Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Oranges, Apples, you know the deal.

Whatever you say, Baghdad Bob!

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 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 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 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 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 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 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'.

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

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

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 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 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

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