The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

Folk on about stripping titles. 

 

If Romanov was shown to have been at it with how he employed, say Miko, should we lose the 2006 cup win? If you start looking at the 'morality of actors' would Romanov's time at the helm be immoral? Certainly been argued that it was by Hibs fans, but if you start saying that Rangers were immoral and should therefore have titled stripped, then an extension of that argument would be possible to make to include hearts in that. Look at 2012 when we were having financial issues. Would clearly be an extension of the argument that rangers by not paying tax gained an advantage and then titles should be stripped, to say that we gained an advantage and our cup win should be stripped. It's not an argument I agree with, but it is there to be made. How can people not see that? 

 

It's a very odd mindset - supporting trolls like Darren O'Dea and getting behind the idea of Celtic lobbying for titles to be stripped.  

 

If there had been registration irregularities accompanied by an unlawful method of remuneration (which the registration irregularity was trying to hide) then something ought to happen.

 

But I don't think that was the case.

 

My question back to you is just exactly what do Rangers have to be seen to have done wrong before it can be judged they were taking the mick and breaking and bending as many of the rules as they could in order to achieve on the field success? And if the end goal of their behaviour (on field success) was achieved what is a suitable sanction?

 

Because as far as I can see anything that does not result in a sporting penalty, in addition to the already declared financial penalty, is totally inappropriate.

[Angus Young]

They cheated and tainted titles and trophies should be stripped from the record

[Jamboelite]

Im caught in a bit of a quandry when it comes to MA I think what he has done to potentially open up a can of worms for the SFA is a huge positive in clearing out a nest of vipers that would put FIFA to shame however he is doing it for his own ends and he is a thoroughly horrible human being who I never really want to see prosper.

 

I suspect nothing happens till the 28days are up and then a statement from the SPFL and SFA.

 

I think if there is a full independent enquiry forced upon all parties due to pressure from the fans then there will be some resignations coming in pretty soon after, either that or be prepared for the shredder to go into overdrive.

 

The big question is will LNS be disregarded and a new enquiry open based on the HMRC result, I have to say Scottish football is more than capable of sweeping this under the carpet where as any other organisation would be out infront of this.

[jambovambo]

That doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't really engage with the point. 

 

Thin end of the wedge. Think about it. Once one campaign starts, when does the next one begin? 

Good heavens.

[Armageddon]

 

Court cases for your diary.

 

• Charles Green v RIFC - 11/12 November @ Court of Session - re legal costs
• HMA v Whyte, Withey, Grier, Whitehouse, Clark, Green, (maybe Ahmad?) - 7-11 December @ High Court - further preliminary hearings
• Sports Direct v Dave King - 9 December @ Chancery Court, London - Contempt of court re disclosure of of contract details.
• MASH Holdings v SFA - 11 December 4 February 2016 @ Court of Session - Request for judicial review of the SFA's FPP decision on Dave King. 

 

 

 

I always thought there was a ruling that said no association member or shareholder can raise legal proceedings against the association, am I talking rubbish?  (I recall us being given that message after the constant fines, punishments and appeals)

[Thomaso]

Folk on about stripping titles. 

 

If Romanov was shown to have been at it with how he employed, say Miko, should we lose the 2006 cup win? If you start looking at the 'morality of actors' would Romanov's time at the helm be immoral? Certainly been argued that it was by Hibs fans, but if you start saying that Rangers were immoral and should therefore have titled stripped, then an extension of that argument would be possible to make to include hearts in that. Look at 2012 when we were having financial issues. Would clearly be an extension of the argument that rangers by not paying tax gained an advantage and then titles should be stripped, to say that we gained an advantage and our cup win should be stripped. It's not an argument I agree with, but it is there to be made. How can people not see that? 

 

It's a very odd mindset - supporting trolls like Darren O'Dea and getting behind the idea of Celtic lobbying for titles to be stripped.  

 

'Morality' has got nothing to do with it - if it was then Celtic should hand over the 1986 Title when St Mirren threw the game at them! 

 

The call for Rangers to be stripped of titles was due to the fact that what they were doing was ILLEGAL not immoral.  

Edited November 11, 2015 by Thomaso

[The People's Chimp]

Think you have misunderstood. I think people are more along the lines of wanting the SFA/SPL to treat Rangers they same as they would any other club rather than a celtic love in but maybe thats just me.

 

See previous mentions of Juve,Lance Armstrong and Ben Johnston. People did not want Ben Johnston stripped of his medal because they were Carl Lewis fans they wanted the medal stripped as they cheated.

 

As for your point of living beyond our means the majority of buisness do it as some point and by 2012 we had a plan to get out of this crazy overspending. in fact if I remember right we actually made a profit on the 2012 accounts so I am not sure where you are coming from with wanting us to be stripped of titles.

 

Perhaps your Rangers tinted glasses need adjusting.

 

Typical of this place that actually looking out for hearts' interest long term can be described as having rangers glasses. 

[Dalstonjambo]

Close thread,perfect summary.

Btw,there's many Jambos who come from many parts of the U.K. to see the team,I'd love to know what the opinion of the London Hearts Supporters club in regards to this case.

They,more than most,must have paid out thousands of pounds for years in coming up here for games not knowing the game was rigged for years and years,getting up at 5 or 6 am in the morning come rain,hail or shine and paying an absolute fortune in train/coach fares to see the team,it's they more than anyone else I feel sorry for.

As someone who comes up from London every week so is in the target audience you describe, not sure it's any worse for me than anyone else. They cheated us all. Just because i choose to still come despite being further away isn't massively relevant. I'd still come if we were ****, as i have done many a time!

 

The bottom line is they should be punished because they  knowingly cheated, and the game we were watching for years was essentially rigged (or unfairly balanced to be less hysterical) and that means all fans were deceived. 

[The People's Chimp]

'Morality' has got nothing to do with it - if it was then Celtic should hand over the 1986 Title when St Mirren threw the game at them! 

 

The call for Rangers to be stripped of titles was due to the fact that what they were doing was ILLEGAL not immoral.  

 

From this very page in the thread:

 

"Maugham, in these few words hits the nail on the head "You find the moral quality of an action only in its actors. At what they did at the time and why they did it." "

[Bickfest]

Folk on about stripping titles. 

 

If Romanov was shown to have been at it with how he employed, say Miko, should we lose the 2006 cup win? If you start looking at the 'morality of actors' would Romanov's time at the helm be immoral? Certainly been argued that it was by Hibs fans, but if you start saying that Rangers were immoral and should therefore have titled stripped, then an extension of that argument would be possible to make to include hearts in that. Look at 2012 when we were having financial issues. Would clearly be an extension of the argument that rangers by not paying tax gained an advantage and then titles should be stripped, to say that we gained an advantage and our cup win should be stripped. It's not an argument I agree with, but it is there to be made. How can people not see that? 

 

It's a very odd mindset - supporting trolls like Darren O'Dea and getting behind the idea of Celtic lobbying for titles to be stripped.  

As has now been said many times, this is not about the use of EBTs per se, nor is it about whether or not Rangers (or anyone else) spent beyond their means. This is about following the registration rules, specifically Rule D1-13 helpfully set out by Farin above. I have never heard or seen any suggestion that, whatever our payment methods, we had failed to notify the football authorities fully, as required. If we had, we should indeed lose any titles/trophies won. But so should Rangers - every single one of them in which not properly registered players were fielded.

[OmiyaHearts]

Couldn't care whether they get stripped of titles or not. Won't make a difference to my life or how Hearts perform this season.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Read with interest comments today regarding stripping of titles -

 

"As a Celtic fan, I take my bragging rights from the fact that in 2010 they were dead"

 

Direct quote from Roger Mitchell - a former SPL Chief Executive.

 

I am sure he would have put all Celtic bias aside during his tenure at the SPL though................

His comments pissed me off. His main argument is he wants the Old Firm duopoly reestablished as soon as possible for the end of time. Exactly the sort of idiot that should never have been employed by the SPL in the first place.

[Dalstonjambo]

Tremendous. Most concerned about the feelings of 10 folk because they get the train to hearts games. 

Ha ha - even as someone who is in this list I had to laugh at that. Very cutting but i enjoyed it. The train is quite a lonely place sometimes tbf given some of the cr8p we all watch. Engineering works and a 6 hour journey home after a defeat is a particular 'highlight'.

 

I'd like to be apologised to individually by the SFA and each EBT receiver. They can pay for my transport. 

[JamboJen]

Folk on about stripping titles.

 

If Romanov was shown to have been at it with how he employed, say Miko, should we lose the 2006 cup win? If you start looking at the 'morality of actors' would Romanov's time at the helm be immoral? Certainly been argued that it was by Hibs fans, but if you start saying that Rangers were immoral and should therefore have titled stripped, then an extension of that argument would be possible to make to include hearts in that. Look at 2012 when we were having financial issues. Would clearly be an extension of the argument that rangers by not paying tax gained an advantage and then titles should be stripped, to say that we gained an advantage and our cup win should be stripped. It's not an argument I agree with, but it is there to be made. How can people not see that?

 

It's a very odd mindset - supporting trolls like Darren O'Dea and getting behind the idea of Celtic lobbying for titles to be stripped.

I'm not sure anyone's talking about morality. No one was talking of stepping Rangers's titles when the "won" the big tax case, despite their behaviour being immoral. However, now that their use of EBTs has been recorded as illegal, people are naturally calling for a suitable punishment for the sporting advantage they gained.

 

Getting into large amounts of debt isn't illegal, and we're hardly an unusual case of a Scottish football club getting into unmanageable debt. Our debt got called in and we couldn't pay. Similar happened to Motherwell, Dundee and Livingston (twice). Other clubs agreed deals on their debt as they would never be able to service it.

 

Halifax could decide to write me a letter and call in my mortgage debt and I'd not be in a great place, but it doesn't make my actions immoral.

 

Rangers broke the law in order to gain a footballing advantage. If any other club did the same I'd expect footballing punishments. Someone earlier in this thread mentioned awarding a 0-3 loss against Rangers in any fixture a player with an EBT played, much as you would if a club fielded a ineligible player.

 

That seems fair enough to me and pretty hard to argue against I'd imagine. If that results in Rangers being stripped of titles then so be it.

 

Edit: I've seen your comment regarding the word "morality" being used. From my understanding that sentence was used to highlight the reasoning behind Rangers's decision to use EBTs - that their intentions were immoral because their plan was to gain sporting advantage.

 

That use of the word wasn't to suggest Rangers use of EBTs was immoral and therefore should be punished, but to delve into why EBTs were used in the first place.

 

I'm not sure I've explained that very well, but the quote you've quoted was lifted from a blog where the meaning is pretty clear.

Edited November 11, 2015 by JamboJen

[The People's Chimp]

Ha ha - even as someone who is in this list I had to laugh at that. Very cutting but i enjoyed it. The train is quite a lonely place sometimes tbf given some of the cr8p we all watch. Engineering works and a 6 hour journey home after a defeat is a particular 'highlight'.

 

I'd like to be apologised to individually by the SFA and each EBT receiver. They can pay for my transport. 

 

I got the train down after a game once, ended up in a carriage with some spurs #lads who were a bit nawty, who got on at Newcastle. It was actually a great trip, was smashed by the time we got to Kings cross. I don't think the non-football crowd in the carriage enjoyed their company too much. 

[The People's Chimp]

I'm not sure anyone's talking about morality. No one was talking of stepping Rangers's titles when the "won" the big tax case, despite their behaviour being immoral. However, now that their use of EBTs has been recorded as illegal, people are naturally calling for a suitable punishment for the sporting advantage they gained.

 

Getting into large amounts of debt isn't illegal, and we're hardly an unusual case of a Scottish football club getting into unmanageable debt. Our debt got called in and we couldn't pay. Similar happened to Motherwell, Dundee and Livingston (twice). Other clubs agreed deals on their debt as they would never be able to service it.

 

Halifax could decide to write me a letter and call in my mortgage debt and I'd not be in a great place, but it doesn't make my actions immoral.

 

Rangers broke the law in order to gain a footballing advantage. If any other club did the same I'd expect footballing punishments. Someone earlier in this thread mentioned awarding a 0-3 loss against Rangers in any fixture a player with an EBT played, much as you would if a club fielded a ineligible player.

 

That seems fair enough to me and pretty hard to argue against I'd imagine. If that results in Rangers being stripped of titles then so be it.

 

As I have said, the question of morality arise from posts in this thread! 

[SUTOL]

As I have said, the question of morality arise from posts in this thread! 

 

But as has been said, morality isn't the problem.

 

Incorrectly registered players is the issue. 

 

Same as EBT's aren't the issue, but incorrectly operating the EBT's was an issue. 

[Meadows]

So in The Ashley V King case, it will go along the lines of...The court awarded an injunction at considerable expense to the plaintiff,this was to prevent the accused revealing confidential business contracts to all and sundry. 

Mitigation plea....eemmm, it was'nae me.

If M'lords will be so kind to watch this footage from Sky Sports , dated after M'lords asked / told him to be quiet. 

Outcome GUILTY as charged. 

Penalty...Would love it to be jail.

 

Asley V SPFL ...Mr King was convicted in South Africa of over 40 charges of tax evasion, He was also a director of Rangers at the times of EBT's that have now proven were introduced purely to give Rangers an unfair advantage, he was also a director of the same football club when they entered administration and were trading insolvent for months if not years beforehand.

Yet...it was deemed he is a fit and proper person....WHY?

 

Mitigation plea.....Emmm, it was'nae me.

Outcome....decision reversed.

Penalty, Suspended from being a director or having any involvment in the running of any football club in Scotland.

 

King,upon his release from jail would leave our shores...no doubt jetting out dear reader,never to return. 

 

That's my Xmas panto written, wonder if it'll ever come true?

[XB52]

Folk on about stripping titles. 

 

If Romanov was shown to have been at it with how he employed, say Miko, should we lose the 2006 cup win? If you start looking at the 'morality of actors' would Romanov's time at the helm be immoral? Certainly been argued that it was by Hibs fans, but if you start saying that Rangers were immoral and should therefore have titled stripped, then an extension of that argument would be possible to make to include hearts in that. Look at 2012 when we were having financial issues. Would clearly be an extension of the argument that rangers by not paying tax gained an advantage and then titles should be stripped, to say that we gained an advantage and our cup win should be stripped. It's not an argument I agree with, but it is there to be made. How can people not see that? 

 

It's a very odd mindset - supporting trolls like Darren O'Dea and getting behind the idea of Celtic lobbying for titles to be stripped.  

it has absolutely nothing to do with Morality but Legality. Rangers broke the law (pending any appeal), end of story.

[JamboJen]

As I have said, the question of morality arise from posts in this thread!

I noticed that after I'd posted, must have been posting at the same time! Have added an edit onto the end of my post. Edited November 11, 2015 by JamboJen

[The People's Chimp]

Read with interest comments today regarding stripping of titles -

 

"As a Celtic fan, I take my bragging rights from the fact that in 2010 they were dead"

 

Direct quote from Roger Mitchell - a former SPL Chief Executive.

 

I am sure he would have put all Celtic bias aside during his tenure at the SPL though................

 

 

Have a look at the full interview before jumping in. He actually speaks a bit of sense on this tbh. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34782949

 

 

"My view of what happened is it was a 120-year battle between two titans and in 2010 one was on the battlefield dead," he told listeners.

"I believe they're the same club. I'm not into this newco/oldco stuff.

"They were dead but they came back. It's like France and Germany have had wars over a thousand years - they come back. It doesn't mean that they are not the same army or the same nation.

"Rangers is the same soul as it was before, the fans are the same soul. As a Celtic fan, I take my bragging rights from the fact that in 2010 they were dead, lying in the battlefield, but they are back.

"Next we'll start again and it will be just as interesting.

[jambovambo]

it has absolutely nothing to do with Morality but Legality. Rangers broke the law (pending any appeal), end of story.

... and the SFA/SPL/SPFL rules ... (delete as appropriate)

 

(remember Livingston / Spartans / Dunfermline etc ...)

Edited November 11, 2015 by jambovambo

[Jamboelite]

Folk on about stripping titles. 

 

If Romanov was shown to have been at it with how he employed, say Miko, should we lose the 2006 cup win? If you start looking at the 'morality of actors' would Romanov's time at the helm be immoral? Certainly been argued that it was by Hibs fans, but if you start saying that Rangers were immoral and should therefore have titled stripped, then an extension of that argument would be possible to make to include hearts in that. Look at 2012 when we were having financial issues. Would clearly be an extension of the argument that rangers by not paying tax gained an advantage and then titles should be stripped, to say that we gained an advantage and our cup win should be stripped. It's not an argument I agree with, but it is there to be made. How can people not see that? 

 

It's a very odd mindset - supporting trolls like Darren O'Dea and getting behind the idea of Celtic lobbying for titles to be stripped.  

 

Disagree

 

Romanov hasnt been proven to be at it ? if you are referring to the Lithuanian wages and tax then this was settled with HMRC when it was a bit murky as to tax at source. Should something come to light that says we gained a sporting advantage by actions that were illegal then yes we should lose any trophies.

 

Hearts were having financial issues but there have been many clubs sailing close to the wind with regard to that, we continued to try and pay those debts as they fell due I dont regard that as immoral.

 

In Romanovs case as I said we were servicing our debt until his businesses collapsed and that is entirely different to Rangers situation unless you are saying that Hearts were immorally spending money they knew they couldnt pay back and that administration was inevitable, in which case yes we should have declared bankruptcy as we were insolvent but that has never been suggested.

 

HMRC statements note "Mr Black", which is assumed to be SDM, deliberately used EBTs so he could afford to get the players he wanted and he recognised the sporting advantage this would get him. Side letters guaranteed the payments to the players and clearly he knew this was not how the set up should work.

 

That is immoral, its also a wilful attempt at circumventing tax laws for a start and irrespective of LNS these side letters should have been declared and therefore this is also a breach.

 

This argument has come up already re Hearts and Rangers, a systematic approach to avoid paying tax is completely different to a club albeit overspending, managing their debts and then their funds disappearing and being unable to manage their liabilities.

 

I dont get the argument re 2012 or 06' if we are saying any club that is living beyond its means is immoral then the games a bogey for everyone.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Jamboelite

[reaths17]

Typical of this place that actually looking out for hearts' interest long term can be described as having rangers glasses.

hearts weren't found guilty of cheating, infact the GFA went into overdrive creating rules to hinder everything Romanov legally done.

 

and once again for the hard at reading wee huns, RANGERS WERE FOUND GUILTY OF CHEATING.

 

since the period where they cheated they have since, ceased to exist. there is a new entity called "sevco" who are trying to claim rangers history, including the trophies they won while cheating as they say they "bought them fairly" at least that's the only legal reason for their bleating that I can see. claiming to be the same rangers is a PHOENIX and their quite entitled to have rangers history minus the cheating trophies and they are welcome to paying back the money they owe me and every other tax payer they cheated.

 

"nowhere were hearts found guilty of cheating", using the rules of business they suffered an administration not LIQUIDATION (the ceasation of life) and restructured their debt with the help of their creditors, all legal and above board, no shredding of documents, no hiding evidence, no obstructing the law.

 

as things stand "RANGERS CHEATED, Hearts didn't. pay your dues and get on with it.

Edited November 11, 2015 by reaths17

[Footballfirst]

What's the reason for the change of date in the judicial review hearing between MASH and the SFA, FF? Didn't the date just get announced last night as 11th Dec?

 

I don't know the reason, but I suspect that the SFA may have asked for more time to prepare their defence.

 

I always thought there was a ruling that said no association member or shareholder can raise legal proceedings against the association, am I talking rubbish?  (I recall us being given that message after the constant fines, punishments and appeals)

 

Given that MASH is considered a small shareholder with no influence in the running of the club (as per an earlier SFA ruling) I don't see a problem in MASH taking action.

[jambovambo]

One thing's for sure, there's no love lost these days between Ashley and King.

 

Ooooft.

 

That's not sustainable - and it's going to be expensive.

[reaths17]

I always thought there was a ruling that said no association member or shareholder can raise legal proceedings against the association, am I talking rubbish?  (I recall us being given that message after the constant fines, punishments and appeals)

 

 

 

Given that MASH is considered a small shareholder with no influence in the running of the club (as per an earlier SFA ruling) I don't see a problem in MASH taking action.

 

 

there is also the fact that SFA/SPL rules are pretty damned fluid at the moment, pinning a ruling down to an exact meaning is like trying to get a sound footing on shifting sands

Edited November 11, 2015 by reaths17

[269miles]

Ashley is gradually becoming the Champion of the honest football fan here in Scotland. He is the only one with balls and the money to stand up to the Rangers and to the SFA who have bent over backwards to accommodate them. Who honestly thought that King was a Fit and Proper Person, a convicted tax cheat carrying a suspended jail sentence deemed good enough to head up a Scottish football club. A Glib and Shamless Liar previously on the board of a club that went into administration which is against the rules, accepted with open arms in the hope that "normality" will return to Scottish football.

We have Alex Thomson who for years has written about the love in but other than that there is no one else prepared to stand up against it. Jim Spence was hounded out for daring to speak out. Now it seems that Ashley is going to expose all. Well he's got my backing and I hope he leaves the lot of them naked in the gutter.

I wouldn't say Ashley is any kind of "champion" : he is doing this simply because King has severely p'd him off. King threatened to reveal what I would call " commercial in confidence" information about the merchandising deal (which the DR has spun into Ashley behaving badly - gagging order - when it is King who has behaved questionably and been slapped down by the judge. King has further antagonized King IMO with that last statement about the legal fight and now he is paying the

price. Quite clearly Ashley seems intent on making life difficult for King. Very difficult.

[Dalstonjambo]

I wouldn't say Ashley is any kind of "champion" : he is doing this simply because King has severely p'd him off. King threatened to reveal what I would call " commercial in confidence" information about the merchandising deal (which the DR has spun into Ashley behaving badly - gagging order - when it is King who has behaved questionably and been slapped down by the judge. King has further antagonized King IMO with that last statement about the legal fight and now he is paying the

price. Quite clearly Ashley seems intent on making life difficult for King. Very difficult.

Dave King is the new Andy Goram!

[whyskey]

Folk on about stripping titles. 

 

If Romanov was shown to have been at it with how he employed, say Miko, should we lose the 2006 cup win? If you start looking at the 'morality of actors' would Romanov's time at the helm be immoral? Certainly been argued that it was by Hibs fans, but if you start saying that Rangers were immoral and should therefore have titled stripped, then an extension of that argument would be possible to make to include hearts in that. Look at 2012 when we were having financial issues. Would clearly be an extension of the argument that rangers by not paying tax gained an advantage and then titles should be stripped, to say that we gained an advantage and our cup win should be stripped. It's not an argument I agree with, but it is there to be made. How can people not see that? 

 

It's a very odd mindset - supporting trolls like Darren O'Dea and getting behind the idea of Celtic lobbying for titles to be stripped.  

 

what you are saying does not make sense, so in a cup final team A beats team B but because team B has less debt than team A then the cup should be awarded to team B, in that case then why play cup games just give the cup to the team with the least debt.

[Don Dan]

I wouldn't say Ashley is any kind of "champion" : he is doing this simply because King has severely p'd him off. King threatened to reveal what I would call " commercial in confidence" information about the merchandising deal (which the DR has spun into Ashley behaving badly - gagging order - when it is King who has behaved questionably and been slapped down by the judge. King has further antagonized King IMO with that last statement about the legal fight and now he is paying the

price. Quite clearly Ashley seems intent on making life difficult for King. Very difficult.

I don't think Ashely set out to Champion Scottish football but his fight with King is IMO making him an unintentional Champion. The fall out from this spat will only benefit Scottish football.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Pistol1874]

Hearts did not field any teams under Romanov where even one of the players were ineligible to play.

Rangers played hundreds of games with at least one, but often several, player(s) who were ineligible to play.

'Their' titles should be removed for that alone.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Pistol1874

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Tremendous. Most concerned about the feelings of 10 folk because they get the train to hearts games.

 

While you seem more concerned about the 40 odd thousand that attended RFC matches. Are you actually 'We Are The People's Chimp'?

 

And before you ask, yes, I do believe 10 Hearts fans are worth infinitely more than tens of thousands of RFC, TRFC, or whatever incarnation they may find themselves in next, fans!

[Hackney Hearts]

Typical of this place that actually looking out for hearts' interest long term can be described as having rangers glasses. 

 

Seriously? It has been pointed out a thousand times that Hearts' problems bear no relation to what Rangers were up to. Hearts are in no danger of anything, so really no need to "look out for their interests" - if that's what you were actually doing.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Have a look at the full interview before jumping in. He actually speaks a bit of sense on this tbh.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34782949

That's the worst part of his entire interview. He wants us to go back to having an OF duopoly where the only interest is a battle between two teams from now until infinity. What an awful vision of the future/reflection on the past.

[269miles]

Dave King is the new Andy Goram!

Cheers. At least I know someone reads my posts , LOL.

 

Anyway , interesting post on TSFM -

 

Apparently Regan did not convene the full Professional Gaming Board to decide on King?s Fit & Proper status. (This is against the SFA rules). He did this to ensure King got the clearance he needed and was being pushed by Regan. No sources quoted but it would hardly surprise me.

 

Could be bollox, of course.

[RobboM]

• Sports Direct v Dave King - 9 December @ Chancery Court, London - Contempt of court re disclosure of of contract details.

Who foots the bill for Dave King's defence? Will this require another soft loan from the other Rangers directors or will Dave foot the bill from his loose change?

[Footballfirst]

what you are saying does not make sense, so in a cup final team A beats team B but because team B has less debt than team A then the cup should be awarded to team B, in that case then why play cup games just give the cup to the team with the least debt.

 

Correct - Debt and overspending are not the issue.  There are "consequences" to debt and overspending which can result in administration or in some cases liquidation.

 

What is at issue is two fold - 1) tax evasion as a result of using an inappropriate vehicle for taxable earnings (EBTs), and 2) The failure to disclose full details of contracts

 

The SPFL may well have some difficulty reopening both issues.  1) there were (at the time it happened) no rules on tax payments to HMRC, i.e. no rule to be broken, and 2) LNS made his decision which I believe was final and binding.

 

The options that could be available would be 1) issue a general notice of complaint re not acting in "good faith" or "bringing the game into disrepute", and 2) The SPFL initiates a new commission to look at the "wee tax case" and/or issues arising from the LNS decision (not the decision itself), or alternatively a 3rd party seeks a judicial review of the LNS decision.   

Edited November 11, 2015 by Footballfirst

[jambovambo]

Cheers. At least I know someone reads my posts , LOL.

 

Anyway , interesting post on TSFM -

 

Apparently Regan did not convene the full Professional Gaming Board to decide on King?s Fit & Proper status. (This is against the SFA rules). He did this to ensure King got the clearance he needed and was being pushed by Regan. No sources quoted but it would hardly surprise me.

 

Could be bollox, of course.

Who's "he" here, and do you mean "King" rather than "Regan" ? 

[269miles]

Who's "he" here, and do you mean "King" rather than "Regan" ?

I've lifted the post verbatim so can't add anything .

[Footballfirst]

Re the MASH action against the SFA.  I expect that MASH will obviously highlight the contradiction between King's convictions and involvement as a director of the Oldco and the SFA's own criteria for consideration of FPPs. 

 

I would also expect that they will highlight the SFA's departure from their own stated Board powers.  "John James" has already highlighted the fact that the SFA Board took the decision on King as a FPP, rather than the Professional Game Board, although it was the PGB who ruled on Paul Murray as being FPP.

 

Here is an extract of a some of the PGB's responsibilities from the SFA's Handbook - Board Protocols PGB.

3.14 in respect of the Professional Game:
(i) approving changes to an Official Return;
(ii) ensuring all required persons are specified on an Official Return;
(iii) approving of changes to constitution or rules of relevant entity;
(iv) approving persons to hold position within Association Football, and of changes to details on Official Return;

 

The "Official Return" is submitted by club with regard to a list of officials of a club, all of whom should be FPPs.

 

My reading of the above was that the SFA was wrong to limit the decision on King's FPP status to the SFA Board.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Footballfirst

[jambovambo]

This is seriously going to run and run ...

 

I pity the poor Rangers fans ...

 

(no I don't)

[Walter Bishop]

From the same blogger who said Jason Holt was the new Iniesta. 

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/opinion/sport/rangers-record-fc-ebt-justice-6809526

[Footballfirst]

Here is an article querying the SFA Board?s approval of King at the time, which questions the process, but also highlights the Board?s authority to rule on PMG responsibilities.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3093620/Did-Scottish-FA-break-rules-process-granting-new-Rangers-chairman-Dave-King-fit-proper-status.html

 

The relevant extract from the SFA's Handbook reads:

 

64.2.1 Notwithstanding any delegation of powers by the Board as detailed in the Board Protocols, the Board shall at any time be entitled to exercise its powers in relation to such areas of responsibility over any like matters considered and determined by the Professional Game Board, the Non-Professional Game Board, any Committee or sub-committee or the Chief Executive in priority to any such body or person.

[sandylejambo]

there is also the issue of King taking up a boardroom spot less than 5 years after the club was put into administration, he was a director then and the rules are at least 5 years. I think

[Tasavallan]

3 years. 3 YEARS!   i have been commenting on the EBTs on this thread and my opinion has not altered.  EBTs gave Minty's Rangers a playing advantage over the rest of the SPL. which in turn advantaged Rangers in Europe.  Rangers cheated.

 

There are so many that cannot see the wood for the trees.  Rangers cheated. As such they must be penalised.  All the trophies and titles won since EBTs became illegal must be taken from them.   But the moot point will be who now owns the history Oldco or Newco.  Did Chuckles buy it in good faith or wee they not Dumb & Dumber's to sell.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Tasavallan

[Diadora Van Basten]

From the same blogger who said Jason Holt was the new Iniesta. 

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/opinion/sport/rangers-record-fc-ebt-justice-6809526

EBT?s were a gamble by a discredited chairman who ran the club in an irresponsible way.

Immoral? Yes. Objectionable? Yes. Do I find it embarrassing that the clubs name is used in context of tax avoidance? Absolutely. But against the rules? No. Illegal? No.

----

I think he will find that should read But against the rules? Yes (payments were not registered with the SFA as required). Illegal? Yes hence why PAYE and penalties is now due.

[Hackney Hearts]

The whole Roger Mitchell interview is hugely depressing, especially trying to equate the overspending of Hearts and Motherwell (and others) to the crimes of Rangers. Apart from his general sweep-it-under-the-carpet attitude and nonsensical drivel about France and Germany and dying on the battlefield, the bit that stood out for me was this dismissive remark:

 

"What we're talking about here is fans' bragging rights".

 

Well maybe, yes. Maybe that's what it is about. But what else should football be about? Is it just a way of getting a couple of dozen young men out of the house to kick a ball about? Get some fresh air? What's the point of all those points given out for wins or draws, what's the point of goal difference and league tables?

People pay lots of money to support teams in the hope that they'll have some sort of bragging rights - even if it's just for winning a local derby, or beating a 'big' team in a one-off game.

 

If it's shown one particular team's bragging rights have been gained illegally over many many years - why does Roger have a problem with those rights being withdrawn? There seems to be a basic lack of understanding of how football works.

 

And we let this man run our game.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Hackney Hearts

[Hagar the Horrible]

It still makes my blood boil to this day that Dallas and Davis cheated us on the park that day, and Rangers have been cheating us off it. 

 

If they anger Ashley enough he could go for the full MAD approach (Mutually Assured Destruction),  that aside he is toying with them like a bored cat and a fresh mouse.

 

I could not care less about their 150 years of tainted titles, what bothers me is the millions it may have cost Hearts and all the Euro trips I missed while their fans lorded it over the rest of Scottish Football, for me I think they need a 10 year ban from playing in Europe, starting from the date they actually qualify for it.

 

If they go pete tong again, then lets be clear They will be treated as a new club, they wont get to keep the history and thanks to Mike, they wont even get to keep the name!

 

I am off to buy some sports socks even though I am too old for sports.....hmmmm sports direct looks like a good solid place to buy them?

[ollie2004]

It still makes my blood boil to this day that Dallas and Davis cheated us on the park that day, and Rangers have been cheating us off it. 

 

If they anger Ashley enough he could go for the full MAD approach (Mutually Assured Destruction),  that aside he is toying with them like a bored cat and a fresh mouse.

 

I could not care less about their 150 years of tainted titles, what bothers me is the millions it may have cost Hearts and all the Euro trips I missed while their fans lorded it over the rest of Scottish Football, for me I think they need a 10 year ban from playing in Europe, starting from the date they actually qualify for it.

 

If they go pete tong again, then lets be clear They will be treated as a new club, they wont get to keep the history and thanks to Mike, they wont even get to keep the name!

 

I am off to buy some sports socks even though I am too old for sports.....hmmmm sports direct looks like a good solid place to buy them?

 

 

 

 

I would prefer they were liquidated again and forced to apply for West of Scotland junior football where they should have started from after their last liquidation. That would seem appropriate as many of those clubs in the lower leagues, such as Spartans, are well run and can provide audited accounts.

Edited November 11, 2015 by ollie2004