now, Mr. BDO will be scouring the message-boards, armed with pad and pencil, looking for suggestions......"oh, that's a decent shout. We'll have that one."

Such a shame Mr. MSM hasn't been doing the same.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A couple of points on that.

The fourth paragraph illustrates the difference between Sevco now and Hibs in the early nineties (ref our earlier debate). In our case STF did buy the legal entity that was formed in 1903 from the receivers of Forth Investments, hence there was a continuation of the club.

On the separation of club and company, the various rules and articles always refer to 'club' rather that 'company' so they could be interpreted as giving clubs a separate identity from their operating companies. I don't believe that was the intention, but I reckon there's a valid legal argument for it and it would really need court proceedings to arrive at a firm conclusion. In any case, as I've said a few times before, they should have taken one interpretation or the other and stuck to it rather than the current quagmire of compromise. The last sentence in the quote is absolutely right.

He's also referred to the SPL when he meant the SFA in the second-last paragraph, but he can be forgiven for that - oh for a single ruling body in this footballing backwater.

They also omit one important point which is causing a lot of people the vapours on here, and presumably elsewhere. Along with the physical assets, Sevco also bought the Rangers brand, ie the bit that allows them to call themselves "Rangers" and to wear the same badge.

I know that you know this, Cav, but I am highlighting it for others.

[Lucius Apuleius]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They also omit one important point which is causing a lot of people the vapours on here, and presumably elsewhere. Along with the physical assets, Sevco also bought the Rangers brand, ie the bit that allows them to call themselves "Rangers" and to wear the same badge.

I know that you know this, Cav, but I am highlighting it for others.

Sorry mate, a lot of people will never accept that as fact, no matter how many feckn times they are told!!!!!

[ballengeich]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In any case, as I've said a few times before, they should have taken one interpretation or the other and stuck to it rather than the current quagmire of compromise.

I think you're correct about this. It's an established theory in maths/logic that if you start with two contradictory premises you can prove absolutely anything. The SFA and SPL have the starting premises that "The Rangers are a continuation of Rangers" and "The Rangers are not a continuation of Rangers". Where you have logical chaos you find rich lawyers.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sorry mate, a lot of people will never accept that as fact, no matter how many feckn times they are told!!!!!

[LeighLoyal]

Green's latest Orc rabble rousing statement calling the SFA "incompetent drunks". For once I agree with the noob. Giving them the oldco registration when they didn't need to and then overlooking the fact they didn't have audited accounts just to get them in the door, yes, they must have been incompetent and drunk. Well done Green. I hope BDO unravel this spiv's dodgy purchase and give him something to really moan about.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Green's latest Orc rabble rousing statement calling the SFA "incompetent drunks". For once I agree with the noob. Giving them the oldco registration when they didn't need to and then overlooking the fact they didn't have audited accounts just to get them in the door, yes, they must have been incompetent and drunk. Well done Green. I hope BDO unravel this spiv's dodgy purchase and give him something to really moan about.

To be fair to the SFA, it's the SPL that he is levelling the charge at. And, as the article says, either one or the other, not both .

[LeighLoyal]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

To be fair to the SFA, it's the SPL that he is levelling the charge at.

A technicality surely Doesn't change the SFA should never have given him the oldco registration, they are not the same club as UEFA can attest. I still hope BDO unwind his dodgy asset purchase and get justice for the creditors. Forlorn hope maybe, but they have the powers to see it's done.

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I still hope BDO unwind his dodgy asset purchase and get justice for the creditors. Forlorn hope maybe, but they have the powers to see it's done.

Sadly I fear this will never happen. And if any other Chairman called the SPL drunk or incompetent, they'd be had up on disrepute charges, no? It seems that Rangers are untouchable.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sadly I fear this will never happen. And if any other Chairman called the SPL drunk or incompetent, they'd be had up on disrepute charges, no? It seems that Rangers are untouchable.

Why not?

As for the disrepute charge, he's only just said it. The SPL and SFA offices will be open for business tomorrow