Bluedell 5,624 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Charles Green, Chief Executive of Rangers, issued the following statement today. â??The Rangers Football Club Limited will not attend tomorrowâ??s hearing (Tuesday, September 11) of the SPL-appointed Commission investigating the circumstances surrounding the use of Employee Benefit Trusts by previous owners of the Club. The Club cannot continue to participate in an SPL process that we believe is fundamentally misconceived. â??Neither the SPL, nor its Commission, has any legal power or authority over the Club because it is not in the SPL. For that reason it has no legal basis on which to appoint its Commission. The Club ceased to be subject to the SPLâ??s rules when it was ejected from its league. Our lawyers have made that point repeatedly to the SPL in correspondence and yet our requests for an explanation from the SPL have been completely ignored. The SPLâ??s silence on these issues is deafening. The outcome of the SPLâ??s process will have no legal effect. â??First and foremost, I would like to explain this decision to our supporters across the world whose loyalty and commitment to the Club in very difficult times has been unwavering and heart-warming for all those involved at the Club. â??Since the decision was taken by HMRC on June 14 to reject administratorsâ?? proposals for a Company Voluntary Arrangement, the fate of Rangers FC lay firmly and clearly in the ability of the consortium I led to form a new company and corporate entity that would ensure that Rangers had a future as a football club. â??At all times we were fully transparent in our dealings with the football authorities, be they the SFA, SPL or the SFL. There was no ambiguity whatsoever regarding the status of the company when it made an application to join the SPL. As we all know, 10 SPL clubs decided against the admission of the new company to the league and The Rangers Football Club Limited subsequently applied to the SFL for membership and we are grateful for their acceptance. â??In short, what was decided by the SPL membership is that Rangers was finished as a member of the SPL. Despite this, the SPL now see the new owners of the company, and the new company itself, which owns all the assets of Rangers FC - including SPL championship titles â?? as fair game for punishment for matters that have nothing to do with us at all. And letâ??s be very clear about what this Commission is. Although the SPL goes to great lengths to emphasise the independence of its Commission, the Commission is not independent of the SPL. It has been appointed by the SPL. It follows SPL rules and its process is managed by SPL staff. I donâ??t question the impartiality of the individual panel members but whatever decision they reach is a decision of the SPL. â??To make it crystal clear, the new owners purchased all the business and assets of Rangers, including titles and trophies. Any attempt to undermine or diminish the value of those assets will be met with the stiffest resistance, including legal recourse. â??Furthermore, we ask the question genuinely. Why did the football authorities do nothing to address an issue that was public knowledge for at least two years, and was reported in the Clubâ??s accounts for several years, before the Club went into administration and was subsequently taken over by new owners? HMRC contacted the SPL regarding EBT matters in October 2010, they met to discuss what documentation the Club had lodged with the SPL. Did the SPL launch an investigation? Did they appoint a Commission? Did they ask to see EBT correspondence? Did they ask any questions at all? No. They did absolutely nothing. â??What compounds the breathtaking hypocrisy of the SPL in this whole saga, is that the SFA, the SPL and us - as the new owners - took part in numerous discussions regarding the new companyâ??s league status during which it was made clear that a deal was there to be done where â??the EBT issueâ?? would be dealt with as part of a package of sanctions which would be implemented in return for membership of the SFA and a place in the either the SPL or Division One. We do not accept that people who are willing to come to an agreement on such matters then have a right to instigate a full blown inquisition when matters do not unfold as they thought they would. â??In our view, it beggars belief that an authority which can be heavily involved in these discussions to the point that the Chief Executive Neil Doncaster repeatedly stated he was not interested in stripping titles from Rangers can lurch from that position to setting up its own Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Nimmo Smith. I must make clear that we are not questioning for a moment the integrity of Lord Nimmo Smith and his colleagues but we believe the SPL have been hypocritical in their approach to this matter. Quite apart from their negotiations with our consortium, I know the SPL were well advanced in their discussions with Mr Bill Miller and his representatives where EBT issues were raised and there was again an understanding that the EBT issue could be dealt with informally if new owners were to take over at Ibrox. â??Why is the SPL rushing to judgement now when it has been sitting on the matter for 2 years? Their haste is particularly difficult to understand when the tax tribunal judgement is imminent. The factual issues in both cases are identical. We have to ask why is the SPL so anxious to issue a judgement in this matter before the tax tribunalâ??s findings are made public. The position is even harder to understand when one of the reasons the SFA did not pursue any form of disciplinary charge on EBT matters following Lord Nimmo Smithâ??s April report was because it was felt unwise for the SFA to pursue the matter when the tax tribunal judgement had not been made public. Nothing has changed as the judgment still has not been made public. Why is the SPL rushing ahead when in April the SFA felt it unwise to do so? â??Rangers was not the only Club in Scotland to use EBTs yet nothing was done and little has been heard about it. Also, Rangers stands accused of achieving sporting advantage unfairly â?? yet there is little debate over the fact in all the years EBTs were in existence at Ibrox, the Club often failed to win either the league title, or the main cup competitions. Furthermore, the period concerned saw a significant downsizing of the playing squad both in money spent on transfers and players wages. â??The decision we have taken has not been taken lightly. There are powerful representatives from Clubs within the SPL â?? not all of them by any means â?? who appear hell bent on inflicting as much damage on Rangers as possible. It is lamentable that the Board and executive of the organisation have not been able to deal with this appropriately. We do not hold every SPL club in the same regard. Several clubs were placed in an invidious position and we believe their interests were not best served by those in more powerful positions. â??Furthermore, as a Club we are not satisfied that the issue of conflict of interest relating to advisers to the SPL has been satisfactorily dealt with. â??Once again I would thank our supporters for their patience and tolerance. They have been asked to take it on the chin time and again and we stand united in saying: No more. As far as I am concerned, Rangers Football Club has won a world record 54 league titles, and, whatever the decision of the SPL Commission, these titles cannot and will not be taken away from us.â? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,624 Posted September 10, 2012 Author Share Posted September 10, 2012 Excellent statement! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangers Football Club 0 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 CHARLES GREEN, Chief Executive of Rangers, issued the following statement today: â??The Rangers Football Club Limited will not attend tomorrowâ??s hearing (Tuesday, September 11) of the SPL-appointed Commission investigating the circumstances surrounding the use of Employee Benefit Trusts by previous owners of the Club. "The Club cannot continue to participate in an SPL process that we believe is fundamentally misconceived.* â??Neither the SPL, nor its Commission, has any legal power or authority over the Club because it is not in the SPL. "For that reason it has no legal basis on which to appoint its Commission. The Club ceased to be subject to the SPLâ??s rules when it was ejected from its league. "Our lawyers have made that point repeatedly to the SPL in correspondence and yet our requests for an explanation from the SPL have been completely ignored. The SPLâ??s silence on these issues is deafening. The outcome of the SPLâ??s process will have no legal effect.** â??First and foremost, I would like to explain this decision to our supporters across the world whose loyalty and commitment to the Club in very difficult times has been unwavering and heart-warming for all those involved at the Club. Our decision regarding this commission is approved unanimously by the Board and the Manager Ally McCoist. â??Since the decision was taken by HMRC on June 14 to reject administratorsâ?? proposals for a Company Voluntary Arrangement, the fate of Rangers FC lay firmly and clearly in the ability of the consortium I led to form a new company and corporate entity that would ensure that Rangers had a future as a football club. â??At all times we were fully transparent in our dealings with the football authorities, be they the SFA, SPL or the SFL. "There was no ambiguity whatsoever regarding the status of the company when it made an application to join the SPL. "As we all know, 10 SPL clubs decided against the admission of the new company to the league and The Rangers Football Club Limited subsequently applied to the SFL for membership and we are grateful for their acceptance. â??In short, what was decided by the SPL membership is that Rangers was finished as a member of the SPL. "Despite this, the SPL now see the new owners of the company, and the new company itself, which owns all the assets of Rangers FC - including SPL championship titles â?? as fair game for punishment for matters that have nothing to do with us at all. "And letâ??s be very clear about what this Commission is. Although the SPL goes to great lengths to emphasise the independence of its Commission, the Commission is not independent of the SPL. It has been appointed by the SPL. It follows SPL rules and its process is managed by SPL staff. "I donâ??t question the impartiality of the individual panel members but whatever decision they reach is a decision of the SPL.** â??To make it crystal clear, the new owners purchased all the business and assets of Rangers, including titles and trophies. "Any attempt to undermine or diminish the value of those assets will be met with the stiffest resistance, including legal recourse. â??Furthermore, we ask the question genuinely. Why did the football authorities do nothing to address an issue that was public knowledge for at least two years, and was reported in the Clubâ??s accounts for several years, before the Club went into administration and was subsequently taken over by new owners? "HMRC contacted the SPL regarding EBT matters in October 2010, they met to discuss what documentation the Club had lodged with the SPL. "Did the SPL launch an investigation? Did they appoint a Commission?* Did they ask to see EBT correspondence? Did they ask any questions at all?* No. They did absolutely nothing.***** â??What compounds the breathtaking hypocrisy of the SPL in this whole saga, is that the SFA, the SPL and us - as the new owners - took part in numerous discussions regarding the new companyâ??s league status during which it was made clear that a deal was there to be done where â??the EBT issueâ?? would be dealt with as part of a package of sanctions which would be implemented in return for membership of the SFA and a place in either the SPL or Division One. "We do not accept that people who are willing to come to an agreement on such matters then have a right to instigate a full blown inquisition when matters do not unfold as they thought they would. â??In our view, it beggars belief that an authority which can be heavily involved in these discussions to the point that the Chief Executive Neil Doncaster repeatedly stated he was not interested in stripping titles from Rangers can lurch from that position to setting up its own Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Nimmo Smith. "I must make it clear that we are not questioning for a moment the integrity of Lord Nimmo Smith and his colleagues but we believe the SPL have been hypocritical in their approach to this matter. "Quite apart from their negotiations with our consortium, I know the SPL were well advanced in their discussions with another bidder and his representatives where EBT issues were raised and there was again an understanding that the EBT issue could be dealt with by agreement if new owners were to take over at Ibrox. â??Why is the SPL rushing to judgement now when it has been sitting on the matter for two years? Their haste is particularly difficult to understand when the tax tribunal judgement is imminent. "The factual issues in both cases are identical. We have to ask why is the SPL so anxious to issue a judgement in this matter before the tax tribunalâ??s findings are made public. "The position is even harder to understand when one of the reasons the SFA did not pursue any form of disciplinary charge on EBT matters following Lord Nimmo Smithâ??s April report was because it was felt unwise for the SFA to pursue the matter when the tax tribunal judgement had not been made public. "Nothing has changed as the judgement still has not been made public. Why is the SPL rushing ahead when in April the SFA felt it unwise to do so? â??Rangers was not the only club in Scotland to use EBTs yet nothing was done and little has been heard about it. Also, Rangers stands accused of achieving sporting advantage unfairly â?? yet there is little debate over the fact in all the years EBTs were in existence at Ibrox, the Club often failed to win either the league title, or the main cup competitions. "Furthermore, the period concerned saw a significant downsizing of the playing squad both in money spent on transfers and players wages. â??The decision we have taken has not been taken lightly. There are powerful representatives from Clubs within the SPL â?? not all of them by any means â?? who appear hell bent on inflicting as much damage on Rangers as possible. "It is lamentable that the Board and executive of the organisation have not been able to deal with this appropriately. We do not hold every SPL club in the same regard. Several clubs were placed in an invidious position and we believe their interests were not best served by those in more powerful positions. â??Furthermore, as a Club we are not satisfied that the issue of conflict of interest relating to advisers to the SPL has been satisfactorily dealt with. â??Once again I would thank our supporters for their patience and tolerance. They have been asked to take it on the chin time and again and we stand united in saying: No more. "As far as I am concerned, Rangers Football Club has won a world record 54 league titles, and, whatever the decision of the SPL Commission, these titles cannot and will not be taken away from us and our Manager Ally McCoist is in total agreement.â? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Strong words...well done Chuck!!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim1955 12 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 The CEO will win himself more fans following this statement and deservedly so. Well said Mr Green. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Drop 'em, Charles. You're getting it! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 This is fooking great news, who the fook are these coonts to think we will bend over and take their continual corrupt agenda. That's a good kick in the baws for them, an upper cut of Muhammad Ali porportions is coming via a 'rope a dope' trick 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1872 4 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 PAUL CLARK, of Duff and Phelps, joint administrators of RFC 2012 PLC (formerly The Rangers Football Club plc), issued the following statement today: “I can confirm that the business and certain assets of RFC 2012 PLC – including the honours won by the Club - were acquired by Mr Charles Green’s consortium as part of the sale and purchase agreement. “The SPL have been in contact with RFC 2012 PLC with regard to the SPL’s Commission which is examining Rangers’ historic use of EBTs. However, having taken legal advice, it is the Joint Administrators’ opinion that the SPL is not able to pursue RFC 2012 PLC in this matter. “The SPL have stated that the Commission is empowered to review the use of EBTs under the contract between the SPL and its member club. RFC 2012 PLC no longer has a contract with the SPL and therefore the SPL has no jurisdiction over it. “This has been communicated to the SPL and considering that further involvement in this matter is not in the interests of its creditors, RFC 2012 PLC will have no further involvement with the Commission. “Our primary role as Administrators was to rescue the business which has been achieved by Charles Green and his consortium and whilst any sanctions the Commission may levy will not affect RFC 2012 PLC this process would not appear to us to be helpful to the ongoing revival of Rangers.” 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Would not attending the hearing be done on legal advice? It's a good statement, forceful and enlightening, I'm just curious if not attending is in our interests? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Would not attending the hearing be done on legal advice? It's a good statement, forceful and enlightening, I'm just curious if not attending is in our interests? Been told Green sought legal advice on this statement and not attending. He covered all the basis from what I'm led to believe. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.