Bluedell

I wonder why they had to go to someone in England, given that any legal case would be under Scots' law?

So presumably the SPL would have no idea what was in any player's contracts and that information could not be disclosed by the SFA to the SPL under the Data Protection Act 1998?

Fact Rangers did not go into liquidation. If the analysis is that flawed from the start then what chance is it that the rest of the analysis or "Facts" as Mitchell incorrectly calls them are worth anything? This is Mitchell agreeing that the the independent committee is not independent. THat's not what he was meaning and was said for rhetoric only. It's interesting that Michell has to call Rangers Sevco showing their bitterness. "Good debating point" means "I don't have an answer for that". As for Rangers gaining an unfair advantage, AJ's statement addresses that but that is not what the SPL investigation is about anyway. He says that Rangers have died and that it doesn't arouse passion in him. Why then is he so concerned about a club that's died and has to write an article about them? If the club had died then it would not need any input from him. He wants to believe it but he knows deep down that we are still alive and kicking but can't admit it to himself. What a sad man.

Roger Mitchell was the one who f*cked the whole SPL by refusing the Sky deal anmd cost the organisation that he was CEO of millions of pounds. Fecking incompetent.

I thought it was that we had not included them on our contracts that we submitted to the SPL. Is that incorrect? Does anyone have a link to what exactly we are being charged with? If you are correct, GS, then that throws even more questions on the whole investigation as what Rangers submit to the SFA should not be of relevence to SPL. However my understanding was that it was all in respect of what we submitted to the SPL, but I stand to be corrected.

AJ doesn't address the specific issue on which the SPL are going after us.

I clicked on the link to see Ally's all-singing, all-dancing new mobile phone.

We are not being investigated for operating the tax scheme. We are being investigated for giving the SPL full details of it. We are being investigated because of an administration issue!!!!

I disagree. I think it's important that we are seen not to take any part of it from the start, rather than be accused of throwing the toys out of the pram because we don't like the way things are going. It's difficult to attend a meeting on this and then subsequently claim that the whole basis of it is misconceived, particularly if the whole basis of your argument was known prior to the meeting.

Firstly, Green is saying that we are (currently) not members of the SPL and therefore they have got not influence over the club any more and the club are not subject to any rules of the SPL. Secondly Green said What he is saying that a new company owns the club, and new directors are in charge of this company and the allegations being made are in respect of the old company and old management. He is not saying that they are nothing to do with the club as such, rather it was nothing to do with anyone still at the club. I also don't believe that he is saying that we have not been in the SPL.

It seems to be the clubs that are pushing for the investigation, so he is on safe ground.

Excellent statement!

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?

AMMS, he can make the point without the insulting gullable tag. Would he be making the same accusation against the East Stirlingshire supporter who turns up every week? Also there is this inference that the likes of me and many other season ticket holders renewed their tickets to get one over Celtic fans. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are a total irrelevence as to whether I renew or not, and it's the same for most of my mates. They did not get a mention when the discussions were on-going. He does have a point about the pricing but it's tired journalism by Keevins and the likes of Gordon Waddell to assume that most are renewing because some other team.

That's correct. We did exactly the same, although mot sure if we still do it this season. Don't see how we can criticise them for something we also do.

We have already humiliated him by proving he was incompetent so who else to guarantee a stitch-up, as Zappa says. Perhaps the big surprise is that they are being so obvious about it, but that's the arrogance of Regan and Doncaster.

Hardly independent when the people appointing the committee are proven to be biased and one of the committee has been proven in a court of law to have illegally ruled against us.

As I've said before, I fear that Green will find that there's a massive difference between fans getting behind the club and buying season tickets and investing in shares after seeing their previous investments turn worthless. Buying a season ticket and being confident that I will be able to attend the games this season is totally different from buying shares. I'm reasonably happy with Green and the way he is running the club and I have a fair amount of trust in him, but has he done enough that I'm going to pay over, say, £1,000 in shares? I just don't see what anyone could do to get rid of the unease that has been created Murray and Whyte that makes me think that I may not invest. I will study what is being issued and would like to feel that I will invest but it may be a case of once bitten.... and there will probably be many feeling the same as me.

I used that as an example with you in mind

I'd argue that part of the reason is due to the apathy in the CoS. It would be a different story if it was something to do with nuclear disarmament but anything else and they are not that interested.

A different argument and not one I'd like to comment on, other than to say I don't think I'm in a position to dictate whether someone is or is not religious due to the level of their church attendance. That is between them and God.

But it was nothing to do with Rangers. They aren't employees. They are not under the club's control. I'm unsure as to whether they even attended games. If a Rangers fan playing for Pollok Juniors runs into the crowd and assaults a Cumnock fan, should Rangers make a statement on that? It's football related. It's carried out by a Rangers fan.

Of course there's a difference in magnitude but it doesn't take away from the point that neither have anything to do with the club. It's a shame that you have to resort to abusing the reply rather than justifying your point but I guess that highlights your lack of a good argument.

I know loads that are not through any church connection.