I have been receiving quite a bit of unflattering mail about the “agenda” being pursued on this blog. Depending on the correspondent, that is defined as either denying people their civil right to gloat, hiding the “truth” that people of the RC faith are welcomed and encouraged to come to Ibrox, or indulging in Chamberlain-style appeasement with the banning of the “H” word and other incontrovertible rights-to-insult.
The objection to moderation of any sort appears to be at the root of these diatribes. Our position here in terms of moderation is clear. There is no “agenda” other than a desire not to be chasing up posts containing the rantings and ravings of partisan types who “demand” their right to be heard no matter how objectionable it might be to those hear it. We are not here to service a conduit for conspiracy theories based in Masonic Lodges or the Vatican. There are plenty of places where people can indulge in that kind of stuff, but the moderators here are just not interested. The administration of the site takes around four hours per day. That’s a long time trawling through posts which often set out deliberately to insult, abuse or otherwise cause offence – mildly or otherwise.
Our view is that the blog will only have cross-club support if we stick to what we can substantiate by fact or reasonably infer from the way things proceed. Further, we feel that if we are to gain credibility as an alternative source of news and comment to the MSM, that we need to cut down on the fansite type comments. There is no dignity (a word often used here) in calling the Rangers manager or their fans names. We need to maintain higher standards of impartiality than football fansites, because we know that a united fan base can actually make a difference as RTC did when the SPL chairmen were gearing up for a parachute for the new Rangers. OT discussions are fine, and often amusing, but they shouldn’t become the main reason to come here.
The requirement to have a WordPress account before posting here is not in any way draconian. It is designed to make people accountable for what they post whilst still maintaining anonymity, and therefore being exempt from moderation. Those who don’t like it are not being compelled to carry out any instruction – they only need go to a place where they don’t feel so constrained.
If the main issue of this blog becomes how the blog is being administered – or how the moderation policy is affecting the human rights of posters, we may as well just pack up now.
There have never been any objections to the suggested posting rules on here. We assume that people who post are reasonably intelligent. Therefore it seems fair to assume that those who have ignored the suggested posting rules did so deliberately. If that doesn’t happen, moderation is just not required.
If what we are trying to do fails because of our posting framework, then we will be blamed. We are certain though, that we can have no credibility if we indulge ourselves in conspiracy theories and constant references to anachronistic organisations, the Scottish school system, and the leanings of referees.
There is real corruption in Scottish football. It is based not on religious rivalries but on greed and acquisitiveness. The only thing that matters is that we identify that corruption and help put an end to it.
Our job is to ask questions and not jump to our own conclusions about the answers. That will divide us as surely as the realisation of the depth of the corruption united us. To be totally united as fans, we need to have more Rangers fans on here. Therefore we need to create an atmosphere that they can be comfortable with. Is that the case right now? The anger for RFC’s mismanagement and abuse of the game in Scotland is real, but we need to look forward if we are truly committed to ensuring that what happened to Rangers can’t happen again.
We’re not gonna throw the toys out of the pram here. If anyone else would like to run the blog under those circumstances of zero moderation, we will be happy to hand over the domain. There is no “agenda” – we will be happy to hand the work over to others.
The initial posting which proposed the change to WordPress logins received over 130 TUs and only three TDs. Subsequently the post advising of the changes got around 100 TUs and 100 TDs. It seems that minds are not entirely made up.
To get some closure on this once and for all, we have added a poll below to end on Saturday at 1700 where you can decide whether you want to go along with our original plan in terms of login and moderation. We obviously recommend that you vote “Yes”
On the Guidigate thing, I have not heard the tape in question, and whilst Guidi deserves to spend a long time behind bars for his part in Stan Petrov’s biog (around eight years ago), I am fairly certain that he would not be wishing for Rangers fans to “kick off” – certainly not in the sense that I understand “kick off” to mean.
Maybe RC will clear the thing up, but in lieu of that, and in view of the fact that there is no clear consensus about what he said, I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
People like Regan, Doncaster, Ogilvie and Topping (and others perhaps), regardless of whether they have acted honourably or not, have no friends on either end of these arguments, and since it is a demonstrable fact that what has occurred has been shambolic, those in charge will be sacrificed.
————————————————————————–
Yes but who are the SFA Professional Board. Have you considered this, the SFA professional board has all of these guys as members. This is not some conspiracy theory, it is the best way to get the best result for Scottish football.
Mr Bunny says:
September 21, 2012 at 11:14
midcalderan says:
September 21, 2012 at 07:58
For the record, I played the Guidigate tapes on the Decca turntable I bought from Woolies circa 1970, I tried it at 33RPM and 78RPM and all I heard was a scratching sound.
—————————————————————————————-
Yes, but did you play it backwards?
———————————————————————-
My goodness, it works but I still don’t know what Guidi said. I’m saying no more, I’m Guidi’d out.
CG is only doing his job as the circus barker…like SDM’s boy CW any Football Authority personal sanctions are irrelevent..he won’t be around and has told everyone he’s short term.
His prime ongoing task is to keep NewCo “high profile” or “front of mind” for the worldwide fanbase who will “fund the exit and reward the favoured few including Charlie and Ally” when the IPO happens.
This is the real narrative that any serious journalist would be putting work into as the lead story… what stories are CG & friends telling to any prospective investors…and are they credible.
readcelt says:
September 21, 2012 at 12:46
We seem to be getting into a lot of whatabouttery regarding the banner. Got to agree if the boot was on the other foot I’d take issue with it. Substitute the crest on the gravestone and the shamrock for a red hand. Time to put this one down and move on.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The three versions linked by this site show NO SHAMROCK.
It’s an irrelevant throwaway joke, offensive only to Holy Willies.
Mind you, as a Buddie I kick with neither foot, so maybe I’m not looking hard enough to see what foot the boot is kicking with…
The “Reasons For Decision” document is a good read, though I’ve only skimmed it so far.
Let me get this right …
1. TRFC really are RFC, because the ethereal “Club” entity is accepted (why no 5 stars, then?).
2. Any punishment will be inflicted on the Club, not the owner/operator, according to the Articles.
3. The Club was “operated” by Oldco at the time of alleged offences. This is irrelevant, because …
4. The Club is now operated by Sevco. Because they are the current owner and operator of “the Club”, they must accept responsibility for any punishment.
Sounds good to me. 🙂
Any sanction on Newco legitimizes the “it’s still the same Club” argument.and any sanction applied only to Oldco brings into sharp relief the true nature of the present entity ie A NEW CLUB! completely seperate from the club founded in 1872.. Charles Green knows this which is why he’s giving it” ahm no playin way yoos it’s ma baw”!
stmiley says:
September 21, 2012 at 11:36
Is this new? http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/SPL%20Commission%20reasons%20for%20decision%20of%2012%20September%202012.pdf
——————————————————————————-
Good document. It’s interesting to note that an association football club known as Rangers Football Club was incorporated in 1899 as The Rangers Football Ltd (History, Para 3). Is this the SPL settling the debate once and for all by saying the “club” was incorporated.
If the “club” was incorporated and remained so, I assume this means the club is in Administration, the club will soon move into Liquidation and the club will eventually be dissolved as a result of the club’s incorporation in 1899.
Green says ‘they are talking to Disney’ Wrong, Disney have been talking to Servco for the past few months – it’s not hard to guess what about. Blockbuster comedy on the way!
Angus says:
September 21, 2012 at 13:17
Sorry I do not agree with that. If you take the stance that Rangers as a Club/Company are dead, then how can you possibly So how do you come to the conclusion that the new company/club, bought out of liquidation, so able to keep the name and history, are liable for the old companies debts? Rangers, are alive and well, you may claim otherwise, but we still play in our own strips, play at Ibrox and are the biggest supported team in Scotland. I hear so much about dual contracts can someone please provide evidence of these?
Meanwhile, the RM chaps completely miss the “old Club is same as new Club, punishments will be the responsibility of the owner/operator of the Club” thing, which would surely be worth a bit of a gloat history-wise, and send themselves off down a blind alley as usual …
——
“What everyone seems to forget is the statement form HMRC…………………..”we took this step to allow the club to continue to play it’s football at Ibrox Stadium and keep it’s history intact. This step also protects the new Limited Company(who purchased all the assets of the old Limited Company while in administration) from any form of litigation linked to the administration of the old Limited Company.”
So once again…………if they try and punish the new Limited Company , all we do is take them to court ………..ask them to show the rules they base the stripping of titles that another club was quite frankly shit at trying to win them…………and not the date of said rules……………then produce the statement from HMRC……..who surely must at some stage ask the administrators as to why monies belonging to the limited company in administration has not been paid………….or perhaps they are waiting for BDO to be installed once the Limited Company is officially in the hands of the appointed Liquidator who will go after the directors they find to have caused this by negligence or criminal activity and they will also go for the spl as the outstanding monies due.
——
This was one of their more lucid posters, by the way. It neverceases to amaze me how thoroughly a document can be misunderstood if you don’t approach it with an open mind.
they got replies from oldco and newco (saying – you canny touch us, we’re no in your spl now or ou canny touch us, we never have been in your spl) but there seems to be nothing back from Rangers FC.
and when they invited oldco and newco, they didn’t ask them along to the hearing in november either.
hard for an imaginary entity to open mail i suppose.
Mr Bunny says:
September 21, 2012 at 09:33
I concur
No idea if I’ve missed it (don’t read Scottish news…) but has the SPL Board or CEO stated (i.e. been quoted directly anywhere) publicly that they are not in position to pay the contractually agreed amounts to the member clubs on time because of… (make-up reason here, ask Charlie for advice)? Or has then non/late-payment stuff just been alluded to by our old friends in the MSM based on leaks/sources from SPL clubs?
My understanding, apologies if this is not correct, is that the current TV deal did not end in May/June 2012 but is due to run until season-end 2013/14. We know that no sponsors have walked away from the SPL, as a result of the demise of the old Ibrox club. The SPL recently negotiated with Sky to include a package of games involving the new Ibrox club, however, surely, it maybe Sky’s prerogative to maintain or boost their income by doing this but absolutely not the prerogative of the SPL and it’s current member clubs to reduce it’s own earnings as a result of this? No?
One would also assume that the schedule of payments remains the same for any other season therefore exactly what is causing the holdup in payments and have the SPL members themselves agreed exactly how much they expect to get for each payment?
Therefore is it not about time that the MSM moved it’s focus down the M8 from Hearts non-payment of salaries to the chumps currently masquerading as the SPL Board, and asking why contractually agreed monies have not yet been paid to the SPL members? Or is this another, we know their rooked, but canny be ar’sed reporting it, ‘cause it might rock the mono-paddled boat? Or would that only happen in a parallel universe? That might be it.
Angus says:
September 21, 2012 at 13:35
Angus
You know as well as I do that if this went to the court of sessions, Rangers would certainly win.
The problem for Rangers is it would certainly differentiate us from the old club, something we do not want to legally pursue.
Ok why am I still after many hours still in moderation? Is it because I am not singing from the same hymn sheet?
[TSFM Edit: I apologise. You should been given the private moderator option available (only £10 paid via the SFM EBT) to those whose voice needs to be heard urgently before the rest :-)]
Hi All,
I am going to get controversial here, I do not understand why people are getting upset over what someone said or did not say on live radio? I do not understand all the posts about a banner at a pre-season friendly? I’m afraid that these are silly argument’s going nowhere, and will only demean the blog!
I know that there is not much going on regarding Rangers/Sevco, at least in the public view, but the blog is at its best when we focus on the real problems! Mr Green and his mystery backers!
It has also becoming more and more obvious to me, that the agenda on here is being led by the MSM? I would also add that in the last few days the blog has been turned into a fans forum, where extreme views are the norm!
I should add that I am not criticising the forums, I read them and what I like is reading the extreme view from either side, and then try and understand how anyone can have that kind of attitude to fellow human beings?
I would like the this blog to return to the investigating and forensic examinations of what we do actually know, rather than speculating about what someone said on a live radio show, or a banner at a pre-season friendly!
I do not have the ability to write about law or business as some of our members can. The main problem for me on this current blog is that I am no longer getting to learn about these subjects.
Lastly, I do not like to see anyone who has the courage to air their views on here, and then being subject to one line replies, from people who want to de-rail this blog, and probably demoralise those of us who want to debate and discuss in a reasonable manner!
Jimmy Bee Jay says:
September 21, 2012 at 14:01
Yes very well put, however when we do not get the opportunity to respond, it kind of negates the argument, indeed when our posts are deleted it infuriates us!
Again this post will not see the light of day, why?
taste test-er
Given the issues relating to Celtic staff being sent bombs and live bullets, the manager being assaulted on a touchline, the documented cases of threats and intimidation of SFA staff and others responsible for bringing Rangers “downfall” into the public domain, I can state categorically IMO that members of the mainstream media seemingly encouraging potentially illiegal acts is definitely on-topic – it would have been at RTC and it is on here IMO.
I don’t mean to single out Jimmy BJ, but there does seem to be almost as many posts undermining this site (this is off topic, that is off topic, its a fan site for Rangers haters, its not inclusive as people have the temerity to disagree with my stance) as there are posts about tyhe actual issues involved.
My view is that some coming on here (again I am not suggesting Jimmy BJ is doing this) want to diminish the blog before it gains the traction RTC did. Heck, we must be doing something right…
Not much news, so apologies for going over old ground, but the disappearance of John Brown and its lack of impact still intrigues me.
Can any RFCIA fans who read the blog (whether you normally post or not) explain why his withdrawal caused so little fuss among his then followers?
From the outside (and I’m not a Celtic fan either), it seemed that whether his ‘global conglomerate’ bid had credibility or not, he did gain a large following among the fans. Unlike Yorkie, of course, he was a real “Rangers man” and had the support of other heroes (Andy Goram, Barry Ferguson, even Brian Laudrup, from memory). It seemed to me (and them?) that he was asking the right ‘ownership’ questions of Yorkie (and seemed to rile him too) and also claimed to have some nuclear information that would cement the fans opposition to CG – “starve him out” was the cry of the day.
We still don’t know what it was that caused him to go quiet all of a sudden and what amazes me is that no RFCIA fan appears to want to find out why. Have they simply forgotten that they supported him? Have they asked him and been refused an answer? Have they been given an answer and not publicised it? Do they know where John Brown is (now that he’s back from Alaska)?
I know the MSM should ask (oh well), but what about ‘Rangers people’ either on the ground or at the level of, say, Chris Graham and his like? Can any RFCIA fans explain this to me?
NB I’m not looking for speculation as to why he disappeared (paid off? Injunction? etc) but am really interested as to how his support saw fit to disperse so easily.
As an aside, since he left his job on principle, does anyone know what John Brown is doing for money now? (No jokes about pensioners, please)
For the life of me you Scots are so Insular ,Idont give a fig if your Rangers or Celtic,but i do care about ordinary people being ripped off so that some spivv can make afew quid,I think this site is well served in sorting out the many fabrications of Sevco with out dredging up all the old hatreds that still exist in Glasgow.,Iam a West Ham supporter born and bred but have many Scottish friends and we all live in Sydney Australia and can speak with out fear or Favour,which it seems is more than you can do in Scotland [Glasgow[ Just an Opion
Sorry for spelling and Punctuation. not up to the standards I see on this site
Webster says:
September 21, 2012 at 12:51
7 3 i
——————————————-
I meant the whole thing of whether or not one particular word was heard or not is, maybe not irrelevant but insubtantial or at least impossible to prove so best left alone.
Especially when the rest of what was said – i.e. the acceptance that things are likely to “kick off”, expecially with nothing said by the commentators about what that has to say about our society if that is what we have to expect. Or about saying something about what the football and civil authorities ought to be doing about it if they really do believe things could “kick off”.
All I meant and I thought it was clear enough was the “hope” argument is a sidetrack and irrelvance because you’ll never get anywhere with it and it distracted from the real issue.
Testing…….(it sure is).
Only on to see if my post is “good” or will it join the “disappeared”
Anyhow……….like my avator (sp)>>>>>>
Paddy T
miki67 says:
September 21, 2012 at 14:33
4 1 i Rate This
The Daily Rocket is on a par with The Dandy or The Beano.
———————————————————————————
I will give you 1,000 TDs for that vile slur on the honest and humorous publications we all loved in our childhood (and beyond).
nawlite @ 14:53
John Brown’s busted flush was called and the world moved on, simple as. He had a meeting with supporters groups a few months back which was hashtagged #bomberfest and the dogs breakfast that he thought would pass for a takeover strategy was plain for all to see.
stmiley says:
September 21, 2012 at 11:36
Is this new? http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/SPL%20Commission%20reasons%20for%20decision%20of%2012%20September%202012.pdf
………..
Thank you stmiley
Very interesting indeed in one respect
i.e.
Spot the difference in how Sevco came to own substantially all the assets of RFC(IA)
Version 1
(STV report which fits the published facts)
“According to proposals sent out to creditors owed £124m by the club, the new business entity that would hold the assets of the club was Sevco 5088 Limited, established by London law firm Field Fisher Waterhouse, which is advising Mr Green’s consortium on the takeover.
Sevco Scotland Limited, which was incorporated on May 29, made applications to transfer the title deeds of the property on June 15, the day after Mr Green held a media conference at Ibrox with the consortium’s financial adviser, Imran Ahmad, where he announced the purchase of the club’s assets had gone ahead.
A spokesman for Rangers confirmed that there had been a transfer of assets between one newco and a second separate newco.”
………………….
Version2
link posted by Stmiley
(Statement by Lord Nimmo`s Independent Commission outlining reasons for Decision dated 12 Sept 2012)
“On 14 June 2012 a newly incorporated company Sevco Scotland purchased substantially all the assets and business of Oldco, including Rangers FC, by entering into an asset sale and purchase agreement with the joint administrators”
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
One can only presume Version1 is correct since Sevco Scotland did not exist when the CVA document was circulated to Creditors. For Version 2 to be correct D&P would have to have received the permission of Creditors on June 14 to sell the assets to a completely separate legal entity.
So this begs the question
Why did Lord Nimmo use Version 2?
The only possible explanation is that Version 2 is the terminology used by Oldco or Newco to describe the sale and Lord Nimmo was minded to cut and paste this description in its entirety
Which begs the question
Why are both Oldco and Newco going to these lengths to fudge the role in the purchase of a completely separate legal entity called Sevco5088?
There is only one possible explanation
There is something to hide
Something that meant Sevco Scotland did not end up with exactly the same assets and business that were sold to Sevco5088
Read Version2 again and with Sevco5088 acting as middleman
ask yourself
Is this saying that Sevco Scotland got everything that D&P sold to Sevco5088 ?
Or could it be interpreted as meaning they got most of what was sold to Sevco5088?
Perry Whyte
And Cardigan’s sudden exit stage left? And McCoist suddenly jumping into bed with Green?
People on here speculated that Green had something on Cardigan.
I wondered whether ‘problem’ Rangers men like Bomber were let in on the master plan, a plan so dastardly that they immediately fell silent.
stmiley says: @ 11:36
Is this new? http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/SPL%20Commission%20reasons%20for%20decision%20of%2012%20September%202012.pdf
____________________
Brill spot stmiley! – thanks!
Step by step then.
FTT needs to come into focus
This is a huge story and the MSM not mentioned a thing on the SPL Notes of Reasons so far!!
Odd that
An attempt to steer back to the topic of the day …
From RM again:
——–
6] On 14 June 2012 a newly incorporated company, Sevco Scotland Limited, purchased substantially all the business and assets of Oldco, including Rangers FC, by entering into an asset sale and purchase agreement with the joint administrators. The name of Sevco Scotland Limited was subsequently changed to The Rangers Football Club Limited. We shall refer to this company as Newco.
[7]Newco was not admitted to membership of the SPL. Instead it became the operator of Rangers FC within the Third Division of the Scottish Football League (“the SFL”). It also became a member of the Scottish Football Association (“the SFA”), the governing body of the sport in Scotland. These events…..
Even the SPL and the SFA acknowledge our history as unbroken AS A CLUB! For any of those dumb enough to persist, tell them their own governing body recognizes us so why can’t they see past the end of their dirty, unwashed bigoted noses?
——–
I, for one, am quite happy to see The Club as continuing to exist now that I understand the circumstances and possible consequences.
What RM have singularly failed to notice is that the charges have been brought against The Club (Rangers FC, which can be easily identified as that entity currently playing in Div 3).
Any punishments will be dished out to The Club.
Should it be found that expulsion is the suitable punishment, The Club will be expelled.
Not the Oldco RFC(IA), not the Newco (TRFC), but The Club.
That The Club is now owned by Sevco rather than RFC(IA) is immaterial.
Their history is acknowledged as unbroken as a Club in the Statement of Reasons. It is this very thing that will allow, if the panel sees fit, their expulsion from the game.
Mr Charles’ only option now is to argue that The Club is a New Club and not a contionuation of RFC as it was before administration.
Goosy says:
September 21, 2012 at 15:35
stmiley says:
September 21, 2012 at 11:36
Is this new? http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/SPL%20Commission%20reasons%20for%20decision%20of%2012%20September%202012.pdf
………..
…Why are both Oldco and Newco going to these lengths to fudge the role in the purchase of a completely separate legal entity called Sevco5088?
There is only one possible explanation
There is something to hide
Something that meant Sevco Scotland did not end up with exactly the same assets and business that were sold to Sevco5088…
==================================================================
Very interesting Goosy…you could be onto something here…
An attempt to steer back to the topic of the day …
From RM again:
——–
“6] On 14 June 2012 a newly incorporated company, Sevco Scotland Limited, purchased substantially all the business and assets of Oldco, including Rangers FC, by entering into an asset sale and purchase agreement with the joint administrators. The name of Sevco Scotland Limited was subsequently changed to The Rangers Football Club Limited. We shall refer to this company as Newco.
[7]Newco was not admitted to membership of the SPL. Instead it became the operator of Rangers FC within the Third Division of the Scottish Football League (“the SFL”). It also became a member of the Scottish Football Association (“the SFA”), the governing body of the sport in Scotland. These events…..
Even the SPL and the SFA acknowledge our history as unbroken AS A CLUB! For any of those dumb enough to persist, tell them their own governing body recognizes us so why can’t they see past the end of their dirty, unwashed bogited noses?”
——–
I, for one, am quite happy to see The Club as continuing to exist now that I understand the circumstances and possible consequences.
What RM have singularly failed to notice is that the charges have been brought against The Club (Rangers FC, which can be easily identified as that entity currently playing in Div 3).
Any punishments will be dished out to The Club.
Should it be found that expulsion is the suitable punishment, The Club will be expelled.
Not the Oldco RFC(IA), not the Newco (TRFC), but The Club.
That The Club is now owned by Sevco rather than RFC(IA) is immaterial.
Their history is acknowledged as unbroken as a Club in the Statement of Reasons. It is this very thing that will allow, if the panel sees fit, their expulsion from the game.
Mr Charles’ only option now is to argue that The Club is a New Club and not a contionuation of RFC as it was before administration.
Doom The Slope
Not so sure Green had something on Cardigan, think it is more likely that Jim McColl realised that he (Cardigan) is up to his neck in the dual contracts/EBT issues and took cold feet.
Await the outcome of taste various decisions that are about to be made soon ?? We wait in hope
All this “Sevco, Oldco, Newco, TRFC, RFC, RFC(IA), The Club, New Club. –
Can somebody please put it simply, without abbreviatioins and in easy to understand plain language ‘COS MA HEID’S NIPPIN!
Test – WordPress
Coming out of spectator closet to join the fun !
Mikec
“Doom the slope.”
—————————–
I am indeed depressed by the situation in Scottish football, but I’m not that bad.
Mr Bunny says:
September 21, 2012 at 15:10
Webster says:
September 21, 2012 at 12:51
7 3 i
——————————————-
I meant the whole thing of whether or not one particular word was heard or not is, maybe not irrelevant but insubtantial or at least impossible to prove so best left alone.
Especially when the rest of what was said – i.e. the acceptance that things are likely to “kick off”, expecially with nothing said by the commentators about what that has to say about our society if that is what we have to expect. Or about saying something about what the football and civil authorities ought to be doing about it if they really do believe things could “kick off”.
All I meant and I thought it was clear enough was the “hope” argument is a sidetrack and irrelvance because you’ll never get anywhere with it and it distracted from the real issue.
====================================================
I cannot believe the lettuce eater thinks that what Guidi said has no relevance to anything,it is Vitally important.Webster had every right to ask for clarification.What is going on here?
A banner that was a good laugh or a little tasteless,take your pick, or comments made on the Wireless that could be construed as an incitement to riot,what do you think is the more important topic?. No disrespect meant by ‘lettuce eater’,it’s just that i could not call any man by your user name.
Webster says:
September 21, 2012 at 15:56
For my part I listened to the first posting of the SSB and found it hard to hear ‘hope’ In my view there was a stutter in the sentence and (like most of what he says) a garbled mess came out for a split second.
However as you say it is right for you to question RC for their opinion on what was said simialr to those who have asked the BBC about Billy Dodds. My guess is that nothing will come of it as on a few listenings it was inconclusive.
As for using the terms ‘kicking off’ and ‘civil war’, what do we expect?
Given the lack of any major wars then we (men in particular) satisfy the needs of our inherent warrior/hunter genes by transferring our attention to sports and football in particular.
Green Brigade (Nasty skull logo)
Vanguard Bears (Defending out Traditions)
Tartan Army.
Twin strike force
Attacking down the flanks
Midfield general,
Aerial threat
Turn our ground into a fortress.
All names and phrases with military connotations and proudly used by those involved.
If we are asking one of the parties involved in football to temper their language and watch what they say and how they represent themselves then it goes further than just a few journos and administrators.
Angus says:
September 21, 2012 at 15:48
9 0 Rate This
An attempt to steer back to the topic of the day …
From RM again:
——–
“6] On 14 June 2012 a newly incorporated company, Sevco Scotland Limited, purchased substantially all the business and assets of Oldco, including Rangers FC, by entering into an asset sale and purchase agreement with the joint administrators. The name of Sevco Scotland Limited was subsequently changed to The Rangers Football Club Limited. We shall refer to this company as Newco.
[7]Newco was not admitted to membership of the SPL. Instead it became the operator of Rangers FC within the Third Division of the Scottish Football League (“the SFL”). It also became a member of the Scottish Football Association (“the SFA”), the governing body of the sport in Scotland. These events…..
Even the SPL and the SFA acknowledge our history as unbroken AS A CLUB! For any of those dumb enough to persist, tell them their own governing body recognizes us so why can’t they see past the end of their dirty, unwashed bogited noses?”
——–
I, for one, am quite happy to see The Club as continuing to exist now that I understand the circumstances and possible consequences.
What RM have singularly failed to notice is that the charges have been brought against The Club (Rangers FC, which can be easily identified as that entity currently playing in Div 3).
Any punishments will be dished out to The Club.
Should it be found that expulsion is the suitable punishment, The Club will be expelled.
Not the Oldco RFC(IA), not the Newco (TRFC), but The Club.
That The Club is now owned by Sevco rather than RFC(IA) is immaterial.
Their history is acknowledged as unbroken as a Club in the Statement of Reasons. It is this very thing that will allow, if the panel sees fit, their expulsion from the game.
Mr Charles’ only option now is to argue that The Club is a New Club and not a contionuation of RFC as it was before administration.
====
Problem with that is – IF “the club” continued and is not in the liquidation queue and what we have in Div 3 is a totally new club using the same name (since 31/7), and despite all evidence to the contrary – why did it need to have it’s own membership of the SFA transferred to itself
It’s clear that oldco, newco, any which you wantco could not and can never be members of the SFA as by the bizzare lie being sold to the sevconians and forced on the fans of other clubs – it is the club that is the member and that is a separate entitity from the company that is currently operating the franchise.
Are there any rules for the SFL, SFA or UEFA that forbid franchise football?
So rangers lawyers are saying to the SPL commission that rangers ceased to be a club at a certain point and cannot be punished ?
jimbo milligan says:
September 21, 2012 at 17:27
1 0 Rate This
So rangers lawyers are saying to the SPL commission that rangers ceased to be a club at a certain point and cannot be punished ?
====
Basically yes but ammending the record books to reflect the application of the rules on cheating isn’t a punishment anyway and matters not a jot whether the club is alive or dead
jimbo milligan says:
September 21, 2012 at 17:27
So rangers lawyers are saying to the SPL commission that rangers ceased to be a club at a certain point and cannot be punished ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jimbo I stated this about a year ago when RTC aired the idea that the SPL could set a list of requirements for the NEWCLUB before entry would be granted…
That the NEWCLUB/SEVCO would agree to any sanctions or entry conditions to the SPL so long as they were granted the licence to play AND that once they were in….they would challnge every single one of those sanctions on the basis they had nothing to do with the club that were liquidated other than pretending to buy an historical event that no one owns?
So this don’t surprise me in the least. The SPL only have themselves to blame…
This is the first draft of the Fans Charter being created by the SFA.
For more information – http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/fanscharter
________________________________________________________________
Fans Charter
Draft 1 – 18 September 2012
About this Charter
The charter
is about the relationship between the fans, clubs and safety authorities (stakeholders).
recognises that the involvement of supporters in football matches is a vital part of making the event enjoyable and that this should be encouraged.
recognises that there is a need to re-set the expectations and relationships between all stakeholders.
intends to unite everyone who enjoys football in agreement to work towards improving the game, particularly the atmosphere and experience of matches themselves.
doesn’t create new rights or responsibilities or change those that already exist but simply to publicise those that already exist in order to help each person understand the expectations of them and others in going to football matches.
doesn’t change the relationship between fans and the club they support as expressed through existing Supporters’ Charters – as required by Scottish FA Club Licensing.
recognises that supporters are not one single community but a mix of different communities all coming together to enjoy a sporting contest, that it is likely that these communities have different expectations of each other’s behaviour and that this creates issues that need to be considered by everyone involved.
is written after discussion, input and feedback from fans, clubs and safety authorities.
Definitions
Stakeholders – the shorthand name for those involved with the Charter, mainly; supporters, clubs, safety authorities, football authorities and the Police.
Safety Authorities – Those people and organisations with responsibility for safety, security and crowd management at football matches – primarily Safety Officers, Match Commanders and Police but including any other named people who may be given a role in safety or security in the future.
Fans’ Charter
Vision for Football Matches
Attending a football match should be a safe and enjoyable experience which is open to everyone in the community to attend.
That this vision will be achieved by fans, clubs and safety authorities working in partnership.
Principles
That football matches are open and welcoming for all – that no part of the community should feel excluded.
That supporter involvement is a key element of the match and should be encouraged and that clubs, fans groups and safety authorities should actively seek dialogue over issues in and around the stadium.
That relationships should be built between fans, clubs and safety authorities and change negotiated to improve the experience for everyone.
That the match should take place in a safe environment where the facilities provided are appropriate for the diversity of the community likely to support that club.
That positive support and celebration of fan culture should be encouraged.
That rivalry and opposition are part of fan culture but that hatred goes too far.
That the behaviour of fans in and around the stadium should do no harm, physical or emotional, to others.
Fans’ Charter: Topics
Involvement
That supporter involvement is a key element of the match and should be encouraged and that clubs, fans groups and safety authorities should actively seek dialogue over issues in and around the stadium.
Crowd noise, particularly singing and chanting, is an important part of the atmosphere of a football match.
Flags and banners should be encouraged and steps taken to make it easy for fans to have these at the match.
That no song, chant, flag or banner should belittle the views of others beyond the support they have for an opposing club.
A method should exist at club or regional level where each stakeholder can raise issues of concern about the relationships at or around the match.
Safety and Security
That the match should take place in a safe environment where the facilities provided are appropriate for the diversity of the community likely to support that club.
The starting position of all safety and security personnel should be of welcoming people to a sporting contest.
There should be an understanding that there are different communities of interest within a stadium, between home and away supports and within those supports themselves.
Facilities within the stadium should be appropriate to allow all members of the community, regardless of their ability, to view the match in comfort.
Fan Behaviour
That the behaviour of fans in and around the stadium should do no harm, physical or emotional, to others.
Active support of the team should be encouraged.
Dislike or disapproval of the opposing team or other rivals is a part of football culture but hatred of others because of this difference is not.
Songs or chants shouldn’t lead members of the community to believe or allow the perception to exist that they are excluded from supporting the team.
Fans’ Charter: Responsibilities
We have a shared responsibility in making football better and ensuring it grows and prospers in the coming years. In order to achieve that we must all do our bit, leaving a solid foundation that the next generation can build upon.
A. Fans
Help to make the stadium an inclusive place where all members of the community feel they can come along and support the club, and respect the role of safety authorities in managing the crowd.
B. Safety Officers
Be aware of the effects of decisions on fans’ enjoyment of the match and encourage more positive relationships with fans and fans’ groups
C. Policing and Match Commanders
Be sensitive in the way information is gathered, particularly with filming and photography, and take opportunities to work with fans’ groups to improve crowd management.
D. Stewards
Make sure that fans feel welcomed to the stadium and help to build relationships with fans and fans’ groups in order to agree expectations of behaviour at matches.
E. Clubs
Do more to ensure fans from all clubs are aware of the facilities, regulations and behaviour expected when using their facilities and build a better relationship with their own fans and fan groups.
the taxman cometh says:
September 21, 2012 at 17:12
The trouble with all the club and company thing is that both sides want their cake and to eat it too.
The simplest thing would have been to say it is a new club and indeed. They are not responsible for the sins of the oldco.
The old can be investiagated, fined, bans issued to previosu directors, stripped of titles etc. It doesn’t really matter because they don’t exist – it would just be putting the record straight.
However, while Uefa seems to have taken the above stance, the domestic footballing authorities have muddied the waters by trying to maintain some form of continuity. And if the fans had not revolted the SPL would have went along with ‘the Franchise’ approach.
Therefore if wrong doing is proven the club must bear the brunt of title stripping because they claim to be the same club that won them albeit they are a different corporate entity and will claim they can’t be fined or held accountable for the sins of the oldco.
It is just one big pig in a poke because no-one has the guts to say that they really do want to run top leagues, whether that be europe wide or domestically as an NFL franchise model.
Everyone loves the ideals behind a pyramid structure but really the bigs clubs with clout know where the diddy teams belong and would be happy to keep them their.
the taxman cometh says:
September 21, 2012 at 17:12
Problem with that is – IF “the club” continued and is not in the liquidation queue and what we have in Div 3 is a totally new club using the same name (since 31/7), and despite all evidence to the contrary – why did it need to have it’s own membership of the SFA transferred to itself
—-
If The Club continued to float along above all the companies business, as a separate and not legally constituted entity (which is what the Statement of Reasons says it is), then the TRFC in Div 3 is NOT a new Club. The company operating that Club is new, but The Club remains.
—–
It’s clear that oldco, newco, any which you wantco could not and can never be members of the SFA as by the bizzare lie being sold to the sevconians and forced on the fans of other clubs – it is the club that is the member and that is a separate entitity from the company that is currently operating the franchise.
—–
No, the operating company is the member, because the operating company is the legal entity. All the stuff we’ve been hearing about The Club being a separate, ethereal entity appears to be the way it’s being played by the authorities. The owner/operator company, however, is responsible for transgressions of The Club. Any new owners are responsible for transgressions that took place before they took over.
In this way, anything that Rangers FC did wrong in the past can still be pinned on them.
Rangers FC – The Club – will be the guilty party. The owner/operator (now TRFC) will have to deal with any punishment handed to The Club.
The way I see it, this is Not A Bad Thing.
—–
Are there any rules for the SFL, SFA or UEFA that forbid franchise football?
—–
Don’t know. But, going by the SoR, apparently not.
twopanda bears says:
September 21, 2012 at 15:44
4 0 Rate This
stmiley says: @ 11:36
Is this new? http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/SPL%20Commission%20reasons%20for%20decision%20of%2012%20September%202012.pdf
____________________
Brill spot stmiley! – thanks!
————–
That’s some document. Have been through some of the beginning and then jumped to the last page and worked back a bit, just to get some orientation. The legalese has a soporific effect though. Should make some light weekend reading.
If we all made some Horlicks and sat down for good read I reckon the other distractions (or red herrings) would disappear.
i know im getting a bit slow in my old age but surely if the commission rules against rangers they are confirming that ‘oldco’ is still the club ??
Contributors may be able to advise with my problem. King’s Park FC, of Stirling, were a senior side playing from 1875 until the Luftwaffe effectively settled their hash in 1941 (no casualties). My question is this: do their 4 Stirlingshire Cups now belong to Stirling Albion, their successors in that they play in the same city (as it then wasn’t), and indeed in a stadium of the same name? Or can my team, Alloa, buy them by whatever means? It would enable us not only to augment our meagre 13 wins, but also propel us above Dumbarton and the aforesaid Albion, into third place on the list of all time winners of this prestigious competition. And that much closer to Falkirk’s “world record” 30 wins. All advice gratefully accepted.
re the same club argument .
My take on it would be to look to Uefa .the peepil keep telling us that Sevco were banned from Europe for 3 yrs ,if so what had they done wrong that merited a 3 yr ban ?,they have never even played in ANY European competition .
Ragers fc were banned for 1 yr for failure to submit audited accounts on time ,not 3 yrs ,1 yr .
The peepil tell us that ,it was because it’s a new company but surely Uefa only issue licences to clubs and not companies .Are we to believe that CG could go to Uefa and ask for a licence to play in the CL just because he had set up a COMPANY ?.
If they are the same club as the peepil keep telling us, why is it not just the 1 yr ban and then back in Europe when CG submits next yrs accounts (stop laughing at the back ).if Chico had been told he would be back into European football next year he would have been waxing lyrical from the rooftops .
jimbo milligan says:
September 21, 2012 at 18:07(Edit)
i know im getting a bit slow in my old age but surely if the commission rules against rangers they are confirming that ‘oldco’ is still the club ??
____________________________________________________
I think that is spot on Jimbo, but it seems to me that it narrows Green’s available defence to a denial that they are the Old Club.
That’s a real Catch 22 for Green – and if found guilty either of those outcomes could still see honours redacted from the records. Perhaps Green’s best outcome financially (in the event of a guilty verdict) would be to insist that they are not Old Club.
If I were a Rangers fan, I think that would be, pragmatically the best course of action. Even as a recognised new club, the New Rangers will still be Rangers to their fanbase. All they would ultimately lose would be some bragging rights. They would be debt-free, punishment-free, and crucially they could claim to be free of any moral obligation for the sins of the Old Club.
The real sticking point is that for many of the fans, the loss of the pages in the wee red book is unacceptable. At some point this may become CG’s problem as well as the SFA’s.
Angus
here’s the sfa definition of a club
“club” shall mean a football club playing Association
Football in accordance with the provisions
set out in Article 6;
here’s their definition of a member
“registered member” shall mean a club or association which has
been admitted as a registered member of
the Association in accordance with the
provisions of Article 6.1 and the expression
“registered membership” shall be construed
it is always the club that is the member which isn’t really a problem to those not selling a lie to those on planet sevconia
In that SPL commission document (part 45), it stated that one of the claims made by the RANGERS lawyer (but rejected by the SPL, funnily enough, was that on 14 June 2012, Rangers FC “ceased to be a club”.
McLaughlin, the Rangers lawyer, could not have made that claim without Green’s consent.
What a bunch of zombies!
There is a Record article (I know) that states McCoist as saying ‘I’ll be judged as every other Rangers manager’.
When I read the headline I thought it was a little inflammatory, as it again linked oldco newco etc, so read on.
On further, painful, reading it appears that McCoist did not actually say those exact words and the headline is misleading.
If ever I needed a reminder of why we are here, it is this.
Shocking journalism!
According to UEFA, the ONLY Rangers FC in Scotland havent played a game this season!! http://www.uefa.com/search/index.html#Rangers FC&c=50121&ob=c
Danish Pastry @ 18:05
twopanda bears @15:44
stmiley says: @ 11:36
Is this new? http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/SPL%20Commission%20reasons%20for%20decision%20of%2012%20September%202012.pdf
____________________
Brill spot stmiley! – Thanks!
————–
That’s some document. Have been through some of the beginning and then jumped to the last page and worked back a bit, just to get some orientation. The legalese has a soporific effect though. Should make some light weekend reading.
If we all made some Horlicks and sat down for good read I reckon the other distractions (or red herrings) would disappear.
________________
DP – think it`s a 3 JC espresso – but a good thorough read for all that – they covered a lot in 2 days
Think Clause 46 is going to be a talking point for the time being
Kinda caught me out as their definition of a `Club` taken from their remit fits my old fashioned view that a Club is a Club – it `belongs` to the members / supporters as a recognisable entity – could be bowling, tennis, Chess or tiddlywinks.
But the taxman cometh is exactly correct as “Club” is specifically defined by the SFA – so?
Not sure they`ve called this exactly correct – there was almost a double negative followed by a non-contention – but it is their Notes of Reasons explaining their forward approach [+ with CG/DD solicitor’s] – It`s not a binding Judgement [I think?]. And appears perfectly impartial – so we`ll see what develops in the next steps.
Think you`re right but I`ll skip on Horlicks and buy a bottle of creative wine to formulate an idea if I can.
I wanted to say that I have followed RTC and the move to TSFM and would like to thank RTC and the TSFM as both blogs have provided incredible insight on Scottish football, society, law and key players (people) all wrapped up in the failure of major Scottish sporting organisation (institution). Truly inspiring stuff!
The SFA’s naked corruption, inability to change and glib, non-sensical commentary is really pretty jaw-dropping. What a disgrace of an organisation!
In my opinion Sevco are finished and the (good) bears realise it is game over, shortly.
Paulasatim
They don’t record lower league results. So not conclusive either way.
Paulsatim says:
September 21, 2012 at 19:11
0 0 Rate This
According to UEFA, the ONLY Rangers FC in Scotland havent played a game this season!! http://www.uefa.com/search/index.html#Rangers FC&c=50121&ob=c
========
By that logic and according to the same site: Dunfermline died in the summer too
I think if UEFA do the right thing and see them as the two different clubs that they actually are then that would put this to bed
After all if sevco manage to win the scottish cup why can’t they play in Europe next season?
Webster says:
September 21, 2012 at 18:09
Tic 6709 says:
September 21, 2012 at 16:41
=======================================
Webster,know what you are saying. There is more chance of finding the Holy Grail than the truth in a Scottish ‘paper.I have stopped listening to the Wireless,the very sound of those sycophant’s voices drives me mad. The only thing that keeps a lot of us going is the knowledge that it will get better,may take a wee while but we will get there.
I wonder if Yorkies outbursts,which are becoming very tedious,are because his lawyers have told him,as someone has pointed out here,that he will not be able to have his cake and eat it.
Keep the history and take a chance on the punishment,or tell the bears that they really are a new club. Now that’s between a rock and a hard place. Beautiful.
Tic 6709 says:
September 21, 2012 at 19:53
0 0 Rate This
Webster says:
September 21, 2012 at 18:09
Tic 6709 says:
September 21, 2012 at 16:41
=======================================
Webster,know what you are saying. There is more chance of finding the Holy Grail than the truth in a Scottish ‘paper.I have stopped listening to the Wireless,the very sound of those sycophant’s voices drives me mad. The only thing that keeps a lot of us going is the knowledge that it will get better,may take a wee while but we will get there.
I wonder if Yorkies outbursts,which are becoming very tedious,are because his lawyers have told him,as someone has pointed out here,that he will not be able to have his cake and eat it.
Keep the history and take a chance on the punishment,or tell the bears that they really are a new club. Now that’s between a rock and a hard place. Beautiful.
=====
That will only be beautiful if they have the balls to issue the only sanction that would suit the level of cheating …. expulsion
Sevco ,being a new club without 3 years accounts cannot participate in Europe next season, even if they win the Scottish Cup. If they are Oldco Rangers they cannot since they did not submit audited accounts before the deadline. So either way they will not be in Europe next season and beyond
the taxman cometh@ 19.56.
Totally agree. I think they are getting Very nervous,they have pissed off so many people with their attitude that hopefully there will be no mercy when the time comes.
Tic 6709 says:
September 21, 2012 at 20:21
1 0 Rate This
the taxman cometh@ 19.56.
Totally agree. I think they are getting Very nervous,they have pissed off so many people with their attitude that hopefully there will be no mercy when the time comes.
======
In a normal world I would agree with you but this is the west of scotland everything will be done to help this con succeed
Celtic should refuse to play them IF they are ever drawn together, the whole sevco debacle (what were spartans promised) has shown what a corrupt sham scottish football continues to be and UEFA and FIFA don’t look interested
paulmac says:
September 21, 2012 at 17:40
jimbo milligan says:
September 21, 2012 at 17:27
So rangers lawyers are saying to the SPL commission that rangers ceased to be a club at a certain point and cannot be punished ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jimbo I stated this about a year ago when RTC aired the idea that the SPL could set a list of requirements for the NEWCLUB before entry would be granted…
That the NEWCLUB/SEVCO would agree to any sanctions or entry conditions to the SPL so long as they were granted the licence to play AND that once they were in….they would challnge every single one of those sanctions on the basis they had nothing to do with the club that were liquidated other than pretending to buy an historical event that no one owns?
So this don’t surprise me in the least. The SPL only have themselves to blame…
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=+
Sevco could, on a strict legal analysis, refuse the punishments of another legal entity but what you forget is the SPL/SFA could just make up some new rules to enforce it.
taxman – I know, and I don’t disagree with you. Really I don’t.
I’m stating the newco/oldco/RFC situation as it’s laid out in the Statement. It clearly maintains that The Club continued to exist above the change in company going on in the background.
What I’m saying is that that isn’t a bad thing.
I think we have to sit with the Statement’s interpretation of whether the original “Club” Rangers FC still exists – plainly, in their eyes, it does and that is how they intend to proceed. That attitude seems to be backed up by UEFA precedent (see below).
This means that, in their view, the current Rangers FC are liable for the sins of the pre-Sevco Rangers FC, being that they’re the same Club. That is what the Statement says, that is what the Bears have said all along.
I say don’t argue with that. Forget this whole “history” thing. Let them keep it for a couple of months.
Then watch them squeal when their determination to still be the Rangers FC of old lands them right in the shit.
The alternative is that, as a new Club, TRFC get away scot-free – because they won’t be liable for the sins of the old Club.
Let Rangers FC have their continuity, for it is that which will finish them off.
As for UEFA … firstly, it’s been established that they don’t report results outwith the top division of countries, so the lack of TRFC results means nothing. Clupea harengus rubra.
Secondly, regarding UEFA’s view of oldco/newco clubs …
I’ve mentioned Fiorentina in the past, as well as Budapest Honved. Both are treated as the same club despite going bust and starting new companies.
Here’s Honved’s UEFA entry … check out the history. They were Budapest Honved originally, changed their name to Kispest Honved, were liquidated over dodgy tax affairs, came back as a new Budapest Honved – and retain the entire history of the original club/company. Their badge even incorporates the year the original club were formed.
Note the “record in Euro competitions” at the right … back to their first foray into Europe in 1956.
http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50054/profile/index.html
davis58 says:
September 21, 2012 at 13:32
0 25 i Rate This
So how do you come to the conclusion that the new company/club, bought out of liquidation, so able to keep the name and history, are liable for the old companies debts? Rangers, are alive and well, you may claim otherwise, but we still play in our own strips, play at Ibrox and are the biggest supported team in Scotland.
——–
That, sir, is just fine by me.
Please note that RFC(IA), the Company, haven’t been bought out of liquidation. They will be liquidated. You and your mates have abandoned them for a new version of your team.
Rangers FC, as an ongoing and continuing Club, are liable for everything they always have been. The Statement of Reason only confirms that. Your determination to insist that the new RFC are the same as the old RFC is exactly what is going to kill your Club stone dead.
Can you not see that?
IMO sevco are where they planned to be (Div3 apart ) when the scam was thought up and have been aided by the authorities ,right down to the timing of all panels and meetings .
We have ragers (old club AL) still twitching for any hard hitting sanctions of any football nature
We have Sevco ,who expected to be in the SPL stirring the hordes into a frenzy to get them to part with their cash to finance a new club and the SFA/SPL muddying the water to help keep up the illusion .
DM must have known the only outcome had to include Liquidation and there is no way that any so called new club could have pulled a scam off without the help and assurances of the peepil running the Scottish game.
IMO ,in the years to come this will rightly be found as the worst era of the Scottish game for sheer unbridled corruption
Just spent a very enjoyable hour reading the Commission’s reasons for decision. In essence it appears to say, what many people have said all along:-
They have to accept all the history, good and bad, it can’t be cherry picked.
I also suspect that Nimmo Smith has been given cast iron guarantees that his commission will not be interfered with by the “powers that be”
An old friend from NI used to tell an apocryphal tale about the good Dr Ian
The Doc was fulminating from the pulpit on the sins of his congregation. If they did not immediately repent of their sinful ways, they were all going straight to the infernal regions, where there would be great lamentations, wailing and gnashing of teeth.
A wee woman piped up: “What if you dinnae hae ony teeth?”
The Great Man thundered “Teeth will be provided!”
By the time the commission produces it’s report, the lamentations, wailing and gnashing of teeth of the Ibrox faithful will be registering on the Richter Scale.
I jonny says:
September 21, 2012 at 20:50
IMO ,in the years to come this will rightly be found as the worst era of the Scottish game for sheer unbridled corruption
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Are you forgetting the era of the “brown envelope” and similar practices that pre dated the EBT scandal that Gordon “Brains” Dalziel admitted to on SSB the other night?
So, if I am reading the comments about the Nimmo report correctly, it looks like Charlie and the Schizophrenic Sevcovians, could be on the verge of hoisting themselves by their own petard, assisted by their friends at the SFA/SPL/SFL, and the MSM
Very soon now, it appears that they will have to decide who and what they are or were, and they will have to stop morphing between identities to suit their agenda at any given point in their timeline
Meantime Charlie, who appears to becoming more and more desperate in his pursuit of cash, is in the USA feeding the Schizophrenic Sevcovians more moonbeams than Murray the Mint ever thought possible
If he achieves even 10% of his soundbites, I will be amazed
This is going to get interesting, and we are still waiting for the FTT result and BDO’s arrival on the scene to add to the fun
campsiejoe, Also, there is a police investigation,D&P governing body has launched enquiry into their behaviour,and Lord Hodge is not too happy either. All in all it’s not been a bad week.
Tic 6709 @ 21:23
Forgot about those 🙂
Danish Pastry says:
September 21, 2012 at 18:05
Absolutely! ;
I’ve now had a first read through the “Reasons for Decision” document and I have to agree with “Angus” that the document confirms that the football club “Rangers FC” has been deemed by the footballing authorities as having survived the transfer from Oldco to Newco.
The relevant sections of the document are Paragraphs 4, 6 and 46.
Para 4 defines the football club owned and operated by Oldco as “Rangers FC”
Para 6 confirms that “Rangers FC” was part of the business and assets sold to Newco
Para 46 spells it out in simple terms with ” In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator.”
Para 46 continues with what seems to me to be an ambiguity by saying “In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold”. It continues with “That is not to say that a club has legal personality, separate and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator”
I think we probably need Paul McC to to explain whether or not the club is or isn’t a legal entity, which can or can’t be separated from its owner and operator. My own interpretation is that legally the club and operating company are one and the same, however the SFA and SFL view and treat the entities as separate.
The other key point I took from the document is that any sanctions can be applied to Oldco but not Newco. However sanctions can be also be applied to the entity “Rangers FC” regardless of the old or new owner. i.e. RFC(IA) can be sanctioned, TRFC or Green cannot be sanctioned, “Rangers FC” can be sanctioned even though they are now owned and operated by Green and Co.
Stripping of titles would thus be a no brainer if the commission deemed the charges to be proved. A fine against the RFC(IA) would obviously not be a practical option but action against the previous owners or directors could be taken. A suspension against “Rangers FC” may still be possible.
The inconvenient truth for Green is that he is only in the league because he successfully transferred the entity that is “Rangers FC”, but in doing so he can’t disassociate himself from their past (at least in footballing terms). If he was to argue the case legally, he would probably win, but at the cost of the club’s membership of the SFA/SFL.
“The inconvenient truth for Green is that he is only in the league because he successfully transferred the entity that is “Rangers FC”, but in doing so he can’t disassociate himself from their past (at least in footballing terms). If he was to argue the case legally, he would probably win, but at the cost of the club’s membership of the SFA/SFL.”
So he’s spouting all his nonesense and getting into trouble with the SFA etc knowing full well his hands are tied. He’s a little scamp he is – whatever can he be thinking?
Its almost as though he’s playing to the gallery and trying to provoke trouble – what do the SFA rules have to say about that I wonder?