Crimson Dynamo

It's a crazy system they have in first place but their should only be one body that runs Scottish Football. But any changes that they make should be made after the current Rangers situation has been resolved anything else would only leave them open to more criticism which surely they want to avoid.

Green is in this to make money pure and simple. If he can't do it one way he will find another way to do it. I would like to think that their is still a way for Green to make money off the shell of Rangers (and I think long term he could make alot money if the fans stay loyal) but I fear he may choose to go for the quick return be that what it may. Leggat picked a side in this and is bitter they lost. I think he truly believes he has the best interests of Rangers at heart but he doesn't all he does is fuel conspiracy theories which muddies the water further and further and while we are all running around chasing shadows, crooks like Whyte come along and destroy our club

Read the articles earlier today all excellent and thought provoking.

Fancy the French too. If Ribery and Nasri perform they will be hard to beat. Plus 21 games undefeated speaks for itself

I think that once the CVA is sorted one way or another. Then things will start to move quickly. Could be wrong but I think a lot of people/investors are hedging their bets on the outcome of that.

They are not scraping the bottom of the barrell with s**t like this. They are through the bottom of it. God alone knows what they will write about next!!!

The unfortunate thing about the above list is that other than McGregor. None of them truly made it at Rangers. Hutton went through a stage where nobody liked him. Then Walter Smith came back he had couple of great games for Scotland and Rangers and he was sold for silly money. All of them (with the exception of those still there) as you say went on to greater things. I would've have liked to have seen Rangers focus more on player development over the last 10 years or so and really lived within our means. Too many managers wasted money on diddies, money we clearly did not have. McGregor Hutton S Smith Perry D Wilson C Adam J Ness McCabe Burke G Wylde McCormack Would be a great starting 11 and all Scottish as well!!

The age of the internet has only made things like that worse IMO. Previously the zealots who were obsessed with either side would've been confined to their local or the like.

Does any club have to declare "how" they will pay players? Or just the fact that they will pay players? For example if the contract states they will be paid £1million pound a season does the contract have to break down where that money comes from?

If it is Whyte then why does he not just come out and say it. Rangers fans already think he's crooked as f***. So whats he got to lose? At least it would help the truth of the thing get out

So FIFA are above the law? I think we should call in Michael Knight he deals with people who operate above the law. The SFA opened the door for Rangers to go down the legal route when they drew comparisson to legal cases such as the Tesco issue. Had they wanted it to remain within football then they should have drawn a footballing comparisson. They also shouldn't have "made up" a punishment to suit themselves. They should have operated within the rules and punished us according to what the rules say. They now have egg on there face because they already said it wasn't serious enough for an expulsion or suspension from the game. If I was FIFA I would be more concerned about a member association not following the rules. Instead of spouting hot air to divert attention away from it

Interesting article from Bill Leckie http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4345747/SFA-cant-put-up-fight-or-defend-themselves.html FIRST rule of the pub square go. If you’re going to take a swing at the biggest guy in the place, make sure he doesn’t get back up. Ignore it once and you might get away with a slap. Twice? Well, just ask the SFA how it feels. In the last year, they’ve now called out the TWO biggest dudes in Scottish football’s saloon. And both times, they’ve proved they couldn’t punch their way through a wet sheet of lavvy roll. Thirteen months ago, they were taking on Celtic to make Neil Lennon serve an eight-match ban, only for QC Paul McBride to drive the team bus through their case and have it reduced to two four-games bans running concurrently. Now, they’ve tried to stick Rangers with a season-long transfer embargo as punishment for Craig Whyte not paying nine months’ worth of tax. Only for fist to whoosh past chin and their target to stand there sneering: “Is that your best shot?” Those five words have been the last a whole lot of plastic hardmen have heard before the birdies start tweeting around their napper. And in football terms, that’s what’s about to happen to the SFA. After yesterday’s courtroom ruling that the embargo wasn’t worth the paper it was typed on, they’re going to get their blazers pulled up over their heads and their breeks pulled down. Then they’re going to get the metaphorical doing of a lifetime. I was about to write that you can imagine how revved up the ranks of angry Bluenoses will be right now. But with the speed of social networking, by the time you read this they’ll already have made plans to march on Hampden again and give the beaks even bigger pelters than they did last time. That first protest was to demand what they saw as fairness. The next will be the noisiest possible vote of no confidence in the people charged with running our game. It’s surely a vote few followers of ANY club would go against in the current climate, because after this latest twist in the Rangers saga it’s hard to retain much faith in Stewart Regan and his administration. There was a time when the SFA got stick for dragging their feet when it came to big decisions. Remember when wee Berti Vogts was making us a laughing stock and somehow it took them nine months after a 4-0 humping in Cardiff to bin him? It was this kind of shilly-shallying that finally brought about an end to the old-school committee system and saw Regan airlifted in to modernise the whole shooting match. His vow was that from that day on, they WOULD make the decisions that had to be made. And he’s been as good as his word. Only trouble is, it seems they’re now making decisions SO fast they don’t think them through long enough to make them stick. They took on the referees, forced them into a strike and are now losing good men hand over fist. They took on Celtic over Lennon and the late McBride nutmegged them with a beach-ball in a phone box. The Parkhead lawyer left them without a name, declaring that their bid to ban Lennon for eight games was a non-starter because “anyone who can read could see what the rules were”. He told the Hampden mandarins to “grow up and start acting responsibly” and labelled them “institutionally dysfunctional”. His words rings as true today as they did last April. Because now they’ve taken on Rangers. And it’s cringe-makingly obvious that they didn’t brief the independent panel appointed to investigate the Whyte fiasco on what sanctions they could impose. How must those fellas be feeling this morning? They’ve been taking appalling abuse for weeks after Ally McCoist forced the blazers into removing their anonymity — and now, just when they’re starting to disappear back into shadows, their lives get turned upside down again. As for kicking Rangers out of football? Aye right. Listen, if the SFA wanted to banish Rangers for the scandal of their financial meltdown, they should have had the balls to do it from the off. Instead, though, they ended up with some mish-mash of punishments that were plainly their attempt at looking tough-ish without actually putting he tackities on. So what are they telling us now? That because they’ve lost Round One, they’re now going wait till the other guy’s back is turned and malky him with a pool cue? That’s not being tough. That’s being vindictive. It’s one thing increasing a ban on a manager or player who steps out of line then lodges a spurious appeal. But when a club’s opposition to a ruling is vindicated in a court of law, to then bluster about the possibility of coming back with an even heavier sentence only serves to shred what remains of their credibility. Rangers SHOULD be punished. Craig Whyte SHOULD never be involved in football again. David Murray — he’s no more due the Sir part than Fred Goodwin was — CAN’T be allowed to get away with masterminding years of reckless over-spending and tax avoidance. But for the love of God, someone please work out for absolutely certain who they can do what to and how. And until that’s carved in stone and signed off by the men in powdery wigs, let’s not hear another damn word from the SFA. If this lot walk away from this mess with their jobs intact, they’ll have done well. They’d also do well to remember that before taking their next gallus pill.

“In such a case, FIFA will ask the Member Association to take action so that the club withdraws its request from the ordinary courts. “As a rule, in case a club is seeking redress in front of ordinary court, the Member Association shall take action to safeguard the principle laid down in art. 64 par. 2 of FIFA Statutes, which shall be, in view of art. 64 par. 3 incorporated in the Member Associations’ Statutes. What happens if a "Member Association" is found to be breaking their own rules? Is that ok? The article reads like we are in the wrong for challenging the ruling. Sensationalism from the Daily Record and from the SFA. During the Italian Matching Fixing scandal from a few seasons back (Which the SFA said was the only thing that would have been worse than what Rangers did) How many teams were expelled or suspended from Italian Football? - None How many were given registration bans? None Is the Italian FA just fairer?

It was interesting in yesterdays Daily Record article about Stefan Klos it stated that after 1999 the player would be responsible for paying his own taxes. Like Billy Dodds says in the above players have all sorts of options available to them. I would like to see the same level of scrutiny that is being directed at Rangers directed at some of the big clubs in the UK. I for 1 do not believe Rooney for example pays half his wages to the taxman.

Are we allowed to do that? Have there not been instances of teams beings fined by Football Associations for fielding understrength teams? Blackpool spring to mind and Man Utd. I may be wrong though

Is it me? Or does it seem ridiculous to say if you don't think the punishment is enough already. Then you can just make something else up to go along with it. To me it seems that is what they did and apparently from reading the above they can do this.

Indeed. I am reminded of one of my favourite comics "The Watchmen" when it asks "Who Watches the Watchmen" The SFA's hands are far from clean in this matter. They sat back and did nothing when there was clearly "strange" goings on at a member club. They should be held accountable for allowing it to get to this stage!

"Such a sanction was not available to the tribunal and should not have been imposed and it is the intention of the club to challenge the determination". What does this mean? Silly question but have the SFA broke there own rules and made up a punishment? What was the maximum punishment they could inflict for a breach of this sort? Was it just the fine I wonder?

statement from duff and phelps on rangers site AN SFA independent appeals panel has this evening upheld a decision to impose a 12-month transfer embargo on the club. Duff and Phelps, administrators of Rangers Football Club, issued the following statement tonight. Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "The decision by the appellate tribunal to uphold the sanction, namely the suspension of registration of players for one year, is not competent in the view of the club and its legal advisers. "Such a sanction was not available to the tribunal and should not have been imposed and it is the intention of the club to challenge the determination. "The club will consider seeking review of this most disappointing decision and it is a matter of regret that the certainty and finality Rangers sought on this matter has not been achieved. "Everyone at Rangers is bitterly disappointed and dismayed at this outcome." Charles Green, who leads a consortium purchasing Rangers, said: "Our group went into the purchase of the club with this sanction in place but we hoped the decision would at least be commuted. "We fully support the club as it considers an appeal against this latest decision." Sandy Jardine, spokesman for the Rangers Fans Fighting Fund, added: "Rangers supporters will be shocked and bitterly disappointed by this decision and will find it hard to take that the club has been so heavily punished for the actions of individuals." http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2775049

Did Charles Green not say they had signed an "irrevocable contract"

James Cook ‏@BBCJamesCook SFA: ban "proportionate to the breach, dissuasive to others and effective in the context of serious misconduct." #Rangers

was about to say the very same thing

"I woulda gotten away with it all if it hadn't been for those pesky kids"

This has probably been answered already but. At one of the original press conferences by the admins it was stated that another company called Rangers owned all the assets ie Ibrox and Murray Park and was solvent. What has happened to that company?

Ever seen any other football administration where there was no massive reduction in staff? Ever seen an administrator whose virtually first act was to try and sign a player on a reputed £7k a week ? They are saying to the bidders "we can't give you Whytes' shares therefore we can't deliver a CVA, it's newco or nothing". If there is no CVA Rangers Football Club plc will be liquidated of that there is no doubt. No but the Cousin deal was signed before we went into administration (only by days or hours of a difference but either way). Iâ??m not sure about all the technicalities but I believe they just wanted him registered so he could play also not sure if we were actually paying him but I think he was on a pay as you play deal. If they were paying him then it would explain why they wanted him registered at least until they possibly made a decision about cuts. I think it really highlights the inequity of Craig Whyte who must have known we were heading for administration but still said to Ally McCoist. â??yeah mate cushtie sign himâ? As for the reduction in staff. I would say the main reason they never reduced would be so they could make more money off them, between McGregor, Whittaker, Naismith, Davis, Lafferty, Wallace and Edu I would say they could make between £5 to £15million and that could go into a CVA pot (hopefully). Had they just let them go in March then they would have throwing that money away. For all the good it'll do they could be suing for £25 billion, we will run out of money in all probability just over a months time but absolutely long,long before October. I'd hazard a guess they'll get nearer to £0 than £25m, as for suing Whyte that's simply for effect and for no other reason. Pretty sure the creditors would lay claim to any monies recovered in any case. Yes I agree. It will be too late and any money recovered would go to the creditors. I would like to think Duff and Phelps could make a convincing argument that we were in with such a good chance of winning this case. That any CVA agreed now could be boosted in the future. But I agree a lot of that would be in the land of dreams and so on and most creditors would not agree to â??you might get more money in 6 monthsâ? I agree that most likely it will come around too late. Out of curiosity does anyone know that if Rangers PLC do liquidate would that case still be heard etc.? The newco strategy renders Ticketus (and every other creditor) basically irrelevant making taking Ticketus to court moot save for the lawyers who got big fat fees. Iâ??m not so sure about this. If Rangers liquidate do the assets not have to be sold? Meaning that Ibrox, Murray Park and so on still have to be sold to whoever buys them. Would Duff and Phelps again not be obligated to try and get the best price possible for the creditors? Perhaps this is what they are doing already only the wrong way round? Is that even legal? Kenneth McLeod and Kevin Sykes were accountants who got involved with Craig Whyte they too were professionally obligated to do their job, try googling them to see what happened to them after they'd done Whytes' bidding. As for Collyer Bristow Gary Withey was a partner in the 200 odd year old blue stocking law firm of course that was before he did Whytes's bidding, you may detect a wee pattern developing here about what happens to the professional classes when they get involved with Craig Whyte. Interesting indeed but I thought this was why Duff and Phelps were suing Collyer Bristow. I suppose most of these firms are all out to make a quick buck. But I would find it strange if they were all in this together. I think the fact the Gary Withey did a runner shows he was up to no good perhaps not Collyer Bristow but he worked/acted on their behalf so they are also complicit. It is not their job to turn Rangers around that's one particular feather that won't be in their cap. In fact it was the business plan devised for Whyte by David "not involved" Grier a partner in Duff & Phelps that has brought us to where we are at today. Grier ergo MCR/Duff & Phelps have been involved in this from October 2010. When they said they Whytes' shares would not be an issue it was an out and out lie designed purely to kill time (worked a treat eh?) remember it was their partner David "not involved" Grier who designed and implemented the business plan in fact it would be no surprise whatsoever if it's revealed that Clark and Whitehouse worked on that plan too! Wonder what happened to the "mechanism" they were going to apply to separate Whyte and his shareholding. It's a lot more than a major stumbling block it's a deal killer pure and simple. As far as I can see Craig Whyte had no business plan or if you can call buy Rangers for a pound then run up as much debt as you can a business plan then fair enough. If they are all indeed in it together and it ends Rangers then I for one would hope that there would be some sort of independent enquiry. I certainly do wonder what happened to the â??mechanismâ? perhaps they are indeed at it and killing time. But would it not have suited them 1. Not to say that when it is an out an out lie. 2. Liquidate Rangers a month to 6 weeks ago. Get it over and done with. It is because of the second reason I think theyâ??re trying. But as I say personal opinion I could be completely wrong about all of this. I have absolutely no background in anything like this 