SFA Appeal to be heard next Wednesday

[Frankie 8,296]

Full notes of reasons:

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/93212354/SFA-Rangers-Note-of-Reasons

[Calgacus 8]

that makes grim reading, a number of people could have done a lot more, if not to prevent Whyte, but to reveal what he was up to. If they had the the punishment may have been less severe.

[caseyjones 0]

that makes grim reading, a number of people could have done a lot more, if not to prevent Whyte, but to reveal what he was up to. If they had the the punishment may have been less severe.

 

Russell, Smith and McCoist to name but three. Olverman sounds like someone at The Nuremberg Trials.

[der Berliner 3,459]

The point remains that the club as such, the manager, the players, and the support, could not do anything about this, yet they it is who get punished first and foremost? While doing everything fine in 139 years? Well, well ...

 

Of course, you won't want to even think about the reasons why they did not kick us out of the SFA in the first place.

 

BTW, have Olympique Marseille been stripped of any titles (incl. CL crown of 1992/93) because of match fixing?

 

Can we relocate to Ulster for a season and leave a message at the SPL & SFA's door proclaiming: "We'll gladly watch you die!"

[andy steel 0]

Slightly confusing in places; especially the 'certain people were excluded from info and should have shouted louder about it'. I am no expert in company law, but encouraging directors of a company to publicly allege breaches of law - even for the best of reasons - is taking us into well dodgy legal areas. A tribunal with a QC on it should have been aware of

 

(a) the conflict of legal responsibilities this issue raises; not many are likely to shout from the rooftops about something they may well face charges of complicity with, even if they are of the soundest moral probity. does the panel also have responsibility to offer plea bargains? Or any legal authority at all to be suggesting appropriate behaviour in this field? I doubt it.

 

and

 

(b) the extraordinary precedent they seem to be setting for those involved in directorial work, especially that relating to financial matters. Got a concern? Go to the papers!! I can't see that one catching on.

 

Nevertheless, it's hard to disagree that when Olverman was told the non-payment of PAYE was a tactic, common sense should have led him to lock his office door and phone HMRC. His actions (non-actions) on this issue aside, I don't see the failure of the other excluded directors in the same way as the tribunal. Which, incidentally, is right up its own arse.

 

However, that's it in stone, I think. There's to be no separation of Rangers FC and Craig Whyte, meaning we'll be liable to punishment for all his insane schemes. Going to get worse before it gets better, that's an understatement.

[stewarty 1,909]

Seems to me a complete stitch up.

[andy steel 0]

It would have garnered a lot more credibility if it had both punished Rangers for the club's actions under Whyte (which are inseparable, acc. to this) but allowed it to operate at a level at which its debts could be paid. Difficult, but not impossible:

 

an embargo on one transfer window could have been argued as being proportionate;

enforcing a salary cap would have left the players with the option to stay on lower wages (unlikely, but you never know) while forcing the club to get its financial house in order;

this cap could have remained in force until all debts to member clubs at least were paid, tho I'd argue for debts to businesses as well, or at the very least until a repayment plan is in place.

Add in the 10 pt. penalty and the fines and I think you have a punishment only timothy would find lenient.

 

This punishes the club and effectively ensures it won't win hee-haw in the foreseeable, unless it pulls off some amazing deals with the likes of Jig. But it would require imagination and the prompt passing of required rules...never going to happen with the SFA.

[Calgacus 8]

The really interesting bits are about the lead up to the take over, it undermines David Murray's clain that he was duped by Whyte. It also shows how much the sale was down to Lloyds TSB.

[MoodyBlue 0]

For some reason I am hugely confidednt that we will win the transfer embargo appeal.

 

assuming we come out of Administration, surely the SFA do not have a leg to stand on with regard to this ???!

[Tannochsidebear 2,352]

The Rangers QC has read the report and is very confident of a complete overturn of all convictions against the club.