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

I think it goes without saying that the Rangers support don't know what to do at this stage, and we all know how well unorganised protests without a central point have worked in recent years.

Simple fact, we've been done over yet again.

Lennonist

Run Ally run,:pac:

Douglas Fraser ‏@BBCDouglasF 4m

Walter Smith: board "rarely found consensus; highly dysfunctional environment; need to restore stability & integrity to boardroom" #rfc

Smith confirms what most know already. Paints a different picture to what Mather tried through the club website

lubo_moravcik

Ah well, another day another drama. I thought with the new season starting you lot would be on the back pages rather than the front

Suppose it's all quite funny from where I'm standing.

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

Ah well, another day another drama. I thought with the new season starting you lot would be on the back pages rather than the front

So did we! :eek:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-23587678

The charities watchdog has strongly criticised trustees of the Rangers Charity Foundation after cash raised at a match went to the football club.

The fundraising game between Rangers Legends and AC Milan Glorie took place after the club entered administration.

A complaint was raised after it emerged that almost £200,000 went to the club rather than the charity.

The Scottish Charity Regulator has now ruled that the decision-making of the trustees "constituted misconduct".

However, it decided not to take action against any of the trustees.

That makes perfect sense!

lubo_moravcik

Dempsey wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-23587678

That makes perfect sense!

Did the money go to the club or the holding company?

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

Did the money go to the club or the holding company?

To give money to the club, you give it to its holding company which was The Rangers Football Club plc (in administration) at the time.

Before this decision, the Rangers Charity Foundation had been due to receive 60% of the net profit from the game plus a management fee of £25,000.

As a result of the trustee assigning income control to the administrators, the charity only received 10% of the net profit - £38,286 - plus the management fee.

This meant that £191,430 of profit that had been due to go to the charity went to the administrators who were running club.

BBC arent clear whether that money went through the holding company or directly to D&P. It reminds me of the raffle in father ted

Maybe they'll have another charity game to help with Sevco's current cashflow problem

Broxi_Bear_Eire

FOLLOWING the publication of a report by OSCR into an agreement regarding the proceeds of fundraising events (Rangers Legends v AC Milan Glorie match and dinner) involving the Rangers Charity Foundation and The Rangers Football Club plc (in Administration) the trustees of the Rangers Charity Foundation

The trustees of the Rangers Charity Foundation have noted the findings of OSCR’s report and are pleased that OSCR has concluded that the decision to assign the rights of the fundraising event to the Club was done “in good faith and in the interests of the Charity given the risk that otherwise the event may not have taken place, in which case the Charity would have received no benefit at all” and their investigation is now at an end.
In the event, the Rangers Charity Foundation received £63,288 from the events in March 2012. If the events had been cancelled then the Foundation would have lost over £12,000 in pre-paid deposits and our ability to generously support worthy causes up and down the country would have undoubtedly suffered as a result.
The circumstances surrounding the period when the Club entered Administration were unprecedented for everyone connected to the Club, and the Rangers Charity Foundation was no exception.
Extensive legal advice has been sought by the Foundation during the last year in order to enable new trustees to be appointed and new aspects of governance to be established.
These actions, which are now concluded, were an inevitable consequence of the situation faced by the Foundation following the changed circumstances of the Club - whether or not an investigation by OSCR had been opened.
Whilst it is regrettable that the Foundation was never party to the premise or nature of the original complaints made to OSCR, and that this matter has taken such a long time to be concluded, the Foundation believes that supporters of the Foundation can be reassured that the Rangers Charity Foundation was and continues to be a force for good sustained in large part by the loyal support of the Rangers Family.
The generosity and charitable spirit of Rangers fans is second to none and the Foundation looks forward to further expanding its activities going forward – in Glasgow, across Scotland and throughout the world.

Dont tell me you believe that bull?

Still going on about that ?

AC Milan agreed to it, only one group of people have a problem with it it seems.
Remember the so called Henrik Larsson 'Charity' Dinner ? That's a bit more dodgy I'd say, yet no fuss.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Still going on about that ?

AC Milan agreed to it, only one group of people have a problem with it it seems.
Unlike the so called Henrik Larsson 'Charity' Dinner.

I only brought it up today because the regulator has made a judgement. Milan agreed to the match, dont think they agreed to morally and ethnically bankrupt trustees that abused their positions.

Why dont we stay on topic? You always want to change the subject when its a negative headline

Dempsey wrote: »

I only brought it up today because the regulator has made a judgement. Milan agreed to the match, dont think they agreed to morally and ethnically bankrupt trustees that abused their positions.

Why dont we stay on topic? You always want to change the subject when its a negative headline

I'm sure that's why.

AC Milan actually did agree to not only play the game but to give the proceedings to the Rangers Charity Foundation.

The fact you do away with BBE's post since it doesn't suit your 'Rangers pyoor cheated AC Milan' pretty much proves that you're not just posting it because a decision was made, but to stir things up further in this thread.

The ruling essentially says that if the bulk of the money didn't go to Rangers then the match would not have been able to take place and the charity would have received no money whatsoever.

And my mention about the Larsson dinner isn't changing the subject, merely pointing out that mistakes are made all over the place.

Some get highlighted by dodgy lawyers who steal money from miners, others get forgotten about.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

Dont tell me you believe that bull?

There's no reason why I shouldn't but then I don't expect you to understand that and I don't care

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I'm sure that's why.

AC Milan actually did agree to not only play the game but to give the proceedings to the Rangers Charity Foundation.

The fact you do away with BBE's post since it doesn't suit your 'Rangers pyoor cheated AC Milan' pretty much proves that you're not just posting it because a decision was made, but to stir things up further in this thread.

The ruling essentially says that if the bulk of the money didn't go to Rangers then the match would not have been able to take place and the charity would have received no money whatsoever.

And my mention about the Larsson dinner isn't changing the subject, merely pointing out that mistakes are made all over the place.

Some get highlighted by dodgy lawyers who steal money from miners, others get forgotten about.

The judgement was released by the charity regulator today, I'll read and listen to what they have to say over the culprits trying to save face.

As for the bolded, did you even read what happened? The bulk of the proceeds didnt go the charity, it ended up in D&P's pocket. It seems you are arguing for the sake of it and trying to defend the indefensible.

There wasnt even an investigation into what happened in the case of those Larsson dinner events and the organizers of the event have nothing to do with Celtic. There is a world of a difference between the two scenarios.

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

There's no reason why I shouldn't but then I don't expect you to understand that and I don't care

You seem happy enough to be conned be people telling you they are acting in the best interest of Rangers. With all that has happened, I'm surprised to see you all happy to see it continue.

Dempsey wrote: »

The judgement was released by the charity regulator today, I'll read and listen to what they have to say over the culprits trying to save face.

As for the bolded, did you even read what happened? The bulk of the proceeds didnt go the charity, it ended up in D&P's pocket. It seems you are arguing for the sake of it and trying to defend the indefensible.

There wasnt even an investigation into what happened in the case of those Larsson dinner events and the organizers of the event have nothing to do with Celtic. There is a world of a difference between the two scenarios.

'Indefensible', are you having a laugh ?

It seems like you're the one who didn't even read what happened.
Or are you just deliberately glossing over the whole 'in good faith' paragraph ?

Also, this is hardly news, as it was made clear even before the game would take place as to what would happen with the proceedings. This was all before administration, so nobody could foresee what would actually happen with the money (eg. ending up in D&P's hands).

Much ado about nothing, again but don't let that stop you.

edit: The only reason there was any sort of investigation was because of some thieving lawyer's, blog which got a few Celtic fans up in arms, resulting in some complaints.

A bit like the whole ASA fiasco.

Seems you stopped reading when you saw good faith, I didnt

"Although the decision was a breach of legal duties, it was made in good faith and in the interests of the charity given the risk that otherwise the fundraising event might not have taken place."

The regulator said: "The charity's decision-making process, which allowed important decisions to be made by one trustee acting alone, was in breach of trustees' duties and constituted misconduct on the part of the charity trustees as a whole."

The regulator said that since the charity was set up, there had been "an inherent conflict of interest" because of the trustees' connection to the club.

It also states: "In addition, the conflict of interest presented by the assignation was not managed appropriately and professional advice was not obtained as required by the charity's trust deed."

Much ado about nothing though :rolleyes: Ye seem used to it all at this stage!

Statement in response to comments from Rangers FC
Tuesday, 06 August 2013

Scottish FA spokesperson:

In response to the recent public comments from Rangers FC, and in particular Craig Mather and Ally McCoist, the Scottish FA offers the clarification requested with regard to Insolvency Rules under the Judicial Panel Protocol.

As yet the Scottish FA has not received a formal, written request for clarification by Rangers.

Notwithstanding the fact that a full note of reasons was published by the Judicial Panel Chair, Gary Allan QC, at the time of the determination - disseminated to the club directly, and to the public via the media – we are happy to reiterate the salient points in the interests of clarity and transparency:

• The Disciplinary Rules of the Judicial Panel Protocol provide a sliding scale of sanctions, with a suggested tariff of low-end, mid-range, top-end and maximum. This reflects the potential variations in seriousness of any breaches and any aggravating or mitigating factors.

• Rangers were fined £50,000 for a breach of Rule 14(g) based on the panel’s view that the evidence presented on both sides merited a sanction at the maximum end of the tariff. This was evidenced in the Note of Reasons:

Page 30 – “At the time of the first withheld payment in September 2011 Rangers FC’s financial situation was such that it could have made the payment due to HMRC.”

Page 33 – “The non-payment was a deliberate act in furtherance of a decision of the Chairman and director of Rangers FC not to make payment as a negotiating tactic in the resolution of ‘the Big Tax Case’.”

Page 56 – “In the case of the non-payment of tax (which was possibly by the smallest margin the most serious breach) the massive extent of the failure and the intentional and calculated manner in which it was carried out aggravated the breach even further”.

• Rangers were placed into administration following the deliberate non-payment of social taxes, despite – in the evidence provided - having the money to do so when the decision was first taken to withhold the money. This was not a feature in the Heart of Midlothian or Dunfermline Athletic cases.

• Contrary to Mr Mather’s statement, Rangers’ registration embargo was applied in a separate rule breach, Rule 66 – Bringing the Game into Disrepute.

• The administrators in the two other cases (Heart of Midlothian and Dunfermline Athletic) submitted that fines would be inappropriate as the clubs effectively had no money and any fine could jeopardise attempts to save the club. They made submissions on their clubs' financial position to reinforce their view.

• Rangers' lawyer, in contrast, specifically asked for the club to be fined in respect of Charge 3, or Rule 14(g). He did not lead evidence of Rangers' financial position or ability to pay any fine.

• Rangers did not appeal the fine.

Bit of a history lesson from the SFA to Craig Mather

EDIT

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/8857429/charles-green-insists-he-has-returned-to-rangers-to-save-the-troubled-club

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11781/8857487/glasgow-businessman-jim-mccoll-has-ruled-out-buying-a-major-stake-in-rangers

More egg on the face of Charles Green.

Dempsey wrote: »

Seems you stopped reading when you saw good faith, I didnt

Kind of hard not to, since it was the last paragraph.

It's the same crap you were spouting after the EBT verdict.
Rangers were not punished yet you kept banging on a single line in the verdict to claim that we were guilty etc.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Kind of hard not to, since it was the last paragraph.

It's the same ****e you were spouting after the EBT verdict.
Rangers were not punished yet you kept banging on a single line in the verdict to claim that we were guilty etc.

It's a general mindset, i wouldn't worry about it too much.
Once we're back to playing them off the park and winning trophies they'll revert back to referees, until then they need to find other ways of accusing us of being underhand and the world being against them/for us.

Just look at Dempsey's reaction to two separate interpretations of the report, one is solid apparently, while the other is completely "bull".
Both are based on quotes which are taken directly from the report.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Kind of hard not to, since it was the last paragraph.

It's the same crap you were spouting after the EBT verdict.
Rangers were not punished yet you kept banging on a single line in the verdict to claim that we were guilty etc.

So there wasnt any misconduct? It was all good faith, right....

You'd think the Rangers Charity Foundation was cleared of wrongdoing if you read their statement, thats clearly not the case when you read the OSCR statement.

Ye were punished for using EBTs, a fine is a punishment but the punishment did not fit the rule breaks described in the judgement considering what is considered the normal punishment for not completely the proper paperwork for player registrations.

EDIT

Why does Charles Green want McColl to pay £14m for shares that are only worth £8.2m on the stock market?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laFMUT_QQUM

Dempsey wrote: »

Why does Charles Green want McColl to pay £14m for shares that are only worth £8.2m on the stock market?

I guess he's entitled to set an asking price for them like anything else.
Anyway, McColl has said he's not interested.

A Dub in Glasgo

Just seen Green's interview on STV News, this saga is great entertainment

RoryMac

Eirebear wrote: »

It's a general mindset, i wouldn't worry about it too much.
Once we're back to playing them off the park and winning trophies

Good to see you haven't lost your sense of humour during these tough times!

Eirebear wrote: »

I guess he's entitled to set an asking price for them like anything else.
Anyway, McColl has said he's not interested.

Something strange about it though considering Sevco are going to publish losses in excess of £10m this year and they are in need of another cash injection in the medium term. Strange business tactic considering he says himself that the club is in a mess.