Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

Dempsey

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I'll just quote this here, in case Lennon gets hit with a big ban tomorrow.

Whats happening tomorrow?

AFAIK, Lunny hasnt written any letters yet

Lonesome Boatman

McCoist, the catalyst of the Neil Lennon death threats and now solely responsible for SFA employees fearing for their lives

Poisonous bigot.

KeithAFC

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

McCoist, the catalyst of the Neil Lennon death threats and now solely responsible for SFA employees fearing for their lives

Poisonous bigot.

:rolleyes:

Less of that nonsense.

Lonesome Boatman

KeithAFC wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Less of that nonsense.

Hows it nonsense? 3 men are fearing for their lives because of his comments

Jelle1880

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

McCoist, the catalyst of the Neil Lennon death threats and now solely responsible for SFA employees fearing for their lives

Poisonous bigot.

Let me guess: 'It was a joke' ?

:rolleyes:

edit:

Telegraph Sport understands that a handwriting expert, who works with English forces, has been called in to assist Strathclyde Police with their investigation into Whyte’s takeover of Rangers. In the High Court in London on Tuesday, the Ibrox administrators raised a £25 million action against the club’s former lawyers, Collyer Bristow.

Gary Withey, a former partner of Collyer Bristow and Rangers’ company secretary under Whyte, was accused by Mark Phillips QC - acting for Duff & Phelps - of having forged Whyte’s signature on a letter that stated that Collyer Bristow held funds relating to the takeover when, in fact, they did not.

Meanwhile Strathclyde Police have dropped an investigation into a complaint by the chief correspondent of Channel 4 news, Alex Thomson, that he had been threatened physically by other journalists after arriving in Glasgow to cover the story. In a blog entry that was widely repeated in newspapers and such media sites as UK Press Gazette, Thomson wrote: “What I didn’t expect were the insults (and in at least one case, a direct physical threat) not from fans but from Scottish journalists. Sarajevo, Mogadishu, Kabul, Islamabad, Tripoli, Baghdad... I could bore you with more - in none of these places have I ever got this interesting reaction from local journalists. Only in Glasgow.”

However, Strathclyde Police found no evidence to support Thomson’s complaint. “Frankly, it was laughable,” a source told Telegraph Sport.

Aaw diddums

Dempsey: I read on some forums that he was up for charges at the SFA tomorrow, but I can't find any proof, so I guess it's not true.

By the way:

Lonesome Boatman

The pressures starting to get to McCoist.

He should resign before he embarrasses himself any further.

Jelle1880

Or not.

Found this on a Rangers forum:

Rangers were found guilty in respect of Rule 2.

Rule 2: Each member shall procure that its officials, its Team Staff and its players act in accordance with Rule 1.

But we were found Not Proven in respect of Rule 1. Whyte wasn't even charged under Rule 1. So who was found guilty under Rule 1 which formed the basis for our guilt under Rule 2?

For reference, Rule 1:

Rule 1 (b): All members shall:
(b) be subject to and comply with the Articles and any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, decisions and International Match Calendar promulgated by the Board, the Professional Game Board, the Non Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel, a Committee or sub-committee, FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport;

Dempsey

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Dempsey: I read on some forums that he was up for charges at the SFA tomorrow, but I can't find any proof, so I guess it's not true.

Neil Lennon has to be charged first, Lunny hasnt written any letters, if he did it would be all over the news and on the SFA website.

Jelle1880

He doesn't HAVE to write any letters.

The last time he did it it was only to ask Lennon to explain himself.

Dempsey

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Or not.

Found this on a Rangers forum:

Surely you know about this?

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2566&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=9718

Dempsey

Jelle1880 wrote: »

He doesn't HAVE to write any letters.

The last time he did it it was only to ask Lennon to explain himself.

WRONG

TheBuilder

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

McCoist, the catalyst of the Neil Lennon death threats and now solely responsible for SFA employees fearing for their lives

Poisonous bigot.

Wow, you live in some fantasy world. McCoist has nothing to do with anyone fearing for their lives, and if you have any decency you'll retract that last line.

Being as small minded as you must be an awful experience, what do the other people in your care home think about it?

Jelle1880

Dempsey wrote: »

Surely you know about this?

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2566&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=9718

Yeah, and that says exactly what I quoted.

Rangers were found guilty regarding Rule 2.
But Rule 2 is in relation to Rule 1, for which Rangers were found 'not proven'.

Dempsey

TheBuilder wrote: »

Wow, you live in some fantasy world. McCoist has nothing to do with anyone fearing for their lives, and if you have any decency you'll retract that last line.

Being as small minded as you must be an awful experience, what do the other people in your care home think about it?

The threats happened the day after his comments, not the day after the tribunal. Go figure.

TheBuilder

Dempsey wrote: »

TheBuilder wrote: »

Wow, you live in some fantasy world. McCoist has nothing to do with anyone fearing for their lives, and if you have any decency you'll retract that last line.

Being as small minded as you must be an awful experience, what do the other people in your care home think about it?

The threats happened the day after his comments, not the day after the tribunal. Go figure.

So McCoist asking for information he felt the club deserved makes him a poisonous bigot sending out messages to so called fans to send threats?

The nonsense getting spouted in this thread recently, mostly from the new fans appearing out of the woodwork since the league was won is laughable, 3 or 4 members just obviously here to troll because it's the cool thing to do on boards these days.

Lonesome Boatman

TheBuilder wrote: »

Wow, you live in some fantasy world. McCoist has nothing to do with anyone fearing for their lives, and if you have any decency you'll retract that last line.

Being as small minded as you must be an awful experience, what do the other people in your care home think about it?

if he had any decency he would withdraw his venomous comments and resign

the police are visiting him tomorrow

Dempsey

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Yeah, and that says exactly what I quoted.

Rangers were found guilty regarding Rule 2.
But found 'not proven' on Rule 1, which is a necessity for Rule 2.

Your guilty of rule two because Whyte and the fact that he's now not a fit and proper person. You'd be guilty of rule 1 (b) if you knew that he was a unfit person before taking control and there was evidence to support it.

TheBuilder

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

TheBuilder wrote: »

Wow, you live in some fantasy world. McCoist has nothing to do with anyone fearing for their lives, and if you have any decency you'll retract that last line.

Being as small minded as you must be an awful experience, what do the other people in your care home think about it?

if he had any decency he would withdraw his venomous comments and resign

the police are visiting him tomorrow

Venomous comments haha, troll.

Jelle1880

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

if he had any decency he would withdraw his venomous comments and resign

the police are visiting him tomorrow

I'm afraid you're actually serious too.

Sad.

Dempsey wrote: »

Rule 1 basically says that clubs should comply with all the rules of football

Rule 2 basically says that the club should ensure that all officials, team staff and players comply with those rules.

Your guilty of rule two because Whyte and the fact that he's now not a fit and proper person. You'd be guilty of rule 1 if you knew that he was a unfit person before taking control and there was evidence to support it.

I know what the rules mean, but Rule 2 states that it has to follow Rule 1, for which we were found 'Not Proven'.

So surely that would mean that the accusation regarding Rule 2 should also be thrown out ?

Lonesome Boatman

TheBuilder wrote: »

So McCoist asking for information he felt the club deserved makes him a poisonous bigot sending out messages to so called fans to send threats?

The nonsense getting spouted in this thread recently, mostly from the new fans appearing out of the woodwork since the league was won is laughable, 3 or 4 members just obviously here to troll because it's the cool thing to do on boards these days.

his representative knew the names already, the cheeky chappy just wanted them made public.

wonder why?

Jelle1880

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

his representative knew the names already, the cheeky chappy just wanted them made public.

wonder why?

Of another panel.

Lonesome Boatman

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Of another panel.

No.

Rangers had a legal rep at the meeting.

Dempsey

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I know what the rules mean, but Rule 2 states that it has to follow Rule 1, for which we were found 'Not Proven'.

So surely that would mean that the accusation regarding Rule 2 should also be thrown out ?

No

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Dempsey

Aquila wrote: »

So,whats the status of Rangers fc right now ? In Administration
What will happen? Liquidation if a buyer is not found even without knowing the outcome of the 'Big Tax Case'
Also was that bet paid? Not Yet

Jelle1880

Dempsey wrote: »

No

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense.

Rule 1: Not Proven.

Rule 2: Each member shall procure that its officials, its Team Staff and its players act in accordance with Rule 1.

Does not compute.

Same as this:

1.6 The Protocol comes into effect on 7 June 2011 ("the Effective Date").


The findings:

Name: Craig Whyte, Director, Rangers FC
Dates: 6th May 2011 to 6th March 2012

Name: Rangers FC
Dates: 6th May 2011 to 6th March 2012

Charges are from May, but the rules didn't come into effect until June.

edit: Or does that Rule 1 and Rule 2 thing only work because Rule 2 deals with people and Rule 1 with the club as a whole ?
As in that Rangers are being punished because Whyte didn't follow the rules ?

Dempsey

Yes, Rule 1 is about the club itself being inline with the rules, Rule 2 makes the club responsible for officials, team staff and players not following the rules and the rules they are referring to are

subject to and comply with the Articles and any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, decisions and International Match Calendar promulgated by the Board, the Professional Game Board, the Non Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel, a Committee or sub-committee, FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport;

As said already, the club are being punished for Craig Whyte now not being a fit and proper person (rule 2), just cant prove that Rangers knew as he was taking over the club (rule 1). Craig Whyte/Rangers was guilty of this after the rule came into effect and before the charge was made so there is nothing wrong with the dates.

Lonesome Boatman

Offensive Behaviour and Threatening Communications Act
Posted on 25 April, 2012 by Paul67

Can there be any surprise at tonight’s news that police are now investigating alleged harassment of members of the SFA Judicial Panel? On the way home tonight I almost drove off the road when I heard Scotsman journalist, Tom English, on Radio Scotland tell us Rangers knew who sat on the judicial panel a day before Ally McCoist demanded to know who they were on Rangers TV.

Now the SFA inform us the panel members’ identities have been “compromised”. There was no suggestion their identities were hidden until McCoist fanned the flames on Tuesday, these individuals were not subject to a witch hunt or harrassment. The Association added “all three panel members have reported intrusion into their personal and work lives, including abusive and threatening communication.”

In Scotland we now have an Offensive Behaviour and Threatening Communications Act. The Act criminalises “behaviour likely to lead to public disorder which expresses or incites hatred”. We’ll now see how the law works in this country.

Very sinister

Eirebear

Here Boatman - i assume you still havnt cottoned on that this last few pages of "outrage" have been the result of SSN and BBC, once again jumping the gun with their shameful brand of "Journalism".

You look almost as foolish as them by carrying this bull**** on.

Jelle1880

ONE of the Hampden Three blamed by Ally McCoist for pushing Rangers to the brink last night insisted he has “no axe to grind” with the Ibrox club.
Raith Rovers director Eric Drysdale also insisted he would relish the chance to explain the reasons behind the decision to ban the Rangers manager from the transfer market – but fears he’d be hammered by the SFA for breaching a strict gagging order if he did.

On Tuesday McCoist demanded to know the names of the anonymous “experts” selected by the SFA to make the decision which the Rangers’ manager says could kill his club.
By lunchtime yesterday, following McCoist’s demands for transparency and despite SFA concerns over the safety of the individuals concerned, the internet was ablaze withspeculation as to who the three were.
Record Sport can confirm Drysdale was indeed part of the judiciary panel along with leading QC Gary Allan and former freelance football journalist Alistair Murning.
And Drysdale contacted Record Sport in a bid to explain his part in the process which is being blamed for kicking the club closer than ever towards oblivion.
The chartered banker, who feels he has been placed in an almost impossible position amidst soaring levels of animosity, said: “It was unfortunate Ally McCoist chose to speak out in the way he did yesterday and cause this furore for people who have given up their time voluntarily to assist in the administration of Scottish football.
“But while I found that disappointing, I also understand feelings are running high. If it was my club then I would understand the emotions.
“I genuinely believe when the statement of reasons is published obviously Rangers can and no doubt will appeal.
“That’s the process and I have no difficulty with that whatsoever. But I would like to make it clear I have no axe to grind against Rangers, Celtic or any football club. I’m a Raith Rovers supporter and I have been all my life.”
Drysdale, Allan and Murning were hand-picked for the tribunal and charged with the task of dishing
out appropriate sanctions for a list of misdemeanours dating back over Craig Whyte’s 10-month reign.
The absconded Whyte was hit with fines adding up to £200,000. But the club he plunged into administration was also hammered with £160,000 of cash penalties and banned from signing new players for a year.
The Ibrox club’s administrators, Duff and Phelps, have announced they will appeal the decision, with a hearing likely next week.
Drysdale said: “Were it not for the confidentiality agreement I would be more than happy to speak out in full and explain what happened but I cannot do that.
“There will be a detailed statement of reasons which will come out when it is ready and I hope when people have the opportunity to read it and digest it in full, they will form a better understanding of the process and the decisions reached.
“Beyond that I won’t say anything else about the process.”
Last night Murning said: “I didn’t have any concerns about being asked to make such an important decision. On the contrary, I felt ideally qualified to deal with the questions raised because they related to business matters.
“Apart from being a former football journalist I have also been involved in some fairly high-level business positions – a lot of which involved investigatory work.
“On top of that, I realised the very serious nature of the situation dictated that the people involved would not be fazed by the subject matter or the size of the club in question. We were well served by our chairman and I believe we reached the only possible conclusion.
“When the full facts of this case are made public I’m sure others will realise why we were left with no choice but to take the action we did.”
Edinburgh-based lawyer Allan, who headed up the three-man tribunal, said only: “My role is a judicial one in this process and, accordingly, it would be quite inappropriate that I make any comment at all at this stage.”

Transparency at it's best.