Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,201
- Location
- Paisley
Yes.
The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread
- Thread starter Ace Modder
- Start date
- Status
Yes.
Which they couldn't do since they were outwith a transfer window.
How would it have paid for itself - you seem so certain of that fact. Show me your numbers. Given that you used a figure of £15 million as outstandkng salaries, when I have shown that is less than the outstanding salaries of 3 players I would say the burden of proof that your way would have been better for creditors than say... The multi-million £ firm of insolvency practioners way.
Given that there wouldn't be a creditors pot without Charles Greens offer and given that that offer wouldn't exist if the club had terminated the contracts of its players thus increasing the debt by close on £50million - no offer would exist. But then taht would suit you, even if the creditors would be worse off.
As I bave pointed out, any of the creditors had the opportunity to petition the court to have D&P removed and replaced if they felt they weren't acting in their interests. Can you point out any of the creditors that have done so?
Nah didn't think you could. As usual you are full of bluster, but when asked to produce evidence to substantiate your wild claims you will be found wanting.
Last edited:
Well that analogy sums up your ridiculous views on the situation.
More like Accept a punishment deemed fit by a governing body and disciplinary system that Rangers signed up to and ostensibly agreed to abide by. I don't see what was illegal about implementing whatever punishment was deemed fit by the judicial committee?
Or
Go down an appeals route that WILL **** off the sports world gorverning body and open up the very real chance of a more severe punishment.
As the one they chose, is no longer available to them, it is perfectly correct that they revisit the options and come up with one of the other (possibly more severe) punishments.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,201
- Location
- Paisley
On the contrary, thats a perfect analogy.
What part of Lord Glennie's ruling are you not understanding? The SFA were acting outwith their own powers. You are getting confused by the SFA's rules and the SPL rules which are endorsed and voted on by the member clubs. The SFA's are not.
And in your analogy, what would the shopkeeper have happen if the then victim reported the matter to the relevant authority?
In taking the law into his own hands and acting outwith the bounds of the law he would have prejudiced any case against the 'shoplifter'.
You should have given up when you were wrong about the transfer window..
If the rubbish, that you post, seems plausible to you... then I feel sorry for you.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,201
- Location
- Paisley
Then the victim would have had his hands cut off or been executed obviously, an example of why anyone in Rangers position should have accepted the punishment handed out.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,201
- Location
- Paisley
Come come Gav, you or Steve were also wrong about the transfer window, saying it opened July 1st, we were both wrong on that one.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,201
- Location
- Paisley
And now Rangers are going cap in hand to the SFA to offer a 6 month transfer signing ban.
You couldnt make it up!
You couldnt make it up!
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,633
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
Hang on - didn't Rangers just appeal based on the fact that a transfer ban wasn't an available sanction?
It does open July 1st. Unless you think another club in Scotland is going to buy any of Rangers players? You have been proved wrong onthis thread more often than you have been proved correct.
Still waiting on you naming a creditor that has petitioned the court for D&P's removal. Or for your figures regarding how liquidation would have been better for creditors.
Got a wee hunch the international firm of inopvency practitioners have got a slight edge on you regarding this.
They really aren't. Got any quotes from anyone involved in Charles Green's consortium or from the administrators or even Richard Keen QC?
Naw, once again I didn't think so.
You are taking the Daily Records word for it. The same newspaper that claimed FIFA were set to order the SFA to expel Rangers, and then the next day provided a quote from FIFA that said they hadn't had or been in contact with anyone within the SFA.
So yes, they very much can make it up.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,201
- Location
- Paisley
Well it was confirmed that it opens 9th June wasnt it?
Steve, we can go *** for tat on this for weeks and months to come, obviously you are hoping the best for your club and dont want to believe the state its in, I understand that, but time will tell on a lot of things.
It opens for Scottish clubs on June the 9th, so unless another Scottish club is going to purchase any of the Rangers players who's clauses kick in today, then other clubs in different associations have to wait until July 1st.
If you remember correctly, the argument re the transfer window started when someone mentioned the players under clauses leaving when the transfer window opens and you stated it already was. As has been stated June 9th only applies for Scottish clubs - there is 1 Scottish club who could afford those players wages and I have a feeling none of the Rangers players would have an interest in playing for that club.
I was mistake also regarding when the window opens which I later corrected at least. You stuck to your guns claiming that was only for player registrations, blissfully unaware that is what transfers are!
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,201
- Location
- Paisley
I know fine well what transfers and registrations are, I assumed since St Johnstone for example had paraded signings which doesnt usually happen till they signed that the window was opened.
Not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things is it, because I made a mistake on transfer window doesn't negate everything else I say, does it?
Not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things is it, because I made a mistake on transfer window doesn't negate everything else I say, does it?
Never said it did. But the fact remains, I have asked you countless times to back up your wild claims, but instead you are trying to claim to be more pf an expert than a multi-national firm of insolvency practitioners.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,201
- Location
- Paisley
Im not claiming to be anything of the sort, as I said before Ive had some CVA's where Ive been promised x amount in the pound, agreed to them and then ended up getting from zero to maybe 50% of what we were supposed to get as administrators fees ended up being more than anticipated.
Im happy to let that drop and see what happens though without us tredging over old ground again and again.
Im happy to let that drop and see what happens though without us tredging over old ground again and again.
Fair enough, that may well have been the case with any CVA you have had experience with, and it may turn out to be the case with the CVA in Rangers case as well.
However, on numerous occasions you have made claims regarding liquidation and terminating players contracts etc. which inferred you are an expert on the current situation. I am by no means an expert either, but I have done a bit or research and not based everything on the likes of the Daily Records sensationalist reporting.
This is a very high profile case for Duff & Phelps as it would be for any administrator/ insolvency practitioner. If they were found to be guilty of any wrongdoing the negative pr would severely damage their UK operations and potentially further afield. So your allegations are not only unfounded but also extremely far fetched.
As I have pointed out, any creditor has had an opportunity to petition the court for D&P's removal. That none have done so speaks volumes.
- Status