Green’s no show stance will harm Rangers defence over EBTs Scotzine September 10, 2012 Rangers 120 Comments In a lengthy statement on the club’s official website, the Yorkshireman stated that the hearing was ‘fundamentally misconceived’ and that the SPL nor the commission have any authority over the club now that it is not in the top flight. Green said: “The Rangers Football Club Limited will not attend tomorrow’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. 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 SPL’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 SPL’s silence on these issues is deafening. The outcome of the SPL’s process will have no legal effect.” As Green and his lawyers would know though, the SPL could not be seen to comment on the issues that the club have raised, given that the hearing has yet to take place and could be seen detrimental to the commissions work. He added: “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. “Since the decision was taken by HMRC on June 14 to reject administrators’ 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. “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. 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 – as fair game for punishment for matters that have nothing to do with us at all.” It is surprising that Green states that the SPL see ‘the new owners of the company as fair game for punishment’. I believe that the commission is not investigating Sevco Scotland Limited but Rangers Football Club itself. Since the phrase being banded about – Rangers then, Rangers now and Rangers forever – is the new buzz word, if it is indeed the same club then should the alleged rule breaches not stay with the club? For it was the club that profited on the field of play while the company profited off it. The football debt stays with the club no matter what company owns it – Green has already agreed to this So why not the alleged breaches of football rules and regulations? Green continued: “….let’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 don’t question the impartiality of the individual panel members but whatever decision they reach is a decision of the SPL.” There has been much talk from all sides of potential punishments, if Rangers are found guilty of using EBTs to obtain an unfair advantage over the other SPL clubs. One course of action is to strip Rangers of those titles and trophies they won during the years of utilising the EBTs. However, Green made it crystal clear that any such action would face the ‘stiffest resistance – including legal recourse’. Green warned: “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.” It is not the first time that Rangers took legal action against a governing body in Scotland. After the Scottish FA imposed a 12 month transfer embargo on the club, they took legal action and won the right to have the decision reviewed by the SFA appeals commission. With UEFA and FIFA taking a keen interest in proceedings and issuing their own warning in regards to a law court’s jurisdiction in football rules and regulations, Rangers relented after certain assurances were given and the embargo was imposed at the end of the summer transfer window. Despite the rhetoric from Green, he did make some valid points including why it took the SPL so long to investigate the club when the issue had been made public. Green continued: “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 Club’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. “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 company’s league status during which it was made clear that a deal was there to be done where ‘the EBT issue’ 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. “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. “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 tribunal’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 Smith’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?” The Scottish FA also stated that because the SPL were launching an investigation into the use of EBTs, then they would not pursue the matter as they would then have to hear any appeal. A comment that Green failed to comment on in his statement – why? Green then dealt in some whataboutery when he made a not-so-subtle pointing of the finger at city rivals Celtic, who disclosed to the Scottish FA that they had one EBT. An EBT that was inherited from Middlesborough, when Celtic signed Brazilian midfielder Juninho from the North East club. Soon after Celtic chairman Brian Quinn, on the advice of legal experts negotiated a deal with HMRC to payoff the liability. Again Green failed to mention this fact – why? “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 – 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.” “The decision we have taken has not been taken lightly. There are powerful representatives from Clubs within the SPL – not all of them by any means – 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. “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. “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.” Again Green’s rhetoric has changed since before the CVA was rejected. Back then he threatened that if the CVA was rejected that the history of Rangers FC would end. Since he bought the assets Green’s tune has changed – mostly to win the fans on side to provide much-needed revenue to help towards the running costs of the club. One thing Green and many Rangers fans forget is that the SPL titles do not belong to Rangers nor Celtic. They belong to the Scottish Premier League and as the rightful owners of the trophy they can and could successfully strip any club deemed in breach of their rules and the rules of Football in general. Rangers history books may state they had won those titles that could potentially be stripped from them, however the SPL, Scottish FA, UEFA and FIFA would deem that they had been stripped of said titles. Rangers and Charles Green only need to look as far as Italy, with Juventus being stripped of their titles due to match fixing. They still claim the titles but the Italian governing body, UEFA and FIFA rule that they were stripped of said titles. Maybe just maybe, Rangers should have sent representatives- including a lawyer – to take on the commission and those providing evidence etc. Or is this just another example of the ‘new owners’ using the issue as a means to an end – getting fans through the turnstiles, to ignore the real issues at the club and create a mentality that everyone is against them. Green peddled the bigotry word to claim that the SPL clubs and their fans were targeting Rangers due to bigotry – that was Green trying to get the Rangers fans on board. He then stood and clapped when the fans chanted ‘if you hate Stewart Regan clap your hands’, another issue of Green using the issue in his favour. This present issue is being used by the new owners to continue their ‘siege mentality’ tactic, however it could ultimately come back to haunt them if they are indeed stripped of titles. Rangers use the tag line – ‘the world’s most successful club in the world’ – but if stripped of said titles then their Northern Irish friends Linfield could be deemed as such. Green may be able to buy the assets and claim to have bought over the history and the titles, but when it comes to the history books he cannot rewrite them to suit himself and the club that he now owns. No amount of money whether fan-contributed or invested from a rich benefactor, can tell those in the know what happened from Rangers view point. Those who would believe it and swear blind to that being the truth are those who already believe what is peddled to them from the Ibrox corridors. The same corridors that peddled the lines of Craig Whyte throughout his tenure. The same fans who supported Whyte throughout his tenure until it was plain to see that Whyte had pulled the wool over their eyes. Are the new owners of Rangers doing likewise? Only time will tell. 120 Responses GSW September 11, 2012 The article is basicaly rubbish and speaks only to the long known biases of the author. CG makes some good points, the basis of hearing is highly dubious, CG’s “Rangers” is not a member of the SPL, so it’s not obvious what authority there is to meter out punishment to a non member club – this will ultimately have to go to court. Also, in the background, there is the fact that the SPL is running short of cash and is probably not even viable without Rangers in the short to medium term. So there is a sneaking worry that one of the yet to be decided remedies will be the “bankrolling” of the SPL thru to happier times. That just ain’t going to happen. My understanding is the “titles” punishment has been already decided and the hearing it just a nicety that has to be observed before the punishment can be administered. Planet Zog indeed. “Don’t worry son, you’ll be given a fair trial before we hang you” -Wyatt Earp. Still_Shouting September 11, 2012 Sevco may indeed not be members of the SPL but the previous club that held the registration, they were called Rangers, were and they have been accused of breaking the rules. Therefore the SPL have formed a panel to review the registrations of that former club to decide whether or not the rules of the SPL were correctly followed, if they were then the titles that had been awarded to them should remain in place and there is nothing to see, but if the rules were broken then the titles will be re-allocated, not as a punishment but simply to award those title to clubs that observed the rules. After that they will decide on punishment and at that point Charles Green may well have a good point about paying for the sins of the father and so on. If he wants to complain about anyone taking away titles from the entity he bought I suggest he makes his way to Edinburgh and discusses the matter with Sir David Murray, he should be able to enlighten him as to the how and why of the scandal that is about to potentially unfold. still trying? September 11, 2012 That first sentence of your is a bit contradictory, no? If Rangers won the titles then it’s Rangers they are trying to strip them from. If it’s just a new team how do they have any titles to lose? Maybe because the team you speak of is Rangers? 54 and counting!! lol… nice try Still Stupid? September 12, 2012 Rangers won the titles, if it was fairly, they should keep them, if it was not, then they should be stripped of them. This will only affect the record books – there is no current entity who can be punished for the misdeeds of the ‘Rangers’ who were awarded these titles – they do not exist anymore. Charles Green is correct in saying Sevco / new Rangers / “The Rangers” or whatever he’s calling them cannot be punished for the misdeeds of former owners, but re-awarding titles gained by cheating is not a punishment – it is merely awarding them to clubs who did not cheat to get them. A punishment would be a ban from football or a fine (as shown in athletics when competitors use drugs to win – their punishment is not merely the removal of a gold medal, but lifetime bans from the sport) To say in one sentence “54 and counting” or “Rangers then, Rangers now, Rangers forever” and then in the next sentence suggest that the titles cannot be removed because they are an asset that was purchased fairly from former owners is incredibly stupid. GSW September 12, 2012 The point is, and CG has spotted this, the whole thing from start to finish is farcical. Rangers are not a member club, so no punishment can be handed to them, anymore than they can to Arbroath or Brechin. Other Clubs have used EBT’s and have been excluded from the investigation, why? I’m sure the other SPL Clubs would be uncomfortable with this, but it’s so obviously a “Lets have a go a just Rangers” agenda that it’s all a bit of joke really. The only realistic punishment is a stripping of Titles and who’s doing the investigation? a firm of Glasgow solicitors who count Celtic among their Clientele (Lawwell did a glowing testimonial for them on their website, now removed). Seriously, you couldn’t make it up. Also, there will be costs associated with the hearings etc. The learned gentlemean are not doing it for free one would imagine, and neither are the Celtic investigative team. Only in Scotland aka Planet Zog. CG’s doing right by keeping out of it, SPL prejudice and bigotry will speak for itself. Francis September 13, 2012 EBTs are not against football regulations. They are legal and permitted by the SFA and SPL. The SPL Commission is not investigating whether Rangers used EBT’s or not. It will investigate whether or not all player contracts were registered. According to the rules of the Law Society, there is no conflict of interest at all in this matter. http://www.lawscot.org.uk/rules-and-guidance/section-b/rule-b2-conflict-of-interest/guidance/b21-conflict-of-interest-generally Ian ferguson September 13, 2012 Your understanding of the situation is warped. The titles in dispute were won under the auspices & rules of the SPL & are recorded as such. If titles are withdrawn it will be by decisions taken under the same rules. The SFA would take the appeal if this happens & that is their stated reason for not pursuing RFC(IA) directly. The alternative argument would be if SPL has no jurisdiction then the SFA would handle the case through their independent panel procedure & UEFA would take the appeal. Either way the case must be brought to a conclusion. james baird September 11, 2012 what a patronising piece full of obvious jealous spite. the truth is there is no one in scottish football apart from perhaps Turnbull of Raith that speaks sense without fear or trepidation like charles graeen. this article dissects his words and distorts them to suit the SPL stance. take for example the authors assertion that the SPL titles won during the EBT era dont belong to Rangers but to the SPL – what an icredible lack of common sense and i’m sure if he was asked the obvious question his intelligence would not be able to answer it. How can match fixing be compared to that of alleged poor paperwork because the worst case scenario is that , that was the case as the use of EBTs was not illegal and they were fully accounted and open for view by the SPL . He mentions rangers have created a siege mentality – my god is it not rangers who have been under siege for the kast 8 months due to the mentality of the SPL, SFA and the hypocritical SPL chairmen and fans. he rambles on about the wool being pulled over eyes by rangers support and management – i wonder was it busy on planet Mars Mr Muirhead when you scribbled this patronising piece. Francis September 11, 2012 You write as if it was all a matter of injustice. What was hypocritical about SPL chairmen and fans insisting that the rules be applied to RFC as they had been to other clubs before? Andy September 11, 2012 You write as if Rangers have already been found guilty. Oh wait it’s a kangaroo court in Scotland these days so no longer innocent until proven guilty eh? I hope you never have to suffer this so called ‘justice’. Francis September 11, 2012 What are you talking about? I’m talking about failing to pay bills and entering administration. I’m using the past tense and am not judging future actions that may take place against the club. Read carefully. james September 11, 2012 the height of hypocrisy i mean involved the cowardly spl chairmen and their fans – the chairmen only voted rangers out as they were told the would be parachuted into div 1 thus preserving tv money without which many would fall – there was no sporting integrity involved – the so called fans have not supported their clubs as they said they would – even roary rover didnt get the dosh promised by whimster of aberdeen – parasites at least have some self respect – the SPL lot do not Ian ferguson September 13, 2012 JAMES, JAMES, JAMES, there are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see. It is the alleged MISUSE of EBT’s & side letters which has led to the investigation against RFC(IA). This is NOT just poor paperwork, if proven, it is fraud & breaks the rules. As for the excuse that “EBT’s were recorded in the accounts, so were tax liabilities & these were not paid. RFC(IA) actually gained a EUFA Licence on the promise that they would pay the tax bill & did not. The SFAS & SPL have bent over backwards to help & accommodate RFC(IA) & Sevco afterwards, if they had not broken rules there would be no Sevco aka THE Rangers playing in Scotland now. Francis September 11, 2012 If you take on the assets, don’t you also take on the liabilities? j September 11, 2012 NO Gordon September 11, 2012 And your stance on the SPL taxing, or more appropriately, stealing, the monies owed to Rangers for finishing 2nd last season? Aye, didn’t think so. Or perhaps you’d change to the beat of a different tune, and swap the runners up fee for titles, and all because they represent a significantly heftier punishment? Francis September 11, 2012 What didn’t you think so? How can you read my mind? I’ve no opinion on that second place payment. This is the first I’ve heard of it. I have opinions on people and institutions breaking rules and on justice being served. Try to keep it intelligible. Gordon September 12, 2012 I find it hard to percieve that any one person can form opinons based on half truths. The SPL, being an institution itself, have also broken the rules yet it seems to be outwith the law. Francis September 13, 2012 Still unintelligible. The only bit that emerges from the gloom is that if people or institutions break the rules, there should be repercussions. I agree. Ian ferguson September 13, 2012 Gordon, The SFA & SPL bent & broke rules to help Rangers. If the rules had been applied properly, without fear or favour, Rangers would not have completed the season due to trading while insolvent. Rangers were allowed to continue to trade by using tax money they had withheld, if the rules had been applied properly Dunfermline would still be in the SPL . In short NO ONE STOLE from RANGERS but RANGERS have habitually stolen from others, go check the creditors list. Fonald Dindlay September 11, 2012 Strip THEM of titles,remove sevcos licence.the football world will be a better place without these fools ! Andy September 11, 2012 It’s attitudes like yours that are causing many Rangers fans to harden their own opinions towards the SPL and it’s member clubs. Many fans like myself had hoped by going to the 3rd division we would be able to get on with business of football and try to be a bit less ‘us and them’. Fat chance with people like you around. wallsa September 11, 2012 You are a tube The Mighty Quinn September 11, 2012 The commission has been set up to investigate rule breaking. The rule that was aledgedy broken was the use of undeclared dual contracts by RFC Plc. Rules relating to declared payments are not only SPL rules, not only SFA rules, not only UEFA rules but are FIFA rules and as such must be adhered to worldwide. The legality or otherwise of properly or improperly administered EBT’s is not an issue that can be ruled upon by the commission as that is a matter for the FTT(T). The punishments available to the commission should RFC Plc be found guilty of systematic rule breaking by failing to provide details on a vast number of players remuneration through the use of dual contracts are all pretty severe and are rules, I must add, that all clubs – including RFC Plc – agreed to abide by as condition of membership. If a punishment is met out by the commission then RFC Plc would have recourse of appeal to the SFA. Should said appeal fail RFC Plc would have further recourse to take the matter before the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Should that appeal fail then any punishment for these rule breaches would be fixed. Any further appeal to a sovereign court of Scotland would be met with further punishment from FIFA which could ultimately lead to expulsion from football. If RFC Plc did break the rules for a period of time then of course there should be a punishment. There can be no logical argument against punishing the guilty. What I would argue though is that any punishment must only be met by the guilty party. RFC Plc are ‘in the dock’ for these ‘crimes’ not Mr. Green’s company. The possible legal recourse I can see for Mr. Green’s company should there be a stripping of titles from RFC Plc (which is by no means the worst or only punishment available to the commission) would be to pursue the administrators of RFC Plc for selling him ‘faulty goods’ or even ‘assets obtained through illegal means’. Furthermore he may even wish to take issue that he was sold these ‘assets’ or titles at all. For it is clear to all that titles can not be bought and sold. To any fan of Rangers football, under whatever guise, I would ask a simple question. Why would the owner of your club need to purchase the titles as assets if the club is indeed the incorporeal entity that needs no specific company to run its affairs as you have all recently claimed. That is to say: if this ‘Rangers Club’ is separate to ‘RFC Plc’ or to ‘Sevco’ then why would titles need to be bought and sold? Finally, for clarity’s sake, let’s not beat around the bush… If Rangers cheated by paying players without abiding by the rules then those players were not properly registered and were not eligible to play football games. The forfeit for fielding ineligible players is a 3-0 loss in said games. To finalise this comment I would like to make it clear that this situation is all of Rangers own doing. No one forced Rangers into the drastic action. No one forced that club to break to rules. If it is difficult to come to terms with the possibility that a football club supported by thousands of people was acting against the rules for such a long period then I will understand their denial before the judgement. I will understand their need to believe in and proclaim the club’s innocence; as the embarrassment of having years of celebration turned into a tragic laughingstock will be harder to take than I can imagine. But I will feel no sympathy. Manfred Mann September 11, 2012 EBT’s are not illegal as we know, and like you point out, the issue is the failure to disclose info surrounding them. Does this go for all clubs, i.e. if another Glasgow club, perhaps from the east end, was found not to be filing EBT’s in their annual accounts, would the punishment be applied for them? Ian ferguson September 13, 2012 POOR OLD MANFRED, keep on clutching those straws… The thing about the EBT issue is that RFC(IA) ABUSED & MISUSED THEM… A certain Club from the East of Glasgow DIDN’T. It’s easy to differentiate between them, if you take of the blue coloured specs & cast off the delusions which make you cling to those straws. neutralbhoy September 11, 2012 Excellent post ‘Mighty Quinn’ you have explained in a very clear and detailed way the current siuation of dead rangers and the new body the sevco franchise. Cheats then, cheats now and cheats it seems …forever! classic! wallsa September 11, 2012 RANGERS THEN RANGERS NOW RANGERS FOREVER 54 AND COUNTING ***** Althetim September 11, 2012 Sevco then, T’Rangers now, T’Rangers till they go t!ts up. dombhoy67 September 11, 2012 Deluded then, deluded now, deluded forever. Ramsden cup maybe the first…then again maybe not. Ha, ha, ha. Proud Scot September 12, 2012 54 and counting?? But by Charles Green’s own admission you BOUGHT the titles. newco have won nothing !! Ian ferguson September 13, 2012 Wallsa, you NEARLY got that right, Rangers were then, are now in Aministration, awaiting Liquidation & will forever be a memory. As for the 54 & counting we will see the outcome of the EBT debate… It may well be 54 & counting BACKWARDS. Althetim September 11, 2012 Charles Green is playing to his audience and his audience are lapping it up. His tactics are brilliant and working a treat. His statements are irrelevant (third time I’ve typed that so far today) as the SPL instigated investigations into the alleged misuse of EBT remuneration schemes has got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with his club, his company which was only formed in May of this year. It’s amazing that Rangers fans drove trucker Bill away but have eagerly swallowed his “incubator” theory – the club and the company are separate entities which is of course, pure and utter nonsense. Chuckie boy has dived all over this and is fleecing the sheep for all they’re worth. T’Rangers are not THE Rangers. Wise up Bears, before the wolf that is Green has bled you all dry. joey September 11, 2012 Rangers are the same club because the SFA made it so: they transferred the licence for the member club from oldco to newco, FORMALLY recognising the newco as the SAME CLUB that the oldco represented (remember the SFA doesn’t care if you’re a registered company, it’s the member clubs they recognise as the entities – they win the trophies, not the corporate guises that can vary in form over time) The gross unfairness of title-stripping is so obvious to anyone not blinded by hatred of Scotland’s most successful club. Its not the financial director, or the club accountants, that get the SPL winners round their necks, or lifts the trophy – its the players and the coaches – none of whom did anything wrong! It is they that will be punished, their value diminshed, it is there achievements earned through blood and sweat that will be besmirched. It’s like going back into the history books and stripping Tani Grey Thompson/Denise Lewis of their Gold medals all because their funding body didn’t follow the small print when setting up their contracts. Crazy, but a reality of this bigoted wee country. Althetim September 11, 2012 joey, wise up. T’Rangers are NOT the same club as your beloved Rangers. Ask UEFA. If it is the same club, why can’t they compete in European competition (playing Berwick aside)? There was no separate “corporate entity” and “football entity”. This is made up nonsense to convince Rangers fans to fund Sevco. Open your eyes and recognise the reality, painful as that may be. I would probably be clutching at the same straws if it was my club. Please don’t offer up the Pacific Shelf analogy or the Kit Kat theory. They have been shot down more often Dankeiths wood pidgeons. joey September 11, 2012 A seperate corporate entity and a seperate football entity is “Made up nonsense”… LOL “Made up nonsense” employed by Lord Glennie http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html “Made up nonsense” employed by the SPL (“it is an existing club, even though it’s a new company” N. Doncaster) “Made up nonsense” employed by the SFA (“the share of the club transfers across from the oldco to the newco. When a share transfers, the membership of that share, transfers”) “Made up nonsense” employed by HMRC (“the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation”) What evidence have you got other than the diatribes of Celtic bloggers, stained with bigotry and hatred of the subject matter at hand. UEFA has rules excluding clubs who follow a Newco route for a period of 3 years, but say nothing about “new clubs” or “history” of such clubs. You’re argument rests on nothing but bile and indignance at the great escape of Rangers FC. I know it hurts, I understand your rage that the dream of a Rangers-free world was a lie… But embarrassing yourself on a public forum through ignorance of the facts is not going to help your problem. Althetim September 12, 2012 So tell me, oh wise one. What exactly did the 26,000 small shareholders of Rangers FC PLC actually own? It couldn’t have been shares in “the club” or they’d still own them would they not? “The club still exists after all, at least in your obviously tiny mind. What exactly will the subscribers to Sevco/The Rangers Football Club Ltd’s share issue actually own? Again, by your reasoning it won’t be shares in “the club” Dream on joey, continue enjoying your delusion. And don’t accuse me of spouting bile, you don’t know me. joey September 13, 2012 Easy. Fans own shares in the company that operates the club. The distinction between operating company and football club is not a delusion. Is Lord Glennie deluded? Are the SFA, SPL, SFL, even HMRC all deluded as well? Come on now, time to admit you are wrong. I know in your heart Rangers F.C. are no longer in existence, but when entering into a public debate, acknowledging reality is surely a prerequisite. Francis September 11, 2012 The players knew what they were doing when they accepted the extra payments and were, therefore, complicit in what might be an illegal act intended to avoid the payment of tax; i.e. complicit in cheating. A fair number of athletes, able-bodied and disabled, have had medals taken from them because of the failure of themselves and their coaches to follow the rules. joey September 12, 2012 You are wrong. The players have zero responsibility regarding the SFA rules on registration. If Farah had no idea his funding body had structured his contract in contrary to regulations, do you think he should be stripped of his medals? Of course not. Francis September 13, 2012 You are wrong. We are talking second contracts. Contracts are signed by the participating parties. joey September 13, 2012 No, we are talking whether the players have any responsibility for checking whether the structuring of their contract is in line with the governing bodies rules and regulations. I say no. Stop trying to squirm out of it and just admit that if Rangers as a whole are punished, the guilty parties will have escaped and the punishment will only effect the players/supporters who did nothing to contribute to any wrong doing. You might think its great as a Rangers-hater, the question is will it be fair to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. Most civilised people know the answer to that one. Francis September 13, 2012 I’m not a Rangers-hater. You write that in order to create a greater sense of victimhood. Nobody’s squirming, Joey. People like you and me enter into contractual responsibilities like the players with all that that implies. We cannot claim ignorance as a defence and neither can they. I’ll certainly go along with you on the supporters’ innocence in this matter. Yes, they have got a raw deal. Don’t call me a “hater” and don’t bring “civilised/ uncivilised” into it either. That’s just being silly. joey September 13, 2012 Get real mate. You know full well that in these days of agents especially, the players do not take any kind of active role in negotiating their contracts, let alone checking whether they comply with the small print of governing body rules. The fact is those players spent years at Rangers, training, playing, risking injury, sweating blood and guts for the cause and competing on the pitch as fairly as the next player. Any decent human being, not blinded by an emotional disdain for those individuals, would realise the gross unfairness of them having the fruits of their considerable labours stripped from them. All because of so called financial experts failing to operate an otherwise legal tax scheme in the correct manner. I wont apologise for that opinion. Until you can offer a valid reason for why it should be considered fair to punish those innocent players and the supporters, whilst the guilty parties get off scot free, I’ll place you firmly in the bracket of ‘blinded by hatred’. I won’t hold my breath on that one. Ian ferguson September 13, 2012 Joey, take a deep breath & keep on flinging your money into Green’s pot… BAA BAA blue sheep have you any sense? thecornerflag September 11, 2012 It seems everything Charles Green says these days is deliberately controversial. This 11th hour show of defiance is completely inconsequential considering the fact Green can have very little to contribute to a hearing concerning events that occurred on a completely different timescale to his own involvement in Scottish football. Green is using very odd language for a businessman. To me, it’s far more typical of a fringe politician. It’s very emotive and doesn’t really appeal to objective truths. Let’s examine some of his key phrases, “The club ceased to be subject to the SPL’s rules when it was ejected from it’s league. ” – That’s like saying the Police can’t arrest the bank robbers because they have left the bank. “There was no ambiguity whatsoever regarding the status of the company when it made the application to join the SPL.” – there was loads, there still is. We don’t even know if his company is to be affected directly or indirectly, by any or all of the still outstanding and possible future debts, attributed to Rangers. Lets talk about the timing. Any talk of EBTs was always going to be retrospective, so what is Green complaining about? Is it the depreciation in value of trinkets and memorabilia bought from Rangers PLC in good faith? Regarding accurate and correct record keeping of sports events is down to sports bodies. In other words it’s not even appropriate to refer to it as a legal matter, imo, the reference to “legal authority or power” is a misnomer and a red herring. Unless Greens lawyers can prove said sports bodies have amended the records due to some reason that transcends their remit, there is no reason to refer this to a court. I suspect that Green has seen certain lines and tactics work in the past with the Rangers support. Some of the things he has said seem like they are cribbed from past VB rants. Whyte appealed to the mouth-frothers in a very similar fashion which allowed him to maintain a smoke screen for months on end. I’m not claiming that Green is up to the same (although you never know) but he might just be exploiting the inability of some to be skeptical about those who give them words of short term comfort. Green may be just telling the supporters what he thinks they want to hear. Green is trying very hard to appear to be belligerent but, imo his lack of cooperation is down to very different motives. He is avoiding having to respond to difficult questions regarding the status of his club and it’s exact relationship with the one under investigation. Tommy Brown September 11, 2012 Very clearly explained, mighty Quinn! But let’s face it, the Greengers fans (as always) don’t repond to logic. As far as they’re concerned, everyone is out to get them, which of course leads to the question, “Who’s paranoid now?”. However that’s another story… It’s really a very simple question…..When Mr. Green’s consortium purchased the assets of the soon-to-be-defunct club, were the titles and trophies listed among the assets for sale, and how much were they priced at? If they WERE listed and assigned a price, then Mr. Green is perfectly entitled to claim them. If not, then he didn’t buy them and can’t claim them. End of story. joey September 11, 2012 Charles Green, and Duff and Phelps – the two sides of the transaction – have both confirmed that the clubs history, titles, trophies was part of the purchase. Are they lying? The only people saying so are bitter opposing fans, letting their hatred cloud their judgement, raging at the reality that 1873 founded member club Rangers FC still exists (thanks to the SFA’s transfer of membership to Newco). The truth is resistant to their bile. Althetim September 11, 2012 joey, you can’t buy history. Think about it, the notion is silly. Not everyone telling the truth i.e. – Rangers founded 1872 incorporated 1899 are defunct and soon to be liquidated and that T’Rangers are a new, separate and independant entity – are bile fuelled bigots. I have many Rangers supporting friends and colleagues and they will testify that I am not bitter, I have no hatred other than the peddling of lies and I am most certainly not a bigot. As I’ve said before, I’m not anti Rangers. I’m anti bullshit. joey September 12, 2012 “Buying history” means buying the rights to the entity which has that history. That entity is Rangers Football Club, formally recognised as such by the SFA’s transfer of membership to go with the purchase of the club. Facts are facts, funny how they’ll all on my side (see the “made up nonsense” reply I gave you further up, and maybe have the balls to reply to it) Cuibono September 11, 2012 Joey, you really are a study in mental gymnastics. Aside from the fantastical concept of being able to purchase history, the idea that record keeping and titles is somehow the property of an entity regardless of the judgement of the competitions governing body, and the fact that there is very little evidence, legal documentation or even cursory information about the relationship between the ‘club’ and the ‘company’ you go on to spout paranoid idiocy. Go to this link: http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/club/index.html Try clicking on Rangers FC, see what happens. joey September 12, 2012 You stupid Bhoy. The UEFA website retains team pages for Clubs in the top flight of their divisions. Check the EPL examples for proof of this (relegated clubs pages no longer accessible, Southampton etc pages now available). Nothing at all to do with this debate. What an embarrassing mistake. Francis September 13, 2012 Charles Green himself undermined his new company’s claim on Rangers titles in a BBC interview in June when he said that if his CVA proposal was to fail – it did – and Rangers were to be liquidated – they are – “the history, the tradition, everything that’s great about this club is swept aside”. joey September 13, 2012 You’ve dug up some old quotation, from a bloke known to now take the opposite view, that dates prior to the tumult of recent events even transpiring…. LOL! Is that the best you’ve got? Lord Glennie’s giggling up his sleeve Bawsman September 11, 2012 Andy Murray is a very rich young man. Why did he bother grafting for 5 hours to win the US Open title? Surely he could have just bought it? joey September 11, 2012 If Andy Murray’s accountants were nailed by HMRC for incorporating a tax dodge within his contract (some extra cash to pay Lendl’s wages perhaps)… Do you the USLTA would strip him of his US Open title as punishment? Fair’s fair eh? Unfair advantage n’ aw that. Francis September 11, 2012 Don’t be daft, Joey. Andy’s tax dodge would feather his nest, not help his play on the tennis court: i.e. it would not give him an advantage over opponents. However the other alleged tax dodge did help field players who might not otherwise have been in the team and so provided an advantage over opponents. joey September 12, 2012 You could easily say a Murray tax dodge “helped Murray with coaching he might not have otherwise afforded thus giving him an unfair advantage of competitors who hire coaches according to their budget”. Of course its an analogy, but it exposes the absurdity and gross inversion of any common notion of fairness upon which your position is based. Francis September 13, 2012 You’re really stretching it here. It does not rank as a close analogy. The second contracts were to attract players who might not otherwise step near the club. It seems they were not declared. That is against the rules. It’s fascinating that you should be writing about “a Murray tax dodge”. joey September 13, 2012 Wrong again. The EBT’s were not to attract players, they were to minimise the cost of players to the club. The club was reliant on bank debt. Without the EBTs they’d just have been reliant on more bank debt to make her the shortfall in wage demands. As AJ clearly stated, this idea of “EBTs meant Rangers had players they wouldn’t otherwise have had” is purely baseless speculation. Indeed, it flies contrary to the manner the club was run in those times, heavily reliant on bank debt which was never in itself a crime. Face it: this investigation is about HOW a legal tax scheme was implemented. It is a accounting regulatory matter, with no direct effect on the competition on the pitch, where trophies were won fair and square by Rangers players who NEVER cheated. Any neutral tribunal would discount the notion of changing football results/competition results because of these issues wholly off-field, regulatory issues. Ian ferguson September 13, 2012 Joey, how obtuse can you be? It is NOT about investigating an accounting anomoly, it is an investigation into the MISUSE of EBT’s which may have impacted on the players contracts by being an undeclared CONTRACTUAL element thus making it contrary to SFA & SPL rules. Mark Fleming September 11, 2012 Ah the old ” not recognising the court ” act, most recently used by Saddam and Milosevic. The last desperate act of an utterly defeated despot. Over to you Charlie…. thecornerflag September 11, 2012 Maybe Giovanni Di Stephano is more involved than previously thought. jazrfc September 11, 2012 54 and counting looking forward to may 2013 , 55 titles another world record . watp Ian ferguson September 13, 2012 Hiya Jaz see you are still acting the DIVIT… you poor wee blue sheep. It is 54 & counting BACKWARDS after the titles are rightly stripped from RFC(IA)…. GOOD NEWS though, maybe SEVCO aka THE Rangers will be on ONE & counting, if THEY don’t end up in Administration too. gorscot September 11, 2012 The main issue here is whether the rule of law is more important than football egos ofcorrupt administrators like Blatter and Doncarster. The SPL is an illegal cartel in terms of both EU and British law, a view shared by Celtic majority shareholder Dermott Desmond. The European Court has already ruled that football cannot act outwith EU trade law, which is what the SPL are trying to do here. In law the SPL has NO jurisdiction over the newco; end of story! The newco cannot be punished for, as yet unproven, sins of the oldco- legal fact! So, do we support the rule of law in our democracy or the actions of incompetent, demonstrably compromised men of no integrity whatever! Only the most bigoted and the most fascist can support the latter! over the newco, and in law the newco cannot be punished for, as yet unproven, sins of the oldco. Francis September 11, 2012 Far too many exclamation marks. You’re obviously on shaky ground. Ian ferguson September 13, 2012 gorscot, JESUS WEPT, are you JAZ’s mother? mick September 11, 2012 sevco are the laughing stock of the soccer world they should stand up and face the music this denial makes them a deluded bunch of cheats its sad its come to this there licence should be revoked they have leared nothing and are a danger to the country mick September 11, 2012 @andy your view on it was balanced and 3 dimentional keep up the good work a enjoy this site lots Patrick September 11, 2012 This man Green will do and say anything to sell more season tickets to the apparently ever more gullible hordes. I read out loudI read out some of the posts from the knuckledraggers moaning about bigotry and hatred. I swear that my cat laughed hilariously. Scott September 11, 2012 meiowwwww Scott September 11, 2012 Clearly scotzine does not and has nô intention of giving a balanced view of events ,The web site seems to be full of plastic paddies,what i mean by plastic paddies is people are Scottish but sing irish songs support irish causes call their children irish names fly irish flags would rather play football for à country not of their origin. Why not change the name of the website to paddiezine , nô culture and someone else’s dreams Francis September 11, 2012 A balanced view of events is to be had by bloggers trying to put their points of view in a sensible way. Scotzine is open to that. It becomes unbalanced when people like you resort to this nasty and underhand casting of insults. It reveals you as someone who can never attempt to see another’s point of view; someone who regards himself a the only one with a “balanced” view. Many Canadians celebrate theri Scottish ancestry. Good for them. Scott September 12, 2012 most people havé their own point of view and sensible does not come into it.What they want is like minded people convincing them they are correct. Francis September 13, 2012 You state the obvious and clearly declare yourself to be in that camp. However, there are people of integrity who are open to debate and do not dismiss others in the way you did with your “plastic paddies” entry. Scott September 13, 2012 the fun was our day Will come my canadian friend . Hâve We pulled à few chains . Cultural Baggage comes with people who move to another land to better themselves and family but still cling on to thé past Ian ferguson September 11, 2012 Here we go again, RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A FOOTBALL DISCUSSION YOU BRING UP THE SAME MINCE……… OKAY, here we go for a reply on the same piss poor level…., ALL you Plastic DUTCHMEN, marching down the roads celebrating phony history. NEED I GO ON, go get a life. Let’s discuss the corruption in Scottish Football. Ryan September 12, 2012 Such appalling bitter rage, and such a short life on this Earth for us all. Haven’t you anything constructive to say whatsoever? No valid responses to many of the pertinent point made? Nah, let’s just resort to idiotic blind bigotry and racism! Wonder what the ‘plastic paddie(sic)’ equivalent of on who kowtows down to his English paymasters is called? Do you have any objections to the good folk of Asian descent in Scotland who celabrate their heritage and wish to give their children Asian names as opposed to Malcolm and Alistair? Believe me, the majority of folk who wish to see potential true justice carried out on the tax dodgers XI ain’t of a ‘plastic paddie’ persuasion at all! I think the average Hearts, Motherwell, Aberdeen, Raith, Clyde, etc., etc. etc. might have something to say about being bandied with that meaningless label. i know you are hurting right now but there is no need to lash out at all and sundry like a petulant child. Behave like a literate and articulate adult and the world will respond in kind. Patrick September 11, 2012 What’s all this stuff about plastic Paddies? Surely the current butt of jokes are the Sevconians most of whom can barely understand English! jazrfc September 11, 2012 Francis my father always said be wary of a guy named after his auntie Ian ferguson September 12, 2012 Jaz YA DIVIT, your so mixed up that your uncle who told you this is probably your auntie anyway. Francis September 13, 2012 Spelling’s not your strongpoint, is it? Scott September 12, 2012 THÉ. truth, celtic want Rangers back in thé spl , but a weak Rangers that can’t win . Green is correct and standing up for this. Rangers are having fun and in my option which is not everything to everbody , have fun and play the waiting game. All internet websites are awash with the options of thé plastic paddies ,but nô point. in trying to havé à discussion , would be better speaking to thé wall .OUR DAY WILL CÔME , x Francis September 13, 2012 Now you really are back greeting in the bunker. Green has used intemperate language that has stirred the baser instincts of supporters and got them raving pompously about the truth, prophesying what their opponents really want and claiming their day will come IN CAPITALS. Well, that day is possible; even probable – we are talking about winning football games, that’s all – but the truth of the present situation is simpler than you think. Certain rules may have been broken and that needs sorting out. If your day comes, I hope sincerely it is without some of the nasty “cultural” baggage the old club carried. By the way, you don’t sound like you’re having fun. thecornerflag September 13, 2012 “celtic want Rangers back in the spl, but a weak Rangers that can’t win.” – Well, it’s a tempting offer, but unfortunately it’s not up to us. You may think we have a lot of OPTIONS, but the power to magic ‘THE’ Rangers into the SPL isn’t one of them. Jaysus, would ye listen to what yer sayin’, Scotty boy? Scott September 13, 2012 thé famous Glasgow Rangers are in thé football division that their fans wanted.Stating fact celtic want à weak Rangers in thé spl ,i only look at Rangers web stories not to worried about thé others.Never for à moment thought about magical powers though .magical powers very good thecornerflag September 13, 2012 OK, stick then.I just liked the weak rangers that cant win part. Word of advice. Get rid of the french spell checker, it doesn’t work. Ian ferguson September 15, 2012 Scott, RANGERS DAY has come & gone… They are a SHELL awaiting LIQUIDATION… SEVCO aka THE Rangers MAY start a trophy count in this, their inaugural season, if they can avoid Administration , this is, it is a well known, a hazard for underfunded newstarts. Will the HALF PRICE SEASON TICKETS cover all the costs, returns for Charlie boy & his pals & the upkeep of the asbestos dome? NONE of the 30 millionaires turned up so it is the deluded who are funding this newstart, mind you, Charlie boy has you all, eating out of his hand, you will all buy shares in the NEW HOLDING COMPANY while HE owns the club., remember they are SEPERATE ENTITIES according to exRFC(IA) fans philosophy. jazrfc September 13, 2012 ian , still trying to be a bully , i have just spilled my coffee trembling with fear . at least my fathers not my mothers brother. Francis September 13, 2012 And neither is punctuation. I blame the s…… Ian ferguson September 13, 2012 Aye Jaz & your still a fud. I bow to your superior knowledge of inbreeding… IT RUNS IN YOUR FAMILY. jazrfc September 14, 2012 ian, ian ,ian thats not very nice just because your sharing a pc with your auntie francis or do you call him uncle frank when your a bad bhoy Ian ferguson September 15, 2012 INBRED and a FANTASIST..what is it with this cross sex stuff? are you a transvestite or just unsure of yourself? do you know anything about football or the discussion going on around you? NAW, you still think RANGERS are on the go. Francis September 13, 2012 Joey 12.13 p.m. Priceless! And the best bit is that you really believe what you’re writing. Perhaps I should too since AJ has “clearly stated” that nothing untoward happened. Your final reference to “any neutral tribunal” suggests that you’ve already prepared your bolthole if the verdict goes against RFC. You will claim vociferously that the tribunal wasn’t neutral. You believe that all was legal. Why the investigation then? Is this where the persecution complex really kicks in? Clearly, quite a few people, and not all with CFC axes to grind, think there might have been some illegality and that is why we are where we are now. Payments from an EBT should not be made on a contractual basis, as it would make them part of an employee’s salary and subject to tax and National Insurance. HMRC claims that Rangers’ EBT scheme involved contracts. If they are, indeed, second contracts, and that is the suspicion, that were not declared, then there has been a breach of the tax rules and of the Scottish F.A. registration rules. Between 2001 and 2010, Rangers paid a total of £47.65m in to their Employee Benefit Trust; unrepayable loans – now there’s an oxymoron for you. This was money spent, deepening already existing debts. Joey 4.43 p.m. The month of June isn’t “old” and what we’re talking about now was being talked about then. That was a sad little retort and signing off with LOL; the reference to Lord G. and “Is that the best you’ve got” smacks of desperation. You’ve talked yourself into knots. Joey September 13, 2012 The suspect neutrality of the investigation lies with the investigators – Celtic FC’s lawyers: a conflict of interest so outrageous as to defy belief. What was spun as a vehicle for punishing alleged ‘financial doping’, has been exposed as a nit-picking rules and regulations study into the execution of a perfectly legal tax scheme, so far removed from sporting competition as could be imagined in the context of a football club. Your use of an out of date, thus irrelevant quotation – in the face of contrary evidence from the likes of SFA, SPL, SFL, HMRC etc… – it deserved what it got. Ian ferguson September 15, 2012 Joey, are you abusing substances or just taking the piss? The only person who is provably compromised is Campbell Ogilvie, ex RFC Secretary, now PRESIDENT of the SFA. He accepted a “LOAN” from RFC worth £95,000 & is still in office. The “LOAN” has NEVER BEEN REPAID. I would suggest that Doncaster & Regan have bent & broken so many rules to try & save RFC(IA) & then get Sevco accepted in their place, that they have brought Scottish football into disrepute & are not fit to hold office.. Charlie boy says deals were offered, ok, lets get them out into the open & see what is what. If he is so set on fighting the SFA & SPL why does he not reveal this potentially lethal info? WHAT has HE to HIDE? Francis September 15, 2012 And it didn’t get much, with that limp signing off. If what CG says three months hence contradicts what he’s saying now, will we dismiss his present statements? Nonsense. The tribunal has been “exposed” for what it truly is; more heavy language that isn’t in touch with reality. Maybe within the confines of your mind but outside of that, most people accept there is room for suspicion and a case to answer. Even you, with what seems a tightly closed mind on this matter, can see that. Earlier you were claiming the innocence of the players and pointing to others who had, you implied, let your side down. But then you go back again to claiming that all was perfectly legal. Well, we shall see. “A nit-picking exercise”: I certainly hope HMRC has not been wasting my money on that. “Far removed”? Large sums of money were given to players and officials of the club. That is not “far removed”. As for the other broken arrow in your conspiracy quiver, it was answered earlier. According to the rules of the Law Society, there is no conflict of interest in this matter: http://www.lawscot.org.uk/rules-and-guidance/section-b/rule-b2-conflict-of-interest/guidance/b21-conflict-of-interest-generally However, for you, if someone wearing hoops was seen on the same street as the legal practice in question, it would be enough to conclude that evil forces are conspiring to bring you and your club down. There is a case to answer. Many employers have understood the benefits of helping individual members of staff during times of crisis or personal hardship. One simple way is to lend them money. Where sizeable institutions and sums are involved, the loan is given some structure by agreed terms of the transaction; when and how it will be repaid. This is for the benefit of employer and employee and also for the tax authorities. Such payments, HMRC allows, can be tax-free. These rules were not established to allow already wealthy individuals to avoid tax. Loans are meant to be repaid and if not, then contracts would need to be documented in accordance with SPL and SFA rules. Then the transactions becomes liable to tax. Francis September 13, 2012 Joey 4.49 p.m. It’s been a busy day. There’s so much emotion here that I am getting worried. I’m also worried by that tortured description of a footballer’s daily struggle. I was almost reduced to tears. I found your idolising of footballers very strange. I’ll give praise where it is due but what you write is excessive. You write as if they are beyond reproach? They’re big boys who have some talent; who are not overworked, “sweating blood” etc. And they’re big enough to be aware of what is happening in their lives and of contracts they sign. As I said earlier, and as you well know, ignorance is no defence. Greed plays a part in many people’s lives and that includes footballers. What many might term a “backhander” is always very tempting. And that, it is alleged, is what they got. Get real mate. Patrick September 13, 2012 Scott face the facts you have had your day. Your history for what it was has been fatally tarnished by the actions of those in charge of your club over the last twenty years. While this was going on you and your ilk stood on the sidelines roaring your triumphalist racist and sectarian abuse. Our country would be a better place if you quietly faded into oblivion. jazrfc September 14, 2012 paddy talking about history and tarnished , pot and kettle get a grip look at your own club . our country is a great place rule britannia Patrick September 15, 2012 This doesn’t make any sense. Try using the English language as it is intended to be used and stop using nonsensical clichés. jaz rfc September 15, 2012 ian i bet you couldnt trap a bag of cement .or even keep a beach baw up in a phone box . i bet you were the one who played for the bbs or the scouts. paddy you like a broken record yawnnnnnnnnnnnnn. [full stop] Ian ferguson September 16, 2012 BAA BAA BLUE SHEEP can’t you talk some sense? I notice you never try to ADD anything constructive to any of the Blogs. Let’s talk Football, it was an interesting day, it is certainly not the walkover the MSM predicted for Celtic, it is going to be ok in the SPL if everyone tries as hard as St Johnstone.The predictions of doom & gloom are not happening, already Celtic’s endeavours in EUROPE have added EXTRA INCOME for every SPL team & Peter Lawwell has managed, against all the predictions of the laptop loyal, to secure the SKY deal. In the 3rd Division it was an HISTORIC occasion. The TWO youngest Senior teams fought out a draw, Annan the SENIOR by a COUPLE of YEARS missed a sitter., thus missing out on a couple of valuable points. Sevco aka THE Rangers are finding it difficult away from home, mind you, to be fair, as a NEW TEAM, they just managed to get started in time for the season’s opening game… an UNPRECEDENTED TEMPORARY LICENCE being granted allowing SEVCO to play on condition they agreed to the sanctions proposed which let them leapfrog Spartans etc & gain entry into the 3rd Division. Do you remember what happened? The SPL teams would not touch them with a bargepole, the SFA, & SPL tried desperately to convince the SFL that a 1st Division place was the best for Scottish Football but were laughed out of the room, in fact they were accused of CORRUPTION due to all the rules which were bent & broken to try & SAVE RFC(IA) & then to ensure a place for SEVCO. This meant no proper pre season for the Sevco newstart because they had NO Place in Scottish Football & could not play OFFICIALLY. Against that though, you would expect this overpaid squad they have assembled to be able to beat part timers, wouldn’t you? . All in all Scottish Football is doing better than predicted. Are you going to buy shares in the “HOLDING COMPANY” when Charlie boy puts them on the market? jazrfc September 16, 2012 ian you are a divot an obsessed divot . talking about football we were shite just like your team, compare wage bills celtic are not setting the heather on fire if it wasnt for langfield throwing the ball in the net at parkheed and a late equaliser against ross county up in dingwall yous would be well down the league . rangers are still unbeaten dont forget that and well on there way to 55 titles it wont be long till we are back on top but if lennons team drop points like that when were there yous will be back to your right position second . Ian ferguson September 16, 2012 Jaz, you poor deluded Clown, RANGERS are where they deserve awaiting LIQUIDATION.The Title count of RFC(IA) may soon go BACKWARDS. Don’t just repeat what I have said come up with a point. On the subject of the cost of squads compared to income, Celtic are comfortable especially with the ADDITIONAL European Income, Sevco aka THE Rangers are relying on ticket sales which brings in HALF of what they would have earned if an SPL place had been gerrymandered for them. What other income have Sevco got? You did not answer me when I asked about the OTHER source where Charlie boy is trying to raise money, will YOU buy shares in “THE HOLDING COMPANY” when they go on sale. Jaz, I can see another ADMINISTRATION on the horizon, if you don’t watch those PENNIES you are earning. Patrick September 16, 2012 Ian you forget that Sevco’s season ticket income has to be shared with visiting clubs. Simple arithmetic tells you that they cannot continue to pay top wages and avoid another administration. When the liquidators claw back the assets sold at undervalue by Duff and Phelps the whole thing collapses again. Oh happy day ! jazrfc September 16, 2012 ian ya divot . i run a building firm thats rode the recesion without payoffs [ so far ]as for pennies its pounds i make . as for telling you what i will do with it you can go and poke yer auntie francis. like it or not rangers will return to the top debt free full houses every week. we are the people Andy Muirhead September 16, 2012 Jaz – Rangers are not debt free. They owe Green and his consortium the money they ‘lent’ the club and with interest on top of that. Despite side-stepping the huge debts that the club owed the creditors of up to over £150 million – they walked into debt all the same albeit with Green. Ian ferguson September 16, 2012 Jaz, A couple of points, I am at fault for not making myself clear, the PENNIES I was talking about were SEVCO pennies not yours, sorry for the lack of clarity. As for how you spend your money I asked only ONE question which you haven’t answered… WILL YOU buy shares when Charlie boy puts “The Holding company” on the market? On the subject of clarity, You should take some of those POUNDS you have & go enrol on an ENGLISH GRAMMAR course. Your poor spelling, sentence construction & lack of punctuation make you hard to follow. The fact that you usually talk a lot of pish doesn’t help either mind you. Francis September 16, 2012 Jaz, I’m getting tired of your moronic references to my name. The attempts at humour don’t bother me because that’s all they are, “attempts”, ones that fail. What irritates is your ignorant belief that it is a feminine name. The female equivalent is spelled differently, jaz. I blame the s……. Ian ferguson September 16, 2012 Francis, Jeezo, DON’T teach Jaz how to spell… He will try & write a PROPER sentence next & have a breakdown with the effort involved… You’ll never forgive yourself , having a BAA, BAA, Delusional Blue sheeps mental breakdown on your conscience… Mind you in Jaz’s case I don’t know how you would know the before & after. jazrfc September 16, 2012 bhoys bhoys bhoys, thats three wee birds with one stone lol Ian ferguson September 17, 2012 Jeezo Jaz that’s very cryptic…. for a divit. I would NEVER throw a stone at a SHEEP, not even a BAA, BAA, Blue one. Can you possibly try & come up with a football comment or is that beyond you? You have still not answered my question Are YOU going to invest in shares in Charlies ” Holding Company”? jazrfc September 16, 2012 francis you can paint it up all you want its a girly name . full stop Patrick September 17, 2012 You say you run a building firm—–do you give written estimates? Francis September 17, 2012 What an idiotic thing to say and I shouldn’t be wasting time and words in replying. You really are a sad excuse for a supporter. You’re an embarrassment to your club and to yourself. Some people still have a vestige (look it up) of respect for the club you support but that is being wiped away fast by the ignorance and stupid behaviour of such as yourself. You see, it’s so easy to write the tripe you write; so easy to do the schoolyard stuff and call names, make stupid comments like you have just done. The kids who do most of that are the ones who have deep issues of inadequacy. Your soubriquet (look it up) is another attempt to overcome these feelings of failure; to try to give your persona a racy, masculine edge that it really doesn’t have. You’re not helping yourself, jaz. You’re a laughing stock, jaz. You’ll come back with more moronic insults that I will not reply to. I’m letting myself down by replying now. This isn’t what this site is about so I’m going to take the higher ground and leave you where you belong. You’ll have reply because the schoolyard behaviour demands that you have the last word. But that word won’t be worth having. You will be laughed at by the majority of intelligent bloggers here – laughed AT, not with. You’re being laughed AT, jaz. Give yourself a break. Pack it in. jazrfc September 17, 2012 francis dont get your knickers in a twist . i know you have to live with being named after a girl but dont take it out on me . as for letting myself and my club down , why is that because im replying to your shite about my club . francis if anybody reading this is laughing about anyone i think it could be you . keep up the big words it shows you are a really clever chappy but who gives a fcuk Patrick September 17, 2012 Francis Drake, Francis Bacon, Francis Ford Coppola, Francis Sinatra—— there are lots of people called Francis you uneducated numpty—–nobody will ever mistake you for a “clever chappy.” Ian ferguson September 17, 2012 Jaz, I have just read Patrick’s comment & I could not have put it any better. I would add one other famous Francis…Saint Francis Xavier. Can you explain how you are answering what you term “Shite about your club”? I have yet to read a sensible, accurate or remotely funny comment from you never mind a football one. Come on Jaz, tell me about your club, tell me where I have got it wrong & give me a wee bit of evidence to back up your point of view. I called you a DIVIT & you are going out of your way to prove me right.