If/When Craig Whyte gets convicted.........

[pete 2,511]

don't the sfa rules prohibit them from punishing the victims of a crime?

 

That would only affect any decision the SFA made if they chose to review the situation, it would not open them up to court action.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

shouldn't they have waited on the outcome of the police investigation before punishing us?

[Bluedell 5,907]

shouldn't they have waited on the outcome of the police investigation before punishing us?

 

Not if the two aren't strictly related.

 

There seems to be a feeling on this thread that because Whyte may have obtained his shares illegally that Rangers are absolved from anything that then happened while he was a director. That isn't the case.

 

Let's say Whyte had bought over a car company illegally and the company then made defective motors which resulted in serious injuries to people. Are you suggesting that the car company should not be punished and the people can't claim compensation from the company just because Whyte bought over the company illegally?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

if the law protected said car company from being punished when it was a victim of a crime, then yes.

 

but it doesn't the sfa rules however do.

[True_Ger_1872 2]

Could this item under discussion be why there was such a rush over the reconstruction talks including a merger of the bodies? i mean if the bodies merge prior to the investigation outcome then wouldnt that eliminate the possibility (if any) for pursual of monies owed to Rangers?

 

Basically - the SPL governing body doesnt exist anymore?

[Darthter 542]

WRT CW's takeover & the SPL/SFA....the only real questions that can be asked are concerning the Fit & Proper person requirements & testing - did the SPL/SFA properly vet Whyte before the takeover???

 

If they did and found him to be OK.....what sort of tests did they carry out in order to reach this decision??

if they did and found him not to be OK....what did they do about it???

If no tests were carried out...why not???

 

Separate questions should be answered concerning the non-payment of PAYE/NI - did the SFA/SPL know about it, when did they find out and did they do anything about it???

 

I feel that if/when criminal charges are brought against CW, then the SPL/SFA will simply say "nothing to do with us..." - which is probably correct.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I understand what your saying bluedell. mind you I still think it would be worth the rfff getting a good qc to look at the sfa rule book.

 

the Celtc qc doesn't seem to have written it very well.

[Darthter 542]

if the law protected said car company from being punished when it was a victim of a crime, then yes.

 

but it doesn't the sfa rules however do.

 

you would need to proved that the faulty engines were a direct result of the illegal take over though, other wise it's 2 unrelated incidents. The company may have starting making said engines from inferior quality materials in order to reduce costs - that has no connection with how the owner acquired the business....

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I think we can happily prove the tax fraud was a direct result of whytes illegal takeover.

[Darthter 542]

I think we can happily prove the tax fraud was a direct result of whytes illegal takeover.

 

I don't think you can....they are 2 separate things in the eyes of the law. Folk may argue that if CW hadn't taken over, there wouldn't have been a PAYE/NI problem, but in reality the previous board could have done exactly the same thing, the fact that they didn't is irrelevant.

 

The non-payment of PAYE/NI etc was a result of the club having nae cash.....not because of how the owner obtained his shareholding....