Rangers, the SPL and possible Extortion.

[The Educator 1,572]

I was looking at the BDO document posted concerning the debenture scheme. It confirms that the right to the SPL prize money for the season 2011/12 was officially due to the club as it was purchased as part of the assets by CG. It also confirms that the right to this money was subsequently waived by the club and CG to gain our licence to enter the football league for season 2012/13 and as such the money was retained by the SPL.

To me this raises a very important point concerning this money. Did the SPL refuse to agree to Rangers being granted a licence unless the right to this money was waived? Why is this so important you may ask? It boils down to this, if indeed the SPL made the demand it was a clear case of extortion, an act that to my understanding is a crime under UK law. However if it was suggested by CG as a bargaining point he must come forward and be honest with the fans about this.

As I understand it the definition of extortion is to, obtain money or favours by intimidation, violence or the misuse of authority. If it was the SPL who demanded that the right to the money was waived it is the highlighted part of this definition that raises the question of whether or not the SPL committed the crime of extortion. If the SPL had any legal right to this money they would simply have needed to reference whichever rule that allowed for the withholding of prize money from a club and there would have been no need to reference it in negotiations regarding Rangers getting their licence.

I would ask anybody who purchased shares under the IPO to contact the club and get clarification on this matter. Was the waiving of the right to this money suggested by CG or was it a demand by the SPL, it’s not a difficult question for them to answer.

[gogzy 31,195]

Good post mate.

[The Educator 1,572]

Good post mate.

Cheers, I just feel that it's time for this to be either put to bed or if it was extortion that the perpetrators be brought to book for their actions not only through the law courts, but through UEFA's judicial process. Btw, how's the wee one? Hope the first word is Rangers, I know it's one of my earliest memories.

[gogzy 31,195]

Cheers, I just feel that it's time for this to be either put to bed or if it was extortion that the perpetrators be brought to book for their actions not only through the law courts, but through UEFA's judicial process. Btw, how's the wee one? Hope the first word is Rangers, I know it's one of my earliest memories.

You are mixing me up with GOAT

[govanblue 16,847]

You are mixing me up with GOAT

We all do that Goatsy

[The Educator 1,572]

You are mixing me up with GOAT

I would apologise, but I'm not sure to which one.

[RangersMedia 35,961]

When can money be lawfully demanded under threat? Lord Thomson indicated in Silverstein (v HMA 1949 JC 160) that to demand money under threat was criminal unless the threat used was regarded as legitimate. This is to some extent circular- threats are criminal unless they are legitimate- but it serves to emphasise that the use of threats to obtain money is generally criminal, and will be so regarded unless it can be shown that in the particular case it was legitimate. Some Scots judges have gone further than this and suggested that any threat by A that unless B pays him money he will act to B's detriment constitutes the crime of extortion [three cases are referenced here] This, however, goes too far, and it is necessary to consider in what circumstances money can be legitimately demanded under threat. Generally speaking, one may say that if either the threat or demand is in itself illegitimate, there will extortion; if both are legitimate in themselves the use of the threat to enforce the demand may not be criminal, provided that the threat and the demand are linked in a way recognised by law as appropriate....it is not extortion to threaten to sue for a due debt if it is not paid.

Sir Gerald Gordon: The Criminal Law of Scotland (3rd Ed. Vol II pp 250-251).

I think it's pretty clear that if we didn't suggest this to them as a compromise then we have a pretty decent case against them. I highly doubt we'll ever find out though.

[The Educator 1,572]

We all do that Goatsy

Does that make him a Billy Goatsy?

[The Educator 1,572]

Sir Gerald Gordon: The Criminal Law of Scotland (3rd Ed. Vol II pp 250-251).

I think it's pretty clear that if we didn't suggest this to them as a compromise then we have a pretty decent case against them. I highly doubt we'll ever find out though.

Sadly that's probably true, though it's certainly not fair on the fans. Where did you get that reference? Do you study law or do you just choose some very strange bedtime reading material?

[RangersMedia 35,961]

Sadly that's probably true, though it's certainly not fair on the fans. Where did you get that reference? Do you study law or do you just choose some very strange bedtime reading material?

Studied an LLB Hons + did the diploma last year. I have his book in front of me, it forms part of the reading material for the Diploma in Legal Practice [now PEAT1] in Scotland.

[The Educator 1,572]

Studied an LLB Hons + did the diploma last year. I have his book in front of me, it forms part of the reading material for the Diploma in Legal Practice [now PEAT1] in Scotland.

Nice one, good luck for the future. Btw, you do realise that you will now be called upon for a view on every possible link to a legal matter that anybody on the forum raises.

[elephants stoned 2,994]

You are mixing me up with GOAT

Thats disgracefull! Noone should have to suffer that

[elephants stoned 2,994]

I cant imagine a man who admitted hes ''only in it for the money'' and then got all kinds of shit for saying that would volunteer to give up 2million just for shits and giggles. I think we are looking at yet another case of blackmail here. How long did OUR 2million keep the sphell running? Would they have collapsed by now without it?

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

What I don't get is that the SFA granted our licence

Yet the SPL kept the money?

What's it got to do with the SPL?

They are a completely independent entity.

[Johnny Hubbard 280]

This was a move to cheat creditors of a share of the remaining assets. The corrupt SPL would probably have been insolvent without that £2 million. Do you think Cosgrove et al will be spouting on about hospitals and schools not being built because the taxpayer has been cheated by the SPL ?

don't hold your breath !

[jack1690 793]

What I don't get is that the SFA granted our licence

Yet the SPL kept the money?

What's it got to do with the SPL?

They are a completely independent entity.

Doncaster & Regan work in mysterious ways.

[FUDGIE52 9]

Or did Green agree to waive the money to pay off old footballing debts then the feckers renegaded on that as well.

I am willing to bet the so called 5 way agreement to allow Rangers a license to play is totally illegal but Green had a gun put to his head and had no option but sign it or we where out of football.

[lutonblue 1,974]

Or did Green agree to waive the money to pay off old footballing debts then the feckers renegaded on that as well.

I am willing to bet the so called 5 way agreement to allow Rangers a license to play is totally illegal but Green had a gun put to his head and had no option but sign it or we where out of football.

if this was any other club or business I would say far fetched . But this is Rangers so you are probably right !

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

You are mixing me up with GOAT

I thought you had more than one profile on here ..............................

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Indeed the sfa/spl have one day be brought to task re this.......also think back to the delay in tv payments to the desperadoes of the spl, think of the cries of we need our first installment that was late very very late and would be interesting to look at the dates it was paid and when this sfa/spl deal re our money that was won for finishing second even after the legal deduction of points (note the use of legal)

So money that was won on the playing field under the rules of the spl/sfa using sfa officials is taken from the club, now the club would not just hand over this money!!

Was this money taken to cover tv revenue? Perhaps this is why no-one saw the deal last year, did Sky drastically reduce the amount on offer? Why did liewell who is not on the board of the spl, remember Riley was moved over to the spl to accommodate the invite for liwell on the sfa, and liewell appears to represent spl in tv discussions.

So if the above happens to be the case..............could it possibly be they used our Clubs prize money won in a sporting way on the field of play to prop up the teams in the spl?

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Or did Green agree to waive the money to pay off old footballing debts then the feckers renegaded on that as well.

I am willing to bet the so called 5 way agreement to allow Rangers a license to play is totally illegal but Green had a gun put to his head and had no option but sign it or we where out of football.

There's always a choice and if they had withheld the license the Club could have gone to EUFA with all the paperwork and the spl/sfa rule-books and asked them to explain why they had been refused and that could have lead to us getting into England.

[lutonblue 1,974]

There's always a choice and if they had withheld the license the Club could have gone to EUFA with all the paperwork and the spl/sfa rule-books and asked them to explain why they had been refused and that could have lead to us getting into England.

thats probably true ED , but I think it was that late in the day , if we would have taken that route we wouldn't of been playing the season just gone . Would of been a long process ED

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

thats probably true ED , but I think it was that late in the day , if we would have taken that route we wouldn't of been playing the season just gone . Would of been a long process ED

Sometimes you have to make such decisions bud. I think if Green had told them no re the prize fund and back it up with lawyers letter he would have had them in a panic, a game of bluff that we lost.

Defo as a result the TV money would be lost, they could not dish out our prize money to make up shortfalls and they would have to explain to EUFA the reasons for declining our license and that would involve the sfa being under scrutiny with EUFA/FIFA.

[lutonblue 1,974]

True ED , but still think with the timescale , to much if a risk and the sfa knew that , also if we had no football I think a few more players would of left

[dummiesoot 15,990]

True ED , but still think with the timescale , to much if a risk and the sfa knew that , also if we had no football I think a few more players would of left

Plus having to refund ST monies. We would have bankrupted ourselves.