The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[...a bit disco]

Spivtastic!

[Footballfirst]

Fair enough. If they've got "their man" on the board maybe that will change their tune, but they could still vote to root out the odd individual - like uber-spiv Stockbridge.

 

Remember the source of all McLaughlin's "inside" info at Rangers? Jack Irvine, who's doing the current regimes smoke and mirrors.

 

A very good reason to be skeptical of what mclaughlin comes up with regarding this issue.

 

edit: haha... fast moving story!

Rangers' largest shareholder pledges support to current board

 

Laxey Partners increased its stake in Rangers to 11.64% on Wednesday....

 

Ha Ha! I had just edited my previous post to note that Smith, Mather Hart and Smart had all left since the previous Laxey statement.

 

Edit: The STV article suggests that Mike Ashley would vote with the current board, whereas I thought he would go the other way. If that is the case then the Spivs have got it in the bag.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Footballfirst

[CJGJ]

This one million plus, is that money in Sevco's bank account, allowing them another month of survival?

No.. paid for the shares purchased from another shareholder.

[Footballfirst]

This one million plus, is that money in Sevco's bank account, allowing them another month of survival?

 

No. The money that Laxey paid for the shares will go to the seller. It needs the issue of new shares to enable money to go into Spivco.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

No.. paid for the shares purchased from another shareholder.

 

No. The money that Laxey paid for the shares will go to the seller. It needs the issue of new shares to enable money to go into Spivco.

 

(Bully!)>

[Barney Rubble]

So a hedge fund company has the largest shareholding in the SFA,s ******* child of Scottish football , karma at work people

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

The spivs in pole position while the losses continue. A Sevco insolvency event gets more likely by the day.

[A Boy Named Crow]

The spivs in pole position while the losses continue. A Sevco insolvency event gets more likely by the day.

 

Sometimes I lose track. As somebody who wants to see the The Rangers go tits up, I should be cheering on the spivs, is that right?

Edited November 21, 2013 by A Boy Named Crow

[FWJ]

Sometimes I lose track. As somebody who wants to see the The Rangers go tits up, I should be cheering on the spivs, is that right?

I'm glad you asked first 'cos I haven't got a clue what's going on either...

(and happy 1000th post)

Edited November 21, 2013 by FWJ

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Sometimes I lose track. As somebody who wants to see the The Rangers go tits up, I should be cheering on the spivs, is that right?

If you hate "Rangers", spivs are good guys.

[DETTY29]

Gordon smith has said on Clyde SSB "Rangers had no debt when C Whyte took over" !!! ..

That prat was once CEO of the SFA.

[Footballfirst]

Gordon smith has said on Clyde SSB "Rangers had no debt when C Whyte took over" !!! ..

 

He's right. Whyte paid off Lloyds. They had sold off a large portion of the next four lots of season tickets to pay for it though.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

He's right. Whyte paid off Lloyds. They had sold off a large portion of the next four lots of season tickets to pay for it though.

 

Plus major tax liabilities hanging over their head.

 

Amazing how this debt free institution was sold for a ?1, wasn't it?

[reaths17]

That prat was once CEO of the SFA.

 

and hard to believe but those that have filled his shoes are worse

[Statts1976uk]

Of course Laxey will vote with the fan's wishes! The fans want a return to the spend, spend, spend days and I don't think many hedge funds are in the business of losing money. Maybe they should sign Nacho Novo and issue an orange top that'll pacify them for a bit!

[269miles]

He's right. Whyte paid off Lloyds. They had sold off a large portion of the next four lots of season tickets to pay for it though.

There is also the wee taxcase bill arising from the DOS that was to be paid. How GS is allowed to say this and not be corrected is depressingly familiar.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Starting a bullet-point with; "But..."?

 

Scum.

 

 

 

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

Starting a bullet-point with; "But..."?

 

Scum.

 

 

[DETTY29]

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/myths-and-legends-the-spfl-and-the-250k-fine-of-rangers/#more-4317

 

McConvilles view on SPFL chasing newco for fine.

 

Interesting comment that the commission prosecution didn't try to prove sporting advsntage.

 

None to prove or pre agreed stitch up.

[bryce9a]

http://scotslawthoug...gers/#more-4317

 

McConvilles view on SPFL chasing newco for fine.

 

Interesting comment that the commission prosecution didn't try to prove sporting advsntage.

 

None to prove or pre agreed stitch up.

As I understood it LNS could say that doing 'Z' broke the rules, but couldn't say X club had an advantage over clubs A, B, C, D for doing Z, without investigations into whether clubs A, B, C, D (all the other clubs basically) had actually done Z or not.

 

Not 100% but i think that was his reasoning.

 

Appears to be the principle that a sprinter can be done for taking drugs, but can't be said to have had an advantage without drug-testing the others. Makes sense to me.

[brownkg]

As I understood it LNS could say that doing 'Z' broke the rules, but couldn't say X club had an advantage over clubs A, B, C, D for doing Z, without investigations into whether clubs A, B, C, D (all the other clubs basically) had actually done Z or not.

 

Not 100% but i think that was his reasoning.

 

Appears to be the principle that a sprinter can be done for taking drugs, but can't be said to have had an advantage without drug-testing the others. Makes sense to me.

So the point of taking drugs is not to gain an advantage but just to break the rules for their own sake, are you also working part time for Lance Armstrong too?

Without the aid of your blue rinse specs please share your views if this had been Celtic pulling the old DOS/EBT stunt

[2NaFish]

As I understood it LNS could say that doing 'Z' broke the rules, but couldn't say X club had an advantage over clubs A, B, C, D for doing Z, without investigations into whether clubs A, B, C, D (all the other clubs basically) had actually done Z or not.

 

Not 100% but i think that was his reasoning.

 

Appears to be the principle that a sprinter can be done for taking drugs, but can't be said to have had an advantage without drug-testing the others. Makes sense to me.

 

It makes sense to you to assume that everyone else is guilty until they prove their innocence?

[bryce9a]

It makes sense to you to assume that everyone else is guilty until they prove their innocence?

No. That's why i never said that. Agnosticism is not assuming guilt. It's saying "i can't know".

[Hearts007]

the bottom line is for a company to go in to liquidation then continue on and lose millions of pounds again including handing out massive wages and bonuses is ******* scandalous

[doctor jambo]

As I understood it LNS could say that doing 'Z' broke the rules, but couldn't say X club had an advantage over clubs A, B, C, D for doing Z, without investigations into whether clubs A, B, C, D (all the other clubs basically) had actually done Z or not.

 

Not 100% but i think that was his reasoning.

 

Appears to be the principle that a sprinter can be done for taking drugs, but can't be said to have had an advantage without drug-testing the others. Makes sense to me.

 

So Rangers signing German, Dutch and Italian internationals without actually being able to properly pay them (NI, income tax etc) conferred them no sporting advantage?

Really?

And he couldn't say it gave them an advantage incase others were running EBT schemes that he did not know about with side contracts and illegally registered players ?

Really?

You cannot actually believe that any sane human being would come to that conclusion, nor, surely , can you believe that yourself

[2NaFish]

No. That's why i never said that. Agnosticism is not assuming guilt. It's saying "i can't know".

 

You're right, agnosticism is not assuming guilt. Assuming guilt is though, and you've clearly done that - if you say a sprinter can't be punished for gaining an advantage because we don't know that the others didnt take drugs you have assume that the others did. If you didnt assume it then we could take it that the sprinter gained an advantage. Why should everyone have to prove their innocence just to allow a confirmed cheat to be punished?

[Footballfirst]

So the point of taking drugs is not to gain an advantage but just to break the rules for their own sake, are you also working part time for Lance Armstrong too?

Without the aid of your blue rinse specs please share your views if this had been Celtic pulling the old DOS/EBT stunt

 

Here's what David Murray (aka Mr Black) had to say to the FTTT re the benefits of EBTs

 

Next, Mr Black gave evidence. .................. Originally it was used to benefit only MGM?s employees, but later was extended to employees of other companies in the Group and their relations. It was valuable in incentivising employees in providing larger sums for their and their families? benefit in view of the tax savings. Mr Black did not consider the Trust as a means of tax avoidance, but rather as a means of retaining and rewarding loyal employees. So far as Rangers was concerned it enabled the Club to attract players who would not otherwise have been obtainable.

 

So there we have David Murray admitting that the tax savings of using EBT's allowed Rangers to recruit better players (competitive advantage?). However, while the EBT scheme (subject to appeal) is legal, the statement doesn't fit in with the LNS judgement of the non disclosure of payments

 

From the LNS report

 

Although it is clear to us from Mr Odam?s evidence that Oldco?s failure to disclose the side-letters to the SPL and the SFA was at least partly motivated by a wish not to risk prejudicing the tax advantages of the EBT scheme, we are unable to reach the conclusion that this led to any competitive advantage. (no competitive advantage?)

[bryce9a]

So Rangers signing German, Dutch and Italian internationals without actually being able to properly pay them (NI, income tax etc) conferred them no sporting advantage?

Really?

And he couldn't say it gave them an advantage incase others were running EBT schemes that he did not know about with side contracts and illegally registered players ?

Really?

You cannot actually believe that any sane human being would come to that conclusion, nor, surely , can you believe that yourself

You can't establish one competitor held an advantage over the competition in doing X, without first establishing the others hadn't done X themselves. LNS decided he couldn't do the former without evidence regarding the latter.

 

Its a simple enough principle so it needs no further explanation.

[jambovambo]

 

You can't establish one competitor held an advantage over the competition in doing X, without first establishing the others hadn't done X themselves. LNS decided he couldn't do the former without evidence regarding the latter.

 

Its a simple enough principle so it needs no further explanation.

Oh for goodness' sake.

 

 

[Feeno]

Its hilarious that Rangers fans will argue the letter of the law when its in their favour to do so but its a tattie howkin rome poppery conspiracy delusion when it goes against them.

[doctor jambo]

You can't establish one competitor held an advantage over the competition in doing X, without first establishing the others hadn't done X themselves. LNS decided he couldn't do the former without evidence regarding the latter.

 

Its a simple enough principle so it needs no further explanation.

 

I can think of no sport that accepts that as a principle, or court of law.

Innocence is not based on the guilt of others.

It is not ok to cheat if others are- and in fact there is NO proof that others ( apart from Celtic with Juninho) used the EBT schemes.

It is a fudge to avoid punishing Rangers oldco

Otherwise give Lance Armstrong, ben Johnston etc back all their trophies and admit games a bogey

YOu cannot possibly believe that LNS' decision is even vaguely compatible with sporting integrity or fair competition

[269miles]

You can't establish one competitor held an advantage over the competition in doing X, without first establishing the others hadn't done X themselves. LNS decided he couldn't do the former without evidence regarding the latter.

 

Its a simple enough principle so it needs no further explanation.

 

The SFA established this very fact by inviting ALL clubs (rather belatedly) to clarify whether they fell into the EBT camp. The clubs didn't. Advantage RFC RIP

 

Using tax avoidance schemes RFC RIP were able to pay higher salaries (which they STILL could not afford) than CFC. Advantage RFC RIP. (Don't even bother to mention Larsson!)

 

The wee tax case was exposed for what it was - a tax scam. Advantage RFC RIP.

 

That tax bill was never paid, while the other clubs paid their bills. Advantage RFC RIP.

 

 

And let's not forget , the "loans" that were made under EBT - just how much of that money was ever paid back or will be paid back ? We all know the answer to that - just about NIL. Under the EBT , Murray received ?6 MILLION - after publicly saying he never took a penny out of Rangers. That looks like some advantage right there - he used semantics to hide behind the scam - he diverted money from one part of his business to pay EBTs (including himself) and then says he never took a penny out of the club !? Jeezo !!

 

And even when the illegal payments were uncovered (funny how the HMRC enquiries dragged on for years, deliberately obstructed by RFC RIP , but CO didn't see fit to mention this to the SFA ) the SFA/SPL managed to let RFC RIP off the hook with some of the most bizarre wordsmith you will ever see. And in context , a club gets booted out of the Cup competition for not completing a fecking form properly.

 

Give us a break.

 

RFC RIP had advantages all over the place that HMFC will never have .

[bryce9a]

I can think of no sport that accepts that as a principle, or court of law.

Innocence is not based on the guilt of others.

It is not ok to cheat if others are- and in fact there is NO proof that others ( apart from Celtic with Juninho) used the EBT schemes.

It is a fudge to avoid punishing Rangers oldco

Otherwise give Lance Armstrong, ben Johnston etc back all their trophies and admit games a bogey

YOu cannot possibly believe that LNS' decision is even vaguely compatible with sporting integrity or fair competition

You seem to be in such a muddle about this, and are reeling off strawmen of my points by the dozen.

 

I'm not saying....

 

- rule breaking cannot be established.

- rule breaking was not established by LNS

- rule breaking is ok and cant/shouldnt be punished

- LNS didnt impose a punishment for rulebreaking.

 

None of the above are true and none were said by me.

 

My point was to explain why LNS couldn't establish *sporting advantage over competitors* and, to my understanding, the reasoning behind that decision. Sadly the reports not seem to be accessible readily online otherwise i could quote him verbatim and save myself the bother!

[doctor jambo]

You seem to be in such a muddle about this, and are reeling off strawmen of my points by the dozen.

 

I'm not saying....

 

- rule breaking cannot be established.

- rule breaking was not established by LNS

- rule breaking is ok and cant/shouldnt be punished

- LNS didnt impose a punishment for rulebreaking.

 

None of the above are true and none were said by me.

 

My point was to explain why LNS couldn't establish *sporting advantage over competitors* and, to my understanding, the reasoning behind that decision. Sadly the reports not seem to be accessible readily online otherwise i could quote him verbatim and save myself the bother!

 

Bryce- my reasoning on this is clear- I can think of NO LAW that is based on the guilt of others as opposed to your own. You cannot find someone guilty of a crime then let them off because you have not checked to see if others were at it too.

He has not stated others were doing it- had he done so then fair enough- just that no-one had looked.

He has therefore PRESUMED others were all breaking the rules also, therby avoiding the need to properly sanction Rangers.

He PRESUMED the guilt of others- you cannot do that. There is no basis in law for doing so.

He accepted their guilt and cheating, yet applied no sanction for it.

I would have easier accepted if he had said "yes they illegally registered players, but even without them they would have won those trophies because all the other teams are shit anyway, so it was a pointless cheat"

[7628mm]

http://scotslawthoug...gers/#more-4317

 

McConvilles view on SPFL chasing newco for fine.

 

Interesting comment that the commission prosecution didn't try to prove sporting advsntage.

 

None to prove or pre agreed stitch up.

 

I expect you are looking at this paragraph in particular

What about ?sporting advantage??

It is true that the Nimmo Smith crew did not find that there had been any sporting advantage gained. But this was NOT based on a full analysis of all of the evidence and a determination that there had not been an attempt to gain advantage. Instead the verdict was that the ?prosecution? had failed to prove that there was an advantage gained ? because the prosecution did not lead any evidence to allow the Commission to decide if there was any advantage.

 

Quite a few on here have cast aspersions on the credibility of LNS and his investigations.

My opinion is that he is more than likely to be well above and beyond reproach for the following reasons:

He will have been given a ?remit? for his investigation by the SFA which will have lain down in writing what exactly he was to look at and into. A set of ?boundary limits? everything inside and nothing outside.

The SFA set the rules and as a Judge he will have worked within them and not strayed beyond.

If the ?prosecutors? (SFA?) failed to lead any evidence that would have assisted in LNS coming to the ?obvious? conclusion that OLDCO gained a competitive advantage it is not his fault. He can only deal with what is in front of him.

I fully expect that LNS is fully aware that he was done up like a kipper by the SFA but I believe that he conducted himself correctly as a judge.

 

A very poor analogy but here goes.

LNS is asked to look at the HMFC 2013/14 football strip and report his findings.

He reports back stating that the top is predominantly white with some maroon content and the Wonga logo is white on a maroon background. Shorts are white with a bit of maroon and socks white with maroon flashes.

 

Now my immediate thought would be that he has got this way wrong as the 2103/14 strip is predominantly maroon and the wonga is white on a blue background.

Clearly LNS does not know what he is doing.

However LNS was given the away strip only and asked to declare his findings. He knows full well that he is looking at the away kit but within his remitt he is 100% correct.

 

A much better ditty than one of our resident oldco/newco sympethisers I feel

Edited November 22, 2013 by 7628mm

[alwaysthereinspirit]

So Rangers signing German, Dutch and Italian internationals without actually being able to properly pay them (NI, income tax etc) conferred them no sporting advantage?

Really?

And he couldn't say it gave them an advantage incase others were running EBT schemes that he did not know about with side contracts and illegally registered players ?

Really?

You cannot actually believe that any sane human being would come to that conclusion, nor, surely , can you believe that yourself

Makes sense to Bryce. What more do you want. Jeez.

[BRAVEHEART1874]

Cheatco won't have to pay a penny of that fine as Charles green told us so ! and we all know he doesn't tell porkies.

 

Surely rangers were not guilty of undisclosed documents of 91 cases and fined ?250,000 as guilty because not one rangers fan I know seems to think this.

 

" I won't leave before Champions League music's playing at Ibrox. But I've already changed my mind once, so it may be I end up changing my mind until we win it (the Champions League)."

[Paolo]

Cheatco won't have to pay a penny of that fine as Charles green told us so ! and we all know he doesn't tell porkies.

 

Surely rangers were not guilty of undisclosed documents of 91 cases and fined ?250,000 as guilty because not one rangers fan I know seems to think this.

 

" I won't leave before Champions League music's playing at Ibrox. But I've already changed my mind once, so it may be I end up changing my mind until we win it (the Champions League)."

He also said they would never play in the SPL whilst he was in charge (as a protest), meaning they would never qualify for the Champions League.

[adayinmay]

You can't establish one competitor held an advantage over the competition in doing X, without first establishing the others hadn't done X themselves. LNS decided he couldn't do the former without evidence regarding the latter.

 

Its a simple enough principle so it needs no further explanation.

 

Hate to get into this debate ... but ...

 

The SPL board, prior to the investigation, wrote to every member club asking them if they ran, or ever did, an EBT scheme. Every other club except for Celtic replied saying that did and had not.

 

This was to establish whether RFC(IL) held an advantage over opponents should it be found that they ran the scheme and registered players illegally.

[jambovambo]

I also recall that Celtic realised the Juninho scheme was wrong and stumped up the tax.

[Footballfirst]

Campbell Ogivie having a little dig at Peter Lawwell over his Rory Bremner FC jibe?

 

Statement from Campbell Ogilvie

Friday, 22 November 2013

Campbell Ogilvie, Scottish FA President: ?This week, the Scottish FA?s Compliance Officer has reviewed comments made by the Celtic Chief Executive, Peter Lawwell, at the club?s Annual General Meeting, after receiving an official letter of complaint from Rangers Football Club.

 

?The Compliance Officer has informed both clubs that there is no actionable breach of the rules. None the less, I am compelled to convey my disappointment that we find ourselves in this position, as a result of an apparent erosion of mutual respect between two of our oldest rivals.

 

?At a time when Scottish football faces challenges on many fronts, it is incumbent on our biggest clubs to set the highest standards. In this regard both the comments made, and the subsequent time, effort and resource imposed on our Compliance Officer to deal with the complaint, were wholly unnecessary.?

===================

What are you trying to say Campbell? Oldest rivals?

 

And while you are at it how about referring yourself to the compliance officer re your involvement in setting up and managing the illegal DOS scheme and non disclosure of these contractual payments to the SFA and SPL.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Footballfirst

[jambovambo]

Cue this getting fed back to us by certain posters in the other thread as further evidence of RFC still being one, the same, and unchanged.

 

Eh, naw

[269miles]

Campbell Ogivie having a little dig at Peter Lawwell over his Rory Bremner FC jibe?

 

 

In this regard both the comments made, and the subsequent time, effort and resource imposed on our Compliance Officer to deal with the complaint, were wholly unnecessary.?

 

So are Sevco picking up the costs of this frivolous complaint? Of course not. And a highly conflicted individual gets too make a wholly unnecessary reference to "oldest rivals".

[Charlie-Brown]

Is Mr Ogilvie really genuinely surprised that there has been an erosion of respect for "Rangers" ? He must live in a protected bubble if that's the case or is wilfully blind to the anger at how Rangers and the SFA and Ogilvie himself have conducted thru this matter.

[Charlie-Brown]

Has Ogilvie really been witnessing the highest standards of conduct at Ibrox in recent years?

 

Yet again The President of Scottish Football showing his sympathy towards Rangers position whilst making no comment about how the rest of Scittish football thinks and feels.

[alwaysthereinspirit]

Takes big brass balls to come out with that statement. The game in Scotland honestly has no chance of progression.

[DETTY29]

Consensus on Sportsound seems to be going along the lines of getting back to days of super respected administrator Bain and Lawwell monthly love ins and helicopter Sundays so the game can move on.

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

Consensus on Sportsound seems to be going along the lines of getting back to days of super respected administrator Bain and Lawwell monthly love ins and helicopter Sundays so the game can move on.

 

Personally cannae wait for the return of helicopter sundays, the anticipation, the excitement, all in the hope that a helicopter would appear over wherever we were playing and give us the league trophy. Never happened though...

[Don Dan]

 

Easdale & Laxey alone have 35%. The agm is a forgone conclusion now..

Spivs 1. Requisioners 0.

 

 

 

Edinburgh's Maroon

 

Spivs won Sevco fleeced (again). Surely by now the supporters can see what's going on or are they too focused on still trying to be Glasgow Rangers that they are oblivious to the pick pockets?

[Barney Rubble]

Personally cannae wait for the return of helicopter sundays, the anticipation, the excitement, all in the hope that a helicopter would appear over wherever we were playing and give us the league trophy. Never happened though...

 

And 4 old firm games a season , the corner stone of scottish football