Rangers statement

[Sweetheart 8,458]

10 minutes ago, The Dude said:

 

If they make things up to punish us then giving them an actual reason to do so would be nothing more than stupidity. 

Can't do either. Have to play first team. If demonstrably weakened team played it also leaves you liable to sanction. Sporting integrity and all that. 

As coopsleftboot says taking this through the PFA and HSE is our best bet. Players and club would be protected as whistleblowers 

[ritchieshearercaldow 22,124]

It's up to the players involved IMO, they need to take action against the SFA through the PFA and the courts.

[Sweetheart 8,458]

2 minutes ago, piperpete said:

Where has IT gone now ? This RFFF cash must be dizzy as ITs been here and then there and now Its gone, Is this 100% true or you just playing games again ?

http://www.rangersfansfightingfund.uk/currentfund.html

[K.A.I 36,183]

4 minutes ago, Bluepeter9 said:

It is a bit heavy on rhetoric and light on action. If they had ended it with even saying 'exploring all options to assign blame / make sure it won't happen again ' i would have been happier 

Yup. Exactly.

That's not action, it's a statement (albiet a decent statement but we need the action part to follow.)

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,509]

Statement is actually good, pity the action following it will be absolutely shite 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

5 minutes ago, piperpete said:

Where has IT gone now ? This RFFF cash must be dizzy as ITs been here and then there and now Its gone, Is this 100% true or you just playing games again ?

The Stand at Auchenhowie is getting built. 

[gogzy 31,195]

1 hour ago, Bluepeter9 said:

Well outrage but no action - just an implied threat in the last line - kinda weak even by my evenhanded standards 

ffs, this is the first post I've read, not read the statement.

If bp9 thinks it's weak, then I think I am going to hate it.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

3 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

Yup. Exactly.

That's not action, it's a statement (albiet a decent statement but we need the action part to follow.)

Yep 

[jim beam 2,188]

Statement is ok but that is as far as it will go.

[EKCO 103]

8 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

That would be an empty threat, if the club are to take action then it needs to be followed through.

The government has now commented at the failure of the SFA , so maybe it will come to the attention of EUFA//FIFA and they will step in and make changes to the SFA.

 

Why would it be an empty threat? Rangers and our fans are targeted with impunity, lets see the wee fish and her government back it up....don't expect it so then the UK press back us/ridicules the SFA and fish gov, then maybe UK gov and UEFA have to step in. It continues to highlight their bias, not vicTIM just facts.

Either that or we continue to say nothing, bend over and continually take it? Really? Not for me.

[gogzy 31,195]

Quote

It should be understood Rangers will not tolerate any of their employees being attacked with impunity.

Except for the last time, which you seem to be tolerating.

 

Mealy mouthed pish, dissapointed, astonished blah blah blah.    We should be demanding the case be reopened, or we are going to take it to a real court.   our players were fucking attacked ffs.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

1 minute ago, gogzy said:

Except for the last time, which you seem to be tolerating.

 

Mealy mouthed pish, dissapointed, astonished blah blah blah.    We should be demanding the case be reopened, or we are going to take it to a real court.   our players were fucking attacked ffs.

Yep - that's was why I was disappointed - that last line is just kinda dangling! I hope they have a legal team on it and soon 

[Smile 26,600]

This is a board that Blamed Moshni when he defended himself against a Motherwell player, this board are counting cash and are happy to bend over backwards to the Sfa.

Why do you think the Sfa approved King he's in their pocket.

[gogzy 31,195]

Just now, Bluepeter9 said:

Yep - that's was why I was disappointed - that last line is just kinda dangling! I hope they have a legal team on it and soon 

  if they actualy follow it up with some action, then I will owe them an aplogy.  I think we both know tht no action is going to be taken,  the case is closed, until the next time.

[Sweetheart 8,458]

7 minutes ago, EKCO said:

Why would it be an empty threat? Rangers and our fans are targeted with impunity, lets see the wee fish and her government back it up....don't expect it so then the UK press back us/ridicules the SFA and fish gov, then maybe UK gov and UEFA have to step in. It continues to highlight their bias, not vicTIM just facts.

Either that or we continue to say nothing, bend over and continually take it? Really? Not for me.

It would be an empty threat as the club couldn't possibly follow it through due to breaching rules.

28 minutes ago, The Dude said:

 

If they make things up to punish us then giving them an actual reason to do so would be nothing more than stupidity. 

Can't do either. Have to play first team. If demonstrably weakened team played it also leaves you liable to sanction. Sporting integrity and all that. 

As coopsleftboot says taking this through the PFA and HSE is our best bet. Players and club would be protected as whistleblowers 

This action would stop the sfa wheel from turning, a vote of no confidence and boot them out. Then rebuild to include Rangers having a seat at the table.

[DAVIE8CH 296]

as an add on the club should have stated that if the sfa cant guarantee the safety of rangers players on the playing surface they will not participate in any further Scottish cup games

[Frank Reynolds 3,359]

Just now, DAVIE8CH said:

as an add on the club should have stated that if the sfa cant guarantee the safety of rangers players on the playing surface they will not participate in any further Scottish cup games

No chance - it's money Rangers would lose out on.

[DAVIE8CH 296]

3 minutes ago, BluesClues said:

No chance - it's money Rangers would lose out on.

sfa would loose more no rangers no tv deal

[mrmojorisin 13,608]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

Why are people suggesting we withdraw from the Scottish Cup? All that does is give them another stick to beat us with as we are obliged to play in it. 

I dont think we are 

[Frank Reynolds 3,359]

7 minutes ago, DAVIE8CH said:

sfa would loose more no rangers no tv deal

Of course, but as those in charge of RIFC, the board have a legal obligation to shareholders to act in such a way that would be "most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole."

Pulling out of the Scottish Cup and forfeiting the revenue it would bring could potentially land the directors in hot water.

[K.A.I 36,183]

4 minutes ago, mrmojorisin said:

I dont think we are 

To be fair to him I was.

Would still like us to - if it were possible.

[Sweetheart 8,458]

ITV report. Seems the statement is going UK wide

Quote

 

Rangers shocked by SFA ruling over Scottish Cup final scenes

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-09-29/rangers-shocked-by-sfa-ruling-over-scottish-cup-final-scenes/?

 

 

[DAVIE8CH 296]

9 minutes ago, BluesClues said:

Of course, but as those in charge of RIFC, the board have a legal obligation to shareholders to act in such a way that would be "most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole."

Pulling out of the Scottish Cup and forfeiting the revenue it would bring could potentially land the directors in hot water.

what money do rangers shareholders get

[mrmojorisin 13,608]

10 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

To be fair to him I was.

Would still like us to - if it were possible.

Òf course..we should be looking to win any competition we enter...but i dont think we are legally obliged to enter 

[Sweetheart 8,458]

 

2 minutes ago, mrmojorisin said:

Òf course..we should be looking to win any competition we enter...but i dont think we are legally obliged to enter 

 

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

They would have breached article 33 of the SFA's articles of association which allows them to fine, censure or "any other sanction or penalty the judicial panel considers appropriate".