Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

PauloMN wrote: »

Is the big tax case not a dead duck once Rangers FC are finally liquidated?

When liquidation was announced, D&P said that they need 10-12 weeks before they could hand the club over to liquidators. Thats the start of September if D&P manage to keep a deadline. Dont be surprised if the BTC results magically appear when BDO gets the reigns of the club. HMRC are currently building their case so that they can go after former board members for the tax bill, they havent given up getting taxpayers money yet. BDO will have access and powers to assist HMRC better than administrators could. Rangers could still be in existence next year because of court dates!

What that all means for Sevco is that they cannot transfer Rangers SFA membership because their books neither companies books currently meets the criteria for SFA membership

That is shocking they would have raised more from a quick fire sale of players

Punishment and Redress

There has been plenty of misguided indignation about “punishment” for Rangers FC, or its supposed successor club.

I say misguided, but part of the fun is determining who is really misguided and who is doing the wilful misguiding.

Either way, let’s imagine a little scenario. You have a beautiful new iPad. At a train station, you momentarily lay it down on the seat beside you, and before you know it, an opportunistic thief has pinched it. You barely catch a glimpse of him sprinting away, your prized possession tucked under his arm as he vanishes into the crowds.

Fortunately, Strathclyde’s finest are on the case. CCTV is analysed, witnesses are interviewed, and within a couple of weeks, a suspect is identified and arrested. Let’s call him “Big Dave”. There, in his living room, is your beloved iPad.

So what happens next? Do the police simply return your iPad and that’s the end of it? What sort of message does that send out; that the only consequence of theft is having to return the stolen item if caught? Clearly, redress is not enough. Punishment must follow.

But lets imagine the police tell you Big Dave will be punished for his crime, but he can keep your iPad. You are incredulous. The thief keeps the item he broke the law to obtain, and you, the acknowledged victim of a crime, have to let him keep and enjoy your rightful property. This scenario is ludicrous. Punishment alone is not sufficient either; there must be both punishment and redress.

Now picture the scene in court: “It’s no fair tae take that iPad away fae oor faim’ly,” pleads Big Dave’s wife, Sally. “Big Dave telt me he goat it legit. Oor boy, Wee Billy, loves that iPad. He disnae know it was stolen. It would break Wee Billy’s heart if ye took that iPad aff him. He might even throw a maddie and hurt someb’dy, but that’s no a threat, right?”

Convinced you should let the thief keep your property? Is the judge? Didn’t think so.
Seeing he’s on to a loser, Big Dave tries to cut a deal. “Ok, Your Honour. Here’s how it is. I’ll accept a £100 fine and a wee bit of community service if you let me keep the iPad? For Wee Billy’s sake?”
Deal or no deal?

Step outside the fundamentally corrupt prism of Scottish football and the just outcome of my little scenario is glaringly obvious. Your rightful property is returned to you – no matter how much it upsets Wee Billy – and Big Dave is punished for his crime, which naturally sees his family suffer too. Who’s fault is it that Sally and Wee Billy suffer for Big Dave’s crimes? Big Dave, of course. Not the police. Not the judge. And certainly not you, the innocent victim of his crime.

Can you find me anyone who credibly denies that Rangers won a string of trophies while breaking the rules of football by fielding players deemed ineligible by the non-disclosure of their full contractual payments? When their guilt is finally officially declared, there must be redress. The official record must be changed. Medals and flags must be reclaimed and distributed to the clubs and players cheated by a side which could only beat them with an artificially strong and illegally registered playing squad.

This is justice. This is redress. It is not a punishment, any more than Big Dave being required to return your iPad - shock horror - is a punishment.

The punishment must be determined separately. But giving back what you stole is no punishment.

One final scenario: Big Dave’s extravagant lifestyle and dodgy behaviour catches up with him, and by the time the case reaches court, Big Dave has sadly passed away and can only be contacted from the other side by a pair of highly skilled mediums called Malcolm and James. Even though a curious character called Charlie from Yorkshire has rolled up calling himself “The Dave”, laying claim to Big Dave’s estate and apparently in there with Sally (if not Wee Billy), the indisputable legal fact is that Big Dave is no more.

Can you punish a dead man? Of course not. Does redress for his crimes die with him? Absolutely not.

Big Dave may be dead, but his family can’t keep the iPad he stole from you. That’s the bottom line.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

He could have just said 'I pyoor want their trophies taken and given to us!'

Or.... 'I pyoor want to see justice done.'

Personally I wouldn't want the trophies in question awarded to us, but I most definitely think the titles from the cheating seasons should be stripped and voided.

I still haven't heard what specific titles those are.

Great argumentation there, not surprising though.

So you want to punish Rangers for something of which there is no verdict yet.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

So you want to punish Rangers for something of which there is no verdict yet.

Oh so you do know what I'm talking about!! Try answering the question I actually asked!

Now read this carefully....

Do you think that Rangers should keep tainted titles?

....and answer yes or no. Simples!

Jelle1880 wrote: »

It's useless to speculate about that, you yourself don't even know which of those titles are 'tainted' so why ask ?

You're afraid to answer a simple hypothetical question.

Sounds like you'll disappear for a month or 5 when the verdict comes in! :pac:

Eirebear wrote: »

To be fair to Jelle here - he also asked a simple question.

No one has answered it.

If he could answer my question without changing what I said or asking about something I didnt say then I might be bothered answering what ever he asks me but too often he tries these bull**** deflection/twist his words tactics when he puts his foot in it

Dempsey wrote: »

If he could answer my question without changing what I said or asking about something I didnt say then I might be bothered answering what ever he asks me but too often he tries these bull**** deflection/twist his words tactics when he puts his foot in it

You're the one who consistently comes out with this hypothetical bull**** and then throws a tantrum when none of the Rangers fans want to dignify it with an answer, that's not 'deflecting' from my side.

If there is a verdict, then sure I'll discuss it, but as of now it's Celtic fan's hope of stripped titles and nothing more.

The fact you seem more bothered with me than one of your own club's legends passing away says it all: Obsessed doesn't even begin to describe it.

It's easy saying that when your club is not the one in trouble, but I don't believe for a second you'd be ok with Celtic losing titles.

And it has nothing to do with one-upmanship, just an observation.

http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/108222-rangers-newco-vote-sfl-clubs-outline-their-positions-on-the-issue/

That's 17 votes against Rangers in Div1.

Regan and Doncaster must be ****ting themselves.

Dempsey wrote: »

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/110606-in-full-proposal-made-to-sfl-clubs-to-allow-rangers-into-first-division/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

But wait, here comes the carrot!!

All these restructuring changes, merging of governing bodies and the time frame to iron out the kinks can be done separately. Its very disingenuous to be only offering them now, especially 14 club top tier expanding to 16 clubs when the the SFA & SPL were championing a return to 10 club top flight just the season gone by.

I hope the clubs see through their bull**** and move to separate the two issues.

Well Clyde are skeptical, another good statement from them http://www.clydefc.co.uk/statement.html