Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,138
- Location
- Paisley
Why? They are already investigating.
The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread
- Thread starter Ace Modder
- Start date
- Status
I know
Well how can it be a breach of insolvency law if a third party decides to pay an outstanding bill and then reduces a payout to the insolvent business as a result?
I failed to spot the 'alleged' anywhere in your post.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,138
- Location
- Paisley
This isnt who's line is it anyway.
Because it's not the SFA's place to determine that football debts should be paid off ahead of anyone elses. It might be in their remit in terms of their own rules - but certainly not in terms of the law of the land.Well how can it be a breach of insolvency law if a third party decides to pay an outstanding bill and then reduces a payout to the insolvent business as a result?
I'm not arguing that Rangers have done anything wrong here - I'm arguing that the SFA are acting beyond their legal powers!
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,138
- Location
- Paisley
I dont think it works that way as Rangers are not entitled to the prize money by law, so the SFA can give their money to whoever they want.
Lets be clear, Rangers failure to pay HMRC the PAYE that was deducted from employees wages was totally wrong and in doing so the club deserve to be punished. What people are failing to realise is that the club have been forced to enter administration as a result, which in itself is a punishment. There is also the mitigating circumstances of the club being run as a dictatorship (no board meetings, sacking of directors etc.) by a man who should never have been given the keys to the club.
The SFA have since ruled Craig Whyte as not fit and proper. They have also changed their own rules regarding the change of ownership, which is in itself an admission that they have some responsibility in protecting their member clubs from suffering the same fate as Rangers. Rangers are guilty of certain 'crimes', no question. However, they are also a victim of Craig Whyte, who has now been subsequently banned from having any future involvement in Scottish football.
The SFA have since ruled Craig Whyte as not fit and proper. They have also changed their own rules regarding the change of ownership, which is in itself an admission that they have some responsibility in protecting their member clubs from suffering the same fate as Rangers. Rangers are guilty of certain 'crimes', no question. However, they are also a victim of Craig Whyte, who has now been subsequently banned from having any future involvement in Scottish football.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,138
- Location
- Paisley
Its not a punishment to go into administration.
Its not a punishment for the fans having to watch a team of youth players and a few seasoned pro's who stick around.
Its not a reasonable punishment to be put out the scottish cup for a year.
It is a reasonable punishment to be thrown out the league or a years suspension.
Its not a punishment for the fans having to watch a team of youth players and a few seasoned pro's who stick around.
Its not a reasonable punishment to be put out the scottish cup for a year.
It is a reasonable punishment to be thrown out the league or a years suspension.
If you are a Rangers hater, which we have already established you are. So your opinion of a "reasonable" punishment hardly impartial is it?
Correct. And I assume the contract will state something along the lines of,
"it is the SFA's right to withhold any prize monies in the result of disciplinary issues or in an insolvency event and monies being owed to other member clubs"
And any contract has to also be compliant with the laws of the land. Whilst not under administration it wouldn't be a problem, but once place into administration they wouldn't be able to withhold their payment to pay off the debt of other creditors.
If there is a contract. We are assuming a contract between the SFA and the member clubs exists. Even so, i a contract has any relevant clauses for withholding of prize monies for whatever the SFA deem to be thir right, then it would be perfectly legal.
I would usually say that since the transaction has taken place that it will be fully legal. But we have seen with recent events, the SFA don't always act within the laws of the land. So you may be right, in which case Dundee United would need to be added to the creditors list, the SFA would have to pay Rangers the withheld money and the SFA would need to request repayment from Dundee United or be left out of pocket.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,138
- Location
- Paisley
I can hate Rangers and be impartial.
Its not just my opinion that its the only fair punishment, I thought the transfer embargo was fair, obviously Rangers didnt.
It was for ticket money for Scottish cup. Not for players.
And yet it has been proven in a court of law not to be fair!
You are also forgetting that the independant tribunal did not see expulsion or suspension as "reasonable", hence the statement saying both were "too severe"!
So for you to suggest that eithe are reasonble is laughable given that a) you clearly aren't impartial (how can someone that openly admits to wanting the club to die???) and b) the independant tribunal disagree that auch punishmen would be reasonable.
LMAO Mark you really cant as has been shown throughout this thread. However that line did give me a laugh so thanks for that.
Well I certainly think Rangers should receive a suitable severe punishment. Does that make me a Rangers hater too? As I have already established, I am not a football fan at all but I do feel the punishment has to be severe enough to send out a warning to all other clubs both north and south of the border that ****ing away ludicrous amounts of money and living far outwith your income or means to win silverware has to stop. I reckon the banks could probably foreclose on have the teams in the UK. They can't all have a sugardaddy like Man City to pay for all their extravagances. Oot all finances have been in cloud cookoo land for years and it's about time they all came back to reality.
I wonder, will Rangers fare as well now they will have to live with their means and not spend £10 million a year more than they bring in? If they do then I for one will applaud them.
I wonder, will Rangers fare as well now they will have to live with their means and not spend £10 million a year more than they bring in? If they do then I for one will applaud them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,138
- Location
- Paisley
It wasnt proven that it wasnt fair, only that it wasnt on their list of punishments, two completely different things altogether.
They can be too severe and also reasonable, no two ways about that, theres ramifications for expulsion or suspension.
Ive said before that I dont want to see Rangers die, only to be punished correctly, if that turns out to be death, then I wont lose any sleep over it.
They can be too severe and also reasonable, no two ways about that, theres ramifications for expulsion or suspension.
Ive said before that I dont want to see Rangers die, only to be punished correctly, if that turns out to be death, then I wont lose any sleep over it.
Maybe that's why the committee came up with the transfer ban? They deemed expulsion too severe because they had that as an alternative sanction. Now that it is no longer available, there is nothing stopping them from revisiting the available options and using one of them. It dosent matter what they thought before, their hands are now tied and they will have to impose one of them.
- Status