der Berliner

Promoted by December, smashing the 150 goals tally per season by May. Well ... rest assured, they will manage to whip up a three year running 25-point penalty as we speak, just to make sure. As has been said by another poster, we should get the away games beamed back to Ibrox, charge a minimal fee, and get a membership scheme running. Oh, and we should swap the colours away from home to all black for the season's in the dark.

Looks like the RFF is used primarily for the QC here. Wouldn't mind that, if we drag them through the courts and show them up for what they are. On a sidenote, does anyone doubt that we will get hit by the inquisitors of the SPL too? And, to get this on, does anyone doubt that every inquisition will make a full stop once we are done for? Lafferty's Law and all ...

I assume you refer to post 25? (Quoting would help.) ... so they set 20m aside, get the club back and then sell Ibrox et al for a profit of say ... 5m and split that amongst 6 to 20 people. Makes sense to me.* *Irony intended.

That, though, was 20odd years ago. Different time, different players, different money.

Still wondering why they have a claim from Rangers and possibly pursue it, when they also go after Whyte himself. Just in case they win both cases, will they get their money back twice? (Even though any CVA cash will be much smaller than their deal? I mean, that's double-justice?

I assume you are one of those legal brains in the know about rather complex and multi-million pound deals such as these. Make no mistake here, if we are out of admin by August, this will be one of the shorter administrations in the game of football, and one where the club is not being wound up.

Methinks - while we all have a right to be sceptical - we should try to give him a fair ride here. It is quite obvious why he will not name the investors or said people are not yet* putting cash in. Too many variables are on the table right now. The press does not like this, hence he "fails" to name any other investors. I really, really, really feel for these poor sods of the media here. We have been badly burned by Whyte, but perhaps we should switch from the half-empty glass version to the half-full glass version now. Green looks to be the front man of that consortium, not a leader. So he can't do all that is being done and told out of his own gusto. To me, that is an advantage right now. *We all know how it works. If some ultra-rich sheikh belongs to this group, HMRC et al will not agree to a minimal CVA. Who would?

So Ticketus is out of the running of a CVA and will instead pursue Whyte (or the company that backed the deal) for their cash?

Somesuch will cover much of the losses from any away games and create a solid basis for future investment, on and off the field.

Isn't that more the style of the ICF? But rest assured, many people will share your feelings.

... the team that can foul twice as much before receiving a card from the referees than any other side in this league. STV story Well done to the SPL!

Their carte blanche, as I take it.

Everton got a super-deal with Jelavic. That should be enough for a few years to come. IMHO, of the players we have here, Lafferty and Whittaker are probably the most likely to quit, with Healy not getting an extension to his contract.

Snatched from FF: + + + In Black and White : Why the SFA Appeal Panel Is Wrong In the D&P statement releaed tonight, administrator Paul Clark makes clear that the sanction appealed against was not available.... In this instance he is 100% correct. The part of the Judicial Panel Protocol that covers sanctions for bringing the game into disrepute specifies the following sanctions: -Fine -Suspension -Expulsion from the game -Ejection from Scottish Cup -Termination Here is a screenshot of the page that covers it. Now it is clear what sanctions the tribunal may impose, the next bit is the clincher. It is in black and white in section 11.5.4 of the JPP that: In Determining an appropriate sanction, and on the basis of its consideration of the range of breach, as set out in Paragraph 11.4, the Tribunal should Determine the appropriate sanction and level of sanction with reference to the guidance on sanctions and Scale of Sanctions provided in the Disciplinary Rules. (11.4 basically says that the panel must consider all factors in relation to the charge and in mitigation when determining what sanction to impose). Put simply, in relation to a charge of bringing the game into disrepute, the Judicial Panel Protocol does not allow for any other sanctions to be imposed than the ones that are listed, and a ban on player registrations is not in the list. Questions must now be asked of the SFA appeal panel, of the SFA's acceptance of their decision, and of Richard Keen QC who "defended" the club. + + +

A couple of points ... - Just imagine what would happen if the Green folk now decide it is not worth it? The SFA would thus be held directly accountable for the probable demise of the club (and/or forcing it into newco state), after dealing out a verdict they have no right too. - If we appeal to that FIFA Court or an COA, how much time will it cost? The transfer window approaches pretty fast, at least in terms of "legal dating processes".

Ain't that like what happened to Sion? Haven't double-checked on that. For Scotland, this is a first. Now imagine that they will find us guilty for some wrong-doings in the EBt thing (they can just make that up too) and hammer us with a ... say ... 25-point penalty. You know, if the creditors don't drive us over the edge by not agreeing to the CVA, these lots at the SFA and SPL sure do it. There is only so much a club can take. You do hope that, no matter what, we should have a number of actions ready to take affect from next season, fan-based, so the club can't be sanctioned.

Perhaps it would not affect a newco right now, but rest assured, they will make this up as they go along, just like they did with the current ban.

What actually brought the SFA to have "specsavers" as sponsors? A wry sense of humour that. Funnily enough, I altavista'ed Willie Collum with regard to this, and look who/what comes up .

This is something I've said from the very start. They only whipped up this new "law" a few years back and going back a decade or so is fine if it was murder or the like, but this isn't. Even if, as they and the mhedia claim, we used them incorrectly. I would assume that there is "limitation of liability in time", though some of our smarter legal brains would know that.

There is an obligation to share this with you, Mr. Regan? Aye right ...

Simple answer? Scum does as scum does.

You would think that this information is confidential. If I were a player, or indeed an admin, I'd be furious and try to find those we leaked this. BTW, it should be "could go", not "can go".

HMRC aside, now that Ticketus goes after Whyte directly for their 27m, will they be removed from the creditors' pot? I would imagine that they cannot demand their money back from two sources at the same time? As for the article and HMRC, the press really whips themselves into another frenzy here, thus putting further pressure on those making the decisions ... unless they sit in London. BTW, money of nurses? Mabye on the Hooped Horrors' next visit to Iborx, we should have a large banner proclaiming: "Your tax pays British soldiers!"

Methinks someone should write a decent article about it and post it on Gersnet's main site, so it makes the headlines of NewsNow. If no-one does, we need to get this in motion. Perhaps someone can actually hop over to Ibrox, take a few pics and speak to Tiny herself?

So if other individuals drive whole clubs into ruin within a year, the clubs should also be punished ahead and possibly instead of the sinner? Yes, that makes sense to the small minded. That is like charging the whole crew of the Costa Concordia AS WELL AS all passengers for the demise of this cruise liner, while essentially letting the captain / helmsman getting away.