caseyjones

Whatever anyone thinks of the job Bain did in his time as CEO, the shit he got for standing up to Whyte was disgraceful. The next Blue Knight to be unveiled?

The Scottish Football Association will consider disciplinary cases against Rangers and Craig Whyte at a meeting of their Judicial Panel on Thursday morning. The hearing has been scheduled after the conclusion of an independent inquiry into the administration-hit club. The club are accused of breaching five disciplinary rules, while Whyte has allegedly broken two. The timescale of the offences stretches back to May 6, 2011, when Whyte took control of the club following his purchase of Sir David Murrayâ??s majority shareholding. Both parties have been issued with notices of complaint by the Scottish FA's compliance officer. If found guilty, Whyte could be ejected from the game, essentially confirming the Scottish FA board's belief he is not a fit and proper person. STV understands Whyte is unlikely to attend in person, while Rangers will be represented by the club's administrators and lawyers. Both are accused of breaching rules 66 and 71. Rule 66 gives the Scottish FA scope to punish both a club and an official for bringing the game into disrepute. Rule 71 warns against any party not acting in the best interests of the game or acting in an improper manner. Rule 1 (b) covers any failure by the club to comply with the SFAâ??s Articles of Association as a club, while rule 2 concerns individual officials from the member club breaching the same articles. Rule 14 (g) concerns the clubâ??s appointment of administrators. The SFA can fine, suspend or ultimately terminate the membership of any club that â??is subject to an insolvency eventâ?. Rule 66 covers any incident or behaviour that is considered to bring the game into disrepute while rule 71 demands that every club or individual representing the club acts in the best interests of the SFA. In addition to the charges facing Rangers as a club, owner Craig Whyte has also been charged as an individual with having breached rules 66 and 71. If found guilty, the punishment for Rangers and Whyte could vary. The sanctions available for breaching rules 1 and 2 can be a fine or suspension from the game while the other three regulations carry potentially higher penalties. Rule 14 adds the possibility of membership being terminated while the latter two rules carry a wider range of sanctions. A fine, suspension or termination can still be applied but the club could be banned from the Scottish Cup under rule 66 or 71 while Whyte as an individual could be "ejected" from the game.

That frees up another half a million quid.

Nobody is forced to read anything, mate. Keep posting.

The difference with Dunfermline was that they charged us more for tickets than they did for their own fans. Dundee United charged both sets of fans again to watch the rearranged match.

Double post.

Is that rip assets or r.i.p. assets in that link?

I wouldn't be that surprised. Also, let's not forget that McCoist is involved in negotiations too.

Your comment 'against',was to label them as doom-singers. Why would you be surprised when someone hits back with another label?

The Record have been accurate quite a few times in this whole saga - and dismissed as knowing nothing.

A certain amount of spin in there, but the administrators have repeatedly assured everyone that Whyte was out of the picture and would have no say on the future of the club.

A point which is ignored when it comes to those who say we should punish Dundee United.

Ok then, given that DU should get nothing, even though they have an affordable amount outstanding, and HMRC should get nothing, because we can't clear it, what other creditors should be paid from RFFF funds?

We should start paying back the PAYE and VAT next week then.

Admin came to an agreement with Yorkston and told him that they would get all the £84,000 for it. This was prior to the RFFF being set up.

You obviously didn't listen to what was said regarding where the money could be spent.

I'll keep an eye out.

He(Cheshire Sports) purchased the whole club, sold off the part which was costing money, and kept the lucrative part that he wanted. That too has now become surplus to requirements.

I'm 100% for Rangers to honour their debts, but paying Dunfermline what they are owed and not doing the same for Dundee United, smacks of extreme pettiness. That's leavlng aside the claims from the administrators that they had already agreed to make these payments.

There's a post on RM which disputes some of the points made in the original statement - obviously, it's not for those who won't hear a bad word against him.

I suggest you go and ask around the local businesses then. The local MP, who is a good Bear, claimed just that during the 5Live debate. Marshall also stated that without Rangers, there would be no Louden Tavern's in the area.

The local community is surely that which surrounds the stadium, the home of the team. If Rangers moved home to Hampden, how many of the shops or pubs in Govan or KP would survive without the regular football crowds? Would a shop/pub in Partick or Portadown suffer the same?

Reading a wide variety of stuff allows one to form a more balanced opinion.

Sale have only moved once so far, the next move has been on the cards for months now. You also appear to be struggling with the difference between a local community and attendance/fanbase, so I'll leave it at that.

Nobody can say for certain what would have occurred if those two things hadn't happened. On one hand you say we were good until October and weren't relying on good fortune, the next you are admitting to us being a one-man team.