Drylaw Hearts Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 ?1m a year, your own private yacht in Monte Carlo every summer, a go on Janet whenever you fancy... in return for having some Liffs at the club? Deal? I'll be honest... If you had said Janet that would have probably been enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I'll be honest... If you had said Janet that would have probably been enough. Pah. No principles at all, that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Wiseau Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I wouldn't have a Liff at the club if I was in charge. Nasty bunch imo. Knew it. Alex Koslovski was right all along. I'd be out the back of the Wheatfield with a few of Mr Romanov's top boeys protesting, likes. I expect huge support for my "I am not a number" campaign. Solidarity with the faceless thousands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Knew it. Alex Koslovski was right all along. I'd be out the back of the Wheatfield with a few of Mr Romanov's top boeys protesting, likes. I expect huge support for my "I am not a number" campaign. Solidarity with the faceless thousands. Janet is a Liff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hackney Hearts Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 This really doesn't mean anything I'm afraid. it was just to highlight the odd timing of a statement about Celtic being miles ahead of everyone else - they may finish the season that way, they may not - but as things stand, they're struggling. The wider point is that the title is always a hopeless task for non-OF teams because although one of them might just have a poor season, the chances of them both being rubbish during the same season are tiny (plus your own side has to over-achieve at the same time obviously). In that respect, removing Rangers can only help IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinkster Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 They couldn't afford me. Oh they could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Wiseau Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Janet is a Liff. IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 it was just to highlight the odd timing of a statement about Celtic being miles ahead of everyone else - they may finish the season that way, they may not - but as things stand, they're struggling. The wider point is that the title is always a hopeless task for non-OF teams because although one of them might just have a poor season, the chances of them both being rubbish during the same season are tiny (plus your own side has to over-achieve at the same time obviously). In that respect, removing Rangers can only help IMO. Celtic are having a temporary blip. They finished in the Top 2 in every SPL season to date and this season won't be any different imo. If we have a league without Rangers we need Celtic to have to be really rubbish before any other team has a chance. Having an SPL without one half of the OF would widen the gap and not close it imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Oh they could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boof Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 As much as we most of us hate them, in the eyes of the SFA/SPL they're one of the biggest reasons we have a TV and sponsorship deal worth as much as we do. And who receives the most benefit from that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 And who receives the most benefit from that? The OF. Why ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Celtic are having a temporary blip. They finished in the Top 2 in every SPL season to date and this season won't be any different imo. If we have a league without Rangers we need Celtic to have to be really rubbish before any other team has a chance. Having an SPL without one half of the OF would widen the gap and not close it imo. Not really. They only play each other four times so depending on the results may...or may not..take points off each other. However, taking this season as an example, Rangers have beaten more or less everyone else so far. If there is no Rangers, other teams would be more likely to win more games as one of them wouldn't more or less be guaranteed to be beaten every week. That would allow a Hearts/Aberdeen/Dundee Utd to build up more points than they might normally do. That would give them an impetus which might give them more confidence to take on Celtic when they come to play against them and might actually give them more of a game than we do just now. Maybe just a dream, of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I'm not sure of the veracity of this link but if it is correct, I'm assuming this punishment would only be imposed (the points part rather than the exclusion from European competition, the latter would apply come what may I presume/hope) if they were allowed to stay in the SPL. If this were to be the case, and given if they are starting from scratch, with a new playing squad, would it not make more sense for them to say up front we will start from the bottom and try to make our way back up to the SPL. Surely that would give them time to get their new squad of players knitted together for when, or if, they did get back to SPL level - 75 point penalty spread over 3 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Some comments this evening from one of the most reliable ITK posters on the RTC blog There is apparently a winding up petition in circulation this evening seeking the appointment of a provisional liquidator. I am told it is a petition by a creditor on the basis of alleged inability to pay debts as they fall due. That in turn suggests an undisputed debt which is well overdue but has just not been paid, no doubt while Whyte ?looks closely? at it. It may just be someone making a bit of noise to try to get the attention of the necessary people in order to get paid a relatively modest sum of money. But depending on whether and if so when it is presented it might have the potential to force Whyte?s hand. It would be a gutsy call for a judge to put in a provisional liquidator, but this is exactly the sort of case for which they are designed. Winding up is not approprate for collection of disputed debts. It is only for debts which are undoubtedly duie but not paid. The court has power to wind up, and may do so summarily. In appropriate cases it may appoint a provisional liquidator to take charge of the company even before a winding up order is made. Normally the creditor says it will petition unless it is paid by a deadline. The majority of petitions are withdrawn on payment being received. I haven?t heard who the creditor is. I doubt it will be HMRC. I suspect either Broadfoot?s agent or someone else we haven?t heard of (if they are not paying anyone on normal coursethen there will be plenty to choose from). If payment is made nothing else will come of it.. Rangers will get notice one way or another. Unless they and their advisers are monumentally stupid they will have caveats in the Court of Session and Glasgow Sheriff Court which will entitle them to be notified and to be heard before any order is made. But since the object is to force payment they will probably have had umpteen threatening letters. On the main business of the blog, things are moving. Lawyers (and not Rangers? lawyers) were hand delivering documents via black cabs at Ibrox today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Root Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I'm not sure of the veracity of this link but if it is correct, I'm assuming this punishment would only be imposed (the points part rather than the exclusion from European competition, the latter would apply come what may I presume/hope) if they were allowed to stay in the SPL. If this were to be the case, and given if they are starting from scratch, with a new playing squad, would it not make more sense for them to say up front we will start from the bottom and try to make our way back up to the SPL. Surely that would give them time to get their new squad of players knitted together for when, or if, they did get back to SPL level - 75 point penalty spread over 3 years More revenue to stay in the SPL and I would wager they would still make top six if not Europe each season anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.T.K Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Quick question... At what point did Rangers start doing their dodgy tax deals. When did start? And at what point did HMRC first speak to them about it. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wibble Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Shaun, You're incorrect in your view that the media have stuck to known facts re: Rangers. Speculation and gossip about them is rife when it has a positive spin. They are continually linked with players (that never appear), their players are the subject of huge (un-confirmed) bids during the transfer windows etc. The truth, as ever, is that if the gossip benefits Rangers then it is reported as if it were fact - if the facts are detrimental to Rangers then best to report it as gossip or play down it's importance. Always has been the case and hasn't changed. A great example of the blogs v mainstream gap is the publication of the Bain papers (as submitted as part of his ring-fencing). Any decent investigative journo should have been all over at least half of the info contained in these papers yet it all seemed to come as a surprise to those that had fetted Murray for decades. RangersTaxCase have been quite impartial over the whole case, often tempering the enthusiasm displayed with reasoned debate and fact-based analysis. Of course some speculation is indulged in, but in a case like this there is plenty that could, and should, be speculated upon. Rangerstaxcase has averaged about 5 posts a month, hardly a feverish output, and each post contains some new facts and/or another angle. The Scottish mainstream hacks have offered nothing in the way of considered opinion, hard-won facts or vigorous debate on the mistakes of the past or the options for the future. Where are the discussions of the damaged caused to the Scottish game by Rangers setting unrealistic spending thresholds? Where are the well thought out visions of how Scottish football might emerge from this period of waste and excess? Nothing, not a jot. The creeps will be crawling all over threads like this looking for scraps to cobble together for their next tiresome regurgitation of already well kent news. Mr. English, Mr. Traynor, Banderson, Chick and the rest - get off your lazy ill-informed arses and examine the state of Scottish football from unique perspectives - you might just uncover a story that matters or makes interesting reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 Doubtful. I don't think they had any idea until it was too late. You will be proved wrong in this assumption DH, there exist letters & faxes from Rangers executives to players agents which basically blow apart this whole premise, they knew for years what they were doing was far beyond what these trusts were initially set up to do and how they were supposed to operate ie what they were doing was beyond legal. Iam confident when the full facts of this sorry affair people will be incredulous and outraged that such things were allowed to happen, that there was such poor scrutiny, oversight and governance from the football authorities and why hasn't anybody been prosecuted yet. This was a deliberate sting and when the bill does fall due they will simply give everyone two fingers,not pay and start over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 Rules have to apply to all clubs not just some. Treatment has to be just & equal. The rules that applied to Airdrieonians & Gretna apply equally to Rangers. Who cares if Celtic win the league for the next 3 or 5 years if Rangers receive the proper and correct punishment for clubs that are liquidated and have to reform. Failure to apply the rules and punish Rangers accordingly in the same way Airdrieonians and Gretna were expelled when they were liquidated damages the credibility of the SFA & the SPL more than the short term benefit of keeping Rangers & TV deals etc. What creditors will provide any money or services to SPL clubs IF they simply band together and basically create a CHEATS CHARTER to enable them to escape their liabilities stiff everyone including Tax-payers in their own vested self interests? Why would fans continue to watch a competition where the rules that apply to some clubs don't apply to others even though their wrongdoings are far worse and just because the are perceived as having special status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 You will be proved wrong in this assumption DH, there exist letters & faxes from Rangers executives to players agents which basically blow apart this whole premise, they knew for years what they were doing was far beyond what these trusts were initially set up to do and how they were supposed to operate ie what they were doing was beyond legal. Iam confident when the full facts of this sorry affair people will be incredulous and outraged that such things were allowed to happen, that there was such poor scrutiny, oversight and governance from the football authorities and why hasn't anybody been prosecuted yet. This was a deliberate sting and when the bill does fall due they will simply give everyone two fingers,not pay and start over again. Whether that is true or not, the free ride Murray has taken over the EBT sums up how sycophantic the media was towards him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Rules have to apply to all clubs not just some. Treatment has to be just & equal. The rules that applied to Airdrieonians & Gretna apply equally to Rangers. Who cares if Celtic win the league for the next 3 or 5 years if Rangers receive the proper and correct punishment for clubs that are liquidated and have to reform. Failure to apply the rules and punish Rangers accordingly in the same way Airdrieonians and Gretna were expelled when they were liquidated damages the credibility of the SFA & the SPL more than the short term benefit of keeping Rangers & TV deals etc. What creditors will provide any money or services to SPL clubs IF they simply band together and basically create a CHEATS CHARTER to enable them to escape their liabilities stiff everyone including Tax-payers in their own vested self interests? Why would fans continue to watch a competition where the rules that apply to some clubs don't apply to others even though their wrongdoings are far worse and just because the are perceived as having special status. Spot on Charles. I would rather be in a league Celtic won every year, than a crooked league where the only difference is the title alternates between them and Rangers. We could also use the oppportuniry to review how TV money is split and change the league structure. I would prefer us playing each other twice. If it means we lose TV money then we will adapt. It will have a bigger impact on Celtic than anyone else with regards to amount if revenue lost. Long term I think revenue would increase as if the league is more competiive due to a weaker Celtic and the fact you only need to play them twice and also the fact more games would be at normal times. I think bigger crowds would be a result as what happened to Hibs when they were in the 1st division. They were playing 3 O'clock on a Saturday in an honest league, which they could and did win. What I would say is that if this does happen and Rangers are allowed to reform as a new team in the SPL or even 3rd division without having to reapply or take-over another club then the former directors of Airdrie, Gretna and Clydebank, especially the latter two, should have a wee word with their lawyers about legal action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.T.K Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Spot on Charles. I would rather be in a league Celtic won every year, than a crooked league where the only difference is the title alternates between them and Rangers. We could also use the oppportuniry to review how TV money is split and change the league structure. I would prefer us playing each other twice. If it means we lose TV money then we will adapt. It will have a bigger impact on Celtic than anyone else with regards to amount if revenue lost. Long term I think revenue would increase as if the league is more competiive due to a weaker Celtic and the fact you only need to play them twice and also the fact more games would be at normal times. I think bigger crowds would be a result as what happened to Hibs when they were in the 1st division. They were playing 3 O'clock on a Saturday in an honest league, which they could and did win. What I would say is that if this does happen and Rangers are allowed to reform as a new team in the SPL or even 3rd division without having to reapply or take-over another club then the former directors of Airdrie, Gretna and Clydebank, especially the latter two, should have a wee word with their lawyers about legal action. Spot on Simon, What ever happens with Rangers the SPL needs to take a step back to take a step forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 If no provision has been made to pay HMRC, but with Rangers still active im the transfer market, could this move on to fraud - especially if HMRC end up with nothing? Complete liquidation would recover as much money as possible and potentially keep Ibrox decision makers out of jail. Old regime and new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boof Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 The OF. Why ? As a Hearts fan wouldn't you be prepared to receive a larger percentage from a smaller pot rather than a piss-poor percentage from a large(ish) pot - the majority of which goes to the OF - if it meant Hearts had a greater chance of doing something meaningful in the league? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slap Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 The question is if they have to start again why not do it down south? Quite right get rid of the manky mob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 The arguments the pro-Rangers viewpoint will take that Scottish fitba will suffer too much without Rangers and they should be kept in to prevent other teams from suffering as a result. Complete and utter hogwash. bending all the rules to keep a Rangers newco would create a charter for cheats and reward the perpetrators not their victims. If Rangers drag everybody else down then we will know exactly why and who is to blame. If that means most of Scottish fitba is to be put into bankruptcy re-organisation and rebuilt from scratch then so be it. We will all know why it happened and who caused it and why it should never be allowed to happen again. Too big to fail disguises the problem and rewards wrongful behaviour as well. Removing the prospect of failure or serious penalty creates moral hazard and removes the incentive to play by the rules and avoid excessive risk if you know the others will always bail you out of trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyjamboDerbyshire Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Shaun, You're incorrect in your view that the media have stuck to known facts re: Rangers. Speculation and gossip about them is rife when it has a positive spin. They are continually linked with players (that never appear), their players are the subject of huge (un-confirmed) bids during the transfer windows etc. The truth, as ever, is that if the gossip benefits Rangers then it is reported as if it were fact - if the facts are detrimental to Rangers then best to report it as gossip or play down it's importance. Always has been the case and hasn't changed. A great example of the blogs v mainstream gap is the publication of the Bain papers (as submitted as part of his ring-fencing). Any decent investigative journo should have been all over at least half of the info contained in these papers yet it all seemed to come as a surprise to those that had fetted Murray for decades. RangersTaxCase have been quite impartial over the whole case, often tempering the enthusiasm displayed with reasoned debate and fact-based analysis. Of course some speculation is indulged in, but in a case like this there is plenty that could, and should, be speculated upon. Rangerstaxcase has averaged about 5 posts a month, hardly a feverish output, and each post contains some new facts and/or another angle. The Scottish mainstream hacks have offered nothing in the way of considered opinion, hard-won facts or vigorous debate on the mistakes of the past or the options for the future. Where are the discussions of the damaged caused to the Scottish game by Rangers setting unrealistic spending thresholds? Where are the well thought out visions of how Scottish football might emerge from this period of waste and excess? Nothing, not a jot. The creeps will be crawling all over threads like this looking for scraps to cobble together for their next tiresome regurgitation of already well kent news. Mr. English, Mr. Traynor, Banderson, Chick and the rest - get off your lazy ill-informed arses and examine the state of Scottish football from unique perspectives - you might just uncover a story that matters or makes interesting reading. Bloody good post mate The damage Rangers have done to Scottish football, throughout the Murray years, continue to do, and will do in the future, is immense, regardless of the outcome of the tax/administration issues. That hack Tom English speaks of bloggers as if, because they are not journalists, what they say must be untrue, and that they have, in effect, created public (the non-Rangers public) oppinion and made the Rangers' situation look worse than it is. Some of what is said on the net will be rubbish, speculation, ill informed, but much will be well informed, produced by people who know a lot more about the legal aspects of the case and, quite often, by people with no axe to grind. English's article is such a rant it could easily have been written by anyone on a Rangers' website and is typical of the way Scottish journalists are defending Rangers, or are too afraid for their jobs, that they stay silent. This is the biggest story that Scottish football has ever known and yet the media virtually ignore it rather than to get out there and dig deep to get the 'scoop' they used to dream of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Root Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Too big to fail. They said that of the banks and now they have our money, our taxes and businesses are going to the wall as they will not lend and remove facilities with no warning. I say let the hun die. It's the only way to save Scottish Football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 You will be proved wrong in this assumption DH, there exist letters & faxes from Rangers executives to players agents which basically blow apart this whole premise, they knew for years what they were doing was far beyond what these trusts were initially set up to do and how they were supposed to operate ie what they were doing was beyond legal. Iam confident when the full facts of this sorry affair people will be incredulous and outraged that such things were allowed to happen, that there was such poor scrutiny, oversight and governance from the football authorities and why hasn't anybody been prosecuted yet. This was a deliberate sting and when the bill does fall due they will simply give everyone two fingers,not pay and start over again. It's not the place of the football authorities to ensure Rangers are paying their taxes etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 It's not the place of the football authorities to ensure Rangers are paying their taxes etc. Correct, but it is their place to ensure that clubs do meet the necessary regulatory criteria for such trivial matters like European club licensing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 As a Hearts fan wouldn't you be prepared to receive a larger percentage from a smaller pot rather than a piss-poor percentage from a large(ish) pot - the majority of which goes to the OF - if it meant Hearts had a greater chance of doing something meaningful in the league? A larger percentage from a smaller pot may be not be that much different to a smaller percentage of a larger pot. Without Rangers the majority of the money would go to Celtic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Correct, but it is their place to ensure that clubs do meet the necessary regulatory criteria for such trivial matters like European club licensing. Do Rangers not meet the criteria ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Do Rangers not meet the criteria ? At present, yes. If and when this event crystallises, let's see how the SFA react. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyjamboDerbyshire Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 It's not the place of the football authorities to ensure Rangers are paying their taxes etc. I'd be very surprised if there's nothing in the constitution of the SFA that requires clubs to act in an honest and honourable way (or words to that effect) towards other clubs, creditors and HMRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 A larger percentage from a smaller pot may be not be that much different to a smaller percentage of a larger pot. Without Rangers the majority of the money would go to Celtic. Without Rangers and only Celtic in the SPL then the 9-1 or 11-1 SPL voting system means that the Old Firm veto would be gone (even if only temporarily) and the other clubs would have an opportunity to vote through such things as changes in the voting structure, income sharing & distribution, league size etc, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 A larger percentage from a smaller pot may be not be that much different to a smaller percentage of a larger pot. Without Rangers the majority of the money would go to Celtic. This is an interesting point. Without their Siamese twin, the non OF clubs would actually have a position of strength to change these deals and remove nonsensical rules like 11-1 voting for league structures. Whether they grasped that or not is a different question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Without Rangers and only Celtic in the SPL then the 9-1 or 11-1 SPL voting system means that the Old Firm veto would be gone (even if only temporarily) and the other clubs would have an opportunity to vote through such things as changes in the voting structure, income sharing & distribution, league size etc, While I am all for one at least of the OF disappearing, I think it is very optimistic to assume that there won't be at least one (probably more) supine clubs who will accede to a threat by Celtic to quit if their position is undermined by such changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 It's not the place of the football authorities to ensure Rangers are paying their taxes etc. Actually if you read the rules on club licensing and UEFA licensing then you'll find that it actually is. Licenses can be suspended or revoked if clubs have monies outstanding and overdue to tax authorities and they can also be refused entry to competitions on this basis. You should really brush up on the laws & rules governing our football as they exist DH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Root Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 A larger percentage from a smaller pot may be not be that much different to a smaller percentage of a larger pot. Without Rangers the majority of the money would go to Celtic. And second place would get the hun share. Or would they just be handing that over to Celtic too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 While I am all for one at least of the OF disappearing, I think it is very optimistic to assume that there won't be at least one (probably more) supine clubs who will accede to a threat by Celtic to quit if their position is undermined by such changes. That is the underlying fear out of all of this. And if said chairman was supine enough to cavil to Septic in this instance, they could easily cavil to Newco Rangers as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 At present, yes. If and when this event crystallises, let's see how the SFA react. The SFA will have to act within the UEFA guidelines. I'd be very surprised if there's nothing in the constitution of the SFA that requires clubs to act in an honest and honourable way (or words to that effect) towards other clubs, creditors and HMRC. You really think the SFA should dig through the finances of everyone of their member clubs and make sure they're doing everything 100% correct and by the book ? Without Rangers and only Celtic in the SPL then the 9-1 or 11-1 SPL voting system means that the Old Firm veto would be gone (even if only temporarily) and the other clubs would have an opportunity to vote through such things as changes in the voting structure, income sharing & distribution, league size etc, I know. I made that exact point about a week ago either on this thread or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 The SFA will have to act within the UEFA guidelines. You really think the SFA should dig through the finances of everyone of their member clubs and make sure they're doing everything 100% correct and by the book ? I know. I made that exact point about a week ago either on this thread or another. The member clubs have a duty to provide up to date and accurate financial information & disclosure as well as provide disclosure on any other potentially relevant matters such as tax disputes and potential liabilities. It is then the duty of the Football Authorities to assess and approve these or else seek additional information or else refuse to grant the club license or UEFA license etc. If member clubs have provided misleading or incomplete information then there are sanctions and penalties for that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Actually if you read the rules on club licensing and UEFA licensing then you'll find that it actually is. Licenses can be suspended or revoked if clubs have monies outstanding and overdue to tax authorities and they can also be refused entry to competitions on this basis. You should really brush up on the laws & rules governing our football as they exist DH. But as the case has yet to go to trial and Rangers have yet to be found guilty of not paying monies to the relevant parties. The SFA or SPL cannot find Rangers guilty before a court of law does. You really should think before you post CB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 You really think the SFA should dig through the finances of everyone of their member clubs and make sure they're doing everything 100% correct and by the book ? No but it would be entirely appropriate for the SFA to have sanctions against clubs which benefit financially through (if it proves to be the case) illegal means. Also to have rules that ensure a Rangers Newco reimburse other clubs for moneys owed by Rangers Oldco. After all they quickly invented a rule to punish Vlad for comments despite him having no formal position at Hearts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 The member clubs have a duty to provide up to date and accurate financial information & disclosure as well as provide disclosure on any other potentially relevant matters such as tax disputes and potential liabilities. It is then the duty of the Football Authorities to assess and approve these or else seek additional information or else refuse to grant the club license or UEFA license etc. If member clubs have provided misleading or incomplete information then there are sanctions and penalties for that too. Did Rangers provide the SFA or SPL with false information ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 No but it would be entirely appropriate for the SFA to have sanctions against clubs which benefit financially through (if it proves to be the case) illegal means. Also to have rules that ensure a Rangers Newco reimburse other clubs for moneys owed by Rangers Oldco. I'm not sure the SFA would have the power to inforce such a law - I could be wrong but this may be a bit outwith their remit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I'm not sure the SFA would have the power to inforce such a law - I could be wrong but this may be a bit outwith their remit. Irrespective of that though, they could refuse to affiliate Rangers Newco to their organisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 But as the case has yet to go to trial and Rangers have yet to be found guilty of not paying monies to the relevant parties. The SFA or SPL cannot find Rangers guilty before a court of law does. You really should think before you post CB. DH it is not a trial nor a court case and it is not a case of establishing guilt. It is a tax tribunal. The tax authorities have gone through Rangers finances and raised a Tax Bill plus interest for unpaid Taxes and also levied a financial penalty fine based on lack of disclosure and co-operation from the company oand how seriously they view the deliberate tax under-payment. This is an actual bill and it is legally enforceable. Rangers have appealled all or part of the bill as is their right however given that on the last day of the previous tribunal sitting Minty immediately sold Rangers for a quid the prospects of their success at tribunal do not look good and are almost certainly facing a bill running into tens of millions if HMRC are not awarded the full amount. Depending on what is revealed at tribunal and after the findings and papers are known then perhaps some criminal or civil cases MIGHT arise if injured parties start proceedings but that is for later on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Irrespective of that though, they could refuse to affiliate Rangers Newco to their organisation. Why would they do that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Why would they do that ? If said company was a clear dodge to avoid settling debts, particularly football debts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.