Rangers Tax Case

[Bawheid]

No it's not.

 

Whatever you or any other supporter of Scottish football that dislikes Ragers may think, the SFA are there for the benefit of their member clubs and Scottish football as a whole. Rangers may well have cheated, and may well be universally unpopular, but that doesn't mean the SFA should just kick them out.

 

By doing that the likes of Hearts would have absolutely no chance of seeing any of the money owed to them- given how much of a financial basket case they are, we could have the knock on effect of another club going to the wall. Hugh Scott, under Morton's name was quite happy to steal money from the Football Trust in Morton's name for a fantasy stand at the Cowshed side of the ground- that's effectively stealing off the football community too. Was it time to kick us out or should they have done what they could to help us when we effectively cheated others? If we're going to try and fold Rangers for the crimes of Murray and Whyte, there's no reason why the same fate shouldn't have befell ourselves for Scott's crimes. These people are merely custodians of their respective clubs after all.

 

Yes, Rangers should be punished, and punished severely, but I suspect your demands that they be kicked out of football completely are based on your disdain for the club and their supporters rather than your hopes that Scottish Football as a whole benefits.

 

The SFA pointed out that the only crime Rangers could've committed that was worse than this would've been match fixing- a crime that the FIGC (Italian FA) relegated Juventus for and imposed a 9 point deduction. That organisation is far from the most transparent body in football I'd imagine, but if they see relegation and a nine point deduction as suitable for the "worst crime in football" then folding a club for a lesser crime would be extremely unfair.

 

The governing body's job in a case like this should be to get the best possible solution for all parties concerned whilst balancing that with enforcing fair and reasonable sanctions on those at fault, be it Rangers, Morton, East Stirling or Threave Rovers involved. Folding Rangers wouldn't do that. It may well put a smile on the faces of a few folk that don't like them, but that isn't the purpose of the SFA's role.

 

It makes sense , this is it down to the nitty gritty.Toby has brought up a lot of what I would haves liked to have posted myself , but due to the fact I would have been lambasted I refrained from doing so. To many have blinkers on as to what the downside of not having either of the old firm teams in our set up. To be fair perhaps most RFC fans are blinkered too, believing that it should be brushed under the carpet and carry on status quo. WRONG the have to suffer even only if for the short term, then they and every other club can move on and learn and build a stronger organisation to make Scotland creditable for once.

[Greacen2000]

I notice that this ludicrous CVA that is proposed (and creditors are being asked to agree to it without knowing what they will actually get) assumes that Rangers will receive full payment of any transfer fees they are owed. Do they therefore have to pay in full any transfer fees that they owe other clubs? If not, that is another kick in the teeth for football in general. Time the SFA stopped trying to protect Rangers from their crimes and just kicked them out of football altogether.

 

 

The fact of the matter is that the document published clearly illustrates that the CVA option will make more funds available to pay creditors than liquidation would, and as such represents the best deal available for creditors.

[Alibi]

The fact of the matter is that the document published clearly illustrates that the CVA option will make more funds available to pay creditors than liquidation would, and as such represents the best deal available for creditors.

 

Tonsilitis will no doubt understand the CVA better than I do, but I have read some posts elsewhere that suggest that the payout is not actually 8p or 9p in the £ because the extortionate fees to be paid to Duff and Phelps have to be deducted from the creditors' pot, and they get paid in full. The actual payout to ordinary creditos is more like 3p in the £, and even that is not guaranteed. The payout is less than the tax deductions that would be available on the written off portions of the debt (which in effect reduces the amount of tax that businesses and individuals will pay I think). If HMRC accept this pitiful stitch up, they aren't doing their job properly. I must write to them and offer to pay my tax bill at a rate of 9p in the £ demanded and see what they say.

 

Regarding Toby's post above, I don't think Hugh Scott's shenanigans are comparable to what Rangers have done and are doing. Scott was a nasty wee shyster who was trying to kill us off, but we managed to save the club from his clutches. Rangers have been engaged in institutional robbery and even now they are still at it, desperately wriggling to try to escape without penalties (there's a first, Rangers complaining about being awarded a penalty...) and all the while still hiding behind smoke and mirrors. I note also that Ibrox and Murray Park, valued on Rangers' book at £100 million or so, are valued at about £4.5 million or so for the purposes of the CVA proposals - conveniently just below the £5.5m CVA figure, which I suspect is significant.

 

Arguing that letting Rangers off lightly helps Scottish football in general is just a load of keech. For a start, if they continue in business, not only have they hoovered up cash using taxpayers' money to fund success for many years, but they would continue to do so in the future. They were wanting to leave the SPL anyway and they didn't give a toss whether or not it affected anyone else. Why should the clubs that have been bullied for years by the OF now come out and help them?

 

I note that they are hoping to come out of administration on the 12th July. Not the most diplomatic date to choose, but what do you expect from that bunch of chancers?

 

[Greacen2000]

Tonsilitis will no doubt understand the CVA better than I do, but I have read some posts elsewhere that suggest that the payout is not actually 8p or 9p in the £ because the extortionate fees to be paid to Duff and Phelps have to be deducted from the creditors' pot, and they get paid in full. The actual payout to ordinary creditos is more like 3p in the £, and even that is not guaranteed. The payout is less than the tax deductions that would be available on the written off portions of the debt (which in effect reduces the amount of tax that businesses and individuals will pay I think). If HMRC accept this pitiful stitch up, they aren't doing their job properly. I must write to them and offer to pay my tax bill at a rate of 9p in the £ demanded and see what they say.

 

Regarding Toby's post above, I don't think Hugh Scott's shenanigans are comparable to what Rangers have done and are doing. Scott was a nasty wee shyster who was trying to kill us off, but we managed to save the club from his clutches. Rangers have been engaged in institutional robbery and even now they are still at it, desperately wriggling to try to escape without penalties (there's a first, Rangers complaining about being awarded a penalty...) and all the while still hiding behind smoke and mirrors. I note also that Ibrox and Murray Park, valued on Rangers' book at £100 million or so, are valued at about £4.5 million or so for the purposes of the CVA proposals - conveniently just below the £5.5m CVA figure, which I suspect is significant.

 

Arguing that letting Rangers off lightly helps Scottish football in general is just a load of keech. For a start, if they continue in business, not only have they hoovered up cash using taxpayers' money to fund success for many years, but they would continue to do so in the future. They were wanting to leave the SPL anyway and they didn't give a toss whether or not it affected anyone else. Why should the clubs that have been bullied for years by the OF now come out and help them?

 

I note that they are hoping to come out of administration on the 12th July. Not the most diplomatic date to choose, but what do you expect from that bunch of chancers?

 

Regardless of this, the CVA still represents a better deal for creditors, since the value of the CVA fund is greater than the net worth of rangers assets. The £5.5m will need to be paid to Duff and Phelps regardless of whether it end up a CVA or liquidation so this doesnt really change anything. By rejecting the CVA, HMRC would be cutting off their nose to spite their face because they would end up getting even less that way.

 

The £100m value for Ibrox & Murray park represent how much the club has outlaid on them (minus depreciation). THis however has no bearing whatsoever on their "real life" market value (i.e. what they would be worth if liquidated). The fact that Ibrox is a listed building in one of the most undesirable areas of glasgow means it is not exactly prime real estate. Likewise I believe that the title deeds of Murray park state it can only be used for the purpose of sports so it would not be attractive to developers etc.

[Alibi]

Regardless of this, the CVA still represents a better deal for creditors, since the value of the CVA fund is greater than the net worth of rangers assets. The £5.5m will need to be paid to Duff and Phelps regardless of whether it end up a CVA or liquidation so this doesnt really change anything. By rejecting the CVA, HMRC would be cutting off their nose to spite their face because they would end up getting even less that way.

 

The £100m value for Ibrox & Murray park represent how much the club has outlaid on them (minus depreciation). THis however has no bearing whatsoever on their "real life" market value (i.e. what they would be worth if liquidated). The fact that Ibrox is a listed building in one of the most undesirable areas of glasgow means it is not exactly prime real estate. Likewise I believe that the title deeds of Murray park state it can only be used for the purpose of sports so it would not be attractive to developers etc.

 

Arguable, which is why I highlighted the gross disparity in the value assigned to Murray Park and Ibrox (and it's only the main stand frontage that's the grade A listed structure I believe). Also, the players have a value where they are still under contract and that is value that should have been realised months ago anyway - how can D&P argue that they have done all they can to maximise funds for the CVA when they appear to be trying to keep the playing staff largely intact?

 

I suspect HMRC will be hard line on this as agreeing a derisory CVA sets a precedent. Do you honestly think that, for example, Kilmarnock would be extended the same degree of leniency that is being asked for here?

[Toby]

Tonsilitis will no doubt understand the CVA better than I do, but I have read some posts elsewhere that suggest that the payout is not actually 8p or 9p in the £ because the extortionate fees to be paid to Duff and Phelps have to be deducted from the creditors' pot, and they get paid in full. The actual payout to ordinary creditos is more like 3p in the £, and even that is not guaranteed. The payout is less than the tax deductions that would be available on the written off portions of the debt (which in effect reduces the amount of tax that businesses and individuals will pay I think). If HMRC accept this pitiful stitch up, they aren't doing their job properly. I must write to them and offer to pay my tax bill at a rate of 9p in the £ demanded and see what they say.

 

Regarding Toby's post above, I don't think Hugh Scott's shenanigans are comparable to what Rangers have done and are doing. Scott was a nasty wee shyster who was trying to kill us off, but we managed to save the club from his clutches. Rangers have been engaged in institutional robbery and even now they are still at it, desperately wriggling to try to escape without penalties (there's a first, Rangers complaining about being awarded a penalty...) and all the while still hiding behind smoke and mirrors. I note also that Ibrox and Murray Park, valued on Rangers' book at £100 million or so, are valued at about £4.5 million or so for the purposes of the CVA proposals - conveniently just below the £5.5m CVA figure, which I suspect is significant.

 

Arguing that letting Rangers off lightly helps Scottish football in general is just a load of keech. For a start, if they continue in business, not only have they hoovered up cash using taxpayers' money to fund success for many years, but they would continue to do so in the future. They were wanting to leave the SPL anyway and they didn't give a toss whether or not it affected anyone else. Why should the clubs that have been bullied for years by the OF now come out and help them?

 

I note that they are hoping to come out of administration on the 12th July. Not the most diplomatic date to choose, but what do you expect from that bunch of chancers?

 

Utter, utter nonsense from start to finish, and completely blinkered because of hatred too IMO.

 

The SFA are an organisation comprising of members which has a duty of care to them all- they should not be out to fold Rangers. These are crimes that deserved punished, and punished appropriately. Your draconian measures serve no purpose other than "getting it up them".

 

And the SFA have rules- they can't just say "ah well you cheated but it's okay because your owner was a cock" to us and "your owner was a cock with a different motive so we'll punt you" to them. Rangers history will be forever scarred now because of this whole sordid affair, but as I said earlier, these are the crimes of mere custodians over a 20 year period of their 140 year history. Punishing generations of fans in the harshest way possible because of these crimes is ridiculous. We're not talking about an individual who is responsible for his own actions that we can throw in prison to rot here. The opportunity for new owners to redeem the club's reputation and relationships with others has to be made available.

 

In notice your point that I've said we should "let Rangers off lightly". Again, total crap. Not seeking the ultimate punishment doesn't mean letting them off lightly. A balance has to be struck to find the best possible solution for all parties concerned. I don't know how well versed on the Morton situation you were at the time or if you were away galavanting with the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker at Palmerston but one of my main gripes was how the SFA didn't bother too much about our case and we pretty much had to fend for ourselves. If another member is in such a stricken position, be it Rangers or anyone else then they should be involved to try and find the best solution.

[SpoonTon]

From my uneducated position the solution seems simple.

 

Rangers (in whatever form) start again from the third division next season. The following year the top 3 divisions combine to make 2 leagues of 16 (with a pyramid system below). Rangers are back in the SPL for 2014-15, and everything has been revitalised in the process.

 

It also sets a pattern for when the inevitable happens and other teams have to do the same thing.

[Alibi]

Utter, utter nonsense from start to finish, and completely blinkered because of hatred too IMO.

 

The SFA are an organisation comprising of members which has a duty of care to them all- they should not be out to fold Rangers. These are crimes that deserved punished, and punished appropriately. Your draconian measures serve no purpose other than "getting it up them".

 

And the SFA have rules- they can't just say "ah well you cheated but it's okay because your owner was a cock" to us and "your owner was a cock with a different motive so we'll punt you" to them. Rangers history will be forever scarred now because of this whole sordid affair, but as I said earlier, these are the crimes of mere custodians over a 20 year period of their 140 year history. Punishing generations of fans in the harshest way possible because of these crimes is ridiculous. We're not talking about an individual who is responsible for his own actions that we can throw in prison to rot here. The opportunity for new owners to redeem the club's reputation and relationships with others has to be made available.

 

In notice your point that I've said we should "let Rangers off lightly". Again, total crap. Not seeking the ultimate punishment doesn't mean letting them off lightly. A balance has to be struck to find the best possible solution for all parties concerned. I don't know how well versed on the Morton situation you were at the time or if you were away galavanting with the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker at Palmerston but one of my main gripes was how the SFA didn't bother too much about our case and we pretty much had to fend for ourselves. If another member is in such a stricken position, be it Rangers or anyone else then they should be involved to try and find the best solution.

 

You love that phrase, don't you? Or do you just lack imagination? I still have my Save the ton T shirt from those dark days and I can remember our makeshift team winning 4-1 against Stenny in our first game after we were saved from closure.

 

As you say, nobody really cared much when we were in bother, apart from some supporters of other teams. We may not have been punished with automatic relegation but our parlous situation led directly to relegation to the third and a long climb back. It seems to me that because it's Rangers, rules are being bent to breaking point and beyond. Even now, the CVA proposal is taking the p1ss. Leave a comparison with us out of it anyway; instead consider what happened to Livingston, who were consigned to the third division for what appear by comparison to be petty offences compared to the grand larceny that has been, and is still being, committed by Rangers.

 

I am perfectly happy to admit I detest Rangers - not for the usual west of Scotland reasons but for footballing reasons going back to 1963, but I have come to detest them and their green counterparts for being a cancer in society.

[Tonsilitis]

The fact of the matter is that the document published clearly illustrates that the CVA option will make more funds available to pay creditors than liquidation would, and as such represents the best deal available for creditors.

That is only true if you accept that the value of Ranger's property assets is only £4.5m. Ibrox and Murray Park etc are in Rangers balance sheet at £113m and the administrators would have you believe that they are only worth £4.5m. The cleared site values must be greater than £4.5m alone! If Rangers ceased and the properties were sold off, there is every chance they would be worth more than is presently on offer for creditors.

 

A CVA proposal tends to be weighted to make the CVA appear the best prospect for unsecured creditors but in this case, I can see them getting nothing. In that case why would they support the CVA.

[HamCam]

The £100m value for Ibrox & Murray park represent how much the club has outlaid on them (minus depreciation). THis however has no bearing whatsoever on their "real life" market value (i.e. what they would be worth if liquidated). The fact that Ibrox is a listed building in one of the most undesirable areas of glasgow means it is not exactly prime real estate. Likewise I believe that the title deeds of Murray park state it can only be used for the purpose of sports so it would not be attractive to developers etc.

 

- the valuation does not "represent how much the club has outlaid". Rangers share the same basis of valuation for property assets as GMFC.

- I would be certain that MV is higher than the £4.5 or £5.5m figures mentioned.

 

The £100m figure in the books just goes to show how most clubs accounts are built on foundations of sand - sadly this includes GMFC.

 

As for the bigger debate for me the authorities have to act within the guidelines, making it up as they go along makes it all a bit of a shambles. As much as I despise Rangers (I blame Sandy Jardine) I agree with Toby in that they should be punished for their actions but only as appropriate in accordance with the rules that currently exist.

[Tonsilitis]

I am quite taken by the suggestion that they should be suspended until they accept a player registration embargo of a year on a voluntary basis. Puts the ball straight back in their court! Suspension is one of the allowed sanctions so cannot be challenged in court but it will be lifted if they agree to the embargo.

 

Should have been put to them that this is what would happen before they went to court to see if they were still so keen on legal action

[Toby]

You love that phrase, don't you? Or do you just lack imagination? I still have my Save the ton T shirt from those dark days and I can remember our makeshift team winning 4-1 against Stenny in our first game after we were saved from closure.

 

As you say, nobody really cared much when we were in bother, apart from some supporters of other teams. We may not have been punished with automatic relegation but our parlous situation led directly to relegation to the third and a long climb back. It seems to me that because it's Rangers, rules are being bent to breaking point and beyond. Even now, the CVA proposal is taking the p1ss. Leave a comparison with us out of it anyway; instead consider what happened to Livingston, who were consigned to the third division for what appear by comparison to be petty offences compared to the grand larceny that has been, and is still being, committed by Rangers.

 

I am perfectly happy to admit I detest Rangers - not for the usual west of Scotland reasons but for footballing reasons going back to 1963, but I have come to detest them and their green counterparts for being a cancer in society.

 

Yup, I do. Perhaps my lack of imagination is only comparable with your lack of foresight when so many of us kept telling you uncle Brooks was a crook before he snuffed it without paying you.

 

There are no rules in place for such crimes so how they can be bent is beyond me. The SFA are enforcing sanctions as they go along. In fact, you seem to be the one asking for rules to be bent/changed by expelling them with no precedent- but hey, let's not let that get in the way of a good rant, eh? I don't see any reason to leave out comparisons with ourselves as after all Morton are the club whose experiences we're most familiar with so find it easier to draw a comparison with. We both agree that there was a lack of interest from the governing body in our case, and more alarmingly and devastatingly in Clydebank's. Both of these coming to a head almost exactly a decade ago. In the intervening years, administration has become more common place. That little care and attention was paid in previous cases should mean that the clubs and the game's administrators should be learning lessons and working to ensure the survival of clubs- not just saying to themselves that as they didn't bother too much with Morton and Clydebank a decade ago they can't try and work in the best interests for another club to ensure their survival, regardless of that club's popularity or standing in the game.

 

Now, to draw a comparison with Livingston's punishment as you wish. I personally didn't want to see Livingston relegated, but that was an argument for the time, not now. However, in both my previous posts today I've alluded to the need for the SFA to balance the need to punish Rangers with doing their best to get them back on their feet, maintain the Scottish game's integrity and ensure the best possible solution for all their members. I'm not adverse to relegating them down the divisions and hammering them with transfer embargos and fines, although my own choice in a case like this would be to wait until the administration process is completed before issuing anything other than a points deduction so that any prospective new owners can't make demands in order to limit punishment.

 

You've made it perfectly clear about your disdain for Rangers- no great problems with that as I'm not particularly keen on them myself, but that should be the last consideration on an issue such as this. The SFA are an impartial body which shouldn't have any prejudices like individual fans. Celtic and Hearts are certainly owed money, possibly still Dundee United too. Rangers being expelled and folding isn't in the interests of those members- and Rapid Vienna are in a similar boat over the Jelavic transfer. Should they lose out because of the SFA expelling Rangers they are incurring the wrath of Rapid, the OFB, UEFA and FIFA. And that's not even starting on the non-football creditors that will be shafted the same way you were in 2008 by Mileson if they just fold.

 

That's not doing what's best for all concerned, it's deliberately fucking a club over when their on their knees. If that was to happen to any other club we'd be up in arms. Because we don't like them shouldn't matter one iota.

[chrissiboi]

Utter, utter nonsense from start to finish, and completely blinkered because of hatred too IMO.

 

The SFA are an organisation comprising of members which has a duty of care to them all- they should not be out to fold Rangers. These are crimes that deserved punished, and punished appropriately. Your draconian measures serve no purpose other than "getting it up them".

 

And the SFA have rules- they can't just say "ah well you cheated but it's okay because your owner was a cock" to us and "your owner was a cock with a different motive so we'll punt you" to them. Rangers history will be forever scarred now because of this whole sordid affair, but as I said earlier, these are the crimes of mere custodians over a 20 year period of their 140 year history. Punishing generations of fans in the harshest way possible because of these crimes is ridiculous. We're not talking about an individual who is responsible for his own actions that we can throw in prison to rot here. The opportunity for new owners to redeem the club's reputation and relationships with others has to be made available.

 

In notice your point that I've said we should "let Rangers off lightly". Again, total crap. Not seeking the ultimate punishment doesn't mean letting them off lightly. A balance has to be struck to find the best possible solution for all parties concerned. I don't know how well versed on the Morton situation you were at the time or if you were away galavanting with the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker at Palmerston but one of my main gripes was how the SFA didn't bother too much about our case and we pretty much had to fend for ourselves. If another member is in such a stricken position, be it Rangers or anyone else then they should be involved to try and find the best solution.

One thing I will question of the SFA do they plan to ban David Murray as they did with Craig Whyte if the big tax case goes against Rangers and they already have evidence of cover letters to EBT's which was not disclosed to the SFA.

 

What we do not know is the ramifications of this on the wider football bodies of UEFA and FIFA, ok as a Morton supporter such possible sanctions would not affect us but what about the national toam or European football for others.

I do think the SFA attempted to act in the best interest of the game by proposing the transfer embargo rather than the suspension or expulsion but Rangers sought to overturn that in court.

As you say there are penalties in the SFA rule book then they should be adhered to but then that does not allow for reasonability just crime and punishment. You are talking about dialogue between the ruling body and those who broke the rules over a sustained period.

 

I think we need more corporate responsibility not just in football clubs but in every limited company that will take government action but it won't happen as our politicial parties are too cosy with these fly by the seat of their pants high profile business leaders.

So what sanction do you feel is a reasonable punishment ?

[Toby]

One thing I will question of the SFA do they plan to ban David Murray as they did with Craig Whyte if the big tax case goes against Rangers and they already have evidence of cover letters to EBT's which was not disclosed to the SFA.

 

What we do not know is the ramifications of this on the wider football bodies of UEFA and FIFA, ok as a Morton supporter such possible sanctions would not affect us but what about the national toam or European football for others.

I do think the SFA attempted to act in the best interest of the game by proposing the transfer embargo rather than the suspension or expulsion but Rangers sought to overturn that in court.

As you say there are penalties in the SFA rule book then they should be adhered to but then that does not allow for reasonability just crime and punishment. You are talking about dialogue between the ruling body and those who broke the rules over a sustained period.

 

I think we need more corporate responsibility not just in football clubs but in every limited company that will take government action but it won't happen as our politicial parties are too cosy with these fly by the seat of their pants high profile business leaders.

So what sanction do you feel is a reasonable punishment ?

 

As I said in my last post I don't think anything other than the 10 point deduction should be put in place until the administration process is complete in order that potential buyers can't place conditions of purchase in place as a deterrent to SFA sanctions.

 

However, on conclusion of the case I'd recommend a relegation to the Third Divsion with a 30 point deduction (or something along those lines) and a transfer embargo which isn't lifted after a period of time but until every last penny of football debt is paid. I'd also ban them from entry to European competition in the years before promotion to the SPL should they win a Scottish Cup and for 3 years after that. I'm reluctant to see financial penalties imposed as there are enough creditors who through no fault of their own are suffering. By placing further financial implications on Rangers does their creditors no favours at all.

[Youngsa]

I am quite taken by the suggestion that they should be suspended until they accept a player registration embargo of a year on a voluntary basis. Puts the ball straight back in their court! Suspension is one of the allowed sanctions so cannot be challenged in court but it will be lifted if they agree to the embargo.

 

Should have been put to them that this is what would happen before they went to court to see if they were still so keen on legal action

 

I'm still not getting why people think Rangers should accept a punishment that is not allowed by rule of court of law. It doesn't matter how you dress it up the SFA cannot use that as a bargaining tool as the law courts have already deemed that it cannot be enforced. Suspension based on acceptance would also be deemed unlawful as the SFA would be seen as trying to enforce a legal punishment(suspension) which would be lifted by acceptance of an illegal one(transfer embargo). I'm surprised that someone in your position professionally would even countenance such disregard for the law.

[chrissiboi]

As I said in my last post I don't think anything other than the 10 point deduction should be put in place until the administration process is complete in order that potential buyers can't place conditions of purchase in place as a deterrent to SFA sanctions.

 

However, on conclusion of the case I'd recommend a relegation to the Third Divsion with a 30 point deduction (or something along those lines) and a transfer embargo which isn't lifted after a period of time but until every last penny of football debt is paid. I'd also ban them from entry to European competition in the years before promotion to the SPL should they win a Scottish Cup and for 3 years after that. I'm reluctant to see financial penalties imposed as there are enough creditors who through no fault of their own are suffering. By placing further financial implications on Rangers does their creditors no favours at all.

Jeez thats hardly a slap on the wrist, I agree about the fines it will just ensure those creditors get less.

 

What you propose would no doubt ensure this sort of thing would not happen in the future.

We do need a better financial model for our football clubs and hopefully after witnessing Rangers plight some sense will come of this mess.

 

I wonder what the SPL have in mind for Rangers breaking their rules.

[Alibi]

As I said in my last post I don't think anything other than the 10 point deduction should be put in place until the administration process is complete in order that potential buyers can't place conditions of purchase in place as a deterrent to SFA sanctions.

 

However, on conclusion of the case I'd recommend a relegation to the Third Divsion with a 30 point deduction (or something along those lines) and a transfer embargo which isn't lifted after a period of time but until every last penny of football debt is paid. I'd also ban them from entry to European competition in the years before promotion to the SPL should they win a Scottish Cup and for 3 years after that. I'm reluctant to see financial penalties imposed as there are enough creditors who through no fault of their own are suffering. By placing further financial implications on Rangers does their creditors no favours at all.

 

OK, fair points in the above and your previous post. To me this looks like a far more serious case than Livi, or indeed Dundee, and certainly a lot different from our situation at which time the rules were a lot different anyway. Any scenario where Rangrs continue playing in the SPL is plainly wrong, given that they are guilty of offences that are regarded as only slightly less serious than match fixing. Relegation to the 3rd would benefit a lot of clubs who rarely see any trickle down cash and that can only be good for Scottish football as a whole, so it can't be argued that that scenario would be damaging to our game - maybe would cost the SPL clubs a wee bit of income but that's not really a bad thing IMHO as it might level the playing field and enable a team promoted from the first to have a realistic chance of staying up.

[Tonsilitis]

I'm still not getting why people think Rangers should accept a punishment that is not allowed by rule of court of law. It doesn't matter how you dress it up the SFA cannot use that as a bargaining tool as the law courts have already deemed that it cannot be enforced. Suspension based on acceptance would also be deemed unlawful as the SFA would be seen as trying to enforce a legal punishment(suspension) which would be lifted by acceptance of an illegal one(transfer embargo). I'm surprised that someone in your position professionally would even countenance such disregard for the law.

It would be a voluntary agreement which, if reached, would result in the legally acceptable sanction of suspension being lifted. Maybe the court would have a view on that but I do not see why.

 

It's a bit like saying, I will not make you bankrupt for the debt you owe me if you agree to fix my car or paint my fence or whatever. There is no legal power for me to force you to fix my car but here's what will happen if you choose not to! Happens all the time in real life!

[Youngsa]

It would be a voluntary agreement which, if reached, would result in the legally acceptable sanction of suspension being lifted. Maybe the court would have a view on that but I do not see why.

 

It's a bit like saying, I will not make you bankrupt for the debt you owe me if you agree to fix my car or paint my fence or whatever. There is no legal power for me to force you to fix my car but here's what will happen if you choose not to! Happens all the time in real life!

 

They would have a view as when Rangers went back to court to say that the SFA were blackmailing them into removing an acceptable punishment( suspension) with an unenforceable by law punishment(transfer embargo) then the SFA would be in more s*** than they knew what to do with.....and thats real life.

[Spot Ton]

They would have a view as when Rangers went back to court to say that the SFA were blackmailing them into removing an acceptable punishment( suspension) with an unenforceable by law punishment(transfer embargo) then the SFA would be in more s*** than they knew what to do with.....and thats real life.

It would appear that Rangers want to be members of an organisation but, when the organisation punish them for breaking the rules they want to take the organisation to court. Maybe the SFA should just turn around and ban them totally and be done with it. After all Rangers haven't been slow, along with their cousins over in the east end, of telling the SFA that they are desperate to leave and go play their football elsewhere . It's time for the SFA to help them on their way and just ban them from playing in Scotland for a year. I'm sure all of us who follow our football in the lower leagues would notice any difference or care.