Rangers statement on the stripping of titles

[kuznetsov 0]

the clyde interview sounded like charlie was bumbling a bit. i thought gerry got the better of him tbh.

[Zappa 0]

Green interview on Clyde earlier:

 

http://www.clyde1.com/charles-green-interview/

 

That was a very strange interview indeed.

[Zappa 0]

Just thinking that if the worst came to the worst and they stripped our titles, wouldn't the fans have a case for suing the SPL for all the money spent on attending games where their incompetence and negligence in the administration of players wages meant that those games were meaningless. There is a loss there and the SPL are responsible due to that negligence.

 

If we were in America I'd say that was a very winnable case, but here?

 

The only problem I have with Green's statement is that I can't see an out for the SPL while saving face. Which means they are probably now in for a penny, in for a pound and will not back down.

 

There's no way they'll back down unless they chose to officially recognise what Charles Green said about us never having played in the SPL before. In which case they could say they're dropping the investigation, we get to keep our SPL titles which were won by oldco and purchased by newco, but we won't be adding to them consecutively because they don't recognise us as the same club. I don't think the SPL will go that far because it'll cause complete and utter chaos, but you just never know what these corrupt people have up their sleeves to hammer us with next.

 

To be frank, I think it was a very poor decision to go down the path of saying we've never played in the SPL before.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Zappa

[Blue Moon 1,289]

I thought what he said was much the same as his statement from yesterday and he handled himself well and didn't allow himself to be put down. His references to the Rangers Supporters I would take with a bit of a pinch of salt. I do believe him, however, when he says he may in the future have to do things the supporters don't agree with but that he thinks are in the best interests of the club. At this moment we are at one.

[Blue Moon 1,289]

If we were in America I'd say that was a very winnable case, but here?

 

 

 

There's no way they'll back down unless they chose to officially recognise what Charles Green said about us never having played in the SPL before. In which case they could say they're dropping the investigation, we get to keep our SPL titles which were won by oldco and purchased by newco, but we won't be adding to them consecutively because they don't recognise us as the same club. I don't think the SPL will go that far because it'll cause complete and utter chaos, but you just never know what these corrupt people have up their sleeves to hammer us with next.

 

To be frank, I think it was a very poor decision to go down the path of saying we've never played in the SPL before. A very poor decision indeed.

 

I see what you mean. I think it is more a matter of jurisdiction and the time to do something about it is past. They have played the same game, if it comes to that by saying we can't play in the SPL because we are a new company but that we will pay the debts of the oldco.

 

I should have added by the same token we are not the only club to have had a change of company or ownership.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Blue Moon

[Zappa 0]

I should have added by the same token we are not the only club to have had a change of company or ownership.

 

No we're certainly not, but we ARE the only club to have been subjected to the all-out harassment of such a witch hunt. Our treatment by the SPL, the SPL clubs & our national association, the SFA is scandalous. Practically nothing in the whole process has been handled appropriately or fairly.

[craig 5,199]

No we're certainly not, but we ARE the only club to have been subjected to the all-out harassment of such a witch hunt. Our treatment by the SPL, the SPL clubs & our national association, the SFA is scandalous. Practically nothing in the whole process has been handled appropriately or fairly.

 

Compare and contrast with how the EPL, EFA et al have handled the Pompey situation. The term "night and day" springs to mind.

[Stimpy 0]

The Rangers Supporters Trust has been in correspondence with former Rangers Chairman Alistair Johnston and he has kindly agreed that we publish a synopsis of his thoughts on a variety of salient points in order that fans can have a better appreciation of the facts.

 

 

Let me explain my personal motivation here. If in any way I can spread my sentiments, which are based on a combination of knowledge of the facts, interpretation of events, and a philosophical understanding of culpability as it relates to punishment, that in some way would cause the Tribunal that is sitting to determine the destiny of Rangers heritage to pause for thought and provide more objective consideration of the case before them, then my agenda will be to a greater extent served. I just can’t sit by on the side-lines and watch a miscarriage of justice be activated by a kangaroo court. It is not my personal objective to denigrate the football institutions of Scotland, but their actions and words go a long way to influencing public opinion as to the interpretation of the events that have taken place and how members of the public frame their own opinions as a result.

 

The whole process has been established to satisfy a self-serving agenda by vested interests in the SPL. The SFA, however, is the supreme governing body of Scottish football and should invoke its ultimate authority to forestall the inevitable inequity that will ensue if the capital punishment decision is left to the SPL.

 

The SFA is complicit in all of this because they have not at least up until now had the courage to publicly acknowledge that they either ignored or did not really understand the well-publicized structure surrounding the relationship that Rangers FC had with certain of its players.

 

I have been reviewing my files from around April 2011 relating to the annual routine of Rangers FC applying for and being granted a license to participate in organized football in Scotland. Because of the publicity surrounding our club at the time, the SFA wrote to us asking for more details about the public speculation concerning our financial and tax situation. The latter obviously referenced the impact of the EBT schemes as creating a potential taxation liability. The club responded accordingly and provided details, as it had done in previous years, by declaring player salaries, bonuses, benefits, etc., but also payments made to a Remuneration Trust. The SFA compliance officers must have known, both from the description and context of the reports, that such expenditures had some connection to player compensation. However, without any further investigation at the time, Rangers FC received its SFA license to compete in the 2011/2012 season. Rangers, therefore, were entitled to believe that they were not in breach of any SFA regulation requiring reporting of player compensation. If there was any question that the essence of these payments to a Remuneration Trust could have endangered the proud historical record of our team, then why was it not raised long before then.

 

At best, the SFA is relying on inconsistent interpretation of its own rules, and to do this retrospectively is totally at odds with underlying principles of equity in the law. A lawyer representing Celtic recently was successful in having charges against that club dropped because of the inadequacy of the SFA's prescribed rules, regulations, and sanctions. The same principle should apply here. If the SFA now decide to adopt a more focused evaluation of the data they request from its members in order to be granted a license, they should ensure that the legislation upon which they rely for enforcement and the corresponding sanctions are more transparent and predictable.

 

Let me also address the prevailing mood in certain quarters that seems determined to pile on to Rangers when they are vulnerable as confusion over the current structure and authority has allowed allegations and conjecture to trump reality as the institution of the club seems now to be a pawn where rhetoric, no matter how real or substantiated, prevails. Inflammatory and emotional words have been used and recited to justify this rush to judgment which I believe are fundamentally ill founded and out of proportion to the realities of the events that transpired.

 

First, when the previous football commission reported on EBT’s in a very high profile statement, they took the view that if Rangers was indeed guilty of structuring EBT schemes that transgressed the law or the rules of the relevant federations, then this was “close to match fixing.” This is the headline that in my opinion prompted the determination to slay Rangers with capital punishment, which in the case of our club would retrospectively alter the records of our historical achievements of which we are all so proud. “Match fixing” has connotations that correctly relate to bribery and corruption involving players and referees, fielding players that did not meet the criteria and qualifications of the governing bodies, e.g. they were over the age limit, or they were registered to another club, or they were playing while they had been banned for previous misdemeanours, etc., etc. Rangers has never been accused of or been remotely involved in any activity that would justify the terminology that whatever transgressions they might be found guilty of perpetrating was close to “match fixing.”

 

Secondly, and this is really important to the extent that it is a phrase that is prominent in the rhetoric of those whose objective is to crucify Rangers, and that is “financial doping.” The term as I interpret it is an attempt to relate an activity that is outlawed generally throughout the world of sport and regarded as cheating and taking undue advantage of banned stimulants and conjure up a connection with the financial mechanics of a club that has acknowledged that it in the clear light of day and very transparently embraced the use of Remuneration Trusts. Our opponents maintain, illogically, that without the use of EBT’s Rangers would have been unable to afford the quality of players that they fielded and thus gained an advantage over other clubs against which they competed. As an aside, it is interesting to recognize that there has been no complaints about Rangers fielding such players in the Champions League, the Europa League, etc., but the current accusations are being promoted not coincidentally by other members of the SPL who are now attempting to act as judge, jury and executioner against their consistently most potent rival.

 

The reality of the situation is that Sir David Murray, who was intimately involved in the architecture of these efforts to organize the business in a way to mitigate taxation which is totally legitimate and acceptable under all tenets of the law, would have signed and paid for these very same players whether or not EBT schemes were in effect or not. The only difference being one which only has a financial consequence, i.e. it would have increased Rangers reliance on bank debt. During most of the period under investigation by the upcoming SPL Tribunal, he as well as his company enjoyed a very mutually productive relationship with the Bank of Scotland. The Rangers Board, of which I was a member, consistently believed that if and when the debt reached a level where the bank became uncomfortable, Sir David as he did in 2004 when he underwrote a subscription for Rangers shares and thus eliminated much of the bank debt, would be able and willing to repeat this recovery effort. Whether or not he ultimately would have done so is now irrelevant, but what is clear is that “financial doping” is not and could never be construed as describing a situation where a club extends its credit facilities with a recognized financial institution. The level of the debt that a club is willing to tolerate, whether you are Celtic or Manchester United, is determined by that club in conjunction with the lender. Whether the amount involved is £10 million or £600 million is irrelevant to the principle.

 

On the other hand, I have to acknowledge that the malfeasance created by Craig Whyte when he manifestly used funds that did not belong to Rangers, i.e. taxes withheld from employees’ wage checks that rightfully should have been transmitted to HMRC, which avoided him having to invest his own money contrary to his expressed commitment to the Rangers stakeholders to do otherwise, and being either unwilling or unable (or both) to raise any credit to invest into Rangers, exposed our club as a victim of what could be loosely determined as “financial doping.” Thus, Whyte was able to pay the club’s operating expenses including player wages, but it was Rangers which suffered by being ultimately forced into liquidation.

 

Keep in mind, which is not always clear in the molasses of misinformation that is currently circulating, Rangers went into liquidation and suffered all the penalties and sanctions of which we are now aware, solely because of Mr. Whyte’s failure to pay HMRC the withholding tax that the club collected during the short term of his disgraceful proprietorship.

 

Finally, I would hope that the panel which has been charged with investigating Rangers' activities will draw a large circle around a universe of relevant reference points that should be considered in assessing the magnitude of the allegations made against the Club. For example, was the accepted practice of mitigating players overall tax liability utilized by several of the biggest clubs in Europe by drawing up separate contracts segregating off their image rights, which essentially denied that any compensation related thereto was a function of their obligation to play football, any different in principle than the alleged actions of Rangers FC?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

excellent stuff from aj.

[craig 5,199]

Decent statement to be fair from AJ