The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

afraser2k · 30 May 2012 at 15:07

steve1873 said:
Yawn. It is a nonsense.

For starters how can they run up a bill as CVA supervisors AND as liquidation supervisors???

Looks like it's only added if the club go into liquidation. £5.5m is the bill currently reported by the media last night if they get the CVA.

steve1873 · 30 May 2012 at 15:10

Metalface Mark said:
Thats not the reason, Spartans were kicked out the cup for not having a signature on a document (they got a fine too), so there is no way they can give that same punishment to rangers for not paying tax all season.

And the scenarios are in any way similar?

Does that justify making up a sanction that didn't previously exist?

If there is too large a gap between the normal sanction and the maximum sanction then that is hardly Rangers fault is it?

steve1873 · 30 May 2012 at 15:12

afraser2k said:
Looks like it's only added if the club go into liquidation. £5.5m is the bill currently reported by the media last night if they get the CVA.

In other words it is a nonsense, as if they get the CVA then it stands to reason that they haven't been liquidated.

Gav · 30 May 2012 at 15:13

Metalface Mark said:
Thats not the reason, Spartans were kicked out the cup for not having a signature on a document (they got a fine too), so there is no way they can give that same punishment to rangers for not paying tax all season.

Spartans fielded an ineligible player. The punishment for that is exactly what they received.

And it wasn't a signature that was missing... it was a commencement date on his transfer forms. ;-)

steve1873 · 30 May 2012 at 15:15

Exactly. Clutching at straws now regarding Spartans Mark.

Was it a disrepute charge they were thrown out the cup for?

steve1873 · 30 May 2012 at 15:18

Gav said:
Spartans fielded an ineligible player. The punishment for that is exactly what they received.

And it wasn't a signature that was missing... it was a commencement date on his transfer forms.

Surely not? Everything Mark posts is factual. :eek:

Metalface Mark · 30 May 2012 at 15:22

Gav said:
Spartans fielded an ineligible player. The punishment for that is exactly what they received.

And it wasn't a signature that was missing... it was a commencement date on his transfer forms.

Spartans have been thrown out of the Scottish Cup for fielding an ineligible player in their 2-0 win over Culter.

Striker Keith McLeod signed a new contract in the summer but it was dated only once and the Scottish Football Association want it to be signed twice.

FACTS LADS, FACTS.

Metalface Mark · 30 May 2012 at 15:23

steve1873 said:
Surely not? Everything Mark posts is factual.

See above.

Gav · 30 May 2012 at 15:25

steve1873 said:
Surely not? Everything Mark posts is factual.

apparently not :-)

Gav · 30 May 2012 at 15:26

Spartans have been expelled from the William Hill Scottish Cup after being found guilty of fielding an ineligible player.
The East of Scotland League outfit were also fined £4000 - which is suspended for 12 months - after Keith McLeod featured in their 2-0 win over Culter on October 22.
Spartans registered McLeod's forms in July but they were returned by the Scottish Football Association because commencement dates were omitted from one of the forms.
According to the Edinburgh club, they did not receive the return letter and assumed all was in order, admitting they failed to check with the SFA that the form had been registered correctly.
Spartans' fate was determined at a hearing of the Judicial Panel on Thursday, where the decision was taken to throw them out of the competition.
Culter have been re-instated and will face Partick Thistle in the third round.
A statement from the SFA confirmed: "Spartans FC have been expelled from the William Hill Scottish Cup competition. In addition, the club have received a fine to the value of their bonus payment for the second round of the competition (£4000), suspended for 12 months."
Spartans chairman Craig Graham told the club's official website, www.spartansfc.com: "Obviously the outcome from today's panel is disappointing.
"We wish Culter well against Partick Thistle.
"It's always tricky for a club like ours with volunteers in all the key positions, however we have made a number of changes to help ensure a mistake doesn't occur again in the future."

checkmate

steve1873 · 30 May 2012 at 15:29

So was it a disrepute charge Mark?

And if not, what relevance does it have with regard to this discussion?

Metalface Mark · 30 May 2012 at 15:30

Gav said:
checkmate

Yes, thanks for proving I was correct by stating exactly what I said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15466092

Metalface Mark - smarter than the average bear.

steve1873 · 30 May 2012 at 15:32

Metalface Mark said:
Yes, thanks for proving I was correct by stating exactly what I said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15466092

Metalface Mark - smarter than the average bear.

Metalface Mark - similar to the SFA, making things up as he goes!

Metalface Mark · 30 May 2012 at 15:32

steve1873 said:
So was it a disrepute charge Mark?

And if not, what relevance does it have with regard to this discussion?

It shows that a single document not being correctly signed cost Spartans a cup ban for a year, Rangers crimes go well beyond that, having not paid tax or NI (even while in administration we are told, which is another reason the CVA will never pass with their 0 pence in the pound to actual creditors).

Gav · 30 May 2012 at 15:33

Metalface Mark said:
Yes, thanks for proving I was correct by stating exactly what I said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15466092

Metalface Mark - smarter than the average bear.

Ah.. BBC.. no wonder your facts were wrong....

Better luck next time.

Metalface Mark · 30 May 2012 at 15:33

steve1873 said:
Metalface Mark - similar to the SFA, making things up as he goes!

What did I make up? I said Spartans were banned from the cup for missing a signature which is what BBC reported.

Metalface Mark · 30 May 2012 at 15:34

Gav said:
Ah.. BBC.. no wonder your facts were wrong....

Better luck next time.

Signature/date - its effectively the same thing, it was an administration (lol) error.

steve1873 · 30 May 2012 at 15:34

Metalface Mark said:
It shows that a single document not being correctly signed cost Spartans a cup ban for a year, Rangers crimes go well beyond that, having not paid tax or NI (even while in administration we are told, which is another reason the CVA will never pass with their 0 pence in the pound to actual creditors).

It didn't cost them a cup ban. It saw their scoreline in previous round reversed and thus eliminated from the competition.

That was a player registration issue. The Rangers case is a disrepute charge. Try keep up!

Gav · 30 May 2012 at 15:36

Metalface Mark said:
It shows that a single document not being correctly signed cost Spartans a cup ban for a year, Rangers crimes go well beyond that, having not paid tax or NI (even while in administration we are told, which is another reason the CVA will never pass with their 0 pence in the pound to actual creditors).

They were thrown out for using a player who wasn't properly registered.

If he hadn't played a game... they wouldn't have been thrown out. The document itself wasn't the cause of the punishment. The use of any player, who isn't properly registered, for what ever reason.... is against the rules...

simple really..

steve1873 · 30 May 2012 at 15:36

Metalface Mark said:
What did I make up? I said Spartans were banned from the cup for missing a signature which is what BBC reported.

Banned = prevented from entering.

They entered the competition and were eliminated due to a player registration issue.