Blue Moon

I have mixed feelings about this. There is a time to fight and that is when you are in the right. Until we see the evidence we cannot say whether this is unfair or not. What has really upset me is the illegal transfer ban. I honestly believe that is what we should be objecting to in the first instance. The SFA has used a delaying tactic to ensure these negotiations are taking place perilously close to the start of the season, which is likely to force Rangers to capitulate. I don't believe they should. They should allow it to go back to the appellate committee. The previous cttee said expulsion or suspension were too severe ( I would like to think so, we haven't murdered anyone). The implications of Rangers not playing anywhere this season are unimaginable for Scottish football. If we cowtow to them over this, the SPL will hammer us regardless of the evidence. Remember they were also demanding 75% of our income for 3 years.

Not interested in reading anything about any of them.

No Compromise In Fight For Justice Details Published on Sunday, 22 July 2012 05:25 Written by JCS Willie Vass © After suffering several days of the wildest possible speculation about our future, and being in a state of constant anxiety, I was almost relieved when I learned that a statement announcing we had been granted a licence had been posted on the SFA web site â?? that was, of course, until I actually read it! Whilst I was almost resigned to the fact that we would be bullied and threatened into accepting a transfer ban, I was nonetheless shocked to learn that we seemed to have capitulated entirely. It appears that, in addition to accepting a sanction that the SFA does not have in its articles and rules and, therefore, does not have at its disposal â?? the registration ban â?? we have conceded the infinitely more dangerous principle that any sanctions relating to the Oldco will be accepted by Sevco Scotland Ltd â?? the Newco. Yes, I fully appreciate that the statement apparently relates only to the Oldco charges of bringing the game into disrepute, but the wider import of such an agreement should not be lost on any Rangers fan that cares about the history and the future well being of the Club. The significance of the SFA statement is not in its apparent acceptance by Rangers of the specific sanctions related to the disrepute charge (i.e. the £160,000 fine etc.) but, rather, for the inescapable fact that we have now accepted the principle that the Newco may be sanctioned for the malfeasance of the Oldco. How can we credibly argue with the SPL that the Newco is not responsible for the malfeasance of the Oldco when we have already conceded the principle to the SFA? How can we realistically hope to resist the sanctions that will inevitably arise as a consequence of the SPLâ??s EBT inquiry, when we have effectively accepted that the Newco may be held liable for the malfeasance of the Oldco? Not content with accepting an illegal transfer ban, we have now surrendered the ground upon which we would have founded our arguments against the sanctions that the SPL will undoubtedly bring against us through the so called Independent Commission it will set up to hear the EBT â??caseâ?? established by Celticâ??s lawyers, Harper MacLeod. On 18th June last, in response to the findings of the EBT inquiry conducted by Celticâ??s lawyers, Neil Doncaster made it clear that there is a â??prima facieâ?? case, and that formal charges would follow. Whilst he admitted that, â??it is not yet clear exactly who will be facing the chargesâ?, he added,â??The board will have to make a decision on who to prosecute. There are two companies in play at the moment. The board have said that the proceedings will be undertaken by an Independent Commission. That will take place when the future status of Rangers has been determined and prior to the start of the season. They are charges at the moment. They are not proven. The charges will be levied.â? If Neil Doncaster was in any doubt in June about who to prosecute, then the statement of the SFA has clarified the position and removed any doubt about who will face the charges â?? it will be Newco Rangers unless, of course, Reganâ??s statement is hastily repudiated by Charles Green and Rangers. But is the SFA â??statementâ?? an agreement? Is the acceptance of the illegal transfer embargo a â??done dealâ??; is the principle of the Newco accepting punishments on behalf of the Oldco now an irreversible fact? Iâ??m not so sure that it is, and I believe there is still time for Charles Green, Malcolm Murray et al, to repudiate Reganâ??s statement, and make it unequivocally clear that Rangers will NOT accept an illegal transfer ban, and will NOT tolerate the imposition of sanctions against the Newco Rangers for the malfeasance of those who misused and abused their positions whilst in charge of the Oldco Rangers. Last night Rangers chairman Malcolm Murray insisted that an agreement with the SFA has not yet been signed, although he warned that the reality facing Rangers is to suffer sanctions or risk not playing at all. He said, "For clarity, we have not signed any agreement yet and therefore believe the SFA's statement to be premature. We have had days of discussions with the SFA and it is important for everyone, but most importantly our fans, to understand that the SFA said it would only transfer the membership to play football if we accepted some form of additional sanctions for the sins of previous regimes.â? Well Malcolm, tell us if you have â??accepted some form of additional sanctions for the sins of previous regimesâ? and, if so, what precisely does â??some form of additional sanctionsâ?? mean? Do you and Charles Green understand, and accept, the import of your decision, and the obvious message it sends to the SPL? But, perhaps, the most worrying part of the statement from Malcolm Murray is, "We also regret that any agreement with the SFA appears not to have the support of the SPL and, as such, it still wishes to impose further sanctions on the Club for the actions of previous regimes despite already voting us out of its league.â? It is, therefore, reasonably certain to assume that the SFL, through its so called Independent Commission, will seek to impose further punishment on a beleaguered Rangers newco and that this is now deemed inevitable, and unavoidable, by Charles Green and Malcolm Murray, despite the fact that it is the SPL who are primarily responsible for banishing us to the lowest tier of Scottish football. Speculation has been rife in recent weeks that we will be stripped of titles; that many of our famous Scottish Cup triumphs will be wiped out and, indeed, that the hatred for our club is such that Regan and Doncaster will not hesitate to consign us to the football dustbin if we donâ??t comply with their increasingly draconian sanctions. I donâ??t, for one moment, dispute that view â?? their hatred and vindictiveness knows no bounds â?? but do we simply roll over and continue to take the kicking we have endured thus far, or do we stand up for ourselves and FIGHT! I want Charles Green, Malcolm Murray et al to immediately repudiate the â??agreementâ?? enshrined in Reganâ??s statement, and I want our case to be referred back to the Appellate Tribunal as Lord Glennie originally ordered. Letâ??s have the considered decision of the Appellate tribunal, who are on record as stating that, "The sanctions available included expulsion from participation in the game and termination or suspension of membership of the Scottish FA, which would have had a similar effect. The appellate tribunal observes that serious consideration was given by the disciplinary tribunal to imposing one of these sanctions, which would have had obvious consequences for the survival of the club. The disciplinary tribunal rejected these as too severe and this appellate tribunal agrees with that conclusion.â? In light of that statement, letâ??s have their decision, then the Club can determine the magnitude of the problem it faces, decide how to proceed and how it might best redress its grievances, even if that means returning to the Scottish courts or the Court of Arbitration for Sport to challenge the unfair and unreasonable decisions of the SFA and the SPL. I know that what I propose is a high risk strategy and, perhaps, anathema to many Rangers fans, but I would much rather take that risk than stand idly by as the SFA and the SPL continue to exploit our commercial value whilst they continue to penalise us financially and emasculate our team for years to come. Perhaps the unknown author of the undernoted quote was a Rangers fan because it just about sums up how most of us feel. â??I think God puts some people in your life to test you, until you stand up and say enough is enough. I am worth more than you offer me.â?

Agreed. Similarly with Traynor and Jackson's statement that they warned the SFA and SPL last year about CW and they did nothing. Not a peep in the papers. Scandalous journalism. We really are on our own here.

I have a feeling this is going to turn very nasty. The SFA have not budged an inch on sanctions, in fact the transfer ban is worse than the original one we fought in the courts. A compromise would have been to say we had in effect been in a transfer ban since May and it would end next May. I cannot see the SPL compromising on anything either. They will get their way on TV deals and will shaft us for titles to boot. We can either fight or accept it and I don't know what the club will do. I don't think anyone does.

It will be interesting to see what the SFL clubs do about this. They actually hold the power here with a vote of no confidence if they choose to use it. If the SPL refuse to drop stripping titles then we should refuse to deal. It is time to fight dirty, after all they've all been at it. I cannot understand how the SPL can refuse to transfer our membership in the first place.

GIOVANNI DI STEFANO‏@DEVILSADVOKAT Seems that mr Craig Whyte may well now tell his side of the story even though by doing so may well prejudice his position GIOVANNI DI STEFANO‏@DEVILSADVOKAT And he has made the classic mistake of most once upon a time rich men... Under estimated his wife... As all will see in due course If there were any truth in this, how good would that be?

Looking forward to seeing your comments later on then

I like The Rangers too. It implies we are the one and only. Have often used the term.

I do care. In actual fact until we see the evidence I don't think we can say one way or the other about stripping titles. My concern is that we won't see anything. We will be presented with a fait accomplit just the same as the illegal transfer ban and we will accept. We are being subjected to conditions that completely go against my sense of natural justice. We are being bullied in the same way as the SFL were bullied. I would like to see us saying "no".

I think they will!

If you read the clubs statement tonight we have come to an agreement with the SFA to accept the transfer ban but there are still "outstanding issues" with the SPL before we are allowed back in.

Ok it is now obvious that the SPL are going to block our acceptance into the league by insisting on stripping titles. I say, enough is enough, we do not sign and say we are being blackmailed and take our chamces.

I am gutted by this. I thought we could have taken advantage of Regan's precarious situation, He should have been facing a vote of no confidence but he's not so we just have to get on with it. I just hope we haven't signed away legal rights. He has conceded nothing and we have conceded everything. We have already had a transfer ban since the decision of the first appelate tribunal. We haven't been able to do any business. I think that is the worst of it, we have actually got a longer ban than we would have had if we had accepted the ban in the first place.

I would give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. We all make mistakes and I think this was spur of the moment and he probably regrets it.

Where is CG, why is Ally McCoist doing the negotiating and what is CG's endgame? Does he want Rangers to fail to get into the league so he can sell up?

Could it not be in Carloway's case that his professional integrity is impinged? Maybe someone could shed light on this. Would his position be compromised if the SFA insisted on the registration ban that has already been declared unlawful in a court of law? I agree with Gunslinger on Craig Graham that there is now a conflict of interest there. Although at the time of the decision there was really little prospect of us going to Div 3. It looks like we are going back to the appelate tribunal. It amazes me that all clubs were allowed to vote in the first place as it could quite easily be argued that there is a conflict of interest with every single one of them. It is outrageous that it went to a public vote. Britain's got talent?

I hope one of them is Lord Glennie

You may be right. I think the SFL vote to put us to division 3 was more an SPL and Regan/Doncaster backlash and a touch of self interest. Even at that, 5 clubs voted to put us in SFL1. I do not think they would take kindly to further interference from Doncaster or Regan and I think if push came to shove they would back us. These guys jackets are on a very shaky nail.

Just listened to it. Common sense needs to prevail here. Gunslinger would like the last wee bit.

Superb. Makes me feel better reading that. Hopefully some sympathetic journos (although there aren't many of them I know) and some other club chairmen will back us on this one.

If it is a 2 year deal he may come back to us.

He'd be as well spending his money now. He won't be needing it where he is going. Actually, not if it is our money

I do not think the rest of the teams would stand for that.

For me the most important thing is the right to challenge. If CG gives up this right I will be really disillusioned.