Why we should not pay football debts.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

the 75% things not in sfl rules. a simple majority is all that's needed

[chilledbear 16]

Has Charles applied for the licence?

[Craigy1881 79]

Can we apply for the third div? There is currently no vacancy so how can we? Until they sort it that there is one surely we can't.

[TheWeeBlueDevil 0]

Took this from another thread but is relevant to this one .

 

2. Payment of Footballing Debts

 

This is where it becomes difficult, if by footballing debts, the SFA are referring to any transfer fees & ticket monies owed to other clubs and/or wages owed to players due to deferment during Administration, there is a case to argue.

 

Quite simply, in Scotland, there is NO Football Creditors law.

 

I don't know how many times I need to explain this, but in Scotland, unlike England & Wales, there is no law that allows for all Football Creditors to be paid in FULL and BEFORE even SECURED creditors. This means that any attempt by the SFA/SPL to make Rangers pay any outstanding fees/ticket money/wages is ILLEGAL

 

Under Scottish law, these creditors are and must be treated exactly the same way as any other unsecured creditor. This means that any attempt to settle these debts in full, would be illegal. This would also make any directors of the new company liable for a contempt of court charge, for being in breach of a winding up order. It could also make the new company liable in full for the debts of the old company, and create a second admin/liquidation scenario.

 

Legally, this cannot be enforced by the SFA, they would be effectively forcing the directors to break the law in return for continuation of membership.

[CumbernauldGers 0]

]So if we sold Jelavic for £10 million pounds and Everton went under you would be happy for us to miss out on that cash?[/b] You're being a tad petty CG' date=' while we obviously have no obligation to pay these debts and if we don't I won't be too bothered.

 

I just personally feel that if we want to have a reputation where we can deal with teams and agree deals to pay transfers up over a period of time in the future this is a good gesture to make in mending that reputation.

 

Otherwise personally I would be expecting 100% cash up front for any future transactions.[/quote']

 

Would i be happy? No i would not but i would not expect the money back if the company had went under. It's really that simple to me.

[CumbernauldGers 0]

It's what separates us from the rhabid bheast CG, they would do the dirty on anybody and everybody to benefit themselves. I still like to think that we are a cut above that kind of behaviour.

 

I take it you have not been watching the actions of the so called Rangers men then recently?

 

The arrogance of some of our fans is astonding at times.

[CumbernauldGers 0]

we should pay them because if we don't we will be punished.

 

So you agree that UEFA and FIFA are above the law?

[no12 0]

Took this from another thread but is relevant to this one .

 

2. Payment of Footballing Debts

 

This is where it becomes difficult, if by footballing debts, the SFA are referring to any transfer fees & ticket monies owed to other clubs and/or wages owed to players due to deferment during Administration, there is a case to argue.

 

Quite simply, in Scotland, there is NO Football Creditors law.

 

I don't know how many times I need to explain this, but in Scotland, unlike England & Wales, there is no law that allows for all Football Creditors to be paid in FULL and BEFORE even SECURED creditors. This means that any attempt by the SFA/SPL to make Rangers pay any outstanding fees/ticket money/wages is ILLEGAL

 

Under Scottish law, these creditors are and must be treated exactly the same way as any other unsecured creditor. This means that any attempt to settle these debts in full, would be illegal. This would also make any directors of the new company liable for a contempt of court charge, for being in breach of a winding up order. It could also make the new company liable in full for the debts of the old company, and create a second admin/liquidation scenario.

 

Legally, this cannot be enforced by the SFA, they would be effectively forcing the directors to break the law in return for continuation of membership.

 

It's not a matter of legal or not, it's a matter of honour. If we want to regrow to be even bigger and better than we have to do it right!

If we want to claim our History we have to accept our responsibilities.

And it's not a matter of "Look at what they've done to us", we have no control over what others do, but we do have a (small) say in what Rangers does to others. Let the others cheat, let the others bully and be bigots. But let Rangers be above that and reclaim the moral high ground.

[CumbernauldGers 0]

For all the people going on about honour and stuff i take it you also want us to pay back every debt? Even The big tax case if it went against the club?

[Craigy1881 79]

For all the people going on about honour and stuff i take it you also want us to pay back every debt? Even The big tax case if it went against the club?

 

Of course not they have already liquidated the old company, Football debt didn't put us into administration, these are the people we require on side to trade in the future. You're really just picking holes now for the sake of it.