Rangers FC On Field Gossip & Rumour Thread 2017 Mod Note in OP(Updated 14/08)

bobbysands81

By the way Jelle, did you ever answer my query as to why Rangers weren't seeded in the league cup?

Jelle1880

BBE did, not my or his fault you refuse to accept that explanation.

But we all know you're not really interested in the seeding, just another lame attempt at trying to claim we're a new club.

lubo_moravcik

Jelle1880 wrote: »

BBE did, not my or his fault you refuse to accept that explanation.

But we all know you're not really interested in the seeding, just another lame attempt at trying to claim we're a new club.

You are a new club though????

bobbysands81

Jelle1880 wrote: »

BBE did, not my or his fault you refuse to accept that explanation.

But we all know you're not really interested in the seeding, just another lame attempt at trying to claim we're a new club.

So basically you can't answer the question the way you want so you're refusing to engage.

BBE did not answer the question properly either.

Jelle1880

bobbysands81 wrote: »

So basically you can't answer the question the way you want so you're refusing to engage.

BBE did not answer the question properly either.

Yeah, I tend to refuse to answer people who stubbornly keep asking the same question over and over again, despite already having received the answer multiple times.

the realpigiron

Celtic got into a small bit of bother because of this banner displayed by the Green Brigade in a friendly v Norwich ages ago. I guess zombies aren't known for having a sense of humour:pac:

lubo_moravcik

Lord Nimmo Smith says your a new club

the realpigiron

No title stripping so, 'cos there's no titles to their name to strip. It's year zero for the Sevconians:)

Dempsey

I see Charles Green is still is waffling on about the SPL vote, seems its something he's found hard to take. He cant get his head around the fact that the customers, i.e. the fans of every other club demanded that rules be applied to them like any other club. He thinks that the financial implications of no Rangers should have been enough for other clubs to ignore whatever they did. Seems the sense of entitlement hasnt died!

bobbysands81

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

Lord Nimmo Smith says your a new club

Where's this from lubo???

bobbysands81

the realpigiron wrote: »

Celtic got into a small bit of bother because of this banner displayed by the Green Brigade in a friendly v Norwich ages ago. I guess zombies aren't known for having a sense of humour:pac:

It's amazing that the zombies are offended by this but in their previous iteration were happy to tell an entire minority community to be repatriated to where they come from and boast about wading in the blood of Catholics.

A Dub in Glasgo

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Where's this from lubo???

Full document

http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/SPL%20Commission%20reasons%20for%20decision%20of%2012%20September%202012.pdf

Essentially, the SPL independent commission rule

1. Oldco is the owner and operator of Rangers FC up to the sale of assets and name
2. Newco is the owner and operator of Rangers FC from the sale of assets and name
3. Rangers FC is the football club that was owned and operated by oldco and is currently owned and operated by newco
4. Rangers FC under the ownership and operation of oldco were in the SPL
5. Rangers FC under the ownership and operation of newco were not in the SPL and are in the 3rd division of the SFA league structure
6. The alleged EBT dual contracts pertain to Oldco and Rangers FC and can be investigated and sanctions applied to both Oldco and Rangers FC if found guilty
7. No sanction can be applied to Newco
8. Newco were invited and are still invited to the Commission proceedings as an affected party (as their club could be subject to sanction but not Newco)
9. Oldco were invited and are still invited to the Commission proceedings as the party which it is alleged broke the rules (and by default Rangers FC)

blahfckingblah

i await "but but but" from the rangers fans..

Jelle1880

Paragraphs 4,6 and 46 seem to suggest that the club and the OldCo are not one and the same.

Paragraph 45 says that the old plc ceased to be a "club" for the purposes of the SPL rules when the "undertaking of an association football club" was transferred from the old company to the new one. The old company no longer operated the footballing undertaking, and so whilst the old company still held an SPL share, it was no longer the club.

Who are you trying to convince by the way ?

Dempsey

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Paragraphs 4,6 and 46 seem to suggest that the club and the OldCo are not one and the same.

Paragraph 45 says that the old plc ceased to be a "club" for the purposes of the SPL rules when the "undertaking of an association football club" was transferred from the old company to the new one. The old company no longer operated the footballing undertaking, and so whilst the old company still held an SPL share, it was no longer the club.

Who are you trying to convince by the way ?

Legally speaking it still was the club even though it didnt have a stadium, players or a training ground etc. During that time Sevco was not a football club, just a company, because it did not possess the share in any league and had no membership of any football association. For a period of time, neither entities had membership of a football league which is a basic requirement in obtaining membership of a football association.

A Dub in Glasgo

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Paragraphs 4,6 and 46 seem to suggest that the club and the OldCo are not one and the same.

I refer you to 1-5 of my earlier post. The Commission are stating that the football club is different to the owner / operator and that includes oldco and newco therefore the football club is the contiguous bit and more therefore they are subject to sanctions in the SPL era which is exactly what Rangers fans are agreeing with and disagreeing with at the same time :pac: This is called having your cake and eating it

Paragraph 45 says that the old plc ceased to be a "club" for the purposes of the SPL rules when the "undertaking of an association football club" was transferred from the old company to the new one. The old company no longer operated the footballing undertaking, and so whilst the old company still held an SPL share, it was no longer the club.

Paragraph 45 is restating an argument made elsewhere which the panel reject as outlined in paragraph 46.

I can understand that someone looking at paragraph 45 in isolation to paragragh 46 and the rest of the document will say that the club has no case to answer to the SPL but I believe this misunderstands the position

Jelle1880

So we can agree that the club and the company are two separate entities, I have no idea why that took you lot so long

A Dub in Glasgo

Jelle1880 wrote: »

So we can agree that the club and the company are two separate entities, I have no idea why that took you lot so long

You might want to do a bit of digging in this thread, it was me who is saying that Green, McCoist and the Rangers fans are having their cake and eating it by claiming to be Rangers FC for the titles & history and then saying they are not when it comes to the alleged rule breaking of Rangers FC in the oldco era.

You might want to take the opportunity to clarify your own position here

Jelle1880

I already did.

The club and the company are two different things, therefore the club still exists despite changing companies.

If this investigation comes up with proof of double contracts (or whatever the new allegation is now) then Rangers should be punished.

However, after reading the article from the Daily Record about the first draft of the 5 party plan it's crystal clear they only want one sanction (of 19 possible), and that's stripping of titles.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/revealed-football-chiefs-secret-plan-1167046

Add to that the questionable behavior of Harper MacLeod in all of this and I don't think Rangers will get a fair chance.

A Dub in Glasgo

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I already did, several times.

The club and the company are two different things, therefore the club still exists despite changing companies.

If this investigation comes up with proof of double contracts or whatever the new allegation is now then Rangers should be punished.

However, after reading the article from the Daily Mail it's crystal clear that they only want one out of 19 possible sanctions, and that is stripping of titles.

Add to that the questionable behavior of Harper McLeod and I don't think Rangers will get a fair chance.

So you kindly accept that Rangers should be punished should they be found guilty but you will not accept the taking of titles? What, in your view, will be an appropriate punishment?

Reminds of the guy going to court and telling the judge, I won't accept you putting me in jail if you find me guilty. I insist on determining the punishment :pac:

Jelle1880

I edited that post, to include the link to the article.

If one party in this mess already seems to decide the punishment, how can Rangers expect to get a fair chance ?

blahfckingblah

oh so now fairness is a priority for rangers

A Dub in Glasgo

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I edited that post, to include the link to the article.

If one party in this mess already seems to decide the punishment, how can Rangers expect to get a fair chance ?

So what, in your view, is an appropriate punishment if Rangers are found guilty?

Jelle1880

Not sure, I'm trying to find a list or article with all the sanctions (I read there's a total of 19 possibilities) available to the tribunal, but it seems they're following the usual transparency of the SPL.

A Dub in Glasgo

But you think taking titles off a club who used dual contracts is not appropriate?

Jelle1880

There's not even talk of dual contracts anymore, do keep up
And if there was a fair investigation and tribunal then I would probably accept that, however this imo is not the case.

Apparently stripping titles would be the only sanction that would not force the SPL to go through the courts, where they know they will have an even harder time.

bobbysands81

Jelle1880 wrote: »

There's not even talk of dual contracts anymore, do keep up
And if there was a fair investigation and tribunal then I would probably accept that, however this imo is not the case.

Apparently stripping titles would be the only sanction that would not force the SPL to go through the courts, where they know they will have an even harder time.

There is no way that NewClub will let this go through the courts because any legal determination will show all the differences that are there, they will show that Rangers and NewClub are two legal separate entities and are two separate clubs, one rising from the ashes of the other. (That proof is already there but is being intentionally ignored by NewClub fans.)

I fully expect all this to come out in the wash with BDO and maybe even the sanctions that will be imposed... if the sanctions are harsh it might even be that your own custodians will argue this themselves... as I keep on saying this farce has some way to run still.

Dempsey

Jelle1880 wrote: »

There's not even talk of dual contracts anymore, do keep up
And if there was a fair investigation and tribunal then I would probably accept that, however this imo is not the case.

Apparently stripping titles would be the only sanction that would not force the SPL to go through the courts, where they know they will have an even harder time.

All because you didnt like one judges interpretation of the law. You're just muckraking tbh

Jelle1880

Dempsey wrote: »

All because you didnt like one judges interpretation of the law. You're just muckraking tbh

SUNSPORT has seen documentary evidence that Hampden bosses asked Rangers to accept the loss of FIVE league titles and FOUR Scottish Cups.
The draft papers were given to Gers chief executive Charles Green at a top-secret summit this summer.
Top brass wanted Green to accept “EBT sanctions” in return for newco Gers getting the chance to be parachuted into Division One.
The package of punishments — instantly REJECTED by Green — would have stripped Gers of NINE major trophies won between 2001 and 2011.

They were NOT asked to give up any of their League Cup wins. Details of the offer, made during discussions involving Green, the SPL, SFA, SFL and administrators Duff and Phelps, emerged last night.
Had Green accepted the EBT sanctions, he’d have agreed to “(i) the withdrawal from Rangers FC, RFC and Sevco of the award and status of Champion Club (as defined in SPL Rules) of the Scottish Premier League for each and all of Seasons 2002/03, 2004/05, 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11; (ii) the withdrawal from Rangers FC, RFC and Sevco of the award and status of winner of the Scottish Cup for each and all of Seasons 2001/02, 2002/03, 2007/08 and 2008/09”.

Among a list of “Agreements and Undertakings” which Green was asked to accept were: “(i) accept and agree to be bound by each and all of the EBT Sanctions; (ii) the SFA and the SPL agree that no further sanctions will be imposed with respect to or concerning the EBT Payments and Arrangements; and (iii) RFC and Sevco shall not directly or indirectly make any claim and/or representation to have won any of the Championships and/or Cups which are the subject of any and all of the EBT Sanctions”.
It’s understood Green rejected the offer of EBT sanctions as Gers have still to be found guilty of any misuse of the Trusts. An independent commission appointed by the SPL will begin a hearing on November 13 regarding the alleged undisclosed payments.
HMRC is expected to announce the findings of its first-tier tribunal hearing on the EBTs within weeks.
Gers have already refused to co-operate with the former hearing.

And Green is facing an SFA charge of bringing the game into disrepute after claiming the process was “fundamentally misconceived”.
The leaked papers appear to add weight to Green’s assertion that a range of penalties have been considered before any guilt is proved.
SunSport has also seen an exchange of correspondence between HMRC and the SPL dating back to October and November 2010. Yet there was no official Hampden probe into Gers’ use of Trusts until earlier this year.
But with Green having already threatened to take his case to law, the emergence of the secret documents shows stripping of titles has been on the Hampden agenda since the close-season.

Earlier this month, Green said: “The club cannot continue to participate in an SPL process we believe is fundamentally misconceived.”

Making up a punishment before there is a verdict, that's all ok I assume ?

And an update on the Ticketus v Whyte situation:

Ticketus is expected to begin court proceedings in the coming weeks against former Rangers owner Craig Whyte over a £26.7m deal he used to fund his takeover.

The ticketing firm is pursuing Mr Whyte after he used future season ticket sales to wipe out the Ibrox club’s £18m debt to Lloyds Banking Group last May.

Ticketus, which is an investee company of Octopus Investments, is taking legal action against Mr Whyte after administrators Duff and Phelps failed to agree a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) with creditors in June.

It is unclear whether Ticketus will launch the action in Scottish or English courts, while most of Mr Whyte’s business interests are linked to the British Virgin Islands-registered firm, Liberty Capital Ltd, including Rangers FC Group, the company he used to buy Sir David Murray’s 85% stake for £1.

The civil action raised by the investment company is not likely to be heard until next year.

A spokesman for the firm said on Monday: "Ticketus is continuing to pursue, through the courts, the terms of the corporate and personal guarantees agreed with Craig Whyte at the time of the original contract between Ticketus and Rangers FC in May 2011."

After being appointed in February, Duff and Phelps sought guidance from the Court of Session over the contract Mr Whyte had agreed with Ticketus to effectively fund his takeover of the Ibrox club.

Lord Hodge found that Ticketus did not, under Scots law, own future season ticket sales at Rangers as it had claimed. He established that the company owned "personal contractual rights" to around 100,000 season ticket sales in a deal that could be breached by administrators if it was deemed to be in the interests of the creditors overall.

In May, Duff and Phelps gave Ticketus formal notification that the deal was being terminated, which was not opposed by the London firm. As a result, the company was listed as a creditor worth £26.7m in the failed CVA, which consigned the 'oldco' Rangers to liquidation under the control of neutral insolvency firm BDO. Following the failure to strike a deal with creditors, the administrators sold the Charles Green-led Sevco consortium the club's assets in a £5.5m deal that saw them transferred to a newco.

On Monday BDO — which will be put in place on the insistence of Rangers’ largest creditor, HM Revenue and Customs — said it did not have a date for its appointment confirmed yet.

In May, Ticketus announced that it had made demands for repayment from Mr Whyte and also from his wholly-owned company Liberty Capital.

Rangers were plunged into administration in February owing up to £134m, including £18.3m in unpaid VAT and PAYE during Mr Whyte's nine-month reign at the club.

Previously, Mr Whyte said: "The only person at risk from the deal is me personally because I gave Ticketus personal and corporate guarantees underwriting their investment; the club and the fans are fully protected. In terms of exposure, I am personally on the line for £27.5m in guarantees and cash."

bobmalooka

Making up a punishment before there is a verdict, that's all ok I assume ?[/Quote]
Of course it's wrong they tried to use what ye did as a mechanism to propel greens team into the first division. It will also be interesting to see if anyone within the Scottish football authorities will be shown to have a personal interest in avoiding a full enquiry.