What Does It Mean If Rangers Go Newco

[chrissiboi]

I don't. The very same supporters who turned out to celebrate the legends of there club against AC Milan legends a few months ago. Half of the very same legends where getting paid in EBT's. That mob don't do irony. Instead they want to point the elbows at everyone else but there own club. They honestly beleive that the club should not be punished for over a decade of cheating. The We are The People attitude is alive and well despite everything else going on in the Inland Revenue Arena.

There has to be some of them who now understand Murray never put a penny into Rangers and was only using the banks money , it must be one of the biggest swindles going.

The players I don't blame none of them specifically asked Rangers to set up EBT's incorrectly.

They should be punished, the club should expect the harshest of penalties and the SFA/SPL must say Murray is not a fitting person to run a football club.

[Youngsa]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18240543

 

A penny in the pound !!! for creditors, think I'd say feck it.

 

Not quite ....its x pence in the pound. The final amount is still to be decided upon as the final pot available has not yet been confirmed and will also depend on the outcome of the big tax case. The BBC were estimating around 20p in the pound this morning but the Administrators were non comittal due to the factors I mentioned.

[Tonsilitis]

Green has had to put up £3.5m which I would guess will be to cover costs and fees. If I am a creditor, I have to interpret the figures as

 

1) Whats does the pence in the £ quoted mean? Is it before or after the big tax case which is almost certainly coming home to roost?

2) What part of it depends on an entirely uncertain case against a firm of London solicitors who will defend it to the death. Even if they win that case, will that firm be able to pay it or will they go bust? What will the legal fees be and how long will it take? - two/three years seems likely.

3) If it includes Rangers paying so much a month, how confident am I of them being able to keep that up?

4) How much are we getting for Rangers assets including Ibrox, Murray Park and the car parks? On the face of it, it does not seem a lot for what they are.

 

It seems to me that there is very little firm about any proposal that can be made other than its firmly up in the air!

[chrissiboi]

I don't think the creditors should accept anything until Duff and Phelps have been investigated for their previous dealings and for their competence throughout the administration.

[Tonsilitis]

Rangers have won in the Court of Session re the player registration ban and the matter is referred back to the SFA tribunal. Time for the SFA to grow a set or FIFA/UEFA will come down on them like a ton of bricks.

[Dougie]

Court of Session rules against the Transfer Ban. Looks like the establishment are going to try there best to hel der ****. I have grave concerns Scotlands inability through the SFA/SPL/COURTS could see Scotland in significant bother with UEFA. Todays decision leaves the authorities on a real sticky wicket. How do they hand out a fit and proper punishment to the ****, if the courts have the authority to intervene. This has Sion written all over it.

 

EDIT TO ADD: **** = H U N S political correctness gone wrong with that censor!

[Malt]

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[irnbru]

This could end up worse for Rangers with the sanctions that are available and it is going to have FIFA all over it as people have said.

 

Lets hope it comes back to do them more damage.

[Youngsa]

I dont think that FIFA will be too interested in the backwaters of Scottish football. The SFA implemented a punishment that was not on their statute books to implement. The court have said sorry you cant do that. Its now up to the SFA to reconsider and to implement a punishment they do have the remit to hand down. What this will be is anyone's guess as I think they have already handed down the largest fine they possibly can.

 

They are also on record as saying that the only thing worse Rangers could have done was match fixing, which would have seen them expelled from the Association. From this you then have to deduce that the new punishment cant be too harsh as anything which hits harder than the challenged punishment will probably also be challenged - if that makes any sort of sense

 

The SFA have yet been shown to be incompetent. The Q.C. who representet Neil Lennon warned them previously about their rules and regulations and it seems they never paid as much attention to detail as they should have.

[irnbru]

I dont think that FIFA will be too interested in the backwaters of Scottish football. The SFA implemented a punishment that was not on their statute books to implement. The court have said sorry you cant do that. Its now up to the SFA to reconsider and to implement a punishment they do have the remit to hand down. What this will be is anyone's guess as I think they have already handed down the largest fine they possibly can.

 

They are also on record as saying that the only thing worse Rangers could have done was match fixing, which would have seen them expelled from the Association. From this you then have to deduce that the new punishment cant be too harsh as anything which hits harder than the challenged punishment will probably also be challenged - if that makes any sort of sense

 

The SFA have yet been shown to be incompetent. The Q.C. who representet Neil Lennon warned them previously about their rules and regulations and it seems they never paid as much attention to detail as they should have.

 

Scottish football isn't a backwater as you put it and as a member country FIFA has to apply the same rules as it would in any other. One of which is there to stop member clubs taking associations to courts of law. If anything, the fact that it is a smaller country may see them use this as an example case.

 

I don't think the SFA have done anything wrong here and remember there was a judge on the original SFA panel who did agree with the sanctions and these rules are down to interpretation more than anything. Rangers should have accepted the fact they were allowed to continue to trade and play in Scottish football as they could have been chucked out completely within the laws (which is down in writing) so a year transfer ban and a fine they probably won't fully pay should have been acceptable to them. What would you suggest would be fair punishment?

 

They are a horrible club and looking to blame anyone and anything for a problem of their own doing over a prolonged period isn't going to change anyone's opinion on that.

[Dougie]

I dont think that FIFA will be too interested in the backwaters of Scottish football. The SFA implemented a punishment that was not on their statute books to implement. The court have said sorry you cant do that. Its now up to the SFA to reconsider and to implement a punishment they do have the remit to hand down. What this will be is anyone's guess as I think they have already handed down the largest fine they possibly can.

 

They are also on record as saying that the only thing worse Rangers could have done was match fixing, which would have seen them expelled from the Association. From this you then have to deduce that the new punishment cant be too harsh as anything which hits harder than the challenged punishment will probably also be challenged - if that makes any sort of sense

 

The SFA have yet been shown to be incompetent. The Q.C. who representet Neil Lennon warned them previously about their rules and regulations and it seems they never paid as much attention to detail as they should have.

 

Wouldn't be too sure of that;

 

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers...ing-law-courts/

 

I reckon a ban from the Scottish Cup for 3 years will be the new punishment. They wont expel there membership, under ANY circumstances.

[Dougie]

Scottish football isn't a backwater as you put it and as a member country FIFA has to apply the same rules as it would in any other. One of which is there to stop member clubs taking associations to courts of law. If anything, the fact that it is a smaller country may see them use this as an example case.

 

I don't think the SFA have done anything wrong here and remember there was a judge on the original SFA panel who did agree with the sanctions and these rules are down to interpretation more than anything. Rangers should have accepted the fact they were allowed to continue to trade and play in Scottish football as they could have been chucked out completely within the laws (which is down in writing) so a year transfer ban and a fine they probably won't fully pay should have been acceptable to them. What would you suggest would be fair punishment?

 

They are a horrible club and looking to blame anyone and anything for a problem of their own doing over a prolonged period isn't going to change anyone's opinion on that.

 

They have though. They handed out a punishment that was outwith there own rules. As has been said by the previous poster, the late Paul McBride QC said 18 months ago that you could drive a bus through the SFA rulebook and that it needed re-written. However they have continued to plow along with the same level of incompetency that allowed Neil Lennon to serve two bans at the exact same time!!

[chrissiboi]

Suspension or expulsion it is then, should they get the same timeframe as a punishment as they spent breaking the rules ?

Anyway one thing that escape me is if Rangers employed MIH's to look after their finances and paid for these services should there not be some recourse for RFC to sue or reclaim MIH's for poor advice or bad management ?

 

 

[Rasta Ton]

Court of Session rules against the Transfer Ban. Looks like the establishment are going to try there best to hel der ****. I have grave concerns Scotlands inability through the SFA/SPL/COURTS could see Scotland in significant bother with UEFA. Todays decision leaves the authorities on a real sticky wicket. How do they hand out a fit and proper punishment to the ****, if the courts have the authority to intervene. This has Sion written all over it.

 

EDIT TO ADD: **** = H U N S political correctness gone wrong with that censor!

Interesting that you think that a judge would fail to pay attention to centuries of established case law and legal precedence and simply give a ruling to help Rangers.

[Dougie]

Interesting that you think that a judge would fail to pay attention to centuries of established case law and legal precedence and simply give a ruling to help Rangers.

 

No, I find it highly suspicous that the SFA handed out a punishment that could not be enforced? DO they not have legal teams advising them in these situations? If not why not? The SFA are a bungling set of fools, who's only interest in this is ensuring Rangers survive, while trying to keep UEFA/FIFA off there back. Had this been East Stirling, they would have been expelled from the association.

 

My comment about the courts was more aimed at the fact that this was ever allowed near a court room, thus placing the whole sorry mess further under the scrutiny of the governing bodies.

[chrissiboi]

Watched Newsnight and I still don't understand why the creditors are not asking for an inquiry into Duff & Phelps handling of the whole affair. I don't think it is in the creditors interest to make decisions until the outcome of the BIG tax case is heard.

The idea of whats in Rangers best interest must come along way behind that of creditors who should at least know whether they are to agree to 9 pence in the pound but to make a decision and not be in full retention of the outcome is detrimental to those creditors so no informed decision can be made.

 

Whether the takeover by Green or anyone else comes to fruition it has to come secondary to those who are owed money. I see some of the money quoted are for transfer deals of up to 2 million , they expect to be paid in full but what about their debt to other clubs.

 

What will happen to the transfer embargo if FiFA or UEFA decide to impose a ban. This whole sorry mess is down to one person David Murray it is his actions that have caused this and still could have ramifications to other Scottish clubs and players.

 

I do think the SFA tried to be lenient with Rangers with the embargo but such is the audacity and pompousity they believed the opposite. UEFA won't be frightened or intimidated , in the grand scheme of things despite the noises of their support they don't have any sway.

[Rasta Ton]

No, I find it highly suspicous that the SFA handed out a punishment that could not be enforced? DO they not have legal teams advising them in these situations? If not why not? The SFA are a bungling set of fools, who's only interest in this is ensuring Rangers survive, while trying to keep UEFA/FIFA off there back. Had this been East Stirling, they would have been expelled from the association.

 

My comment about the courts was more aimed at the fact that this was ever allowed near a court room, thus placing the whole sorry mess further under the scrutiny of the governing bodies.

Paranoid nonesense Dougie. The SFA are the only ones to have taken a stance - look at the SPL for inaction. They had former judges on the panels and you may or may not be aware that contracts and sets of rules are open to interpretation by the courts and technical points of law that don't always make sense. In this case the judge based on the facts presented agreed with Rangers' legal team. The only question I'd have is how much of a fight the SFA put up in court.

[Youngsa]

Scottish football isn't a backwater as you put it and as a member country FIFA has to apply the same rules as it would in any other. One of which is there to stop member clubs taking associations to courts of law. If anything, the fact that it is a smaller country may see them use this as an example case.

 

I don't think the SFA have done anything wrong here and remember there was a judge on the original SFA panel who did agree with the sanctions and these rules are down to interpretation more than anything. Rangers should have accepted the fact they were allowed to continue to trade and play in Scottish football as they could have been chucked out completely within the laws (which is down in writing) so a year transfer ban and a fine they probably won't fully pay should have been acceptable to them. What would you suggest would be fair punishment?

 

They are a horrible club and looking to blame anyone and anything for a problem of their own doing over a prolonged period isn't going to change anyone's opinion on that.

 

The Treaty of Lisbon notes football as a 'special case' but does not exempt it from the full powers of EU Legislation. Ask yourself why Blatter et al do not want the courts involved - they are s*** scared that the biggest scams going on in sport will be uncovered. On the second bold bit as I understand it the Judge was initially there to help compile and ensure due process was followed, he was not party to the decision made ......and I stand by my backwater comment

[Youngsa]

Wouldn't be too sure of that;

 

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers...ing-law-courts/

 

I reckon a ban from the Scottish Cup for 3 years will be the new punishment. They wont expel there membership, under ANY circumstances.

 

I think you may be right on that one but I would fully expect Rangers to accept that punishment.I wouldn't be surprised if the new owners have weighed up the losses against no Cup competition against either winning or finishing 2nd in the league while being able to sign players, and now expect this to happen.

[Youngsa]

Scottish football isn't a backwater as you put it and as a member country FIFA has to apply the same rules as it would in any other. One of which is there to stop member clubs taking associations to courts of law. If anything, the fact that it is a smaller country may see them use this as an example case.

 

I don't think the SFA have done anything wrong here and remember there was a judge on the original SFA panel who did agree with the sanctions and these rules are down to interpretation more than anything. Rangers should have accepted the fact they were allowed to continue to trade and play in Scottish football as they could have been chucked out completely within the laws (which is down in writing) so a year transfer ban and a fine they probably won't fully pay should have been acceptable to them. What would you suggest would be fair punishment?

 

They are a horrible club and looking to blame anyone and anything for a problem of their own doing over a prolonged period isn't going to change anyone's opinion on that.

 

Sorry mate just noticed that part of your post. Suitable punishment? Anything the SFA want to hand down as long as its in their rule book. I think the bigger picture here is that the SFA have again been found to be unfit for purpose. Paul McBride was poking them for fun and showing them up. FIFA want everything to go the the CAS which is in some cases fair enough if you fancy appealing to them BUT when your own Associations rules do not allow for member clubs to take this route, what other option does a club have when it thinks its been treated wrongly or in fact illegally?