ian1964 10,416 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 SPL chief executive Neil Doncaster today warned a Rangers newco could still carry the can if the club are found guilty of making undisclosed payments in the past. An investigation into the matter â?? which centres around Sir David Murray's ownership of the Ibrox club â?? is continuing following allegations made by former director Hugh Adam. This, of course, would mean a breach of the rules and Doncaster says any potential penalties could follow the football club over to any newco. He said: "It will take some time and ultimately it's being done by our lawyers. They will bring the case forward to us and the SPL board when they can do so. "How long will it take? How long has the HMRC case taken? These things take as long as they take. These are complicated matters, far more complicated than people might think." With regard to possible sanctions, he said: "The issue will be; have any of our rules been breached? If there is a prima facie case that they have then we will act accordingly. "The rules are there and all clubs are treated equally under the current rules. "The investigation is going on in accordance with the rules set down at various stages of the SPL's history. "There is only one rule within our whole set of rules where the breach has a pre-determined sanction. "If you go into administration the sanction is a 10-point sporting penalty, perhaps to be increased. "All the rest of the other rule breaches have 18 potential sanctions, unlimited in scope. "Whoever makes the decision on any disciplinary matter, be it the board or an independent commission, there is no set sanction in place. "There is no point in trying to project where a club might be. "You deal with the process and you get out. The rules are what they are; we apply the rules and you get out." When asked if players would be ineligible if contracts were found to be in breach of the rules, Doncaster replied: "It's more complicated than that. "That's why it's important that we give the investigation room to come back, present the board with the rules and what they have found and a recommendation. "You would expect the football club in question to take with it the responsibility for anything which emerged from that investigation." http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/rangers-newco-will-not-avoid-spl-sanction.17633932 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
foggy dewhurst 0 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 how can anybody make a decision on a company thet does not yet exist 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 872 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Well, on the bright-side, if a newco takes the historical penalties with it, then no-one can reasonably argue that the rest of the history wouldn't also be transferred. Hopefully a CVA will make this irrelevant anyway. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWeeBlueDevil 0 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 This guy Doncaster almost sounds excited about putting the boot into Rangers again .. Basically saying even if Rangers newco they will continue the witch hunt . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggordy 0 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 This guy Doncaster almost sounds excited about putting the boot into Rangers again .. Basically saying even if Rangers newco they will continue the witch hunt . He's playing to the Diddy gallery. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 how can anybody make a decision on a company thet does not yet exist The club exists and will continue to exist. The decision is on the club, not the company. If the club doesn't exist then we'll have to apply to the SFL as a new club with no history. If it was that easy then you could change your company every year to rid yourself of any punishments. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 One thing is to be said - Hugh Adam is a cunt of the highest order. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Looks like the cases of us taking the authorities through the courts is begging to stack up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,876 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 One thing is to be said - Hugh Adam is a cunt of the highest order. Who's rather vague memory, not backed up with any evidence, surely cannot make a "prima facie" case? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 One thing is to be said - Hugh Adam is a cunt of the highest order. Who's rather vague memory, not backed up with any evidence, surely cannot make a "prima facie" case? I think someone is taking advantage of his weak mental state and bribing him to say things about Rangers, say anything even. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.