The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

lordfletch · 31 May 2012 at 19:26

it will be appropriate to remind member clubs that by very dint of their membership of the Scottish FA, they accept and abide by the Articles of Association

what a joke they are , its a pity they couldnt follow there own rules,the cause of their own complete and utter **** up.

McMav · 31 May 2012 at 20:26

Metalface Mark said:
Well rangers are under a transfer embargo just now so they couldn't even If they wanted to

We are till a come out of administration then we won't be.

Metalface Mark · 31 May 2012 at 21:18

lordfletch said:
what a joke they are , its a pity they couldnt follow there own rules,the cause of their own complete and utter **** up.

They did, there were using the rule stating they could use any punishment they saw fit.

They tried to help rangers out and cut off the hand that feeds them

steve1873 · 31 May 2012 at 21:30

Metalface Mark said:
They did, there were using the rule stating they could use any punishment they saw fit.

They tried to help rangers out and cut off the hand that feeds them

Really? Show me this rule.

Jonny ///M · 31 May 2012 at 21:41

I love reading this thread. I tend to agree with what Mark is saying as you sign a contract to join the league then the powers that be hold all of that power. Rangers don't have a god given right to play in the league do they?

steve1873 · 31 May 2012 at 22:27

Jonny ///M said:
I love reading this thread. I tend to agree with what Mark is saying as you sign a contract to join the league then the powers that be hold all of that power. Rangers don't have a god given right to play in the league do they?

The league didn't place the unlawful sanction on Rangers. The SFA did. Two different organisations.

And no, they cannot dictate anything they like. Or rather they can try, but as has been proven a court of law will prevent them from enforcing.

Metalface Mark · 31 May 2012 at 22:36

steve1873 said:
Really? Show me this rule.

The rules state they could assign any punishment they saw fit, that's what has been reported since the start anyway by the media

lordfletch · 31 May 2012 at 22:41

Metalface Mark said:
They did, there were using the rule stating they could use any punishment they saw fit.

They tried to help rangers out and cut off the hand that feeds them

what complete and utter nonsence.

lordfletch · 31 May 2012 at 22:49

Jonny ///M said:
I love reading this thread. I tend to agree with what Mark is saying as you sign a contract to join the league then the powers that be hold all of that power. Rangers don't have a god given right to play in the league do they?

when you join an association you are expected to follow the rules and when you break them you get punished ,but when the association thats punishing you gives you a punishment that also breaks the rules, then we have a problem.

steve1873 · 31 May 2012 at 22:52

Metalface Mark said:
The rules state they could assign any punishment they saw fit, that's what has been reported since the start anyway by the media

The media reports a lot of things that are either inaccurate or twisted to fit an agenda. The Court of Session - the highest court in the land - has ruled that whatever rule or clause that says the SFA can use any sanctiion is unlawful. If they could use any sanction, why even bother having a list of possible sanctions?

chameleon · 31 May 2012 at 22:57

Is it just me or do all the Rangers fans sound like they are in complete denial. the people running Rangers were either completely corrupt or incompetent. Not the SFA or SPL.

lordfletch · 31 May 2012 at 23:17

chameleon said:
Is it just me or do all the Rangers fans sound like they are in complete denial. the people running Rangers were either completely corrupt or incompetent. Not the SFA or SPL.

so your saying the sfa is not incompetent ? and you accuse us of being in denial.

chameleon · 31 May 2012 at 23:34

I didn't say they weren't but wouldn't be better directing your ire at the guys who got you into this whole mess in the first place?

Jonny ///M · 31 May 2012 at 23:48

lordfletch said:
when you join an association you are expected to follow the rules and when you break them you get punished ,but when the association thats punishing you gives you a punishment that also breaks the rules, then we have a problem.

What rules did the SFA break then? In terms if Scottish football they are the powers that be?

If I let you join "Best brothel EU" and I have set rules. If you break those rules I can do what I see fit within my Brothel? How is that illegal?

To me it feels like Rangers can do no wrong, ever.

McMav · 1 Jun 2012 at 07:15

Jonny ///M said:
What rules did the SFA break then? In terms if Scottish football they are the powers that be?

If I let you join "Best brothel EU" and I have set rules. If you break those rules I can do what I see fit within my Brothel? How is that illegal?

To me it feels like Rangers can do no wrong, ever.

The thing is having a rule that says you can basically make it up a you go along was not deemed legal. Could be interesting with the new SPL NewCo rule of making punishments up on a case by case basis.

What I want to know is who made this sanction up. Now surely in the new all transparent (aye right) SFA someone would say. I very much doubt the initial panel of 3 made it up.

As to your last point. Finally someone gets it

Gav · 1 Jun 2012 at 07:44

Jonny ///M said:
What rules did the SFA break then? In terms if Scottish football they are the powers that be?

If I let you join "Best brothel EU" and I have set rules. If you break those rules I can do what I see fit within my Brothel? How is that illegal?

To me it feels like Rangers can do no wrong, ever.

The thing that you don't seem to understand is that the SFA aren't allowed to just make rules up as they see fit. The SFA are governed by the clubs in it's membership. If they want to change rules then, more often than not, they have to ask the clubs for permission. That is what happened this week with the newco rules.

Metalface Mark · 1 Jun 2012 at 08:04

lordfletch said:
so your saying the sfa is not incompetent ? and you accuse us of being in denial.

Just because the SFA are incompetent doesn't mean you aren't in denial.

chameleon · 1 Jun 2012 at 09:16

So should Rangers escape any and all punishment by the SFA then? Should they be allowed to build up massive debts by mismanagement, tax dodging and living far outside their means and just be allowed to walk away from all their responsibilities?
It sets a very dangerous precident. What is there to stop another club from racking up massive debts and then just starting up as a newco and a clean slate?
What about all the companies owed money by Rangers, from the local newsagent to other football clubs and the taxman, is it fair that they all don't get paid because of Rangers mismanagement?

If they had been just another company in an industrial estate somewhere, they would have been wound up and closed down by now. But because they are a football team and have fans, the normal laws and rules Don't apply?
How many times have we heard of companies going bust, walking away from their debts and before the ink has dried, started up again as a new company with the same assets and the same people in charge?
How is a newco in football any different?
If the CVA fails, how can, as has been mentioned several times, the new owners buy assets reputed to be worth £115 million (Ibrox n Murray Park) for around £5.5 million? Shouldn't these be sold at their proper value to pay off the creditors if the CVA fails?

Lastly, I am interested to hear what the Rangers fans would deem as a fair and suitable punishment for all these financial misdeeds?

doopydug · 1 Jun 2012 at 09:21

All VERY good points, Chameleon

Neutralmilk · 1 Jun 2012 at 09:30

Very well put Chameleon.

You can't run your club in the way Rangers has been and expect to walk away without having to pay the penalty for what you have done. I think people are not thinking about all the small business people that they owe money to as well, these people are not large companies who have the ability to write of the debt.

As you have also said you can't expect to buy £115 million of assets for £5.5 million, it's beyond a joke.