Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Baldy Foghorn]

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

Having picked up Rangers for nothing Green is now running rings around the Scottish football establishment -wonder if he plays midfield?

He is indeed, whilst pandering to the hoardes of bigots, who probably idolise his every move.....

[blindsummit]

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

It says The Rangers Football Club.

In much the same way as the previous company was called The Rangers Football Club plc until it changed its name.....http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/de...b6/compdetails..... but of course was known as "Rangers", the operating name of this company is also "Rangers".

My head is begining to hurt again

[LeighLoyal]

Jabba on Radio Scotland: "Green has a point... Rangers won those trophies, Sevco been punished enough, more would be bad for Scottish football, time to move on..."



Is there a more nauseating slob in all of Scotland than this pastry lover? We should just ignore a decade of CHEATING via ineligible players on dual contracts because it would be ' bad for the game'. Surely it's time this pathetic excuse for a journalist was removed from the public airwaves? He is an embarrassment.

[Biggie]

Looks like we've all been done up the arse...

[s.a.m]

James Doleman‏@jamesdoleman RT @Timmj95: Debt? We're Newco. Titles? We're Oldco. Punishment? We're Newco. History? We're Oldco. EBTs? Newco. SFA Licence? Oldco"

[Baldy Foghorn]

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

Jabba on Radio Scotland: "Green has a point... Rangers won those trophies, Sevco been punished enough, more would be bad for Scottish football, time to move on..."



Is there a more nauseating slob in all of Scotland than this pastry lover? We should just ignore a decade of CHEATING via ineligible players on dual contracts because it would be ' bad for the game'. Surely it's time this pathetic excuse for a journalist was removed from the public airwaves? He is an embarrassment.

Who is Jabba?

[jgl07]

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

Who is Jabba?

James Traynor at a guess?

[Sir David Gray]

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

Who is Jabba?

Him

[Baldy Foghorn]

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

James Traynor at a guess?

Numpty, that would figure.....The only one who sounds semi decent is Tom English.....

[Billy Whizz]

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

James Doleman‏@jamesdoleman RT @Timmj95: Debt? We're Newco. Titles? We're Oldco. Punishment? We're Newco. History? We're Oldco. EBTs? Newco. SFA Licence? Oldco"

It's ok for them to say that.
If they weren't "Oldco" they wouldn't have been in the SFL 3rd division.
Their "Newco" would have been on the Junior ranks if they were lucky

[LeighLoyal]

Good post on Twitter!

[Just Alf]

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

Keith Downie‏@STVkeith Rangers say they won't cooperate with the SPL investigation into alleaged use of dual contracts, becuase they are no longer an SPL member.

Hopefully that means they've now decided they don't want into the SPL at any point in the future!

[Eyrie]

"Neither the SPL, nor its commission, has any legal power or authority over the club because it is not in the SPL. For that reason, it has no legal basis on which to appoint its commission."

The point at issue here is the actions of a member club during its time of membership. During that membership the club would be bound by the rules and that is why the SPL can investigate what happened.

"To make it crystal clear, the new owners purchased all the business and assets of Rangers, including titles and trophies," he said.

Sevco Huns bought the titles from Huns RIP (who originally bought them with taxpayers' money).

"Any attempt to undermine or diminish the value of those assets will be met with the stiffest resistance, including legal recourse."

So if the titles are stripped Sevco Huns will ask for their money back, but I'd think caveat emptor applies since they were aware of the likely investigation into the EBTs and the range of sanctions available.

The rules of the SPL are there for its members to obey during their membership and those rules cover undeclared second contracts together with the punishments for fielding ineligible players. I'm more concerned about the SPL trying to weasel out of those rules than I am about Green pandering to the loyal Hun follow-followers.

[LeighLoyal]

I note Chuckle uses the word 'new' nine times in this release. He also admitted, here, that liquidation meant the history died http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k0Ik...layer_embedded He knows that when public listed company Rangers FC (SC004276), incorporated on 27 may 1899, is officially liquidated all of its corporate business history goes with it and comes to an end, you cannot buy corporate history! This leads me onto the biggest scandal of this shameful affair: why was no vote taken on the transfer of SFA registration and why was there no vote on another club with viable accounts gaining entry? We have seen Huns in blazers control this whole fiasco.

[Cropley10]

Debt? We're Newco. Titles? We're Oldco. Punishment? We're Newco. History? We're Oldco. EBTs? Newco. SFA Licence? Oldco.

I love the fact Green said he bought the titles.

[Phil MaGlass]

Just when ah thought ah couldnae hate these ****ers anymore Green pops up with his pish.
Its really quite simple, they think they can ***** all over the SFA and the SPL. When it comes to them eventually being promoted to the SPL just say "no", WE DONT ****ING NEED YOU AND YIR BIGOT BAGGAGE" then watch their so called Loyal fans disappear like water aff a ducks back, *****.

[PatHead]

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

Debt? We're Newco. Titles? We're Oldco. Punishment? We're Newco. History? We're Oldco. EBTs? Newco. SFA Licence? Oldco.

I love the fact Green said he bought the titles.

Its the way Rangers have always done it. (Oldco)

[Keith_M]

I'm sorry for now asking this a third time, considering it was about six weeks since the first, but how much longer is it till the OldCo are finally Liquidated?

This waiting on BDO to take over and bury the body seems to have been going on for ever.

[greenginger]

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

Debt? We're Newco. Titles? We're Oldco. Punishment? We're Newco. History? We're Oldco. EBTs? Newco. SFA Licence? Oldco.

I love the fact Green said he bought the titles.

If Clyde F C had out-bid Sevco for the titles would anyone consider that Clyde F C were the proud holders of 50 odd league titles ?

Course not, and it is the same situation with the NewCo Rangers, they were not won by that club. They were not even called Rangers when the titles were bought, they were still called Sevco so they are not even second hand titles they are third hand, never mind Red Hand.

[LeighLoyal]

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

If Clyde F C had out-bid Sevco for the titles would anyone consider that Clyde F C were the proud holders of 50 odd league titles ?

Course not, and it is the same situation with the NewCo Rangers, they were not won by that club. They were not even called Rangers when the titles were bought, they were still called Sevco so they are not even second hand titles they are third hand, never mind Red Hand.

You can't buy corporate history from a (soon to be) liquidated entity.

[Moulin Yarns]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-19556780

I nearly crashed the car listening to this this morning!!!!

[jgl07]

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-19556780

I nearly crashed the car listening to this this morning!!!!

Well if they think that let them stay in the SFL until they decide to co-operate.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

I'm sorry for now asking this a third time, considering it was about six weeks since the first, but how much longer is it till the OldCo are finally Liquidated?

This waiting on BDO to take over and bury the body seems to have been going on for ever.

I'm probably saying it for the third time, too, but it's those pesky shredding machines at D and P.... they just aren't up to the job.

On a pedantic note, BDO taking over doesn't mean that they are liquidated, it just means that they are "in liquidation". That process could take years (I think the Airdrie one took 5 years or more), depending on what transpires and, of course, available funds.

[PatHead]

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

I'm probably saying it for the third time, too, but it's those pesky shredding machines at D and P.... they just aren't up to the job.

On a pedantic note, BDO taking over doesn't mean that they are liquidated, it just means that they are "in liquidation". That process could take years (I think the Airdrie one took 5 years or more), depending on what transpires and, of course, available funds.

Will D & P still be charging for this or will it come out their bill?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Will D & P still be charging for this or will it come out their bill?

I suspect they will come to an arrangement with BDO. All fees are subject to the approval of creditors. HMRC, being the largest creditor, will probably play hard-ball on that. After all, the less that D & P are paid, the more there is for BDO to play with.

[Spike Mandela]

Green is considering legal action if 'their' titles are stripped.

It's a bit like buying a stolen car and then claiming ownership over the burgled owner because you bought it.

How will the SPL react to the threat of legal action, would UEFA take a dim view of this, are the cheating hordes actually going to get away with the biggest scandal in Scottish football, EVER.

I actually think they will as the media are trying to portray the football community in Scotland suffering from 'punishment fatigue' and that 'Rangers have suffered enough'.

Hopefully there is a strength of will from supporters to see justice done on this matter as it wouldn't take a lot for Doncaster and Regan to take a giant brush and sweep it under the carpet.

[Kaiser1962]

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

Green is considering legal action if 'their' titles are stripped.

The key word there is "considering". Once he has considered this for at least two minutes he will realise that Rangers (not The Rangers) were members of the SPL and ignored the rules of the SFA, Uefa and FIFA as well as probably breaking the law to boot. I think if they lose the honours won they are getting off bloody lightly.

[LeighLoyal]

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

The key word there is "considering". Once he has considered this for at least two minutes he will realise that Rangers (not The Rangers) were members of the SPL and ignored the rules of the SFA, Uefa and FIFA as well as probably breaking the law to boot. I think if they lose the honours won they are getting off bloody lightly.

As they have throughout this whole process. But we all know Green's rambling mess of a statement, in complete contravention to the disciplinary he's just received for his last outburst, is just sabre rattling for the horde in advance of a worthless Sevco share issue. "Huns, buy my Sevco shares... T'Rangers 2012 to you. ...." Sevco already agreed to accept oldco punishement as part of the shameful transfer of oldco SFA registration so Green is already way off base with any legal challenges. But he has to get the horde behind the share issue. Noise them up, get the hun media tub thumpers like Traynor stirring the pot. He's played the huns like a dream so far actually.


ps
I hear Ben Johnson wants back his 100m gold from Seoul 1988, he won it on the track afterall. Who are these people? Get their names!

[TheEastTerrace]

Anyone fancy dissecting Alastair Johnston's statement made via RST? I started reading but stopped when I realised that they will never accept accountability no matter what. Loathsome club no matter its constitution then and now

[grunt]

From RST

The Rangers Supporters Trust has been in correspondence with former Rangers Chairman Alistair Johnston and he has kindly agreed that we publish a synopsis of his thoughts on a variety of salient points in order that fans can have a better appreciation of the facts.

Let me explain my personal motivation here. If in any way I can spread my sentiments, which are based on a combination of knowledge of the facts, interpretation of events, and a philosophical understanding of culpability as it relates to punishment, that in some way would cause the Tribunal that is sitting to determine the destiny of Rangers heritage to pause for thought and provide more objective consideration of the case before them, then my agenda will be to a greater extent served. I just can’t sit by on the side-lines and watch a miscarriage of justice be activated by a kangaroo court. It is not my personal objective to denigrate the football institutions of Scotland, but their actions and words go a long way to influencing public opinion as to the interpretation of the events that have taken place and how members of the public frame their own opinions as a result.

The whole process has been established to satisfy a self-serving agenda by vested interests in the SPL. The SFA, however, is the supreme governing body of Scottish football and should invoke its ultimate authority to forestall the inevitable inequity that will ensue if the capital punishment decision is left to the SPL.

The SFA is complicit in all of this because they have not at least up until now had the courage to publicly acknowledge that they either ignored or did not really understand the well-publicized structure surrounding the relationship that Rangers FC had with certain of its players.

I have been reviewing my files from around April 2011 relating to the annual routine of Rangers FC applying for and being granted a license to participate in organized football in Scotland. Because of the publicity surrounding our club at the time, the SFA wrote to us asking for more details about the public speculation concerning our financial and tax situation. The latter obviously referenced the impact of the EBT schemes as creating a potential taxation liability. The club responded accordingly and provided details, as it had done in previous years, by declaring player salaries, bonuses, benefits, etc., but also payments made to a Remuneration Trust. The SFA compliance officers must have known, both from the description and context of the reports, that such expenditures had some connection to player compensation. However, without any further investigation at the time, Rangers FC received its SFA license to compete in the 2011/2012 season. Rangers, therefore, were entitled to believe that they were not in breach of any SFA regulation requiring reporting of player compensation. If there was any question that the essence of these payments to a Remuneration Trust could have endangered the proud historical record of our team, then why was it not raised long before then.

At best, the SFA is relying on inconsistent interpretation of its own rules, and to do this retrospectively is totally at odds with underlying principles of equity in the law. A lawyer representing Celtic recently was successful in having charges against that club dropped because of the inadequacy of the SFA's prescribed rules, regulations, and sanctions. The same principle should apply here. If the SFA now decide to adopt a more focused evaluation of the data they request from its members in order to be granted a license, they should ensure that the legislation upon which they rely for enforcement and the corresponding sanctions are more transparent and predictable.

Let me also address the prevailing mood in certain quarters that seems determined to pile on to Rangers when they are vulnerable as confusion over the current structure and authority has allowed allegations and conjecture to trump reality as the institution of the club seems now to be a pawn where rhetoric, no matter how real or substantiated, prevails. Inflammatory and emotional words have been used and recited to justify this rush to judgment which I believe are fundamentally ill founded and out of proportion to the realities of the events that transpired.

First, when the previous football commission reported on EBT’s in a very high profile statement, they took the view that if Rangers was indeed guilty of structuring EBT schemes that transgressed the law or the rules of the relevant federations, then this was “close to match fixing.” This is the headline that in my opinion prompted the determination to slay Rangers with capital punishment, which in the case of our club would retrospectively alter the records of our historical achievements of which we are all so proud. “Match fixing” has connotations that correctly relate to bribery and corruption involving players and referees, fielding players that did not meet the criteria and qualifications of the governing bodies, e.g. they were over the age limit, or they were registered to another club, or they were playing while they had been banned for previous misdemeanours, etc., etc. Rangers has never been accused of or been remotely involved in any activity that would justify the terminology that whatever transgressions they might be found guilty of perpetrating was close to “match fixing.”

Secondly, and this is really important to the extent that it is a phrase that is prominent in the rhetoric of those whose objective is to crucify Rangers, and that is “financial doping.” The term as I interpret it is an attempt to relate an activity that is outlawed generally throughout the world of sport and regarded as cheating and taking undue advantage of banned stimulants and conjure up a connection with the financial mechanics of a club that has acknowledged that it in the clear light of day and very transparently embraced the use of Remuneration Trusts. Our opponents maintain, illogically, that without the use of EBT’s Rangers would have been unable to afford the quality of players that they fielded and thus gained an advantage over other clubs against which they competed. As an aside, it is interesting to recognize that there has been no complaints about Rangers fielding such players in the Champions League, the Europa League, etc., but the current accusations are being promoted not coincidentally by other members of the SPL who are now attempting to act as judge, jury and executioner against their consistently most potent rival.

The reality of the situation is that Sir David Murray, who was intimately involved in the architecture of these efforts to organize the business in a way to mitigate taxation which is totally legitimate and acceptable under all tenets of the law, would have signed and paid for these very same players whether or not EBT schemes were in effect or not. The only difference being one which only has a financial consequence, i.e. it would have increased Rangers reliance on bank debt. During most of the period under investigation by the upcoming SPL Tribunal, he as well as his company enjoyed a very mutually productive relationship with the Bank of Scotland. The Rangers Board, of which I was a member, consistently believed that if and when the debt reached a level where the bank became uncomfortable, Sir David as he did in 2004 when he underwrote a subscription for Rangers shares and thus eliminated much of the bank debt, would be able and willing to repeat this recovery effort. Whether or not he ultimately would have done so is now irrelevant, but what is clear is that “financial doping” is not and could never be construed as describing a situation where a club extends its credit facilities with a recognized financial institution. The level of the debt that a club is willing to tolerate, whether you are Celtic or Manchester United, is determined by that club in conjunction with the lender. Whether the amount involved is £10 million or £600 million is irrelevant to the principle.

On the other hand, I have to acknowledge that the malfeasance created by Craig Whyte when he manifestly used funds that did not belong to Rangers, i.e. taxes withheld from employees’ wage checks that rightfully should have been transmitted to HMRC, which avoided him having to invest his own money contrary to his expressed commitment to the Rangers stakeholders to do otherwise, and being either unwilling or unable (or both) to raise any credit to invest into Rangers, exposed our club as a victim of what could be loosely determined as “financial doping.” Thus, Whyte was able to pay the club’s operating expenses including player wages, but it was Rangers which suffered by being ultimately forced into liquidation.

Keep in mind, which is not always clear in the molasses of misinformation that is currently circulating, Rangers went into liquidation and suffered all the penalties and sanctions of which we are now aware, solely because of Mr. Whyte’s failure to pay HMRC the withholding tax that the club collected during the short term of his disgraceful proprietorship.

Finally, I would hope that the panel which has been charged with investigating Rangers' activities will draw a large circle around a universe of relevant reference points that should be considered in assessing the magnitude of the allegations made against the Club. For example, was the accepted practice of mitigating players overall tax liability utilized by several of the biggest clubs in Europe by drawing up separate contracts segregating off their image rights, which essentially denied that any compensation related thereto was a function of their obligation to play football, any different in principle than the alleged actions of Rangers FC?