Thinker 851 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I expected to wake to Llambias being appointed CEO of Rangers. Over the two evils I prefer the fine even if it's likely to be proved unlawful. At least this is something that fans can unite against... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) The current SPFL Board is made up of Neil Doncaster (CEO), Ralph Topping (Chairman), Eric Riley (Celtic), Stephen Thompson (Dundee United), Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen), Eric Drysdale (Raith Rovers), Mike Mulraney (Alloa Athletic) and Ken Ferguson (Brechin City). { from their website }Why would anyone on this board wish to overturn a decision - as Frankie points out - that the club is not liable for according to LNS? Then we have these bogus charges which were dreamed up by the SFA just because both Rangers and MA ignored righting back to the SFA with an explanation in their timeframe. We know that part of the SFA board is Regan, Petrie, the 'Lundyish' Ogilvie and Lawwell among others. Why would they wish to see us put in a position where we can be fined, sanctioned with point deduction or even have our licence withdrawn? Scotland's governing bodies assisting a club for the good of Scottish football - has to be. I've seen the (original) film before,............."Siege mentality 4" Who is playing the Charles Green role this time ? Edited December 17, 2014 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,114 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I've seen the (original) film before,............."Siege mentality 4" Who is playing the Charles Green role this time ? That's fine but there is also a 'Clear and Present Danger' here when it comes to the SPFL's motives. And we certainly don't have any Jack Ryan at Rangers. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 See this is the problem I (and I suspect many others including the SPFL) have. They rule in our favour with regard to us being liable for the 'costs' of training Telfer despite it being the oldco for much of that period. Ergo, that leaves us open for other oldco issues. Yes, that may mean we could claim back prize money or, for example, the Steven Davis transfer cash but it may also leave us open to any sanction on EBTs. We may laugh at conspiracies about Lloyds Bank and other SPL clubs but, make no mistake, if Celtic, Dundee Utd at others can benefit out of punishing us, they will explore it. We just have to be careful of not falling into any traps. This flies in the face of their own panel's decision. The panel quite deliberately levied the fine on the old co, It had the option if it had felt it appropriate to fine the new co, but chose not to. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,114 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 This flies in the face of their own panel's decision. The panel quite deliberately levied the fine on the old co, It had the option if it had felt it appropriate to fine the new co, but chose not to. Agreed but the SPFL may feel the subsequent Telfer ruling now means the original commission decision is worthy of challenge. Like I say, be wary of the devil bearing gifts. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) Agreed but the SPFL may feel the subsequent Telfer ruling now means the original commission decision is worthy of challenge. Like I say, be wary of the devil bearing gifts. . The board has had it's eye's open. However, BBC Scotland has learned that Rangers' directors approached the SPFL board in the past few months to discuss payment terms relating to the fine. http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/30510604 The RIFC/TRFC directors could have settled for a lesser amount of Telfer money in the summer as per Wallace but apparently Sandy Easdale insisted in taking to a tribunal. Then there was the vanishing statement on the day of the Telfer verdict. Now we have the timing of this announcement. When did the SPFL actually inform Rangers that they'd withold broadcast revenue ? Edited December 17, 2014 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Agreed but the SPFL may feel the subsequent Telfer ruling now means the original commission decision is worthy of challenge. Like I say, be wary of the devil bearing gifts. Some governing bodies extend a helping hand to Clubs' in trouble...for ours it is an opportunity to show how spiteful and narrow minded they are 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,214 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) Some governing bodies extend a helping hand to Clubs' in trouble...for ours it is an opportunity to show how spiteful and narrow minded they are Hope to offend no-one, but somehow I instantly envisaged Scottish clan lords, English kings and Scottish freedom fighters while reading this. Edited December 17, 2014 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 See this is the problem I (and I suspect many others including the SPFL) have. They rule in our favour with regard to us being liable for the 'costs' of training Telfer despite it being the oldco for much of that period. Ergo, that leaves us open for other oldco issues. Yes, that may mean we could claim back prize money or, for example, the Steven Davis transfer cash but it may also leave us open to any sanction on EBTs. We may laugh at conspiracies about Lloyds Bank and other SPL clubs but, make no mistake, if Celtic, Dundee Utd at others can benefit out of punishing us, they will explore it. We just have to be careful of not falling into any traps. I have always considered the club/company argument to be an irrelevance which took on far greater importance due to the petty squabbling between Rangers fans and those of other clubs, mainly Celtic, and it still goes on to this day. The old company 'died' in a purely legal sense, that is a given, but I defy anyone to argue that the club today is the same one which held us all tightly in it's vice-like grip from our very first game - it is now an empty husk. Ultimately, all that time, money, energy and anguish spent arguing was for nothing other than a bit of oneupmanship for those with 'Celtic mates' as the legal toing and froing continues unabated and the Greens, Ashleys and Irvines of this world continue to use it as a sideshow to hide all their evil plans behind. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,114 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I have always considered the club/company argument to be an irrelevance which took on far greater importance due to the petty squabbling between Rangers fans and those of other clubs, mainly Celtic, and it still goes on to this day. The old company 'died' in a purely legal sense, that is a given, but I defy anyone to argue that the club today is the same one which held us all tightly in it's vice-like grip from our very first game - it is now an empty husk. Ultimately, all that time, money, energy and anguish spent arguing was for nothing other than a bit of oneupmanship for those with 'Celtic mates' as the legal toing and froing continues unabated and the Greens, Ashleys and Irvines of this world continue to use it as a sideshow to hide all their evil plans behind. It's not irrelevant as long as people pursue the club for our honours. What will be the next five way agreement to secure Ashley's involvement? 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.