The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[...a bit disco]

Some gems from today's BBC Gossip...

 

John Collins says Celtic are right not to risk Rangers-style financial problems in the transfer market to bolster their bid for European success.

"Do we want to be where they are? Would Rangers fans like to be where we are just now?" asks the Celtic assistant boss. (Various)

 

Rangers chairman Dave King insists Rangers won't lose any league titles - as the club prepare to bolster their squad in the January transfer window. (Sun)

 

Rangers striker Martyn Waghorn is dreaming of lifting the Petrofac Training Cup at Hampden this season, but must first negotiate St Mirren to set up a final against Peterhead. (Various)

 

Meanwhile, Buddies midfielder Stevie Mallan has been practising penalties ahead of the semi-final tie - with Steven Thompson's penalty miss at Ibrox on league duty still fresh in the mind. (Sun)

 

Rangers chairman Dave King has told manager Mark Warburton to identify potential targets in the January transfer window capable of competing in Europe. (Herald)

[Beast Boy]

 

Some gems from today's BBC Gossip...

 

John Collins says Celtic are right not to risk Rangers-style financial problems in the transfer market to bolster their bid for European success.

"Do we want to be where they are? Would Rangers fans like to be where we are just now?" asks the Celtic assistant boss. (Various)

 

Rangers chairman Dave King insists Rangers won't lose any league titles - as the club prepare to bolster their squad in the January transfer window. (Sun)

 

Rangers striker Martyn Waghorn is dreaming of lifting the Petrofac Training Cup at Hampden this season, but must first negotiate St Mirren to set up a final against Peterhead. (Various)

 

 

Meanwhile, Buddies midfielder Stevie Mallan has been practising penalties ahead of the semi-final tie - with Steven Thompson's penalty miss at Ibrox on league duty still fresh in the mind. (Sun)

 

Rangers chairman Dave King has told manager Mark Warburton to identify potential targets in the January transfer window capable of competing in Europe. (Herald)

Waghorn dreaming of lifting the Petrofac Cup............

[Dutchmul]

Well, it will be interesting to see how this pans out, firstly do sevco actually have 5m cleared funds sitting in a bank account to give to ashley? secondly, is it too late? the reason I ask about it being to late as ashley asked for the money back months ago and sevco said no, perhaps there is something occurring legally behind the scenes that has prompted this sudden finding of 5m down the back of the sofa?

 

Interesting that the glib and shameless liar stated it only took 10 mins to get the 5m from shareholders? really? if they coughed up 5m in 10 minutes after spending months refusing to pay it back then what gun was pointed at their heads?

 

This talk of signings in january capable of playing in europe, good one, usual pish to feed the bears.

 

Haven't managed to find any info on the voting for res 9+10 at the sevco agm, did they pass? although presumably ashley will challenge these if they try to actually issue any new shares.

[BRAVEHEART1874]

I am sure we will find out the real reason why they are paying Ashley back in a couple of weeks time but only after the fans have lost sorry invested there Rangers first dosh of course RF were set up so they could try and have a say against shysters like whyte and green pulling the wool over their eyes yet know seem happy to just give this money to king Still only 2.5 million expectation to see out the season ?

[TriggersBroom]

Don't you dare come on here and lecture any Hearts man about morals and principles.

 

Your club has lacked both these qualities since you were founded. 

 

I wasn't lecturing anyone. 

 

Oh look, it's the monthly TriggersBroom ritual of delusional repeating of mistruths, inferring our dislike of Rangers is rooted in bigotry and being annihilated by FF before disappearing without a response. See you in December!

I think you're reading too much into what I said. However, I think for some people it is a deep-rooted bigotry.

 

Trigger is that stupid he still believes the Glib and Shameless one is still going to invest his own cash,he will be crying in a puddle of wee wee when the light finally breaks through,none but the blind now but the blind eh

 

I think the Rangers board are working in the best interests of Rangers. I imagine they hope to do this by running it competently rather than recklessly throwing money at the club. 

 

So where do your morals and principals lie now that Rangers have been proven to have cheated their way to titles and cups ?

Most fans don't give a rats arse about Rangers but that does not mean they should be just allowed to get away it. Most peoples

morals lie in the wanting of a fair and level playing field when it comes to sporting integrity.

 

I hate tax avoidance. I hate it in all its forms because its sneaky and is essentially only available to the wealthiest in society who can afford guidance for expert accountants and lawyers.

 

In terms of the EBT's, I don't agree with the argument of title stripping. 

 

However, if there had been match-fixing or performance enhancing drugs then it is a completely different argument.

 

Why don't you just **** *** back to the Bears Den or Follow Follow where you and your fellow Neanderthals can pontificate about hard done to the deceased club known as Rangers have been. Once you face up , apologise for cheating all of Scottish football, including Celtic, during the EBT and the side letter years, you can come back on here and talk about principles.

 

You support a newly created club that was unfairly allowed into Division 3 at the expense of properly funded and run clubs because you and your knuckle dragging sidekicks failed to save your club from dying. Since then, you have welcomed White, Green, Ashley and then King as conquering heroes who would get this new club back to some place that you believe you are entightled to, but as at present, have failed to earn. Each one in turn has then lost the backing of your support because they have failed to deliver the fabled 'war chest' that each new owner of Rangers must have and promise. You don't want to be a normal club; you instead yearn for the days of Gascoigne, Laudrup etc as if you have a divine right to win titles and enter Europe, just because you are Protestants from Govan.

 

I detest your club and what it stands for, I detest your support for not facing up to what they are and what they believe, I detest your sycophantic relationship with the Scottish media, I detest every little thing about your poxy club and if there was any justice, there would be no club called Rangers, Sevco or anything in blue playing football in Scotland ever again.

You hate me, I get it. Not the first time you've said it on here. I quite like this forum though, and not everyone hates my presence so I'll continue to occasionally post.

 

And do you hate the community work they do? And their proposed introduction of the living wage to staff? 

 

I'm I the only one seeing the Triggers Broom reference with the 'Rangers' supporter on this thread.

 

Almost certain he's a Celtic fan on the wind up. They refer to Rangers as being like Trigger's broom from Only Fools and Horses. i.e. he replaced all the parts many times yet ridiculously claimed it was still the same broom.

 

I think this guy's at it.

 

 

Haha, my username certainly is ironic! But it is just a coincidence. I'm just a fan of the show. 

[And he's not praying]

[Jamboelite]

So Trigger nice avoidance or is that evasion?. Your club have not paid taxes due and you hide these payments by the use of side letters (which broke SFA rules). In the tax case Mr Murray(Aka Me Black) stated that it was to gain a sporting advantage and he was aware it was sailing close to the wind. In 2012 your current owner noted that if it was confirmed tax should have been paid then Rangers had gained a sporting advantage and should be punished.

 

Whats your view of these statements and how should people react to it now that it has been proven illegal being set up to avoid tax for renuneration of earning and hidden by side letters breaching SFA rules? oh and how should the SFA react to the law stating tax was evaded at that time ?

 

If no title stripping then what is yoir suggestion nothing to see we keep moving along for the good of the game that you keep dragging through the mud ? Would you have agreed no title stripping if it were Celtic???

 

For the clubs including ours that broke the bank to compete with a club getting a 40% tax advantage what do you think we would want ? Is title stripping not the most suitable punishment?

Edited November 28, 2015 by Jamboelite

[Beast Boy]

I don't believe the Trigger's Broom reference is a coincidence at all.

[Malinga the Swinga]

I wasn't lecturing anyone.

 

 

 

I think you're reading too much into what I said. However, I think for some people it is a deep-rooted bigotry.

 

 

 

I think the Rangers board are working in the best interests of Rangers. I imagine they hope to do this by running it competently rather than recklessly throwing money at the club.

 

 

 

I hate tax avoidance. I hate it in all its forms because its sneaky and is essentially only available to the wealthiest in society who can afford guidance for expert accountants and lawyers.

In terms of the EBT's, I don't agree with the argument of title stripping.

However, if there had been match-fixing or performance enhancing drugs then it is a completely different argument.

 

 

 

You hate me, I get it. Not the first time you've said it on here. I quite like this forum though, and not everyone hates my presence so I'll continue to occasionally post.

And do you hate the community work they do? And their proposed introduction of the living wage to staff?

 

 

Haha, my username certainly is ironic! But it is just a coincidence. I'm just a fan of the show.

 

Sorry but you are on here as a Rangers supporter, accusing Hearts supporters and supporters of other Scottish clubs of 'deep rooted bigotry'. Seriously, you say you support 'old Rangers', a club built on bigotry, a club proud of its bigotry, a club where supporters sang celebrating their bigotry, a club where supporters bring up children teaching them about bigotry and you have the brass knock to come on here and accuse others. Just go away and think about that, if you are able to think that is, and see if you can understand the crass hypocrisy of your comments

 

Where have I said I hate you. That must be in the same page as your apology for Rangers cheating for around 10 years, your admission you are a new club and your admission you were lucky to be allowed into division 3 as a consequence of your allowing Rangers to die and forming a new club to play at the ground that Rangers used to play in.

 

Why not celebrate your new teams appearance in the Petrofac cup. After all, this could be your first cup win in your clubs existence.

 

In answer to your questions, If your employees are supporters of your new club, then yes, I would class them as all other supporters who in the main, are totally unlike able in any way shape or manner. As for your community work, I have no idea what community work your new club performs. I would imagine they do no more and no less than any other club in that regard but to be honest, I wouldn't want any child of mine, or any friend to be associated with a new club run by a convicted criminal. After all, you can never trust a criminal, can you.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Malinga the Swinga

[Dutchmul]

I wasn't lecturing anyone. 

 

I think you're reading too much into what I said. However, I think for some people it is a deep-rooted bigotry.

 

 

I think the Rangers board are working in the best interests of Rangers. I imagine they hope to do this by running it competently rather than recklessly throwing money at the club. 

 

 

I hate tax avoidance. I hate it in all its forms because its sneaky and is essentially only available to the wealthiest in society who can afford guidance for expert accountants and lawyers.

 

In terms of the EBT's, I don't agree with the argument of title stripping. 

 

However, if there had been match-fixing or performance enhancing drugs then it is a completely different argument.

 

You hate me, I get it. Not the first time you've said it on here. I quite like this forum though, and not everyone hates my presence so I'll continue to occasionally post.

 

And do you hate the community work they do? And their proposed introduction of the living wage to staff? 

 

 

 

Haha, my username certainly is ironic! But it is just a coincidence. I'm just a fan of the show. 

 

Jesus, how many times do we have to say this, the ebt's are not the issue, the issue is that rangers(IL) played matches with players who were not eligible to play as they were not registered correctly with the sfa, the reason they were not registered correctly is because the side letters in their contracts(detailing payments from the ebt's) were not sent to the SFA.

 

Spartans were kicked out of the scottish cup a few years ago for fielding 1 player who was not registered correctly because the club had missed out a date on his forms.

 

The punishment for playing ineligible players is quite clear and it has been used many times by the sfa, now all they have to do is apply it to rangers and strip the titles and cups they won whilst fielding ineligible players, or do you think that rangers should be treated differently from other clubs like spartans?

 

Rememeber, Sevco (or The Rangers Football Club as they are now called after they changed their name at companies house on 31/07/12) which was incorporated on 29/05/12,  haven't won any titles prior to the 3rd division in 2013, so therefore why are the sevco fans so upset about this? Remember, sevco didn't win the trophies, Rangers did, charles green bought the history of rangers from duff and phelps(i'll repeat that for the hard of thinking HE BOUGHT THE HISTORY) and therefore any title or cup stripping wont effect sevco at all.

 

Feel free to go and have a look at your clubs history here - https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC425159/filing-history?page=1

 

All the documentation is there, incorporation, change of name, appointments, accounts etc, it's very interesting, but what you wont find there is any documents, accounts, appointments, details of trophies won, player signings etc prior  to 29/05/12 because they didn't exist prior to that date.

[The Future's Maroon]

Jesus, how many times do we have to say this, the ebt's are not the issue, the issue is that rangers(IL) played matches with players who were not eligible to play as they were not registered correctly with the sfa, the reason they were not registered correctly is because the side letters in their contracts(detailing payments from the ebt's) were not sent to the SFA.

 

Spartans were kicked out of the scottish cup a few years ago for fielding 1 player who was not registered correctly because the club had missed out a date on his forms.

 

The punishment for playing ineligible players is quite clear and it has been used many times by the sfa, now all they have to do is apply it to rangers and strip the titles and cups they won whilst fielding ineligible players, or do you think that rangers should be treated differently from other clubs like spartans?

 

Rememeber, Sevco (or The Rangers Football Club as they are now called after they changed their name at companies house on 31/07/12) which was incorporated on 29/05/12,  haven't won any titles prior to the 3rd division in 2013, so therefore why are the sevco fans so upset about this? Remember, sevco didn't win the trophies, Rangers did, charles green bought the history of rangers from duff and phelps(i'll repeat that for the hard of thinking HE BOUGHT THE HISTORY) and therefore any title or cup stripping wont effect sevco at all.

 

Feel free to go and have a look at your clubs history here - https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC425159/filing-history?page=1

 

All the documentation is there, incorporation, change of name, appointments, accounts etc, it's very interesting, but what you wont find there is any documents, accounts, appointments, details of trophies won, player signings etc prior  to 29/05/12 because they didn't exist prior to that date.

 

 

This should just be a standard response to anyone questioning the situation!

 

Well said..

[BelgeJambo]

This should just be a standard response to anyone questioning the situation!

 

Well said..

Ditto

[Unknown user]

Jesus, how many times do we have to say this, the ebt's are not the issue, the issue is that rangers(IL) played matches with players who were not eligible to play as they were not registered correctly with the sfa, the reason they were not registered correctly is because the side letters in their contracts(detailing payments from the ebt's) were not sent to the SFA.

 

Spartans were kicked out of the scottish cup a few years ago for fielding 1 player who was not registered correctly because the club had missed out a date on his forms.

 

The punishment for playing ineligible players is quite clear and it has been used many times by the sfa, now all they have to do is apply it to rangers and strip the titles and cups they won whilst fielding ineligible players, or do you think that rangers should be treated differently from other clubs like spartans?

 

Rememeber, Sevco (or The Rangers Football Club as they are now called after they changed their name at companies house on 31/07/12) which was incorporated on 29/05/12,  haven't won any titles prior to the 3rd division in 2013, so therefore why are the sevco fans so upset about this? Remember, sevco didn't win the trophies, Rangers did, charles green bought the history of rangers from duff and phelps(i'll repeat that for the hard of thinking HE BOUGHT THE HISTORY) and therefore any title or cup stripping wont effect sevco at all.

 

Feel free to go and have a look at your clubs history here - https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC425159/filing-history?page=1

 

All the documentation is there, incorporation, change of name, appointments, accounts etc, it's very interesting, but what you wont find there is any documents, accounts, appointments, details of trophies won, player signings etc prior  to 29/05/12 because they didn't exist prior to that date.

Classic strawman debating, he knows fine that simply using EBTs is not and never has been the issue.

 

Funnily enough, the user in question has accused others of wilful ignorance on this very thread

[Dutchmul]

This.

 

Unfortunately, when it comes to Rangers many opposing fan's morals and principles go out the window. 

 

It's like a Human Rights campaigner who is active against capital punishment demanding the capture, torture and hanging of a dictator. You have to stick to your principles otherwise you cannot expect to be taken seriously or respected, in my opinion.

 

Quality, a lecture from a sevco fan on morals and principles, who says that football fans can't do irony.

 

Every fan in scotland who isn't a sevco fan simply wants the SFA rules applied to ALL teams equally, not just to all teams except one.

 

The sfa has bent, twisted and completely ignored it's rules for the benefit of sevco, to the detriment of all the other scottish clubs, over and over again. That is why so many fans hate sevco. And you guys STILL complain that everyone is out to get you and you have been punished enough!! You haven't been punished at all, quite the opposite.

[Boof]

Jesus, how many times do we have to say this, the ebt's are not the issue, the issue is that rangers(IL) played matches with players who were not eligible to play as they were not registered correctly with the sfa, the reason they were not registered correctly is because the side letters in their contracts(detailing payments from the ebt's) were not sent to the SFA.

 

 

 

100. No, 1000. No...1,000,000% THIS.

 

The issue is the way in which our feeble authorities (including the so-called MSM) have bent over backwards to assist this odious organisation in maintaining some sort of relevance in today's game.

[Unknown user]

100. No, 1000. No...1,000,000% THIS.

 

The issue is the way in which our feeble authorities (including the so-called MSM) have bent over backwards to assist this odious organisation in maintaining some sort of relevance in today's game.

I'm hoping full details of the shenanigans will be revealed in the judicial review, although it looks like King's been in to get their stories straight

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Jesus, how many times do we have to say this, the ebt's are not the issue, the issue is that rangers(IL) played matches with players who were not eligible to play as they were not registered correctly with the sfa, the reason they were not registered correctly is because the side letters in their contracts(detailing payments from the ebt's) were not sent to the SFA.

 

 

 

 

And this is the real issue, but all we hear about in the media is the failure to pay tax when it's the improperly registered players Rangers fielded for a decade, that's the real problem here.

 

The media and the SFA want the real story of incorrectly registered players buried simply because there is no way they can spin it out to be anything else but cheating and gaining a sporting advantage by playing players who were not correctly registered and therefore not eligible to play in that game as per the SFA's own rules and as such sanctions would have to be applied as per the rules and the precedents which have already been set. 

[Unknown user]

It's not just the failure to pay tax or incorrect registration, the key for me has always been those shredders.

 

Police arrived, side letters got shredded. Some survived, and those pieces of paper proved that Rangers as a club were at it, knew they were at it, tried to hide that they were at it and then turned on the rest of Scottish football for having the nerve to disapprove.

 

My rangers friends are adamant that they should get more help from Scottish football, but as I always say they got more help than anyone else would reasonably expect.

 

What they expect is that Scottish football help them back to the top because that's where they belong dammit, and our lack of subservience is typical of such hate filled, ungrateful oiks.

 

Unlike all other clubs, they're not just entitled to exist, they're entitled to have their foot on our collective throat and we're meant to know our place.

 

"Scottish football needs a strong Rangers"

 

Why?

[chrisyboy7]

Sorry but you are on here as a Rangers supporter, accusing Hearts supporters and supporters of other Scottish clubs of 'deep rooted bigotry'. Seriously, you say you support 'old Rangers', a club built on bigotry, a club proud of its bigotry, a club where supporters sang celebrating their bigotry, a club where supporters bring up children teaching them about bigotry and you have the brass knock to come on here and accuse others. Just go away and think about that, if you are able to think that is, and see if you can understand the crass hypocrisy of your comments

 

Where have I said I hate you. That must be in the same page as your apology for Rangers cheating for around 10 years, your admission you are a new club and your admission you were lucky to be allowed into division 3 as a consequence of your allowing Rangers to die and forming a new club to play at the ground that Rangers used to play in.

 

Why not celebrate your new teams appearance in the Petrofac cup. After all, this could be your first cup win in your clubs existence.

 

In answer to your questions, If your employees are supporters of your new club, then yes, I would class them as all other supporters who in the main, are totally unlike able in any way shape or manner. As for your community work, I have no idea what community work your new club performs. I would imagine they do no more and no less than any other club in that regard but to be honest, I wouldn't want any child of mine, or any friend to be associated with a new club run by a convicted criminal. After all, you can never trust a criminal, can you.

Nailed it

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chrisyboy7]

Jesus, how many times do we have to say this, the ebt's are not the issue, the issue is that rangers(IL) played matches with players who were not eligible to play as they were not registered correctly with the sfa, the reason they were not registered correctly is because the side letters in their contracts(detailing payments from the ebt's) were not sent to the SFA.

 

Spartans were kicked out of the scottish cup a few years ago for fielding 1 player who was not registered correctly because the club had missed out a date on his forms.

 

The punishment for playing ineligible players is quite clear and it has been used many times by the sfa, now all they have to do is apply it to rangers and strip the titles and cups they won whilst fielding ineligible players, or do you think that rangers should be treated differently from other clubs like spartans?

 

Rememeber, Sevco (or The Rangers Football Club as they are now called after they changed their name at companies house on 31/07/12) which was incorporated on 29/05/12, haven't won any titles prior to the 3rd division in 2013, so therefore why are the sevco fans so upset about this? Remember, sevco didn't win the trophies, Rangers did, charles green bought the history of rangers from duff and phelps(i'll repeat that for the hard of thinking HE BOUGHT THE HISTORY) and therefore any title or cup stripping wont effect sevco at all.

 

Feel free to go and have a look at your clubs history here - https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC425159/filing-history?page=1

 

All the documentation is there, incorporation, change of name, appointments, accounts etc, it's very interesting, but what you wont find there is any documents, accounts, appointments, details of trophies won, player signings etc prior to 29/05/12 because they didn't exist prior to that date.

Love this threat love this statement

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hartford]

Out of curiosity, have there been cases of game results or achievements being voided long after the season because of registration issues? Lets say, 5 years later we find out that Barcelona fielded an improperly registered player in a Champions League game. If that game was voided, they wouldn't have been champions that year. How would UEFA act in this situation 5 years later?

[Dutchmul]

Out of curiosity, have there been cases of game results or achievements being voided long after the season because of registration issues? Lets say, 5 years later we find out that Barcelona fielded an improperly registered player in a Champions League game. If that game was voided, they wouldn't have been champions that year. How would UEFA act in this situation 5 years later?

 

None that I know of in football, nearest would be italy in 2006, however, other sports(cycling and athletics especially) will strip titles and medals long after they where won if cheating is proved(see lance armstrong).

 

Any individual association(such as the sfa, fifa etc) should apply whatever their rules are when the cheating is uncovered, in the sfa's case, where a team fields an ineligible player the rules are straightforward and they have applied them previously to teams(see the spartans example) without hesitation.

[Hartford]

None that I know of in football, nearest would be italy in 2006, however, other sports(cycling and athletics especially) will strip titles and medals long after they where won if cheating is proved(see lance armstrong).

 

Any individual association(such as the sfa, fifa etc) should apply whatever their rules are when the cheating is uncovered, in the sfa's case, where a team fields an ineligible player the rules are straightforward and they have applied them previously to teams(see the spartans example) without hesitation.

Seems to me that it would be opening a bit of a can of worms. What if someone finds that some player in 1950 was improperly registered for some games and so some games should've been voided and title should go to someone else?

 

I think it makes sense to void games right away, and if that doesn't happen, if you find some past transgression, punish into the future. Like, to use an NBA (basketball) example, some 15 years ago Minnesota Timberwolves agreed to an under the table deal with one player. They were punished with big fines and player acquisition restriction for 7 years, which really screwed them up for a very long time -- actually, they still suck 15 years later. That kind of punishment makes more sense to me.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Hartford

[ollie2004]

Out of curiosity, have there been cases of game results or achievements being voided long after the season because of registration issues? Lets say, 5 years later we find out that Barcelona fielded an improperly registered player in a Champions League game. If that game was voided, they wouldn't have been champions that year. How would UEFA act in this situation 5 years later?

Did Smeltic not gain an advantage against a Polish team in the Europa Cup last season, despit getting beat home and away they qualified because one of the Polish players was suspended?

[Hartford]

Did Smeltic not gain an advantage against a Polish team in the Europa Cup last season, despit getting beat home and away they qualified because one of the Polish players was suspended?

Yeah, but that was right away.They got demolished, then it turned out that a player wasn't eligible, and they got permission to get demolished by another team.

[Phil D. Corners]

None that I know of in football, nearest would be italy in 2006, however, other sports(cycling and athletics especially) will strip titles and medals long after they where won if cheating is proved(see lance armstrong).

 

Any individual association(such as the sfa, fifa etc) should apply whatever their rules are when the cheating is uncovered, in the sfa's case, where a team fields an ineligible player the rules are straightforward and they have applied them previously to teams(see the spartans example) without hesitation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Italian_football_scandal

[Dutchmul]

Seems to me that it would be opening a bit of a can of worms. What if someone finds that some player in 1950 was improperly registered for some games and so some games should've been voided and title should go to someone else?

 

I think it makes sense to void games right away, and if that doesn't happen, if you find some past transgression, punish into the future. Like, to use an NBA (basketball) example, some 15 years ago Minnesota Timberwolves agreed to an under the table deal with one player. They were punished with big fines and player acquisition restriction for 7 years, which really screwed them up for a very long time -- actually, they still suck 15 years later. That kind of punishment makes more sense to me.

 

It's simple, the sfa should apply their rules without fear or favour, all clubs should be treated the same when rule breaches are uncovered. With regard to reawarding the titles and cups to another team, then that is a separate matter and again would be dealt with under whatever rules the sfa have.

 

The sfa have rules and they need to apply them, it doesn't matter if the offence occurred last week, last year or last century, if rules are broken the penalty is clear. I wonder if this discussion would be occurring if it was say(hypothetically) peterhead that had breached the rules and played ineligible players and won trophies? would the sfa be so hesitant in applying their own rules?

[Dutchmul]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Italian_football_scandal

 

Thats the one. cheers.

[i wish jj was my dad]

It's simple, the sfa should apply their rules without fear or favour, all clubs should be treated the same when rule breaches are uncovered. With regard to reawarding the titles and cups to another team, then that is a separate matter and again would be dealt with under whatever rules the sfa have.

 

The sfa have rules and they need to apply them, it doesn't matter if the offence occurred last week, last year or last century, if rules are broken the penalty is clear. I wonder if this discussion would be occurring if it was say(hypothetically) peterhead that had breached the rules and played ineligible players and won trophies? would the sfa be so hesitant in applying their own rules?

But in the world of the GFA, rules only apply to diddy clubs. Rangers and their ugly partner in crime are above the rules. 

[Surrey Jambo]

Just met one of theirs in my local. Biggest game in the world, Scottish football dead without them, look at Scotland team, crowds, Linfield, Chelsea, rangers, who are hearts, solvency, etc, where do they come from?

[alwaysthereinspirit]

It's simple, the sfa should apply their rules without fear or favour, all clubs should be treated the same when rule breaches are uncovered. With regard to reawarding the titles and cups to another team, then that is a separate matter and again would be dealt with under whatever rules the sfa have.

 

The sfa have rules and they need to apply them, it doesn't matter if the offence occurred last week, last year or last century, if rules are broken the penalty is clear. I wonder if this discussion would be occurring if it was say(hypothetically) peterhead that had breached the rules and played ineligible players and won trophies? would the sfa be so hesitant in applying their own rules?

Let's be honest. You already know the answer to your hypothetical question. You could have inserted any team name other than one of the two uglies and you'd still have a team punished. Let's for $#!ts and giggles say we're the 3rd biggest team in Scotland. That is as high as our third rate association would dare to go with regards to punishment. Hearts as a member and we as paying customers should continue to push for Newco to be punished to the full. As should all other clubs and fan bases. To not, proves our game as many have been saying for three years to be a bogey.

[RobNox]

Spartans were kicked out of the Scottish Cup for what was basically an administrative error, failing to fill in one of the date fields on a player's registration.  There was clearly no attempt to gain an unfair sporting advantage, but one of the office staff messed up, the rules were applied and the tie was awarded against them 3-0.

 

The Polish side who lost out to Celtic last year brought on an incorrectly registered player as a sub with 2 minutes of the second leg remaining and the tie dead and buried.  Again, clearly no attempt at gaining a sporting advantage, but the Poles cocked up, the rules were applied, and the tie was awarded to Celtic 3-0, meaning they went through.

 

Rangers were willfully hiding side contracts from the footballing authorities, involving scores of players over several seasons.  This was not some administrative oversight, and very much designed to obtain a sporting advantage.  If the rules are applied fairly, then any game in which Rangers fielded an incorrectly registered player should revert to a 3-0 defeat.

 

You can't possibly try to re-calibrate the finishing positions of every trophy Rangers participated in while fielding ineligible players, the only fair and proper response would be to strike these trophies from the record.  While that would still leave a lot of clubs and supporters feeling they had been cheated, at least it goes some way to addressing the issue and preserving the notion of sporting integrity, where no club can be seen to be above the rules of the game.

[N Lincs Jambo]

It's not just the failure to pay tax or incorrect registration, the key for me has always been those shredders.

 

Police arrived, side letters got shredded. Some survived, and those pieces of paper proved that Rangers as a club were at it, knew they were at it, tried to hide that they were at it and then turned on the rest of Scottish football for having the nerve to disapprove.

 

My rangers friends are adamant that they should get more help from Scottish football, but as I always say they got more help than anyone else would reasonably expect.

 

What they expect is that Scottish football help them back to the top because that's where they belong dammit, and our lack of subservience is typical of such hate filled, ungrateful oiks.

 

Unlike all other clubs, they're not just entitled to exist, they're entitled to have their foot on our collective throat and we're meant to know our place.

 

"Scottish football needs a strong Rangers"

 

Why?

 

^^^^^ This boy gets it!

[Glamorgan Jambo]

I just had a look at the Sky Ronald de Boer interview. Everything that's needed to show how RFC were in the wrong is included there;

 

 - he always negotiated on the basis of his net (after tax) salary

 - the (net salary) offers he got from the Orcs and Man U was the same (the Orcs offered a longer contract, he knew Advocaat well and was afraid he'd fail the medical at Man U)

 - he's of the opinion that the club is always responsible for the tax

 - and of course he got contracts from RFC guaranteeing his net salary - which was in a significant portion funded from contributions to a DOS (wee tax case tax bill admitted) and EBTs (as of today there is tax due on these)

 - he squirmed a bit when asked if he thought he may get a call from HMRC

 

And of course we know RFC denied existence of his contractual letters related to the DOS and EBT scheme to both HMRC and the SPL.

 

A clearer case of a player being incorrectly registered in order to protect unlawful tax arrangements will never be found.

[RobNox]

I just had a look at the Sky Ronald de Boer interview. Everything that's needed to show how RFC were in the wrong is included there;

 

 - he always negotiated on the basis of his net (after tax) salary

 - the (net salary) offers he got from the Orcs and Man U was the same (the Orcs offered a longer contract, he knew Advocaat well and was afraid he'd fail the medical at Man U)

 - he's of the opinion that the club is always responsible for the tax

 - and of course he got contracts from RFC guaranteeing his net salary - which was in a significant portion funded from contributions to a DOS (wee tax case tax bill admitted) and EBTs (as of today there is tax due on these)

 - he squirmed a bit when asked if he thought he may get a call from HMRC

 

And of course we know RFC denied existence of his contractual letters related to the DOS and EBT scheme to both HMRC and the SPL.

 

A clearer case of a player being incorrectly registered in order to protect unlawful tax arrangements will never be found.

That's an interesting post, and I suppose I can understand why players from overseas would negotiate in terms of net salary, given the different tax regimes that exist from one country to another.

 

My take would be that if Rangers had negotiated salaries net of tax, and this was stipulated in the player's contract, then the player would be entitled to assume that the club had accounted for any tax payments.  The use of tax avoidance schemes was therefore a way of Rangers avoiding the tax and NI payments they would have otherwise been accountable for, rather than a means of the players avoiding tax and NI.

 

That makes some sense when viewed against the CoS ruling, which stated that the tax liability fell due at the point at which the employer made a payment into a trust fund and that the tax liability fell upon the employer, not the employee.

 

Just my simplistic view, and happy to be put straight by any of the more knowledgeable posters on here.

[niblick1874]

Seems to me that it would be opening a bit of a can of worms. What if someone finds that some player in 1950 was improperly registered for some games and so some games should've been voided and title should go to someone else?

 

I think it makes sense to void games right away, and if that doesn't happen, if you find some past transgression, punish into the future. Like, to use an NBA (basketball) example, some 15 years ago Minnesota Timberwolves agreed to an under the table deal with one player. They were punished with big fines and player acquisition restriction for 7 years, which really screwed them up for a very long time -- actually, they still suck 15 years later. That kind of punishment makes more sense to me.

What you suggest can't be done because.....................................THEY ARE DEAD..................................LIQUIDATED.......................................THEY ARE NO MORE.

[buzzbomb1958]

Spartans were kicked out of the Scottish Cup for what was basically an administrative error, failing to fill in one of the date fields on a player's registration. There was clearly no attempt to gain an unfair sporting advantage, but one of the office staff messed up, the rules were applied and the tie was awarded against them 3-0.

 

The Polish side who lost out to Celtic last year brought on an incorrectly registered player as a sub with 2 minutes of the second leg remaining and the tie dead and buried. Again, clearly no attempt at gaining a sporting advantage, but the Poles cocked up, the rules were applied, and the tie was awarded to Celtic 3-0, meaning they went through.

 

Rangers were willfully hiding side contracts from the footballing authorities, involving scores of players over several seasons. This was not some administrative oversight, and very much designed to obtain a sporting advantage. If the rules are applied fairly, then any game in which Rangers fielded an incorrectly registered player should revert to a 3-0 defeat.

 

You can't possibly try to re-calibrate the finishing positions of every trophy Rangers participated in while fielding ineligible players, the only fair and proper response would be to strike these trophies from the record. While that would still leave a lot of clubs and supporters feeling they had been cheated, at least it goes some way to addressing the issue and preserving the notion of sporting integrity, where no club can be seen to be above the rules of the game.

You should send this in to the cretins who run our game oh wait this is a sensible statement don't bother

[GMEdinburgh]

Dunfermilne were ordered to replay a game when they were 7-1 against Stenhousemuir because of an offence. no sporting advantage

there

[jambovambo]

Ashley has yet to accept the repayment & we don't know what (if any) conditions it comes with either. I wonder if one might be that he drops his court cases.? [emoji6]

He doesn't need his money back. He prefers the power the loan gives him over King etc.

[adayinmay]

Ashley has yet to accept the repayment & we don't know what (if any) conditions it comes with either. I wonder if one might be that he drops his court cases.? [emoji6]

How will we know if the loan has been repaid?

Will we know?

Does there have to be an announcement by company rules?

Does Ashley HAVE to accept the repayment? 

Do we know of the exact terms of repayment?

Given that repayment is very late do previous terms still apply?

 

 

Im just not convinced its as easy as repaying back ?5m (ignoring other debt owed and paying NO interest) and all is done and dusted with Sports Direct. If it was that would have been done an age ago.

 

Questions, questions.

[Footballfirst]

I see that Keith Jackson's latest puff piece confirms that Ashley asked for repayment of the ?5M last week.

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/keith-jackson-175m-loss-leaves-6925031

 

 

 

Whatever the result, King and his men will still be left with the enormous problem of confronting Ashley who had them in thumb screws again last week when he demanded the return of a ?5m crisis loan

[Footballfirst]

How will we know if the loan has been repaid?

Will we know?

Does there have to be an announcement by company rules?

Does Ashley HAVE to accept the repayment? 

Do we know of the exact terms of repayment?

Given that repayment is very late do previous terms still apply?

 

 

Im just not convinced its as easy as repaying back ?5m (ignoring other debt owed and paying NO interest) and all is done and dusted with Sports Direct. If it was that would have been done an age ago.

 

Questions, questions.

 

If neither the club nor SD confirm repayment themselves, then the only indication will be the release of the securities held by SD over Rangers properties and IP, which should be communicated to Companies House.

[Tommy Brown]

I see that Keith Jackson's latest puff piece confirms that Ashley asked for repayment of the ?5M last week.

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/keith-jackson-175m-loss-leaves-6925031

 

I had the misfortune to read this horrendous article.

So far up King's arse, its sickening.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

I see that Keith Jackson's latest puff piece confirms that Ashley asked for repayment of the ?5M last week.

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/keith-jackson-175m-loss-leaves-6925031

__________________

 

Not sure Keith Jackson's articles ever confirm anything, FF, especially if he is relying on something King told him. Perhaps King would like it to appear that last week Ashley asked for the money back, but maybe he used some other demand to force King's hand.

 

I found it incredible that no effort was made to explain the U-turn in the board's stance over the Ashley loan, and surely to say that a fresh request for repayment had been made would have covered that oversight somewhat, without breaking any confidentiality agreement, otherwise how can the 'request' be released now? Could it be that King prefers it to be put out there, that Ashley has put in another repayment demand, somewhat 'unofficially', because it isn't quite, ahem, the truth?

 

As is the norm, Jackson gives no indication of how he knows Ashley demanded his money back last week (he may well have, though I suspect it wouldn't have been quite as simple as saying 'please') and it is thrown in there in a way that suggests he doesn't want it to get too much notice or questioning. It is, in fact, the only piece of 'news' in a lengthy article, more designed at bigging up King and belittling a predecessor, than informing his readers.

Edited November 30, 2015 by AllyjamboDerbyshire

[269miles]

I had the misfortune to read this horrendous article.

So far up King's arse, its sickening.

Keef seems unable or unwilling to ask the question : why did King say he was not paying the loan back but then had such a change of heart , so suddenly, it's amazing he didn't have a heart attack. What happened to King's thorough investigations that were supposed

to happen when he ascended the marble stair case , how could King not know the terms of the loan , how could King possibly think it

was a gift. It's laughable.

 

Fair play to Keef though , he's done a great job of painting Ashley as arch villain (when if fact he saved Sevco from oblivion) and

King as a hard done to guy who was let down by the previous board who "scrawled" their signatures on the SD contract.

 

But then that's the way Keef/DR always writes - there is always a good/bad guy agenda when in reality , in this scenario , it's stupidity and ignorance that has put Sevco in peril once again. Their own stupidity and ignorance. Shame.

[Footballfirst]

__________________

 

Not sure Keith Jackson's articles ever confirm anything, FF, especially if he is relying on something King told him. Perhaps King would like it to appear that last week Ashley asked for the money back, but maybe he used some other demand to force King's hand.

 

I found it incredible that no effort was made to explain the U-turn in the board's stance over the Ashley loan, and surely to say that a fresh request for repayment had been made would have covered that oversight somewhat, without breaking any confidentiality agreement, otherwise how can the 'request' be released now? Could it be that King prefers it to be put out there, that Ashley has put in another repayment demand, somewhat 'unofficially', because it isn't quite, ahem, the truth?

 

As is the norm, Jackson gives no indication of how he knows Ashley demanded his money back last week (he may well have, though I suspect it wouldn't have been quite as simple as saying 'please') and it is thrown in there in a way that suggests he doesn't want it to get too much notice or questioning. It is, in fact, the only piece of 'news' in a lengthy article, more designed at bigging up King and belittling a predecessor, than informing his readers.

 

There is also a clue in King's interview with Rangers TV, where he is asked if SD was aware that the club was willing to repay the loan.

 

http://rangers.co.uk/news/rangers-tv/video-chairman-interview/

 

Start at 2'50" in.  King responds to the question with "I think they had a sense that we were looking at that in the Board meeting, it was something we were considering. I think they were alert to the fact that it was probably a likely scenario that we had reached the point that it was the best way forward for the club"

 

and at 3'30"

 

"It was a recent decision that developed over the last week, given the position for months had been not to repay it, so it happened quite quickly, but it was a build up of a number of things that we felt it was the right thing to do"

Edited November 30, 2015 by Footballfirst

[Deevers]

There is also a clue in King's interview with Rangers TV, where he is asked if SD was aware that the club was willing to repay the loan.

 

http://rangers.co.uk/news/rangers-tv/video-chairman-interview/

 

Start at 2'50" in.  King responds to the question with "I think they had a sense that we were looking at that in the Board meeting, it was something we were considering. I think they were alert to the fact that it was probably a likely scenario that we had reached the point that it was the best way forward for the club"

 

and at 3'30"

 

"It was a recent decision that developed over the last week, given the position for months had been not to repay it, so it happened quite quickly, but it was a build up of a number of things that we felt it was the right thing to do"

Gib and Shameless speak. For everyone else MA asked for his money back. Simples.

[Toonpack]

There is also a clue in King's interview with Rangers TV, where he is asked if SD was aware that the club was willing to repay the loan.

 

http://rangers.co.uk/news/rangers-tv/video-chairman-interview/

 

Start at 2'50" in.  King responds to the question with "I think they had a sense that we were looking at that in the Board meeting, it was something we were considering. I think they were alert to the fact that it was probably a likely scenario that we had reached the point that it was the best way forward for the club"

 

and at 3'30"

 

"It was a recent decision that developed over the last week, given the position for months had been not to repay it, so it happened quite quickly, but it was a build up of a number of things that we felt it was the right thing to do"

 

Just a thought, wasn't the decision NOT to repay the loan a shareholders decision (against Ashley's motion at previous EGM) if so, can the board simply take the decision to go against the shareholders wishes and make repayment without another vote ??

[Footballfirst]

Just a thought, wasn't the decision NOT to repay the loan a shareholders decision (against Ashley's motion at previous EGM) if so, can the board simply take the decision to go against the shareholders wishes and make repayment without another vote ??

 

Yes, the Board can make such decisions.  Before that EGM the Board had said that they wouldn't be bound by the decision of the shareholders in any event, even if it was to repay the loan.

 

If shareholders don't agree with the Board's decisions, then they have the ability to remove them from the Board at a future General Meeting.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Footballfirst

[Toonpack]

Yes, the Board can make such decisions.  Before that EGM the Board had said that they wouldn't be bound by the decision of the shareholders in any event, even if it was to repay the loan.

 

If shareholders don't agree with the Board's decisions, then they have the ability to remove them from the Board at a future General Meeting.

 

OK, Thanks