What have we done wrong?

[bossy 0]

Would Whyte have been deemed not 'fit and proper' had we not gone into Administration? I doubt it.

 

Under SFA rules, Motherwell and Dundee directors were not 'fit and proper' when they went into Administration. Where is the punishment?

[Tannochsidebear 2,306]

Slightly different as Whyte is being charged as unfit because he had a Directorship ban within 5 years of his appointment. That alone breaks the fit and proper test. My argument is who should carry out that check. CW himself, or the SFA?

[bossy 0]

Slightly different as Whyte is being charged as unfit because he had a Directorship ban within 5 years of his appointment. That alone breaks the fit and proper test. My argument is who should carry out that check. CW himself, or the SFA?

 

My understanding was that his ban was outwith the 5 years (I heard it was 7 years prior) and that, by the letter of the SFA rules, he gave an honest (if incomplete) response. There was no SFA requirement to report 'spent' bans beyond the 5 years.

 

The SFA have argued that it is the responsibility of the clubs to police the 'fit and proper' test. But, if you read the SFA rules, the formal responsibility resides with the SFA Board. The fact that they have informally outsourced policing does not absolve them from the responsibility.

 

Edit: the date of his disqualification was more than five years prior but his ban was actually over until inside the five years. But, in terms of the loosely worded SFA rule (heard that before?) Whyte was in compliance.

Edited May 10, 2012 by bossy

[Tannochsidebear 2,306]

He was banned for 7 years in 2000. Therefore he was still banned in 2007. Taking over 4 years later in 2011 is within 5 years and there is his problem. That is the rules as explained to me in person by Stewart Regan, and one can only assume he knows his own rules surely? I mean he had the rulebook with wee sticky pages marking out the well thumbed page right in front of us for goodness sake, it must be accurate!!

[Tannochsidebear 2,306]

I will add that when questioned he admitted that he found this out in October and failed to act, even though it was cut and dried, until after CW had done a runner and we were in admin. Between October and February, the SFA and CW's lawyers had merely exchanged a letter or two. Not quite the kind of outrage and moral high-horsiness we have been subjected to since.

[bossy 0]

He was banned for 7 years in 2000. Therefore he was still banned in 2007. Taking over 4 years later in 2011 is within 5 years and there is his problem. That is the rules as explained to me in person by Stewart Regan, and one can only assume he knows his own rules surely? I mean he had the rulebook with wee sticky pages marking out the well thumbed page right in front of us for goodness sake, it must be accurate!!

 

Article 10.2, section g ....

 

(g) he has been disqualified as a director pursuant to the Company Directors' Disqualification Act 1986 within the previous five years;

 

Craig Whyte was not disqualified within 5 years. His disqualification came in 2000. The rule refers to the act of disqualification and not to the serving of the ban. Semantics? Yes, but semantics matter in law.

 

Regan might think he is right but would a court of law?

[foggy dewhurst 0]

its madness to impose a financial penalty on any company that goes into administration as they have no money ,the sfa and the spl should have been trying to help but its been quite the opposite,very sad .

[Juancornetto 1]

It really is a fantastic achievement by the mutants that we are seen so unilaterally as cheats and are guilty of heinous crimes against sporting integrity. Only one clubs fans are capable of such a witch hunt and smear campaign on the scale of what we're subjected to now and it's not us. Sectarian hatred is an ugly beast.

[Doc 280]

It really is a fantastic achievement by the mutants that we are seen so unilaterally as cheats and are guilty of heinous crimes against sporting integrity. Only one clubs fans are capable of such a witch hunt and smear campaign on the scale of what we're subjected to now and it's not us. Sectarian hatred is an ugly beast.

 

You see it every day on the comments that follow reports on Rangers in the online sections of papers like the Herald. Celtic fans fill every comment section with claims of cheating, financial doping, etc and they will go on like this until they get blood. Even if we win the tax case it will be another masonic conspiracy to add to long list that they imagine in their tiny minds.

 

As others have said we've been punished by the 10 points docked for going into administration and there are more points to be docked if we stay in administration. That's fair what the rules say and that's fair. What gets on my goat is the constant clamour for retrospective punishment and the rewriting of the rules to make it as difficult as possible for us to continue in anything but a hamstrung form. None of the stuff about transfer bans, docking income and the rest was in the original rules. It's a spiteful agenda to hammer Rangers while they are down.

 

Teams in admin in England get hammered with points penalties under the FA and Football League rules. The English authorities don't keep wading in with other penalties on top that effectively prevent clubs continuing in business. Why is it different in Scotland?

 

Where were the SFA and the SPL wading with sanctions when Hearts weren't paying their players and the taxman earlier in the season? If nothing else we've continued to pay our players! To hear chairmen of clubs that have been in or flirted with administration in the past calling for draconian penalties for us makes me sick.

[Zappa 0]

You see it every day on the comments that follow reports on Rangers in the online sections of papers like the Herald. Celtic fans fill every comment section with claims of cheating, financial doping, etc and they will go on like this until they get blood. Even if we win the tax case it will be another masonic conspiracy to add to long list that they imagine in their tiny minds.

 

As others have said we've been punished by the 10 points docked for going into administration and there are more points to be docked if we stay in administration. That's fair what the rules say and that's fair. What gets on my goat is the constant clamour for retrospective punishment and the rewriting of the rules to make it as difficult as possible for us to continue in anything but a hamstrung form. None of the stuff about transfer bans, docking income and the rest was in the original rules. It's a spiteful agenda to hammer Rangers while they are down.

 

Teams in admin in England get hammered with points penalties under the FA and Football League rules. The English authorities don't keep wading in with other penalties on top that effectively prevent clubs continuing in business. Why is it different in Scotland?

 

Where were the SFA and the SPL wading with sanctions when Hearts weren't paying their players and the taxman earlier in the season? If nothing else we've continued to pay our players! To hear chairmen of clubs that have been in or flirted with administration in the past calling for draconian penalties for us makes me sick.

 

Great post Doc!

 

Regarding your first paragraph: This is something that's very very obvious. I read loads of Rangers articles linked from NewsNow/Rangers as well as from links on forums etc and the majority of the time there's mostly only comments on articles from the other lot. The problem with that is whether to think we're apathetic or they're obsessed. It's no doubt a combination of both, but I think it swings towards them being more obsessed and trying to play out an agenda of destroying Rangers.