The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[moonraker]

@BBCMarkDaly @alextomo @patshar Now have robust advice against SFA but view is they will try & tough it out in absence of MSM intervention.

(@Heavidor)

 

@Heavidor @BBCMarkDaly @alextomo looks like it will be Up to the fans or outside media to take forward

 

Finally getting round to reading the Tax Justice Network report on Rangers. Some awkward questions in there for Campbell Ogilvie/the SFA.

(@grahamspiers)

 

@SkynyrdScotland Might write about it in my column in The Times on Saturday. Some serious - though not uncomplicated - issues at stake.

(Ditto)

Be good to have at least a view from the mainstream media summarising the position as they see it. We could at least compare that to the currently prevailing view in offline media sources. My purely personal view is as follows.

• Rangers >Incorporated >Entered Admin > Currently In Liquidation
• Assets sold to Sevco, name changed to The Rangers Football Club (after game with Brechin ?) .New club
• SFA  Probably gave easy ride to licence them for Europe, as they needed that money. This was despite The old club being due taxmoney to HMRC (Think they spent it on Lee Wallace)
• New club still not paid fine set out in 5 way agreement

I do not really have relevant legal, financial, taxation or regulatory to reassure me that I am correct in my beliefs but if the media would actually write about it, who knows they might even be quite persuasive.

Edited May 12, 2016 by moonraker

[jambovambo]

@tedermeatballs

Mind you, if you enjoy stories about Mike Ashley and Rangers then stay tuned...

 

Edit : re Ashley, Newcastle and relegation?

Edited May 12, 2016 by jambovambo

[Seymour M Hersh]

 

 

Whaur's the lower set of dentures? 

 

Ftfy.

[Seymour M Hersh]

In short our esteemed leaders will indulge in some serious lie telling [emoji1]

 

Ftfy.

[Mysterion]

Back page suggests the Football League are going to look at Sports Direct's contracts/activities and that Newcastle could be chucked out if the contracts are not ripped up.

 

I am not sure legally how they could enforce anything.

[hughesie27]

.

[Footballfirst]

STV has reported that Gary Withey and David Grier have been cleared  in the Fraudco case, following this week's appeal hearing, leaving only Craig Whyte facing charges.

 

http://stv.tv/news/west-central/1354050-two-cleared-of-charges-against-them-in-rangers-fraud-case/

 

I don't think that "cleared" is the correct term to use, but charges have been dropped against the pair, but for reasons that will only be revealed at the conclusion of the case. 

 

I think it is fair to say that the way this case has progressed, with multiple charges dropped or amended from the original indictment, doesn't show the Crown Office in a good light.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Footballfirst

[LeftBack]

STV have reported that Gary Withey and David Grier have been cleared  in the Fraudco case, following this week's appeal hearing, leaving only Craig Whyte facing charges.

 

http://stv.tv/news/west-central/1354050-two-cleared-of-charges-against-them-in-rangers-fraud-case/

 

I don't think that "cleared" is the correct term to use, but charges have been dropped against the pair, but for reasons that will only be revealed at the conclusion of the case. 

 

I think it is fair to say that the way this case has progressed, with multiple charges dropped or amended from the original indictment, doesn't show the Crown Office in a good light.

Could it be a case of deals being done (ie singing like canaries) so case against Whyte becomes watertight. Presumably cases like this are very difficult to prove because of the complexities. 

[Diadora Van Basten]

Its disappointing as that means that they must not have enough evidence to prove that the sale price of the assets was fraudulent.

[Bazzas right boot]

Is that Hippolight a football player?

 

completely wrong thread.

Edited May 13, 2016 by hotcurrie

[Footballfirst]

Could it be a case of deals being done (ie singing like canaries) so case against Whyte becomes watertight. Presumably cases like this are very difficult to prove because of the complexities. 

 

Having attended a number of the preliminary hearings, I am aware of the background to today's decision. I can assure you that no deals are being done. Your second statement is much closer to the mark, along with the last sentence of my previous post.

 

I think a lot of people will be dismayed when they finally hear the reasons for some of the charges being dropped against each of those originally indicted.

 

All the individuals who were originally indicted remain under the threat of new charges being brought against them, although there is a time bar which will come into force on 2nd July (or thereabouts). Furthermore I think any subsequent trial would have to start by September.

[Don Dan]

Rangers have signed Jordan Rossiter on a four-year deal, the club have confirmed. I thought the transfer window wasn't open yet.

[davieholt]

Rangers have signed Jordan Rossiter on a four-year deal, the club have confirmed. I thought the transfer window wasn't open yet.

 

Reportedly on ten grand a week! (Might be a pish source)

[Don Dan]

Reportedly on ten grand a week! (Might be a pish source)

Wouldn't surprise me.

[Footballfirst]

Rangers have signed Jordan Rossiter on a four-year deal, the club have confirmed. I thought the transfer window wasn't open yet.

 

You can sign players at any time. You just can't register them outside the windows, unless the player is a free agent.  They also have  couple of Accrington boys on pre-contracts.

[Don Dan]

You can sign players at any time. You just can't register them outside the windows, unless the player is a free agent.  They also have  couple of Accrington boys on pre-contracts.

Cheers FF

[Footballfirst]

Graham Spiers becomes the first of the SMSM to put his head above the parapet re The Offshore Game report.

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/choose-again-keane-or-lennon-p60tpdwln?shareToken=e8ee8a217b4eba173cf2a766d0ca7ff3

 

 

Withering observations on Nimmo Smith findings raise serious issues

There has been much internet excitement over a report by the independent Tax Justice Network into the affairs of the pre-2012 Rangers FC and the role of the Scottish Football Association.

 

It has all been a bit strange. The Scottish press has shown not the slightest interest in the report ? it skewers the SFA ? while football fans across the country have been up in arms at its conclusions.

 

First, the TJN report casts doubt over the findings of the Lord Nimmo Smith inquiry into Rangers? rule-breaking, going so far as to say the inquiry was misled and made ?a material error of fact? in its findings. Nimmo Smith found Rangers guilty of breaking football rules but saw no case for title-stripping.

 

Second, the TJN report seriously questions the evidence provided to the inquiry by Campbell Ogilvie, at the time president of the SFA president, and previously a longstanding official for Rangers.

 

The vexed connections around Ogilvie ? a recipient of a Rangers employee benefit trust (EBT), his involvement in early EBTs at the club, and subsequent SFA high office ? all prompt the TJN to make withering observations.

 

As for Rangers? use of Discounted Options Scheme EBTS to pay a player such as Ronald De Boer, the TJN quotes an HMRC inspector who probed Rangers, and who referred to the tax-avoiding scheme as ?a sham?. Rangers admitted to owing ?2.8 million in unpaid taxes.

 

Yet Nimmo Smith appeared to remain unaware of the illegitimate use of the DOS EBT, and chose not to strip any titles won by Rangers. The TJN now questions this judgment.

 

The TJN further impales the SFA over its granting of a licence to Rangers to compete in Europe in 2011-12. This remains a contentious point but the TJN report expresses ?serious concerns about the SFA?s behaviour and conduct?.

 

All of this may well fizzle out. But this TJN report raises serious issues which deserve to be addressed.

[naeclue]

Reportedly on ten grand a week! (Might be a pish source)

I can imagine some of Coisty's signings were on that kind of wage, so as they leave there's a bit of cash available.

 

Warburton would struggle to spend as badly.

[269miles]

Graham Spiers becomes the first of the SMSM to put his head above the parapet re The Offshore Game report.

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/choose-again-keane-or-lennon-p60tpdwln?shareToken=e8ee8a217b4eba173cf2a766d0ca7ff3

Unfortunately and predictably , the Glasgow media won't even mention it's existence. The BBC won't go near it either- they've already said they won't be discussing it.

 

Worse,  fans are being treated as mugs by the clubs - and that includes HMFC who were and are happy to go along with this shameful exercise. The SFA should be shut down and their officials investigated - but the member clubs just don't care about what was done for Rangers & Sevco. Ultimately the SFA is the face of the clubs and the clubs have been happy to go along with this deception.  

[Hashimoto]

Unfortunately and predictably , the Glasgow media won't even mention it's existence. The BBC won't go near it either- they've already said they won't be discussing it.

 

Worse,  fans are being treated as mugs by the clubs - and that includes HMFC who were and are happy to go along with this shameful exercise. The SFA should be shut down and their officials investigated - but the member clubs just don't care about what was done for Rangers & Sevco. Ultimately the SFA is the face of the clubs and the clubs have been happy to go along with this deception.  

Exactly....Something stinks about the whole thing.....And that includes all other clubs outside of Sevco. Fans are left hot under the collar, frustrated by the closed shop mentality. However it seems alright to be asked to part with our hard earned cash which in turn, indirectly supports a corrupt (SFA/SPFL) cabal. This whole sordid affair needs some closure. It need the clubs to come out and state their position and views on the SFA/SPFL. To do nothing but sit on their hands acts as a great disservice to it's paying public.    

Edited May 14, 2016 by Hashimoto

[Footballfirst]

I sense a new set of court actions ahead.

 

Statement o?clock

 

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/club-statement-57/

 

THE Rangers Football Club Limited has today served notice on Rangers Retail Limited terminating the IP Licence and Rights Agreement with that company with immediate effect.

 

The Club now needs to speak to its commercial partners to agree the next steps flowing from the termination and will make no further comment on this matter whilst discussions are ongoing.

 

The Club will endeavour to communicate further with its supporters and customers for Rangers Kit and other Rangers products as soon as it is in a position to do so.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Footballfirst

[Jambo 4 Ever]

 

I sense a new set of court actions ahead.

 

Statement o?clock

 

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/club-statement-57/

 

THE Rangers Football Club Limited has today served notice on Rangers Retail Limited terminating the IP Licence and Rights Agreement with that company with immediate effect.

 

The Club now needs to speak to its commercial partners to agree the next steps flowing from the termination and will make no further comment on this matter whilst discussions are ongoing.

 

The Club will endeavour to communicate further with its supporters and customers for Rangers Kit and other Rangers products as soon as it is in a position to do so.

 

what does this mean exactly?

[Footballfirst]

what does this mean exactly?

 

It means that they have ripped up the Sports Direct retail deal.

 

IIRC they gave notice to terminate it in January, however it had a seven year notice period.

 

Rangers must be confident that they can argue against any future claim that Mike Ashley might make for breach of contract.  I think that is a risky strategy.

 

It could be that with Newcastle relegated and the stricter Football League rules on dual interest coming into play, then Rangers may feel that the deal can be safely voided.

[kingdannyb]

"The move, in theory, will continue to allow Sports Direct to exclusively sell goods manufactured by Rangers Retail Limited.

But with Rangers now the sole holders of the copyright, the products won't be able to carry club trademarks."

[The Gasman]

"The move, in theory, will continue to allow Sports Direct to exclusively sell goods manufactured by Rangers Retail Limited.

But with Rangers now the sole holders of the copyright, the products won't be able to carry club trademarks."

I wonder how many strip manufacturers would bid for the right to produce next seasons Rangers kits, with the threat of legal action over trade marks and copyright hanging over them..?

[Tom Clancy]

I believe the lead in time for the manufacture of replica strips is several months, so Rangers either have an alternative supplier already lined up or they are going to miss the start of next season for retail sales of any new product.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Tom Clancy

[SUTOL]

I believe the lead in time for the manufacture of replica strips is several months, so Rangers either have an alternative supplier already lined up or they are going to miss the start of next season for retail sales of any new product.

 

I thought they had released pics of the new strip. They can be seen on the thread on here about our new strip.

 

It looks like they are sticking with Puma. 

[Mysterion]

I believe the lead in time for the manufacture of replica strips is several months, so Rangers either have an alternative supplier already lined up or they are going to miss the start of next season for retail sales of any new product.

This is a great point.

 

From memory I believe their away strip has already been leaked or announced. Would it be withheld from sale?

 

I suspect the one guaranteed outcome is that lawyers will make a lot of money out of this round of Sevco/Sports Direct arguments...

[Diadora Van Basten]

Is it possible that they have cut a deal with MASH to be released in return for not going after costs following the failed court action by MASH.

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

Not following this as closely now but I find the battles with Ashley interesting. Ashley is portrayed everywhere as this ruthless success story who gets everything he wants, yet Rangers seem to screw him every time they try. What's that all about?

[stevie1874]

Not following this as closely now but I find the battles with Ashley interesting. Ashley is portrayed everywhere as this ruthless success story who gets everything he wants, yet Rangers seem to screw him every time they try. What's that all about?

Totally agree, lots of people on this thread built Ashley up as someone not to be messed with in the business world who had enough money to mess Rangers should he wish. Turning out to be taken for a ride by The Rangers who are just ignoring what's happened before King & co took control.

[...a bit disco]

I thought they had released pics of the new strip. They can be seen on the thread on here about our new strip.

 

It looks like they are sticking with Puma. 

[I P Knightley]

Click on the link to 'Rangers Football Club Ltd'.

Nothing there that was founded before May 2012.

[Mysterion]

Totally agree, lots of people on this thread built Ashley up as someone not to be messed with in the business world who had enough money to mess Rangers should he wish. Turning out to be taken for a ride by The Rangers who are just ignoring what's happened before King & co took control.

To some extent he did achieve some of his aims - the litigation tied up money Rangers needed to operate and the rumours were rife that they were surviving through improved gate receipts on a monthly basis. He got the arguments wrong though and the case against the SFA was dropped after the SFA relented and released info to him.

 

It could be argued that he has called into question the transparency of the SFA and because they have not released info on King to the public then the point has been made. The problem for Ashley's win there is that the MSM are not pursuing the transparency crusade for him.

[Unknown user]

It means that they have ripped up the Sports Direct retail deal.

 

IIRC they gave notice to terminate it in January, however it had a seven year notice period.

 

Rangers must be confident that they can argue against any future claim that Mike Ashley might make for breach of contract. I think that is a risky strategy.

 

It could be that with Newcastle relegated and the stricter Football League rules on dual interest coming into play, then Rangers may feel that the deal can be safely voided.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe the sports direct deal is still in place- what they've done is taken away Rangers Retail ' s (the joint venture) rights to use any of their intellectual property such as badges etc.

So in effect, the main contracts in place, just SD can'tactually sell rangers kits now.

 

This is a move - wait till the kits are manufactured then make them unsellable, forcing Ashley to do something or lose money.

 

I fancy him to take them on, he has deeper pockets

[Mysterion]

 

This is a move - wait till the kits are manufactured then make them unsellable, forcing Ashley to do something or lose money.

 

I fancy him to take them on, he has deeper pockets

I think he will take them on too.

 

Another consideration - Ashley will have a warehouse of strips with a casino name and Puma written on them. At what point do the Sponsors pressure Rangers to back down and allow strips to be sold?

[wibble]

I think he will take them on too.

 

Another consideration - Ashley will have a warehouse of strips with a casino name and Puma written on them. At what point do the Sponsors pressure Rangers to back down and allow strips to be sold?

Doesn't the deal man that the rangers have to buy any unsold strips? In this case out Will be all of them.

 

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

[Doc Rob]

Pretend Rangers, like their predecessors, are a club who assume that they will always get their way. Hence their assumption that they can simply tear up existing contracts and the world will simply rearrange itself to suit them. The thing is, if you actually have that kind of industrial-grade arrogance, this often works. As Terry Pratchett put it, 'If you ignore the rules, people will, half the time, quietly rewrite them so that they don't apply to you'.

 

They have absolute confidence that they will get what they want. In the face of that, a lot of people will decide the fight isn't worth it. Is Ashley's ego as big as theirs, though?

[Unknown user]

I see the daily record are reporting that the rangers are refusing to wear the new kit on cup final day.

 

I keep coming back to the story I read about some Newcastle fans who bumped into Llambias on a night out- he basically told them not to **** with Ashley as he wasn't a very nice person to get on the wrong side of.

 

And here they are, poking the tiger with a stick

[Yipeekaiyay]

The D.R saying sevco will refuse to wear next seasons strip in the cup final as part of their ongoing dispute with Ashley. [emoji4]

 

Is it normal to wear the next seasons strip in the final?

 

Sent from my GT-I9195I using Tapatalk

[Fort Vallance]

I see the daily record are reporting that the rangers are refusing to wear the new kit on cup final day.

 

I keep coming back to the story I read about some Newcastle fans who bumped into Llambias on a night out- he basically told them not to **** with Ashley as he wasn't a very nice person to get on the wrong side of.

 

And here they are, poking the tiger with a stick

I think they think that because they've won a few minor skirmishes they've won the war. Hopefully they'll find out differently.

[The Gasman]

The D.R saying sevco will refuse to wear next seasons strip in the cup final as part of their ongoing dispute with Ashley. [emoji4]

 

Puma and 32 Red may not be too happy about that, and there may be contractual / registration issues over what they wear instead....

[marshallschunkychicken]

Puma and 32 Red may not be too happy about that, and there may be contractual / registration issues over what they wear instead....

I'd imagine they'll just wear this year's strip.

 

Seems to be rumours on Twitter that they are lining up Under Armour to make an alternative strip for next season. Now THAT would piss off Puma.

[Rods]

I think this is a smart move by Rangers to be honest.

 

Pile the pressure on Ashley and basically get him to name a buy out price.

[Stuart Lyon]

James Doleman just tweeted the following info

 

Diary dates 

 

Glasgow High Court 3 June

 

HMA v David GRIER 

HMA v Brian MCTAGGART 

HMA v Craig WHYTE  

HMA v Gary WITHEY

[Unknown user]

I think this is a smart move by Rangers to be honest.

 

Pile the pressure on Ashley and basically get him to name a buy out price.

I wonder who'll feel more pressure, the club that needs every income steam it can get or the pissed off billionaire.

 

I just can't help thinking they're slapping a bear in the face with their dick, unless they know something we don't of course.

[The Gasman]

They could just wear last seasons strip as a girfuy to Ashley & S.D over this tbh.

If they have already registered the new strip (the "next season" one that seems widely known) with the SPFL as their official strip, I'm not sure if they can just revert back..?

 

Certainly under the old SPL rules they would not have been able to do that (a rule that was introduced, ironically, after Rangers changed their strips mid season, to fleece their fans) but I'm not sure about the SPFL.

[1874robbo]

.

[Cairneyhill Jambo]

The huns are unhappy at Betfair

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14505354.Betfred_take_action_after_fans_express_outrage_over__Newco_Rangers__poster/?ref=mr&lp=2

 

[SUTOL]

The truth hurts.