Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 16-05-2012 10:55pm

Dempsey wrote: »

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Nah I am not that good but it doesn't take much of an IQ to work out a financial Director would know exactly what was going on out of all the directors it's pretty easy to pick up that Bain had to know.

Pity you dont think the same of the gobshíte that replaced him :P

Your right but me thinking at the time he was a scumbag of the highest order would have changed the square root of feck all.

bobbysands81 · 16-05-2012 10:55pm

Rangers appeal REJECTED!

Transfer ban stands.

All over twitter but can't provide any links at mo.

Chris McLaughlin from BBC broke it about ten minutes ago.

EDIT - link - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18099048

Dempsey · 16-05-2012 11:03pm

I'm surprised it hasnt been increased for being a frivolous appeal. Rangers were going to produce nothing that the SFA didnt find out in their own investigation which was done in great detail.

What exactly was the argument for their appeal, a hat in hand and a "we're sorry"?

lubo_moravcik · 16-05-2012 11:08pm

Full Statement from SFA

Appellate Tribunal Statement
Wednesday, 16 May 2012

The Appellate Tribunal will give its full reasons in writing in early course. However, in summary, it considers that:

1. It was competent for Disciplinary Tribunal to impose the additional sanction of prohibiting registrations of any new players of 18 years or older for a period of 12 months.

2. The Disciplinary Tribunal was correct to determine that the conduct involved - especially the deliberate non-payment of very large sums, estimated in excess of £13m of tax in the form of PAYE, NIC and VAT - was attributable to the club as a member of the Scottish FA.

3. The Disciplinary Tribunal was correct also in holding that the maximum fine available for this breach was £100,000, and on its own was inadequate as a punishment for this misconduct. It was therefore correct to select an additional sanction.

4. The sanctions available included expulsion from participation in the game and termination or suspension of membership of the Scottish FA, which would have had a similar effect. The Appellate Tribunal observes that serious consideration was given by the disciplinary tribunal to imposing one of these sanctions, which would have had obvious consequences for the survival of the club. The Disciplinary Tribunal rejected these as too severe and this Appellate Tribunal agrees with that conclusion.

5. Although the Appellate Tribunal has listened carefully to the representations from Rangers FC about the practical effects of the additional sanction, it has concluded that this sanction was proportionate to the breach, dissuasive to others and effective in the context of serious misconduct, bringing the game into disrepute. In particular, the Appellate Tribunal recognises that the Disciplinary Tribunal decision does not affect Rangers’ ability to extend the contracts of existing professional players, including those whose contracts will expire at the end of this season and including also those currently on loan to other clubs. The Appellate Tribunal observes that Rangers FC have over 40 professional players in this category.

Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal affirms the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal.

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 16-05-2012 11:15pm

Court of Arbitration for Sport the next stop then

Dempsey · 16-05-2012 11:27pm

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Court of Arbitration for Sport the next stop then

The SFA warned you twice now that they could have easily went for a stronger punishment. You really want CAS scrutinising Rangers considering that they'll be going on the SFA tribunal report?

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2773718

Mr Keen is Dean of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland and famously acted for Al Amin Fhimah, who was acquitted at the Lockerbie Bomb trial in Holland in 2001.

Stay classy Rangers! :eek:

Jelle1880 · 16-05-2012 11:34pm

You mean because he defended a guy who was proven to be innocent ?

Yeah, how dare he.

Dempsey · 16-05-2012 11:36pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

You mean because he defended a guy who was proven to be innocent ?

Yeah, how dare he.

OJ Simpson was innocent too :rolleyes:

Jelle1880 · 16-05-2012 11:37pm

Dempsey wrote: »

OJ Simpson was innocent too :rolleyes:

Nice argumentation there. :rolleyes:

Dempsey · 16-05-2012 11:47pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Nice argumentation there. :rolleyes:

Tis rich coming from someone that continually hops into the Celtic thread to bitch about people that support republicanism and people that you believe that should be guilty by association.

Jelle1880 · 16-05-2012 11:58pm

Oranges, Apples, you know the deal.

Dempsey · 17-05-2012 12:01am

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Oranges, Apples, you know the deal.

Whatever you say, Baghdad Bob!

Dempsey · 17-05-2012 12:27am

All this chatter about another appeal makes me think about Sion

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 17-05-2012 12:47am

AN SFA independent appeals panel has this evening upheld a decision to impose a 12-month transfer embargo on the club.

Duff and Phelps, administrators of Rangers Football Club, issued the following statement tonight.

Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "The decision by the appellate tribunal to uphold the sanction, namely the suspension of registration of players for one year, is not competent in the view of the Club and its legal advisers.

"Such a sanction was not available to the tribunal and should not have been imposed and it is the intention of the Club to challenge the determination.

"The Club will consider seeking review of this most disappointing decision and it is a matter of regret that the certainty and finality Rangers sought on this matter has not been achieved. Everyone at Rangers is bitterly disappointed and dismayed at this outcome."

Charles Green, who leads a consortium purchasing the Club, said: "Our group went into the purchase of the Club with this sanction in place but we hoped the decision would at least be commuted. We fully support the Club as it considers an appeal against this latest decision."

Sandy Jardine, spokesman for the Rangers Fans Fighting Fund, added: "Rangers supporters will be shocked and bitterly disappointed by this decision and will find it hard to take that the Club has been so heavily punished for the actions of individuals.

Interesting

Dempsey · 17-05-2012 12:56am

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Interesting

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/100202-rangers-signing-ban-stands-as-scottish-fa-tribunal-throws-out-appeal/

Despite an embargo not appearing as a suggested sanction, the initial tribunal utilised a clause allowing them to impose any additional punishment it saw fit for the club bringing the game into disrepute.

Article 95: The Judicial Panel shall have jurisdiction subject to the terms of the Judicial Panel Protocol to deal with any alleged infringement of any provision of these Articles. A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, referee or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA if found to have infringed the Articles shall be liable to censure or to a fine or to a suspension or to an expulsion or to ejection from the Challenge Cup competition, to any combination of these penalties, or such other penalty, condition or sanction as the Judicial Panel considers appropriate, including such other sanctions as are contained within the Judicial Panel Protocol in order to deal justly with the case in question.

Going to CAS would be a waste of money.

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 17-05-2012 12:57am

Dempsey wrote: »

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/100202-rangers-signing-ban-stands-as-scottish-fa-tribunal-throws-out-appeal/

Article 95: The Judicial Panel shall have jurisdiction subject to the terms of the Judicial Panel Protocol to deal with any alleged infringement of any provision of these Articles. A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, referee or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA if found to have infringed the Articles shall be liable to censure or to a fine or to a suspension or to an expulsion or to ejection from the Challenge Cup competition, to any combination of these penalties, or such other penalty, condition or sanction as the Judicial Panel considers appropriate, including such other sanctions as are contained within the Judicial Panel Protocol in order to deal justly with the case in question.

Going to CAS would be a waste of money.

In your opinion which I am sure the powers at be will be vry interested in

Dempsey · 17-05-2012 1:06am

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

In your opinion which I am sure the powers at be will be vry interested in

I hope ye waste all the money under the sun trying to get out of an airtight punishment!

You hear about the wire taps rumour?

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 17-05-2012 1:07am

Dempsey wrote: »

I hope ye waste all the money under the sun trying to get out of an airtight punishment!

You hear about the wire taps rumour?

Nope

Dempsey · 17-05-2012 1:14am

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Nope

Must not be true then! :pac:

"Allegedly" David Murray phone tapped Fergus McCann. (seen nothing concrete, just rumours)

Cant wait to read the findings from the dual contracts investigation anyways. The transfer embargo will be a flea bite by comparison.

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 17-05-2012 1:19am

Dempsey wrote: »

Must not be true then! :pac:

"Allegedly" David Murray phone tapped Fergus McCann. (seen nothing concrete, just rumours)

Cant wait to read the findings from the dual contracts investigation anyways. The transfer embargo will be a flea bite by comparison.

I could well believe it but in all honesty I don't think so.

As for the dual contracts theres not been one bit of proof we have had an 86 year old saying he thinks there might have been we have also what I would only describe as the worst attempt at a supposed contract being posted, it was so bad that it wasn't even funny. Somehow I don't see anything coming from that

Dempsey · 17-05-2012 1:32am

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

I could well believe it but in all honesty I don't think so.

As for the dual contracts theres not been one bit of proof we have had an 86 year old saying he thinks there might have been we have also what I would only describe as the worst attempt at a supposed contract being posted, it was so bad that it wasn't even funny. Somehow I don't see anything coming from that

He was more adamant than "he thinks" though and wasnt he right about Lloyds controlling the purse strings despite getting flak for saying so? If he's lying now, whats the motivation? Even Campbell Ogilvie did a fair bit of back tracking after he first made comments about EBT's and dual contracts.

Post up the "contract", give us a lol

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 17-05-2012 1:37am

Dempsey wrote: »

He was more adamant than "he thinks" though and wasnt he right about Lloyds controlling the purse strings despite getting flak for saying so? If he's lying now, whats the motivation? Even Campbell Ogilvie did a fair bit of back tracking after he first made comments about EBT's and dual contracts.

Post up the "contract", give us a lol

His motivation was and is he hates Murray and the club after Murray wrongly IMO tossed him out on his ear.
I will have to look for it but I will post it tomorrow I am heading to the auld bed as I have an appointment with a swimming pool at 7am

lubo_moravcik · 17-05-2012 9:10am

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote:

I could well believe it but in all honesty I don't think so.

As for the dual contracts theres not been one bit of proof we have had an 86 year old saying he thinks there might have been we have also what I would only describe as the worst attempt at a supposed contract being posted, it was so bad that it wasn't even funny. Somehow I don't see anything coming from that

Come on BBE, you must nearly 86 and we still put up with you

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 17-05-2012 9:55am

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

Come on BBE, you must nearly 86 and we still put up with you

Cheeky chunt got a bit to go before that lol

Savage Tyrant · 17-05-2012 1:27pm

I'm as confused as all hell about what's going on...

The current sactions (12 month transfer ban and fine), are as a result of what? ... Non payment of PAYE etc. mounting to approx £13m and bringing the game into disrepute? Is that right?

The 10pt point deduction which ultimately didn't even prove to be a punishment at all as it didn't affect league positioning was a result of going into admin? Yes?

Is the 3 year European football ban a definite? And if so, what was it a punishment for? Administration again? Or something else?

And finally.. Is the "dual contracts" issue and the so-called "big tax case" the same thing? And what's the status on them now?

Oh, and finally finally... The vote thing on the 30th is to determine what exactly?

Dempsey · 17-05-2012 2:10pm

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

I'm as confused as all hell about what's going on...

The current sactions (12 month transfer ban and fine), are as a result of what? ... Non payment of PAYE etc. mounting to approx £13m and bringing the game into disrepute? Is that right?

The 10pt point deduction which ultimately didn't even prove to be a punishment at all as it didn't affect league positioning was a result of going into admin? Yes?

Is the 3 year European football ban a definite? And if so, what was it a punishment for? Administration again? Or something else?

And finally.. Is the "dual contracts" issue and the so-called "big tax case" the same thing? And what's the status on them now?

Oh, and finally finally... The vote thing on the 30th is to determine what exactly?

The 10 point deduction was for appointing administrators to run the club

£10,000 fine for not checking out Craig Whyte properly

£50,000 fine for suffering an insolvency event

£100,000 & transfer embargo for bringing the game into disrepute, i.e. not paying their PAYE, NIC & VAT

They got a couple of censures aswell (whatever the fúck they actually do) for not paying DUTD their ticket money and acting improper.

They currently have a 1 year ban from European football because of their current financial situation. i.e. their application for next seasons club licence does not meet the criteria set by UEFA

Dual Contracts Investigation is ongoing and the result of the BTC isnt known yet. the STC is settled, £4m.

The vote on the 30th is to vote in new financial fair play rules, basically more stringent rules about non payment of players, clubs and taxes and stronger penalties for an 'insolvency transfer'.

Dempsey · 17-05-2012 2:37pm

Charles Green is currently at Hampden meeting Regan & Doncaster.

Jelle1880 · 17-05-2012 2:42pm

Probably for their *cough* fit and proper test *cough*

Dempsey · 17-05-2012 2:44pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Probably for their *cough* fit and proper test *cough*

Or to name his "consortium". Its Rangers responsibility to ensure that he will pass a fit and proper persons test. Maybe you need to study that disciplinary docket again! :pac:

Jelle1880 · 17-05-2012 4:11pm

You expect me to understand that whole fit and proper bollocks, when the SFA themselves don't even get it ? :pac:

Dempsey · 17-05-2012 4:16pm

You're right, the SFA shouldnt have taken Rangers word that Craig Whyte was a fit and proper person. They wont make the same mistake twice even if Rangers are willing to take a person like Green at his word.

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 17-05-2012 4:21pm

Dempsey wrote: »

You're right, the SFA shouldnt have taken Rangers word that Craig Whyte was a fit and proper person. They wont make the same mistake twice even if Rangers are willing to take any crackpots 'hopes and dreams' as collateral

Your dead right in what you say but the problem is they try to to there own version of a fit and proper person then admit they got it all wrong methinks they have to get there own house in order yes we should be punished but I don't reckon the punishment fits the crime when they can't get it right themselves. In saying that I reckon its time to move on we know the punishment it isn't going to change.

Oh and Green is not attending a meeting that has anything to do with this debacle this one has been arranged for a few days

Dempsey · 17-05-2012 4:33pm

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Your dead right in what you say but the problem is they try to to there own version of a fit and proper person then admit they got it all wrong methinks they have to get there own house in order yes we should be punished but I don't reckon the punishment fits the crime when they can't get it right themselves. In saying that I reckon its time to move on we know the punishment it isn't going to change.

Oh and Green is not attending a meeting that has anything to do with this debacle this one has been arranged for a few days

I think the £10k fine was lenient myself, I hope the SFA revise the rules and punishments.

I know, its probably about his consortium and the lack of transparency in who is in involved

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 17-05-2012 4:36pm

Dempsey wrote: »

I think the £10k fine was lenient myself, I hope the SFA revise the rules and punishments.

I know, its probably about his consortium and the lack of transparency in who is in involved

Thankfully you don't have a say as I reckon if it was 1 million you would probably say it was lenient

As far as I know he doesn't at this point in the proceedings have to say who is involved

Dempsey · 17-05-2012 4:44pm

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Thankfully you don't have a say as I reckon if it was 1 million you would probably say it was lenient

As far as I know he doesn't at this point in the proceedings have to say who is involved

You seem to forget that Rangers and the rest of the SPL voted on these rules, tis gas that they are now unfair rules because Rangers got punished by them. I think the fines imposed should be relative to the turnover of the club involved. £10k is chump change for a club that has a turnover of about £35m.

I suppose you were happy that he tried to skim over the due diligence part of the takeover a la Whyte? You'll be happy that he can leave it until whether a CVA can be agreed until he shows his hand? At which point, if anyone involved doesnt pass the fit and proper persons test will result in a change in the pot of money for the creditors and end up with everyone renegotiating a CVA or whats most likely in that event if part or all of his consortium is bogus, liquidation?

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 17-05-2012 4:51pm

Dempsey wrote: »

You seem to forget that Rangers and the rest of the SPL voted on these rules, tis gas that they are now unfair rules because Rangers got punished by them. I think the fines imposed should be relative to the turnover of the club involved. £10k is chump change for a club that has a turnover of about £35m.

I suppose you were happy that he tried to skim over the due diligence part of the takeover a la Whyte? You'll be happy that he can leave it until whether a CVA can be agreed until he shows his hand? At which point, if anyone involved doesnt pass the fit and proper persons test will result in a change in the pot of money for the creditors and end up with everyone renegotiating a CVA or whats most likely in that event if part or all of his consortium is bogus, liquidation?

I didn't say that but neither do I want him hung drawn and quartered on the basis of rumours as for skimming over the due dilligence that was never going to happen this time as the SFA know they got it wrong when people better informed than I warned them but no they let it go through when they could have put a stop to it. So once again while Rangers must take a portion of the blame so must the SFA which they have failed to do

Jelle1880 · 17-05-2012 5:38pm

Dempsey wrote: »

You seem to forget that Rangers and the rest of the SPL voted on these rules

You keep saying that, but it makes no sense.

Take a look at the punishments available for the accusations aimed at Rangers:

6pJFI.jpg?1

In Determining an appropriate sanction, and on the basis of its consideration of the range of breach, as set out in Paragraph 11.4, the Tribunal should Determine the appropriate sanction and level of sanction with reference to the guidance on sanctions and Scale of Sanctions provided in the Disciplinary Rules.

So basically the SFA said bollocks to that and just threw in the transfer embargo, without any precedent or rule stating they should do that.

Dempsey · 17-05-2012 6:09pm

jelle, the rules are crystal clear and i post about it last night. its clear as day. they can make up any punishment they deem fit. deal with it

Jelle1880 · 17-05-2012 7:18pm

So we should just accept an FA that can make up any punishment they seem fit ?

And you're surprised Rangers are willing to take this to a civilian court ?

PauloMN · 17-05-2012 7:28pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

So we should just accept an FA that can make up any punishment they seem fit ?

And you're surprised Rangers are willing to take this to a civilian court ?

Would you have preferred termination of membership?

Jelle1880 · 17-05-2012 7:32pm

No, but at least that could have been easily backed up by them.

This is just another cluster**** by the SFA, where they just make it up as they go along.

bobmalooka · 17-05-2012 7:43pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

So we should just accept an FA that can make up any punishment they seem fit ?

And you're surprised Rangers are willing to take this to a civilian court ?

are rangers not questioning the severity of the punishment/blaming it all on Whyte rather than the SFA's right to impose sanctions as they see fit??

Jelle1880 · 17-05-2012 8:04pm

Both.

Part of the appeal was that the punishment regarding the transfer ban was not in the rule-book, but they also claimed that the entire club should not be punished for what Whyte did.

edit:

So far for Thomson's neutrality.

1h alex thomson ‏@alextomo
@72rollman ah - yet another one who knows better than the Tribunal without hearing a word of their evidence! Hail. Hail.

bobmalooka · 17-05-2012 8:29pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Both.

Part of the appeal was that the punishment regarding the transfer ban was not in the rule-book, but they also claimed that the entire club should not be punished for what Whyte did.

Dempsey showed you where it is in the rulebook.
During that period Whyte was Rangers.

Its tough to take the punishments but there is no argument against them.

Jelle1880 · 17-05-2012 8:47pm

I know what he said, but that doesn't mean Rangers should agree with it though.

Seriously, what kind of rule-book states that the judiciary panel can just come up with any punishment they want ?

bobmalooka · 17-05-2012 8:55pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I know what he said, but that doesn't mean Rangers should agree with it though.

Seriously, what kind of rule-book states that the judiciary panel can just come up with any punishment they want ?

in exceptional circumstances when their own guidelines dont cover it

Dempsey · 17-05-2012 10:25pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

So we should just accept an FA that can make up any punishment they seem fit ?

And you're surprised Rangers are willing to take this to a civilian court ?

You have to, Rangers agreed to these rules.

I will be laughing long and hard if you take this to a civilian court. They have no jurisdiction over this. Surely after the Sion debacle ye'd have more sense than that. Go ahead and waste money that ye dont have, pay your taxes first!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18108973

More threats of boycotts. :pac:

EDIT

bobmalooka wrote: »

in exceptional circumstances when their own guidelines dont cover it

The punishments stated in the rules are guidelines, suggested types of punishments. They aren't restricted to these at all.

shankespony · 18-05-2012 11:44am

you signed up to them so did craig whyte now u dont want to accept ur punishment just because you were caught with hand in cookie jar.

Dempsey · 18-05-2012 2:35pm

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/05/18/rangers-in-crisis-charles-green-tells-fans-he-s-already-raised-20m-for-takeover-but-fails-to-name-investors-86908-23863849/

CHARLES GREEN last night admitted only “five or six” investors have pumped cash into his 20-strong Rangers consortium – but then insisted he has already raised £20million.

Mr. "I'm sketchy with the details" Green. If thats the case, its laughable that Duff & Phelps went with his bid over Kennedy's

Savage Tyrant · 18-05-2012 2:57pm

What does it benefit him to be so secretive about the details of the consortium?
I'd love the bid to collapse again if for nothing other than my petty amusement.

Is Green obliged to buy the club now or can he and his consortium still back out?

Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

Comments