Walter Smith actually said that Rangers should be treated more leniantly than other clubs that have gone into admin. His reasoning is that Rangers could have paid their taxes but chose not to.
I'm still trying toi figure that one out.
Great post
One question though , why are you using another country to aid your argument , is it because you cannot come up with anything similar in our own country .
That tells its own story
comment by Rangers til i die (U14007) posted 1 minute ago
Great post
----------------------------------------------
Agreed
UEFA will look at it and see an embargo as a natural punishment.
It is unprecedented in Scotland, but so is the extent of Rangers' financial cheating. An embargo for one year is a light punishment.
Rangers should not be signing players full stop if they are leaving creditors whistling for 90 percent of their cash.
I don't know everything about the situations of other clubs but the transfer embargo is an especially severe sanction for Rangers at this particular time with various senior players liable to leave and the club trying to find a new owner.
because you cannot come up with anything similar in our own country .
---------------
agreed
Aye Irvine, they chose not to and instead spent the money on signing new players and giving existing players new contracts. Even at the end they were at it with Cousins and Holt
They became insolvent as soon as they got kicked out of Europe due to their existing budget and they've gained a massive advantage over every club in the league for failing to hand HMRC their PAYE. A transfer embargo is not only fair, its right.
Til July - Why am I using another country to aid my argument? To show that this sanction is not draconian and is infact the done thing in an FA in a country that you sing the national anthem of every other week. The punishment fits the crime.
Blue - Yeah, thats why I said the only thing harsh about the sanction is the timing. They could've waited til your ownership sorted out but thats been happening next week for months. The panel actually worked late into the night to make this decision so Rangers and the administrators would know their position sooner.
Love him or hate him you have to admit Whyte is really good at what he does
The line that it has not happened in Scotland, therefore is draconian, is idiotic.
Scottish football does not operate within a legal vacuum. Every member nation adheres to UEFA and FIFA protocols. Embargos are established outcomes. Just look at England.
The attitude that it has to happened in Scotland therefore is unfair is disingenuous, twisted, idiotic.
Look at the shambles the club is in. Also they have been found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute.
I repeat. Instead of bleating about severity, a little humility and acceptance of the blame would not go amiss. They might even get more sympathetic ears.
*has not happened in Scotland
Bloomin technology
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Aye fingers
Among Celtic fans.
Dos, respect is earned.
See if Rangers said 'right, we need the fans more than ever, because we are determined to pay back everything we owe. It is going to take us a long, long time, and we will have to sacrifice success. But we will emerge a greater club for doing so.'
I would take my hat off to the club.
If the club instead chooses to bump everyone because they cannot stomach life without success on the pitch, then no sympathy.
It isn't Celtic fans you need to appeal to, one of the" three "is a Raith fan
Rangers administrators are suing Collyer Bristow for £25m because of the alleged actions of Gary Withey, formerly a partner in the firm and the key lawyer in Whyte’s team during the negotiations to buy Rangers. When it comes to court what would Rangers think if Collyer Bristow were to stand up and say, ‘It’s not right that our whole firm should be held accountable for the actions of one man who is no longer with the company?’ No doubt Rangers would not accept that point of view, but it’s the precise point of view they are articulating in regard to the SFA’s 12-month transfer ban. It’s called corporate responsibility. Answer that one. There is a defence of Volenti Non Fit Injuria i.e. a risk willingly accepted. If Rangers ignored all the warning signs, that even forum fans were flagging up to them long before handing the keys over to Whyte, then they can easily be shown to have willingly accepted the risk of bringing in a colourful character like him rather than International business man Sir DM saying he was "duped" yeah right.
Rangers say the other clubs looking for natural justice are looking to destro Scottish Football which is yet further hypocrisy from a club who's actions killed all competition fro 80's onward and who stand by and watch officials such as McCoist and Jardine threaten all manner of people and business for having done nothing other than sponsor the organisation whose rules they signed up to like the rest of the teams. Odious does not begin to describe this club and a lot of people associated with it
I'll answer that.
CB are a partnership, and as such, all partners are jointly & severally liable for the actions of any one.
Rangers are not a partnership. The actions of one need not be bourne by the remainder.
SO other than the fact that your argument, nicked straight from a hack yesterday, holds no water in its basic comparison....
Competition from 80s onwards?
Hmm - were you even born then? If so you would know that Rangers did not win the league until 1986-87 season, the first title since 1978.
Celtic won it back the next season.
So that comparison is wrong too.
Want to go for a third?
And as for McCoist & Jardine issuing threats - you have proof of these of course.
Or are you just spouting the same stuff from both ends?
ra sellick's hatred of Rangers is undermining what might otherwise be (on occasion) articulate and coherent posts.
says the rangers fan who includes in his username a hate filled statement about ra sellick.
What a plonker.
says the rangers fan who includes in his username a hate filled statement about ra sellick
- - - - - -
"hate filled"........
'Hmm - were you even born then?'
Yes I was born - long before then! So is the late 80s not the Eighties? Is it the 70s? Or 90s? .
Ok, there were no direct 'threats', just implicit ones. Just like Henry the 2nd's re. Becket, for example. And no proof is required as they are in the public domain, the media; Jardine yesterday at the RFF meeting and McCoist on Monday on Rangers TV
"Killed off all competition from 80s onwards." What you meant was 90s, but ok.
There were no threats, despite what you choose to read into things.
And yes, for you to accuse anyone of threatening, you would need actual proof, you know, evidence, that sort of pesky stuff....
The 'proof' is there as I said. The members of the SFA panel regard it as such. It's incitement to commit a crime. Some people not actively involved in the London riots last year are in jail for the same thing.
So we can expect Strathclyde's finest to be speaking to Messers McCoist & Jardine then?
Or are you just completely wrong?
Sign in if you want to comment
Draconian?
Page 1 of 2
posted on 27/4/12
Walter Smith actually said that Rangers should be treated more leniantly than other clubs that have gone into admin. His reasoning is that Rangers could have paid their taxes but chose not to.
I'm still trying toi figure that one out.
posted on 27/4/12
Great post
One question though , why are you using another country to aid your argument , is it because you cannot come up with anything similar in our own country .
That tells its own story
posted on 27/4/12
comment by Rangers til i die (U14007) posted 1 minute ago
Great post
----------------------------------------------
Agreed
posted on 27/4/12
UEFA will look at it and see an embargo as a natural punishment.
It is unprecedented in Scotland, but so is the extent of Rangers' financial cheating. An embargo for one year is a light punishment.
Rangers should not be signing players full stop if they are leaving creditors whistling for 90 percent of their cash.
posted on 27/4/12
I don't know everything about the situations of other clubs but the transfer embargo is an especially severe sanction for Rangers at this particular time with various senior players liable to leave and the club trying to find a new owner.
posted on 27/4/12
because you cannot come up with anything similar in our own country .
---------------
agreed
posted on 27/4/12
Aye Irvine, they chose not to and instead spent the money on signing new players and giving existing players new contracts. Even at the end they were at it with Cousins and Holt
They became insolvent as soon as they got kicked out of Europe due to their existing budget and they've gained a massive advantage over every club in the league for failing to hand HMRC their PAYE. A transfer embargo is not only fair, its right.
Til July - Why am I using another country to aid my argument? To show that this sanction is not draconian and is infact the done thing in an FA in a country that you sing the national anthem of every other week. The punishment fits the crime.
posted on 27/4/12
Blue - Yeah, thats why I said the only thing harsh about the sanction is the timing. They could've waited til your ownership sorted out but thats been happening next week for months. The panel actually worked late into the night to make this decision so Rangers and the administrators would know their position sooner.
posted on 27/4/12
Love him or hate him you have to admit Whyte is really good at what he does
posted on 27/4/12
The line that it has not happened in Scotland, therefore is draconian, is idiotic.
Scottish football does not operate within a legal vacuum. Every member nation adheres to UEFA and FIFA protocols. Embargos are established outcomes. Just look at England.
The attitude that it has to happened in Scotland therefore is unfair is disingenuous, twisted, idiotic.
Look at the shambles the club is in. Also they have been found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute.
I repeat. Instead of bleating about severity, a little humility and acceptance of the blame would not go amiss. They might even get more sympathetic ears.
posted on 27/4/12
*has not happened in Scotland
Bloomin technology
posted on 27/4/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/4/12
Aye fingers
Among Celtic fans.
posted on 27/4/12
Dos, respect is earned.
See if Rangers said 'right, we need the fans more than ever, because we are determined to pay back everything we owe. It is going to take us a long, long time, and we will have to sacrifice success. But we will emerge a greater club for doing so.'
I would take my hat off to the club.
If the club instead chooses to bump everyone because they cannot stomach life without success on the pitch, then no sympathy.
posted on 27/4/12
It isn't Celtic fans you need to appeal to, one of the" three "is a Raith fan
posted on 27/4/12
Rangers administrators are suing Collyer Bristow for £25m because of the alleged actions of Gary Withey, formerly a partner in the firm and the key lawyer in Whyte’s team during the negotiations to buy Rangers. When it comes to court what would Rangers think if Collyer Bristow were to stand up and say, ‘It’s not right that our whole firm should be held accountable for the actions of one man who is no longer with the company?’ No doubt Rangers would not accept that point of view, but it’s the precise point of view they are articulating in regard to the SFA’s 12-month transfer ban. It’s called corporate responsibility. Answer that one. There is a defence of Volenti Non Fit Injuria i.e. a risk willingly accepted. If Rangers ignored all the warning signs, that even forum fans were flagging up to them long before handing the keys over to Whyte, then they can easily be shown to have willingly accepted the risk of bringing in a colourful character like him rather than International business man Sir DM saying he was "duped" yeah right.
Rangers say the other clubs looking for natural justice are looking to destro Scottish Football which is yet further hypocrisy from a club who's actions killed all competition fro 80's onward and who stand by and watch officials such as McCoist and Jardine threaten all manner of people and business for having done nothing other than sponsor the organisation whose rules they signed up to like the rest of the teams. Odious does not begin to describe this club and a lot of people associated with it
posted on 27/4/12
I'll answer that.
CB are a partnership, and as such, all partners are jointly & severally liable for the actions of any one.
Rangers are not a partnership. The actions of one need not be bourne by the remainder.
SO other than the fact that your argument, nicked straight from a hack yesterday, holds no water in its basic comparison....
Competition from 80s onwards?
Hmm - were you even born then? If so you would know that Rangers did not win the league until 1986-87 season, the first title since 1978.
Celtic won it back the next season.
So that comparison is wrong too.
Want to go for a third?
posted on 27/4/12
And as for McCoist & Jardine issuing threats - you have proof of these of course.
Or are you just spouting the same stuff from both ends?
posted on 27/4/12
ra sellick's hatred of Rangers is undermining what might otherwise be (on occasion) articulate and coherent posts.
posted on 27/4/12
says the rangers fan who includes in his username a hate filled statement about ra sellick.
What a plonker.
posted on 27/4/12
says the rangers fan who includes in his username a hate filled statement about ra sellick
- - - - - -
"hate filled"........
posted on 27/4/12
'Hmm - were you even born then?'
Yes I was born - long before then! So is the late 80s not the Eighties? Is it the 70s? Or 90s? .
Ok, there were no direct 'threats', just implicit ones. Just like Henry the 2nd's re. Becket, for example. And no proof is required as they are in the public domain, the media; Jardine yesterday at the RFF meeting and McCoist on Monday on Rangers TV
posted on 27/4/12
"Killed off all competition from 80s onwards." What you meant was 90s, but ok.
There were no threats, despite what you choose to read into things.
And yes, for you to accuse anyone of threatening, you would need actual proof, you know, evidence, that sort of pesky stuff....
posted on 27/4/12
The 'proof' is there as I said. The members of the SFA panel regard it as such. It's incitement to commit a crime. Some people not actively involved in the London riots last year are in jail for the same thing.
posted on 27/4/12
So we can expect Strathclyde's finest to be speaking to Messers McCoist & Jardine then?
Or are you just completely wrong?
Page 1 of 2