The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

[McMav]

So where are old rangers now?

The old company are now in Administration.

The club was bought by Charles Green and his New company.

The club is now plying its trade in SLF3 even though the SPL and SFA offered them a position in SFL1 if they would agree to 5 titles being stripped (see a pattern here??)

The company and Club refused this and moved into SFL3.

 

[afraser2k]

The old company are now in Administration.

The club was bought by Charles Green and his New company.

The club is now plying its trade in SLF3 even though the SPL and SFA offered them a position in SFL1 if they would agree to 5 titles being stripped (see a pattern here??)

The company and Club refused this and moved into SFL3.

I don't think this'll be the end of the story. Will Doncaster and Regan still hold onto their positions after all the carry on over the last year and handling of the newco vote? Vote of no confidence coming from the rest of the league?

 

[McMav]

Haha, that's the laugh of it all.

Livingston were found guilty of signing a player on an amateur basis, who was available to be signed as a full-time professional. And as such were adjudged to have gained to competitive advantage.

Rangers are guilty of systemic and systematic cheating, over a huge timescale and vast number of games. Giving them enormous financial, and thus competitive, advantage over the rest of Scottish Football. We are awaiting the decision of an appeal to discern to exactly what extent they have defrauded the taxpayers of the country they claim to love so much.

Being cast into the fires of hell isn't punishment enough for this collection of thugs and neanderthals.

Sorry to rain on your parade but Page 27 of the document.

[89]
For these reasons we are not satisfied that any breach of the Rules has been established in terms of Issue
3(c), taken in conjunction with the concluding words of Issue
3(b) quoted above.
This is an important finding, as it means that there was no instance
shown of Rangers FC fielding an ineligible player.

 

[Illgresi]

Sorry to rain on your parade but Page 27 of the document.

[89]
For these reasons we are not satisfied that any breach of the Rules has been established in terms of Issue
3(c), taken in conjunction with the concluding words of Issue
3(b) quoted above.
This is an important finding, as it means that there was no instance
shown of Rangers FC fielding an ineligible player.

I don't have that article in full, just the summary. Please post 3 (b) and (c) if you'd be so kind.

Besides, a tribunal presided over by a 'safe pair of hands', is hardly shining proof of innocence. In fact it ties in quite nicely with the whole dirty affair. One is cast images of funny handshakes in smoke filled rooms. 'They' call themselves the establishment club, and the establishment came to their rescue once more.

 

[McMav]

I don't have that article in full, just the summary. Please post 3 (b) and (c) if you'd be so kind.

Besides, a tribunal presided over by a 'safe pair of hands', is hardly shining proof of innocence. In fact it ties in quite nicely with the whole dirty affair. One is cast images of funny handshakes in smoke filled rooms. 'They' call themselves the establishment club, and the establishment came to their rescue once more.

The same safe pair of hands that handed out an illegal transfer embargo. Aye ok.


http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/Commission Decision 28 02 2013.pdf

knock yerself out

 

[Illgresi]

[1] For the reasons which are set out in detail below the Commission has unanimously
decided
:
(1) Between the years 2000 and 2011 The Rangers Football Club Plc (now known as RFC
2012 Plc (in liquidation) and referred to in the decision as “Oldco”), the owner and
operator of Rangers Football Club (“Rangers FC”), entered into side-letter arrangements
with a large number of its professional players under which Oldco undertook to make
very substantial payments to an offshore employee benefit remuneration trust, with the
intent that such payments should be used to fund payments to be made to such players
in the form of loans;

(2) Those side-letter arrangements were required to be disclosed under the Rules of the
Scottish Premier League (“SPL”) and the Scottish Football Association (“SFA”) as
forming part of the players’ financial entitlement and as agreements providing for
payments to be received by the players;

(3) Oldco through its senior management decided that such side-letter arrangements should
not be disclosed to the football authorities, and the Board of Directors sanctioned the
making of payments under the side-letter arrangements without taking any legal or
accountancy advice to justify the non-disclosure;

(4) The relevant SPL Rules were designed to promote sporting integrity, by mitigating the
risk of irregular payments to players;

(5) Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in
breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the
disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed;

(6) Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of
the SPL Rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor
did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible
to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be
imposed upon Rangers FC;

(7) As noted in the Commission’s earlier decision made on 12 September 2012 there is no
allegation that the current owner and operator of the club, The Rangers Football Club
Limited (“Newco”), contravened the SPL Rules or could be held responsible for any
breach by Oldco;

This is the summary in full.

Point (2) states that they broke the rules by entering into side contracts. Point (3) states that they did so knowingly.

Unlike Spartans who were kicked out of the Scottish Cup for fielding one ineligible player, Rangers knowingly fielded countless ineligible players over a period of eleven seasons. Yet (6) arbitrarily decides that they gained no advantage from this.

One word, whitewash.

 

[McMav]

This is the summary in full.

Point (2) states that they broke the rules by entering into side contracts. Point (3) states that they did so knowingly.

Unlike Spartans who were kicked out of the Scottish Cup for fielding one ineligible player, Rangers knowingly fielded countless ineligible players over a period of eleven seasons. Yet (6) arbitrarily decides that they gained no advantage from this.

One word, whitewash.

so point 5 the payments did not breach rules and point 6 states that there were no ineligble players. Try re-reading the actual statement you posted. **

We were fined for a clerical error and fined for that.

(6) Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of
the SPL Rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor
did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible
to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be
imposed upon Rangers FC;

Trying to make it easier for you to read.

 

[the_r_sole]

This is the summary in full.

Point (2) states that they broke the rules by entering into side contracts. Point (3) states that they did so knowingly.

Unlike Spartans who were kicked out of the Scottish Cup for fielding one ineligible player, Rangers knowingly fielded countless ineligible players over a period of eleven seasons. Yet (6) arbitrarily decides that they gained no advantage from this.

One word, whitewash.

I take it you can't read/comprehend the article you are quoting?!

(6) Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of
the SPL Rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor
did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible
to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be
imposed upon Rangers FC;

 

[Five.Stars]

This is the summary in full.

Point (2) states that they broke the rules by entering into side contracts. Point (3) states that they did so knowingly.

Unlike Spartans who were kicked out of the Scottish Cup for fielding one ineligible player, Rangers knowingly fielded countless ineligible players over a period of eleven seasons. Yet (6) arbitrarily decides that they gained no advantage from this.

One word, whitewash.

Nor did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registerd players were inelligible to play.

 

[McMav]

Nor did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registerd players were inelligible to play.

Find a brick wall mate you'll have better chance I've posted point 6 twice now

 

[Illgresi]

The entire reason that point (6) states that they were not in contravention of the rules is that the legality of the EBT schemes have not been discerned as yet.

Like I said, whitewash.

 

[the_r_sole]

The entire reason that point (6) states that they were not in contravention of the rules is that the legality of the EBT schemes have not been discerned as yet.

Like I said, whitewash.

the ebt scheme was completely legal when it was being used, it was subsequently made illegal and stopped being used - I take it that you know better than any of the courts or independent investigators because it doesn't suit your blinkered point of view?

 

[Five.Stars]

The entire reason that point (6) states that they were not in contravention of the rules is that the legality of the EBT schemes have not been discerned as yet.

Like I said, whitewash.

You are talking UTTER, UTTER ** No swearing ** . The legality of any EBT's was never under question. Nor is that the case with any HMRC appeal.

 

[Illgresi]

the ebt scheme was completely legal when it was being used, it was subsequently made illegal and stopped being used - I take it that you know better than any of the courts or independent investigators because it doesn't suit your blinkered point of view?

The point is, that 'investigation' shouldn't have been conducted until the legality of DeadCo's EBT schemes had been determined. The fact that it was pushed through by the SPL, and conducted by a friendly face is the whitewash.

You are talking UTTER, UTTER ****. The legality of any EBT's was never under question. Nor is that the case with any HMRC appeal.

I know perfectly well what the situation is actually. What is being questioned is whether or not these EBT's were actually repayable loans, or whether they were used as a tax free method of paying players on the sly.

When I use the phrase 'legality of EBT', I'm not referring to the legality of an EBT scheme, I'm referring to the legality of DeadCo's use of them.

 

[the_r_sole]

The point is that 'investigation' shouldn't have been conducted until the legality of Rangers EBT schemes had been determined. The fact that it was pushed through by the SPL, and conducted by a friendly face is the whitewash.

so you really don't know what you are talking about then, cheers for clearing that up

 

[the_r_sole]

I know perfectly well what the situation is actually. What is being questioned is whether or not these EBT's were actually repayable loans, or whether they were used as a tax free method of paying players on the sly.

.

actually, you are yet AGAIN incorrect... the investigation was whether ebt payments formed part of the players basic wage in their contracts - the ebt payments appeared on all the clubs yearly accounts

 

[Illgresi]

actually, you are yet AGAIN incorrect... the investigation was whether ebt payments formed part of the players basic wage in their contracts - the ebt payments appeared on all the clubs yearly accounts

Semantics...

 

[Five.Stars]

The point is, that 'investigation' shouldn't have been conducted until the legality of DeadCo's EBT schemes had been determined. The fact that it was pushed through by the SPL, and conducted by a friendly face is the whitewash.



I know perfectly well what the situation is actually. What is being questioned is whether or not these EBT's were actually repayable loans, or whether they were used as a tax free method of paying players on the sly.

When I use the phrase 'legality of EBT', I'm not referring to the legality of an EBT scheme, I'm referring to the legality of DeadCo's use of them.

Eh the FTTT determined the use of Rangers EBT's to be above board. That decision may be under appeal, but no matter how many tears you shed or how hard you beat your fists on the ground, THAT RESULT STANDS until any appeal is succesful. Which it wont be. And even in the unlikely event that an appeal is upheld, BDO will appeal that result.

** Comment removed **

 

[the_r_sole]

Semantics...

and this is exactly why you shouldn't comment on things you clearly don't understand!

 

[Illgresi]

Eh the FTTT determined the use of Rangers EBT's to be above board. That decision may be under appeal, but no matter how many tears you shed or how hard you beat your fists on the ground, THAT RESULT STANDS until any appeal is succesful. Which it wont be. And even in the unlikely event that an appeal is upheld, BDO will appeal that result.

That's the point, until the legality of the use of EBTs was decided, a panel should never have been called to investigate it. I'll say it until i'm somewhere between green and indigo in the face, whitewash!

** Comment Removed **