The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Five.Stars said:
And as far as clubs histories go, I suggest you don't start that debate because your club and persons employed within have hardly been squeeky clean!
Click to expand...

Ah the BJK patter, what a pathetic attempt at point scoring, you're a class act :rolleyes:

Thankfully very few Celtic fans would sink to the same level and mention about people in glass houses and all that even if it's true ;)
 
McMav said:
Proof that there was an unfair advantage? Show me the official documentation? So far ebt been found to be legal. SPL commission also reports no sporting gain made? You are just sounding more and more bitter as all that happened was a clerical error.
Click to expand...

57 deliberate concealments by the Rangers board contrary to the rules of membership that they where bound by at the time of membership doesn't have the same ring to iti'll agree, but your snappier version "a clerical error" just doesn't cut it unfortunately, see me after school young McMav :p
 
strocky said:
57 deliberate concealments by the Rangers board contrary to the rules of membership that they where bound by at the time of membership doesn't have the same ring to iti'll agree, but your snappier version "a clerical error" just doesn't cut it unfortunately, see me after school young McMav :p
Click to expand...

Players were still eligible to play. Fine for clerical errors. And no ta not been to school for a long long time.

54 and counting.
 
McMav said:
Players were still eligible to play. Fine for clerical errors. And no ta not been to school for a long long time.

54 and counting.
Click to expand...

Only down to the evidence of one man, Alexander "Sandy" Bryson ;)

Now where have I heard that name before in relation to a registration fiasco? :confused:

Btw many happy returns, when are you 55? :cool:
 
GeneralD said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15672375



Why does that administrative error result in expulsion from a competition but not in rangers case?
Click to expand...

No it means he want properly registered completely different.

It played were registered as stayed in the commissions report.

Blame Campbell Ogilvie that seems to be the desperados latest. Lol squirm squirm

12 years stocky send me a card and a bottle of malt thanks.
 
Last edited:
GeneralD said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15672375



Why does that administrative error result in expulsion from a competition but not in rangers case?
Click to expand...

Different competition for starters!

Secondly, the panels report concludes that Rangers never once fielded an ineligible player.

The Kachloul precedent is something you might want to research, seeing as that 1 was at least in the same competition, governed by the same set of rules.
 
strocky said:
Ah the BJK patter, what a pathetic attempt at point scoring, you're a class act :rolleyes:

Thankfully very few Celtic fans would sink to the same level and mention about people in glass houses and all that even if it's true ;)
Click to expand...

Pathetic attempt at point scoring? Aye right you are, I am using that subject to score points!

Firstly, I never mentioned BJK. You did.

Secondly, I said it as a defence of my club who were being accused of 150 years of sectarianism, by pointing out that perhaps people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones regarding a clubs history. I incorrectly presumed that poster to be a Celtic supporter.

Again though, I will reiterate I never mentioned anything about that particular scandal. If you want to bring it up and discuss that issue, go ahead. I will refrain.
 
Rangers new shirt sponsor revealed :p

2ahfjhk.jpg
 
Just read the report, you know why they decided that they hadn't fielded any ineligible players?

Evidence was given by Alexander Bryson, Head of Registrations at the SFA, who
described the registration process. During the course of his evidence he explained that, once a
player had been registered with the SFA, he remained registered unless and until his registration
was revoked. Accordingly, even if there had been a breach of the SFA registration procedures,
such as a breach of SFA Article 12.3, the registration of a player was not treated as being invalid
from the outset, and stood unless and until it was revoked.
Click to expand...

Because as far as the SFA were concerned they were properly registered at the time and hence eligible, even though Rangers had lied to them about the contracts, something if they had known about at the time would have meant they wouldn't have been eligible.

While there is noquestion of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure
must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the sideletters
need not be or should not be disclosed. No steps were taken to check, even on a
hypothetical basis, the validity of that assumption with the SPL or the SFA. The evidence of
Mr Odam (cited at paragraph [43] above) clearly indicates a view amongst the management of
Oldco that it might have been detrimental to the desired tax treatment of the payments being
made by Oldco to have disclosed the existence of the side-letters to the football authorities.
Click to expand...
So they didn't disclose to ensure that they weren't caught by the tax man yet they felt that there was no sporting advantage gained in being able to pay players more than they would have otherwise?

Whitewash.

I'm done with Scottish football.
 
Jokester said:
Just read the report, you know why they decided that they hadn't fielded any ineligible players?



Because as far as the SFA were concerned they were properly registered at the time and hence eligible, even though Rangers had lied to them about the contracts, something if they had known about at the time would have meant they wouldn't have been eligible.


So they didn't disclose to ensure that they weren't caught by the tax man yet they felt that there was no sporting advantage gained in being able to pay players more than they would have otherwise?

Whitewash.

I'm done with Scottish football.
Click to expand...

Glad to see you are better at interpreting the SPL rules than the 3 legal minds on the panel.

You didn't get the result you, as a Rangers hater (don't even attempt to deny that) had prayed for. So you throw the toys out the pram and proclaim yourself done with Scottish football. Sums up the small mindedness of this wee country!
 
In other news the Tour de France have re-instated Lance Armstrong's wins because they didn't know he was a drug cheat at the time and other riders might have been cheating as well.

Five.Stars said:
Glad to see you are better at interpreting the SPL rules than the 3 legal minds on the panel.

You didn't get the result you, as a Rangers hater (don't even attempt to deny that) had prayed for. So you throw the toys out the pram and proclaim yourself done with Scottish football. Sums up the small mindedness of this wee country!
Click to expand...
Ad hominem wins argument!
 
Jokester said:
In other news the Tour de France have re-instated Lance Armstrong's wins because they didn't know he was a drug cheat at the time and other riders might have been cheating as well.


Ad hominem wins argument!
Click to expand...

Zzzzzzzz

Thats right, try to compare 2 substantially different cases, totally unrelated to one another, to try and suit your agenda.

I thought you were done with Scottish football?
 
To be fair jokester it looks like the majority of SPL teams fans had given up on football before today's outcome :-). It's booming.
 
McMav, will Newco pay the fine imposed on Oldco as they are the same club (according to you) or will Newco wriggle out of it claiming that Oldco where liquidated and the imposition of the fine is not liable to them?
 
Still not getting the distinction between club and company eh eddie!

The fine was given to the COMPANY which formely operated the CLUB. Why would the company which now runs the club pay a fine imposed on an entirely dofferent legal entity that has nothimg to do with it, other than it used to operate the football club prior to the newco purchasing the assets???

You seem confused and under the illusion that the transferal of the club to a new operating company equates to a brand new football club. This despite the SFA, SFL, UEFA, the European Club Association, Nimmo-Smith (twice now) and Lord Glennie in the Court of Session all stating that the club continues - thus with its history intact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom