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

Jelle1880 · 10-09-2012 07:08AM

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Of course they did. The club incorporated with the company in 1899. Rangers FC PLC died, hence why this new zombie club has to apply for membership of the SFL and had to pay a membership fee.

You died. You can just get some English company to buy the assets and change their name to something similar and then claim to be the same thing.

I see why you were banned now

No need to come in this thread then, right ?
Since you seem to be another one of those 'They're insignificant' bunch, but can't help yourself talking about us :pac:

lubo_moravcik · 10-09-2012 08:38AM

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

"Duncan, what have you done?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgxzzECGJCk

have you just discovered the internet??

Coillte_Bhoy, what have you done?

Coillte_Bhoy · 10-09-2012 04:15PM

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

Coillte_Bhoy, what have you done?

**** knows?

Was at a wedding do last night , dont even rmemeber posting last night.:o

cruiserweight · 10-09-2012 05:19PM

Rangers are going to boycott first meeting of SPL investigation of dual contracts http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19550517

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 10-09-2012 05:21PM

CHARLES GREEN, Chief Executive of Rangers, issued the following statement today:

“The Rangers Football Club Limited will not attend tomorrow’s hearing (Tuesday, September 11) of the SPL-appointed Commission investigating the circumstances surrounding the use of Employee Benefit Trusts by previous owners of the Club.
"The Club cannot continue to participate in an SPL process that we believe is fundamentally misconceived.
“Neither the SPL, nor its Commission, has any legal power or authority over the Club because it is not in the SPL.
"For that reason it has no legal basis on which to appoint its Commission. The Club ceased to be subject to the SPL’s rules when it was ejected from its league.
"Our lawyers have made that point repeatedly to the SPL in correspondence and yet our requests for an explanation from the SPL have been completely ignored. The SPL’s silence on these issues is deafening. The outcome of the SPL’s process will have no legal effect.
“First and foremost, I would like to explain this decision to our supporters across the world whose loyalty and commitment to the Club in very difficult times has been unwavering and heart-warming for all those involved at the Club. Our decision regarding this commission is approved unanimously by the Board and the Manager Ally McCoist.
“Since the decision was taken by HMRC on June 14 to reject administrators’ proposals for a Company Voluntary Arrangement, the fate of Rangers FC lay firmly and clearly in the ability of the consortium I led to form a new company and corporate entity that would ensure that Rangers had a future as a football club.
“At all times we were fully transparent in our dealings with the football authorities, be they the SFA, SPL or the SFL.
"There was no ambiguity whatsoever regarding the status of the company when it made an application to join the SPL.
"As we all know, 10 SPL clubs decided against the admission of the new company to the league and The Rangers Football Club Limited subsequently applied to the SFL for membership and we are grateful for their acceptance.
“In short, what was decided by the SPL membership is that Rangers was finished as a member of the SPL.
"Despite this, the SPL now see the new owners of the company, and the new company itself, which owns all the assets of Rangers FC - including SPL championship titles – as fair game for punishment for matters that have nothing to do with us at all.
"And let’s be very clear about what this Commission is. Although the SPL goes to great lengths to emphasise the independence of its Commission, the Commission is not independent of the SPL. It has been appointed by the SPL. It follows SPL rules and its process is managed by SPL staff.
"I don’t question the impartiality of the individual panel members but whatever decision they reach is a decision of the SPL.
“To make it crystal clear, the new owners purchased all the business and assets of Rangers, including titles and trophies.
"Any attempt to undermine or diminish the value of those assets will be met with the stiffest resistance, including legal recourse.
“Furthermore, we ask the question genuinely. Why did the football authorities do nothing to address an issue that was public knowledge for at least two years, and was reported in the Club’s accounts for several years, before the Club went into administration and was subsequently taken over by new owners?
"HMRC contacted the SPL regarding EBT matters in October 2010, they met to discuss what documentation the Club had lodged with the SPL.
"Did the SPL launch an investigation? Did they appoint a Commission? Did they ask to see EBT correspondence? Did they ask any questions at all? No. They did absolutely nothing.
“What compounds the breathtaking hypocrisy of the SPL in this whole saga, is that the SFA, the SPL and us - as the new owners - took part in numerous discussions regarding the new company’s league status during which it was made clear that a deal was there to be done where ‘the EBT issue’ would be dealt with as part of a package of sanctions which would be implemented in return for membership of the SFA and a place in either the SPL or Division One.
"We do not accept that people who are willing to come to an agreement on such matters then have a right to instigate a full blown inquisition when matters do not unfold as they thought they would.
“In our view, it beggars belief that an authority which can be heavily involved in these discussions to the point that the Chief Executive Neil Doncaster repeatedly stated he was not interested in stripping titles from Rangers can lurch from that position to setting up its own Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Nimmo Smith.
"I must make it clear that we are not questioning for a moment the integrity of Lord Nimmo Smith and his colleagues but we believe the SPL have been hypocritical in their approach to this matter.
"Quite apart from their negotiations with our consortium, I know the SPL were well advanced in their discussions with another bidder and his representatives where EBT issues were raised and there was again an understanding that the EBT issue could be dealt with by agreement if new owners were to take over at Ibrox.
“Why is the SPL rushing to judgement now when it has been sitting on the matter for two years? Their haste is particularly difficult to understand when the tax tribunal judgement is imminent.
"The factual issues in both cases are identical. We have to ask why is the SPL so anxious to issue a judgement in this matter before the tax tribunal’s findings are made public.
"The position is even harder to understand when one of the reasons the SFA did not pursue any form of disciplinary charge on EBT matters following Lord Nimmo Smith’s April report was because it was felt unwise for the SFA to pursue the matter when the tax tribunal judgement had not been made public.
"Nothing has changed as the judgement still has not been made public. Why is the SPL rushing ahead when in April the SFA felt it unwise to do so?
“Rangers was not the only club in Scotland to use EBTs yet nothing was done and little has been heard about it. Also, Rangers stands accused of achieving sporting advantage unfairly – yet there is little debate over the fact in all the years EBTs were in existence at Ibrox, the Club often failed to win either the league title, or the main cup competitions.
"Furthermore, the period concerned saw a significant downsizing of the playing squad both in money spent on transfers and players wages.
“The decision we have taken has not been taken lightly. There are powerful representatives from Clubs within the SPL – not all of them by any means – who appear hell bent on inflicting as much damage on Rangers as possible.
"It is lamentable that the Board and executive of the organisation have not been able to deal with this appropriately. We do not hold every SPL club in the same regard. Several clubs were placed in an invidious position and we believe their interests were not best served by those in more powerful positions.
“Furthermore, as a Club we are not satisfied that the issue of conflict of interest relating to advisers to the SPL has been satisfactorily dealt with.
“Once again I would thank our supporters for their patience and tolerance. They have been asked to take it on the chin time and again and we stand united in saying: No more.
"As far as I am concerned, Rangers Football Club has won a world record 54 league titles, and, whatever the decision of the SPL Commission, these titles cannot and will not be taken away from us and our Manager Ally McCoist is in total agreement.”

Madam · 10-09-2012 05:41PM

“The decision we have taken has not been taken lightly. There are powerful representatives from Clubs within the SPL – not all of them by any means – who appear hell bent on inflicting as much damage on Rangers as possible.

Conspiracy theory anyone?:rolleyes:

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 10-09-2012 05:44PM

Madam wrote: »

“The decision we have taken has not been taken lightly. There are powerful representatives from Clubs within the SPL – not all of them by any means – who appear hell bent on inflicting as much damage on Rangers as possible.

Conspiracy theory anyone?:rolleyes:

How do you work that out it seems pretty clear that certain chairman wanted to put the boot in more than others

Also he will in his meetings with these people picked up information that we are not privy to at the moment

And lets face it Tic fans know all about conspiracy theory's

Madam · 10-09-2012 05:59PM

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

How do you work that out it seems pretty clear that certain chairman wanted to put the boot in more than others

Also he will in his meetings with these people picked up information that we are not privy to at the moment

And lets face it Tic fans know all about conspiracy theory's

So, you reckon no one was/is out to get Rangers?

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 10-09-2012 06:19PM

Madam wrote: »

So, you reckon no one was/is out to get Rangers?

Where did I say that it was obvious with what some chairman said they were going to put the boot in. But really I don't care what they said in the past I will be interested in what happens now though

Jelle1880 · 10-09-2012 06:23PM

Madam wrote: »

“The decision we have taken has not been taken lightly. There are powerful representatives from Clubs within the SPL – not all of them by any means – who appear hell bent on inflicting as much damage on Rangers as possible.

Conspiracy theory anyone?:rolleyes:

Romanov, Thomson,...

A Dub in Glasgo · 10-09-2012 06:42PM

I have read some amout of bull**** from Green but that statement takes the biscuit. It looks like a pre-emptive strike knowing that the EBT is indefensible. You would be confused thinking Rangers are schzios, we are the old club... we are not the old club... we are the old club and so on.

blahfckingblah · 10-09-2012 06:44PM

can anyone please tell me why directors of other football clubs should show any mercy on rangers?

A Dub in Glasgo · 10-09-2012 06:46PM

because they are Rangers and Rangers should not be held accountable for their actions - that seems to be the gist of the excuse

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 10-09-2012 07:01PM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I have read some amout of bull**** from Green but that statement takes the biscuit. It looks like a pre-emptive strike knowing that the EBT is indefensible. You would be confused thinking Rangers are schzios, we are the old club... we are not the old club... we are the old club and so on.

Indefensible. You know this how as far as I can see there has been no evidence put forward properly yet. As far as the club is concerned any questions they have asked have never been answered which I believe is a fundamental right.

He is not saying we are not the old club in fact its clear we are he is saying its not the same company. All these things the SPL,SFA and SFL have agreed on

bobbysands81 · 10-09-2012 07:17PM

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

"For that reason it has no legal basis on which to appoint its Commission. The Club ceased to be subject to the SPL’s rules when it was ejected from its league.

Rangers weren't ejected from the league, they ceased to exist thus couldn't longer be in the league.

bobbysands81 · 10-09-2012 07:19PM

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Indefensible. You know this how as far as I can see there has been no evidence put forward properly yet. As far as the club is concerned any questions they have asked have never been answered which I believe is a fundamental right.

He is not saying we are not the old club in fact its clear we are he is saying its not the same company. All these things the SPL,SFA and SFL have agreed on

Come on Broxi, there is no difference between the company and the club.

If you want proof then just look at all the players who left the club because they didn't allow their contracts to transfer to new club.

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 10-09-2012 07:30PM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

"For that reason it has no legal basis on which to appoint its Commission. The Club ceased to be subject to the SPL’s rules when it was ejected from its league.

Rangers weren't ejected from the league, they ceased to exist thus couldn't longer be in the league.

Think the SPL would disagree after all they are keen to take titles from a club that has them and has them with the agreement of the SPL,SFA and SPL.
I think when it came down to it the share was transferred to the SFL from theSPL it was not a new share but ghe same share

Savage Tyrant · 10-09-2012 07:32PM

“To make it crystal clear, the new owners purchased all the business and assets of Rangers, including titles and trophies.

Confirmation that the titles were "bought" by the new entity and not "won"

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 10-09-2012 07:37PM

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

“To make it crystal clear, the new owners purchased all the business and assets of Rangers, including titles and trophies.

Confirmation that the titles were "bought" by the new entity and not "won"

Yes the company bought the assets including the history and once more the relevant authourities agreed that they were to be kept by the football team. It's not rocket science. Anyway I don't intend to rehash old stuff over and over again. I will await the comind days with interest though

bobbysands81 · 10-09-2012 07:39PM

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

“To make it crystal clear, the new owners purchased all the business and assets of Rangers, including titles and trophies.

Confirmation that the titles were "bought" by the new entity and not "won"

History cannot be bought.

If a footballer falls on hard times and I buy his medals from him that then doesn't mean I won the medals.

Jelle1880 · 10-09-2012 08:10PM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Come on Broxi, there is no difference between the company and the club.

If you want proof then just look at all the players who left the club because they didn't allow their contracts to transfer to new club.

Sure there is, ask Leeds, Boro, Charlton,...

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

because they are Rangers and Rangers should not be held accountable for their actions - that seems to be the gist of the excuse

It's about time you people made up your ****ing minds.
What's it gonna be, are we Rangers or aren't we ?

lubo_moravcik · 10-09-2012 08:13PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Come on Broxi, there is no difference between the company and the club.

If you want proof then just look at all the players who left the club because they didn't allow their contracts to transfer to new club.

Sure there is, ask Leeds, Boro, Charlton,...

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

because they are Rangers and Rangers should not be held accountable for their actions - that seems to be the gist of the excuse

It's about time you people made up your ****ing minds.
What's it gonna be, are we Rangers or aren't we ?

What would your response be if you highlighted the other sentence in Bobbys quote?

Jelle1880 · 10-09-2012 08:17PM

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

What would your response be if you highlighted the other sentence in Bobbys quote?

Doesn't change a thing.

But if you want to know: Their contracts were with the company, so it was normal that they had the choice to have them transferred or not.

Comparing contracts to trophies is ridiculous though.

lubo_moravcik · 10-09-2012 08:24PM

So the company and the club are/were different?

A Dub in Glasgo · 10-09-2012 08:24PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

It's about time you people made up your ****ing minds.
What's it gonna be, are we Rangers or aren't we ?

That is some cheek considering the statement released from the new Rangers, we are the same, we are not the same, we are the same, we are not......

You are Rangers and Rangers have a case to answer for their EBT and if that case is proven, punishments will be dished out and Rangers will just have to accept it. None of this whining and whinging about juristictions and 'we are not having titles taken away' bull**** from Super Ally and Green.

It is about time Rangers and their supporters made up their mind on who they are. You cannot have the cake and eat it!

Jelle1880 · 10-09-2012 08:38PM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

That is some cheek considering the statement released from the new Rangers, we are the same, we are not the same, we are the same, we are not......

You are Rangers and Rangers have a case to answer for their EBT and if that case is proven, punishments will be dished out and Rangers will just have to accept it. None of this whining and whinging about juristictions and 'we are not having titles taken away' bull**** from Super Ally and Green.

It is about time Rangers and their supporters made up their mind on who they are. You cannot have the cake and eat it!

You don't get it.

Green isn't saying Rangers shouldn't be punished, he's questioning the impartiality of those appointed to hand out punishments.
And rightly so, given Lord Nimmo's past in dealing with Rangers.

Whatever happened with the infamous taxi rank system for judicial panels at the SPL ? Funny that the guy who handed out the unlawful punishment of a registration ban is now the same person leading this.

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

So the company and the club are/were different?

Depends what you call different.
Two entities that worked closely together, yes.
But not one and the same.

blahfckingblah · 10-09-2012 08:45PM

Debt? We're Newco. Titles? We're Oldco. Punishment? We're Newco. History? We're Oldco. EBTs? Newco. SFA Licence? Oldco. #TheRangersWaltz

from twitter

lubo_moravcik · 10-09-2012 08:47PM

The players then who left had contracts with the company and not the club? I take it the current players contracts are also with the company and not with the club??

Am lost, what's the name of the company and what's the name of the club??

bobbysands81 · 10-09-2012 08:52PM

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

The players then who left had contracts with the company and not the club? I take it the current players contracts are also with the company and not with the club??

Am lost, what's the name of the company and what's the name of the club??

I'd be very surprised if BDO didn't sort out this mess, this pantomime still has some way to run.

bobbysands81 · 10-09-2012 08:54PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Sure there is, ask Leeds, Boro, Charlton

Really? I look forward to you backing this up with fact then.

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

Comments