Charles Green Statement

[Darthter 542]

They shouldn't be involved in any day-to-day running of the club until they legally own it though and that's my point Darthter.

 

You could argue that it is part of a "hand-over" procedure.....

 

If the contract is as legally binding as has been stated, Charles Green & consortium WILL be the new owners of the club.

[simplythebest 0]

Yes, it is.

 

One day he's acting like his consortium already own Rangers then the next day he's saying things which clearly show that they don't own the club yet.

 

His consortium don't own the club yet and acting like they do is not only wrong, but very misleading for the fans.

 

I want the truth out of this guy and his consortium and the same from D&P.

 

A half arsed, twisted and misleading version of the truth is unacceptable to me.

Personally I think you're being very persnickety.

 

Anyone who pays attention knows the deal isn't official until a CVA is either accepted or rejected, but there's a binding agreement in place and considering he's funding us until an exit from administration it makes sense he's involved in the running of the club now.

 

The truth is the creditors will decide on a CVA so there's nothing Green and D&P can do in the meantime, and the plan for the CVA failing has already been outlined.

[Darthter 542]

considering he's funding us until an exit from administration it makes sense he's involved in the running of the club now.

 

That's the key....If the consortium are paying millions to keep the club running, it's only right that they have a say in what's going on!!!

[andy steel 0]

"It is the Club's view that the matter should in fact have been referred back to the original tribunal which imposed the transfer ban because the appellate tribunal in its written judgement made clear the view they held on the appropriate alternative sanction to be imposed in the event that the transfer ban was successfully challenged."

 

Can someone translate this for me? Baffled.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

"It is the Club's view that the matter should in fact have been referred back to the original tribunal which imposed the transfer ban because the appellate tribunal in its written judgement made clear the view they held on the appropriate alternative sanction to be imposed in the event that the transfer ban was successfully challenged."

 

Can someone translate this for me? Baffled.

 

didn't they say expulsion was in their thoughts but they did this instead.

[Darthter 542]

"It is the Club's view that the matter should in fact have been referred back to the original tribunal which imposed the transfer ban because the appellate tribunal in its written judgement made clear the view they held on the appropriate alternative sanction to be imposed in the event that the transfer ban was successfully challenged."

 

Can someone translate this for me? Baffled.

 

The panel stated in their conclusion that expulsion or suspension were too harsh, and that a fine wasn't harsh enough (this may have also incl. the cup ban)

[Zappa 0]

Personally I think you're being very persnickety.

 

Considering everything that's happened and the position the club's currently in I think being persnickety in the sense of having an extremely careful, analytical and even untrusting approach to the situation is completely justified. I choose to ask questions, point out anomalies and to be completely honest with my point of view, but just because I say that I neither trust Duff & Phelps or Charles Green doesn't mean I think you or anyone else should follow suit.

[simplythebest 0]

Considering everything that's happened and the position the club's currently in I think being persnickety in the sense of having an extremely careful, analytical and even untrusting approach to the situation is completely justified. I choose to ask questions, point out anomalies and to be completely honest with my point of view, but just because I say that I neither trust Duff & Phelps or Charles Green doesn't mean I think you or anyone else should follow suit.

That's fair enough, but at the same time i'd urge you not to jump to the very worst conclusions.

[der Berliner 3,282]

The SFA replies to the statement and stumbles again:

 

In a swift response to Rangers' statement, the SFA issued one of its own on Sunday evening. It read:

"Referring the matter to the Court of Session, Rangers FC utilised the court's right of Supervisory Jurisdiction contained within Scots Law.

"Given that any two parties can seek arbitration, the club was not 'prohibited from appealing to the Court of Arbitration for Sport', as was claimed.

"Indeed, no representation was made by the club to the Scottish FA to discuss the possibility or the process of seeking arbitration via the Court of Arbitration for Sport before Judicial Review was actioned."

 

Lord Glennie (Opens PDF):

This matter is, in any event, to my mind, made clear by Rule 15.8.3.6 of the Judicial Panel Protocol to which I have referred which provides that the Appellate Tribunal's determination 'shall be final and binding on the parties and there shall be no further right of appeal.' That excludes any appeal, including an appeal to the CAS.

 

Do they know their own rules? :admin:

[Zappa 0]

That's fair enough, but at the same time i'd urge you not to jump to the very worst conclusions.

 

I'm not jumping to any worst conclusions though! I'm actually feeling very positive about the club's future, but not because of D&P or the Green consortium. I'm positive because I know we'll get through this period of adversity in one form or another and live to fight another day no matter how many bastards there are out there trying to kill the club.