Is Green contradicting himself? Tin hat at the ready...

[Max Rebo's Big Blue Nose 0]

As much as I welcome Charles Green's enthusiasm and robust defence of our club in this time of Rangers bashing, there are a few things about his latest statement that left me confused regarding the EBT's.

 

From what I can gather, Green seems to be to stating that we (in our current form) have not been in the SPL therefore we should not be liable for previous owners misgivings with regards the EBT investigation. He is also stating he bought the 54 titles as part of his deal to buy Rangers. Is that then not recognition that he is also buying the liablities (ie. the bad) as well as the good (the history and trophies)?

 

I know there is probably more to this (ie. the deal regarding SFA membership etc.) and I know I will get pelters but can someone please break this down for an idiot

Edited September 11, 2012 by Max Rebo's Big Blue Nose

[Bluedell 5,356]

Firstly, Green is saying that we are (currently) not members of the SPL and therefore they have got not influence over the club any more and the club are not subject to any rules of the SPL.

 

Secondly Green said

 

Despite this, the SPL now see the new owners of the company, and the new company itself, which owns all the assets of Rangers FC - including SPL championship titles – as fair game for punishment for matters that have nothing to do with us at all.

 

What he is saying that a new company owns the club, and new directors are in charge of this company and the allegations being made are in respect of the old company and old management. He is not saying that they are nothing to do with the club as such, rather it was nothing to do with anyone still at the club.

 

I also don't believe that he is saying that we have not been in the SPL.

[Thinker 887]

I'm not going to give you pelters - I know where you're coming from.

 

I'm glad CG has set a lot of people straight about certain aspects of what's happeneing - with regards to the "no SPL jurisdiction" argument I want to believe Charles has got an ace up his sleeve but I'm not convinced he does. It reminds me of when he said any player who didn't TUPE would be in breach of contract.

 

It's entirely possible he could easily lose this argument and I don't know where it will leave us if he does...

[Waltersgotstyle 297]

It is like buying a house then the former owners bank trying to repossess it.

[calscot 0]

It is like buying a house then the former owners bank trying to repossess it.

 

To play devil's advocate it may be like buying a house and then your neighbour nefariously gets a ruling through cronyism that your boundary is 20 foot out in his favour.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

he does all the time but not in this instance

[sannybear 0]

He contradicted himself three times in one interview about listening to fans wishes , I`m not having a go at him anymore `cos he`s done a very good job so far and there`s no alternative , but it`s a fact that he did .

 

My opinion on the share issue is unchanged , I won`t be getting involved initially at least .

[simplythebest 0]

He contradicted himself three times in one interview about listening to fans wishes , I`m not having a go at him anymore `cos he`s done a very good job so far and there`s no alternative , but it`s a fact that he did .

 

My opinion on the share issue is unchanged , I won`t be getting involved initially at least .

 

I don't think he did really, clearly he's wanting to listen and engage with the fans especially for particular issues, but at the same time isn't going to let the fans virtually run the club and make ultimate decisions for the board like the SPL clubs did their supporters.

[ian1964 10,457]

Does Green actually buy this stuff? Let's take a look

 

For someone who claimed the Scottish Premier League was a really bad idea a few weeks ago, I found myself surprised that I felt the strong urge to defend my former organisation in the face of the bombast from Charles Green.

 

I truly hope by the time that this is read, someone officially representing the SPL will have done likewise. I ask myself, does Green actually buy this stuff? Let's take a look:

 

Claim 1 Rangers ceased to be subject to the SPL's rules when they were ejected from their league.

 

Fact Rangers oldco was not ejected from the SPL. The fact that Rangers went into liquidation automatically expelled them from the league. The SPL shareholders then decided not to make an exception and let them back in. Two very different things.

 

Claim 2 The outcome of the SPL's process will have no legal effect.

 

Fact What the SPL are deciding upon is whether their tournament and their trophy was assigned to the correct club in the years in question.

 

The SPL have every right to examine whether participants in their competition behaved within the rules. And if they find they haven't, they can apply their rule book as recourse. More Green nonsense.

 

I do, however, agree with him that "whatever decision they reach is a decision of the SPL". Indeed. But the SPL should be proud of that, and not hide behind the Law Lords.

 

The SPL are examining the conduct of the participants in their competition well before Rangers went into liquidation, in particular the conduct of the club then owned by Sir David Murray, with the club secretary role (in charge of those player registrations) held by Campbell Ogilvie (whatever happened to him?). Charles Green and Sevco have nothing to do with this. Whatsoever.

 

Claim 3 The new owners purchased all the business and assets of Rangers, including titles and trophies.

 

Fact Green said on June 2012 that if his CVA proposal was to fail (which it did) and Rangers were to be liquidated (which they are), "the history, the tradition, everything that's great about this club is swept aside".

 

Therefore he admits he has not purchased titles and trophies. Sevco has no titles and trophies.

 

By the way, Charles, I would not provoke commentators like me to dig this up, because what you said is not what the Rangers fans want to hear now, as you now correctly realise. Let it lie, Charlie, let it lie.

 

So, even one with a leaning towards Govan would argue that, under the most superficial scrutiny, Green's attack is less than robust. But sometimes you have to chuck a dog a bone. So, to be fair, Charlie is right with his complaint on the SPL's lack of consistency,

 

Green states: "The SPL took part in discussions regarding the new company's league status, where 'the EBT issue' would be dealt with as part of a package of sanctions which would be implemented in return for membership.

 

"We do not accept that people who are willing to come to an agreement on such matters then have a right to instigate a full-blown inquisition when matters do not unfold as they thought they would."

 

Sadly this falls into the general shambles of the management of the affair by the SFA/SPL. I made my own view clear on the leadership of both bodies in the summer. But I cannot see how the credibility of the current process on a simple point of law over false registration of players with Employee Benefit Trusts (being handled by independent top QCs) can be derailed by claims that the prosecutor behaved incoherently months earlier.

 

Good debating point, Charles, but it's not enough. Instead, all of us who love the game and who hold true sporting values in our hearts have a simple question: Did Rangers oldco gain unfair advantage by registering players on a basis where their full employment conditions were not declared to the SPL/SFA?

 

In my mind the answer is undoubtedly 'yes'. But let's not forget the lessons of Versailles: bloodlust rebounds.

 

The SPL enquiry punishment doesn't arouse great passion in me. And it shouldn't either for Celtic fans. For them I'd argue the victory is in the fact that their greatest rival died.

 

The 125-year long struggle ended with the collapse of the adversary. The war was won. Achilles vanquished Hector.

 

In closing, from Mark Anthony onwards history tells us that well-crafted oratory can influence the mob.

 

While Charles Green is no great speaker or statesman, I must admit, he is no dummy. And there is no doubt that his audience is the mob, whose money and favour he needs in order to exit the Rangers investment project with a financial return.

 

Stoking up hatred has always energised "the base", another example of which we saw in the Republican convention in these days.

 

Well done, Charles. Initial Public Offering of shares here we come.

 

For Scottish football, the days of enlightenment around the Tommy Burns funeral are long gone, and I fear the worst.

 

BY Roger Mitchell

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/does-green-actually-buy-this-stuff-lets-take-a-look.18857922

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I don't think he did really, clearly he's wanting to listen and engage with the fans especially for particular issues, but at the same time isn't going to let the fans virtually run the club and make ultimate decisions for the board like the SPL clubs did their supporters.

 

except for the vote on rejoining the SPL.