der Berliner

One of the repliers to the stv article wrapped it up "nicely": Take note & understand (and if you want I will try to explain it in as simple terms for you as I can) The SFA tribunal had several punishments available to them, suspension of player registrations was NOT one of these punishments - the SFA panel decided to use a punishment which was not available to them. Their appeals panel upheld the original punishment despite knowing that no such punishment was available to them, by their own rules they should have accepted the appeal & discarded the suspension. The problem here is that Rangers proved that the suspension in player registrations was unlawful, now I appreciate for the intellectuals amongst you that Rangers are currently under investigation for improper use of tax loopholes, but ultimately the governing body broke the law in imposing the signing ban. FIFA are telling the SFA to "act" against Rangers for challenging not one but TWO illegal acts against them, so FIFA genuinely believe that they are above the law and that the SFA should consider themselves thus too? (Mind you, the SFA have been a law unto themselves for many years) What FIFA will now be expecting the SFA to do is to impose a sanction from within the framework available to them - suspension from the SFA (harmful to them & WILL cost them sponsors), expulsion from the Scottish Cup (which I'd advocate Rangers not participating in anyway) or termination from the SFA (again, harmful to them & Scottish football). bluenoseam 29/05/2012 Report this place

... and since membership of the SFA is not a requirement of competing in the SPL as it is right now ... well. Obviously, we need to be members of the SFA to compete in Europe the season after next.

Maybe I am wrong, but a) there currently is no season/competition, and b) since we have had no accounts et all posted ane being in administration, we are not exactly sure of getting licenses to play in any Scottish competition, not to mention European competitions. That said, as Blair pointed out, we don't need a license/registration from the SFA to play in the SPL, even though that will be changed at some point.

Blair yesterday told us that having a license from the SFA is no requirement for being part of the SPL. Just in case. BTW, we just got a legal opinion on that matter, we don't have sued the SFA or the like. It was said - on that other grand board - that both FIFA and UEFA have told the SFA that their registration embargo was unlawful and they won't get involved. No sources at the time and I haven't checked back since then. EDIT: Another strange occasion that once we get a result (not that often these past 6 months), people instantly come up with this or that theory how it could/may/will hurt us. On any other day, I would say: "Only on FF!"

This season ... Sone Aluko - games 21, goals 12 Andy Little - played 11, goals 5 McCulloch - played 31, goals 5 Kyle Lafferty - played 22, goals 7 Steven Naismith - played 15, goals 9 I thank him for each of his 31 goals so far for Rangers, not least those winning the titles. I will thank him for each further goal he scores for Rangers. As long as people are giving it their all for the club, I will be unhappy to see them go. If they are here because they are footballers and wanting to earn their money and further their careers ... and jump ship for some greater club, I'll be indifferent. If they go to a club like Huddersfield and leaving us when we're in dire shyte and possibly having no chance to replace them, I'll say "Thanks for the memories!" and wave a good-bye. Honestly, I was always a bit indiefferent about Lafferty. Cost too much and went in and out of the scoring charts, though usually came up with the good in the important bits of the season. He got his chances and had his time to impress. If he decides, much like Jelavic, to call it a day at Ibrox, no problem. He will not be replaceable though. Whether Little - whom we "utilized" as a right winger or even fullback remains to be seen. Hemmings and McKay will or would never really get a chance to impress while we have a Lafferty ahead of them. Sometimes, the need to blood talented youngsters unravels a gem or two - e.g. McCabe. Whether these two can step up to the plate remains to be seen. And no, I don't think having aging McCulloch up there (who actually is like Little a striker by trade) as our main target man is the way ahead. But having players willing to give it their all for the jersey would be a start.

Maybe, maybe not. It is easy to talk them up - or down, for that matter - now. For we haven't seen their proposal for a CVA either. Their plus would have been the Kennedy money, in their 2 to 12 proposal. And we don't know how their post-CVA plans for financing Rangers looked in detail either. Apart from a share issue that looked a touch dubious when first spoken about. 1,000 pounds for a share? That is what I am asking. They know the consequences and I for one would be surprised if they'd fumble here.

Hm ... so after the Whyte fiasco you are under the firm belief that this administration company - given the scrutiny cast upon them - will not strife to do everything possible to get a water-tight deal (whether or not ot is 100% good for Rangers) done?

All about opinions, kuznetsov.

We shouldn't be that critical just yet. The admins stated that they had/have proof of the funds at the time he made his bid, as well as when the CVA was being ironed out. While there is tangible anxiety and distrust amongst the support, we shouldn't get carried away by it again just yet. And it is pretty obvious that the media outlets take a negative or hush-hush spin on it. That's what they've done for the best part of this year and to great affect.

Rather unrelated to the article, sometimes you do ownder what posters get away with - not that there is a disciplinary body et al on a board of course, freedom of speech and all that. "Liars, con-men, 'being at it' and whatnot. Half of that to me sounds like the talk you see after a bad game when the manager or certain players come under scrutinity, i.e. being incompetent or a joke of a footballer. The other half is split between real concern, conjecture and ignorance (or no knowledge) of the work the admins (have to) carry out. Not saying that I'm right here or that the admins doing a particular fine job, it is just my impression and humble opinion.

Did I go personal? Just wondered where he is, nothing more, nothing less - since such stories are usually f&d for him. Did I say I'm not concerned? What gives you the impression I'm ignoring the above? (Then again, yo do wonder how quickly a positive CVA announcement is followed by a variety of negative-spin articles. ... Or maybe not.)

Such articles must be food and drink for forlanssister et al. Wonder where they are? NB: Yes, that's tongue-in-cheek ...

Matter of fact, I have been quite impressed by Little performances and the ability shown by Hemmings and McKay. Add to that McCulloch, Aluko, Naismith and Kerkar ... where would you play Lafferty?

Isn't any income from their Ibrox gate share included here, if any?

Interesting, but how do you know?

We'll know by Monday ... perhaps. I was under the impression that Green's money goes into the CVA pot. His folk pays for outstanding football debts and whatever is left over goes to HMRC, Ticketus et al. The instalments from Everton are due when they are due though, iirc.

Dunno, he increased the stadium's size. What "potential future" income did the Hooped Horrors make?

Any new owner should have his work cut out with regards to press passes issued and people not allowed into Ibrox. If the relevant newspapers or broadcasting station want reports, they can send someone else.

You've either got long memory or a file of some posters about comments they made. Either thing's strange. I'v nothing to add to my previous post though.

Unless I am mistaken, we are still due some money from Everton for Jelavic.

I do not expect you or others "to believe" anything. If you think Grier knew all about the Ticketus deal, so be it. I'm not here to make you think differently, nor am I willing to believe your assumptions on this topic, no matter how often you repeat them. For in the end, they are just that, assumptions. The API will, if they go on with their inquiry, find out who told the truth here, or rather, who knew what at the time.

The point is - as has been said - that while Grier knew about a deal with Ticketus and may even have worked on it, it is far from certain that he knew a) all details about the deal, and b) how Whyte wanted to use the Ticketus money. That, again, is the bone of contention.

Goading, trolling, or just wanting to annoy people? I do not rely on anyone, I just posted an article. I am about long enough to know Britney's bile and antics. And there is no need to put that mail in again, as it does, IMHO, not contradict what Grier has said.

Is that a statement about facts already known, or you telling us that we should accept that?

... or barred the club from using and selling blue shirts, for that matter. As has been said, if we have done something wrong there should be punishment. Not least for the responsible people. But this punishment should be transparent and in the rules. What stops another SFA congregation to whip up a far weaker penalty for a similar offence to ours, or one far more grievious?