***The Official Kangaroo Court Commision Thread***

[nachothelegend 1,932]

Heard Doncaster earlier say on the News that this hearing is nothing to do with the BTC and is totally different.

In other words we are going to Ignore the fact that Rangers where found not guilty.

They have made their decision.

[Blue-Nosed-Biker 33]

Civil War you say???

Well in that case, we'll need a marching tune!

Might I suggest this one...

Just laughed so much I damn near choked on my Jack Daniels.

[govanblue 16,847]

Just laughed so much I damn near choked on my Jack Daniels.

Now there's a good idea

Would it be divisive if opt for Jim Beam though?

[Blue-Nosed-Biker 33]

Now there's a good idea

Would it be divisive if opt for Jim Beam though?

No not at all......lets work our way round the gantry!

[govanblue 16,847]

No not at all......lets work our way round the gantry!

Well in that case...

To Victory!

[Blue-Nosed-Biker 33]

Well in that case...

To Victory!

And the plus side of victory is..................there'll be no need for the independence referendum

[sergio 1,199]

G6.1.18 make such other direction, sanction or disposal, not expressly provided for in these Rules, as it shall think appropriate; and/or

This rule was added in after the court told the SFA that our punishment was not a listed option, THAT IS A FACT

DIRTY CORRUPT BASTARDS.

[Tiger Shaw 30,710]

The specific rules allegedly breached

SPL rule D9.3 states all payments made to players for playing football must be registered.

It says: "No player may receive any payment of any description from or on behalf of a club in respect of that player’s participation in Association Football or in an activity connected with Association Football, other than in reimbursement of expenses actually incurred or to be actually incurred in playing or training for that Club, unless such payment is made in accordance with a Contract of Service between that Club and the Player concerned."

The second rule under scrutiny is D1.13 which states that all contracts must be lodged with the governing body.

It says: "A club must, as a condition of registration and for a Player to be eligible to play in official matches, deliver the executed originals of all contracts of service and amendments and/or extensions to contracts of service and all other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that club and player, to the secretary, within fourteen days of such contract of service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended."

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/r...h-case-begins/

[boss 1,941]

In terms of both D9.3 and D1.13, loans are not payments however LNS tries to twist it.

[We Will Follow Rangers 12,959]

In terms of both D9.3 and D1.13, loans are not payments however LNS tries to twist it.

oh I think they 'll twist it allright, lesser burden of proof required no doubt when compared to law, wouldnt be surprised if loans have allready been accepted by the terms of the commission as payments by another name.

[ThenNowForever 232]

This is slightly off topic but I think it's worth pointing out that the STV link posted shows very fair and balanced reporting with the case for the defence and witch hu....sorry prosecution set out evenly. What a difference from the one sided BBC Scotland reporting that I have grown to hate over the last year and a half

[We Will Follow Rangers 12,959]

This is slightly off topic but I think it's worth pointing out that the STV link posted shows very fair and balanced reporting with the case for the defence and witch hu....sorry prosecution set out evenly. What a difference from the one sided BBC Scotland reporting that I have grown to hate over the last year and a half

stopped reading at headline mate, "Rangers await title stripping verdict"

very fair and balanced?

[ThenNowForever 232]

I think my problem was I didn't read the headline! I think the BBC must have got to me as I seem to be spouting pish. It shows how bad the BBC is now I think that article is fair and balanced over at STV.

[We Will Follow Rangers 12,959]

I think my problem was I didn't read the headline! I think the BBC must have got to me as I seem to be spouting pish. It shows how bad the BBC is now I think that article is fair and balanced over at STV.

soon as I see that wee baldly bastard McLaughlin's coupon on a bbc article I wouldnt risk my eyesight or my blood pressure to read it.

fucking STV still had a "rangers in crisis" page in november. they do present both sides but that headline gives the game away, 18 possible sanctions, including anything they want to make up on the hoof yet they describe it as "Rangers await title stripping verdict"

nuff said.

fait accompli it seems to suggest.

[Blumhoilann 6,712]

Get ready for the Courts lads.

[simplythebest 11,453]

Get ready for the Courts lads.

Always felt it will come to that.

[Stoorie 1,088]

Get ready for the Courts lads.

There will be no other outcome to this other than court. Wonder who will represent them?

Bring it on.

[Brian The Bear 3]

They know full well by now we will go to court and we will not stop concerning titles, CG will not have it and JT is in the wings but he does need to start upping his game if he is going to be the head of our PR and take the fight to Thomson, 3 names and the likes.

I can see the huge fine for "administration anomolies" that is completely out of proportion but will remain in effect to allow us to be offered a new "provisional" membership to the "new" hierarchy run by CFC..., sorry SFA and <new league title insert here>

Sooner we GTF and join the english blue square league the better, it is not a forgone conclusion we cannot and the decision from them will be made soon enough.

[Bad Robot 21,449]

I'm thinking if its a negative decision with a worst case scenario situation then information will get released on Friday just to try and destabilise the team.

If its good news then they will probable postpone it until Monday but no, I'm not a cynic lol

[joker69 60]

I'm thinking if its a negative decision with a worst case scenario situation then information will get released on Friday just to try and destabilise the team.

If its good news then they will probable postpone it until Monday but no, I'm not a cynic lol

Was thinking exactly the same myself mate.

[boss 1,941]

oh I think they 'll twist it allright, lesser burden of proof required no doubt when compared to law, wouldnt be surprised if loans have allready been accepted by the terms of the commission as payments by another name.

SPL's problem ultimately (Court of Session) is:

- if they decide EBT loans are "payments"

- then EBTs can never be used to pay players

- because including the EBTs on contractual paperwork makes the EBT scheme fail

- but EBTs were disclosed in Rangers' accounts for a decade

- and the SPL did nothing about them

- thus Rangers are reasonably entitled to assume EBT loans are not payments

IMO courts will not allow SPL to enforce a rule which is not clear and which they contributed to the case in point.

[nelsonRFC82 305]

They know full well by now we will go to court and we will not stop concerning titles, CG will not have it and JT is in the wings but he does need to start upping his game if he is going to be the head of our PR and take the fight to Thomson, 3 names and the likes.

I can see the huge fine for "administration anomolies" that is completely out of proportion but will remain in effect to allow us to be offered a new "provisional" membership to the "new" hierarchy run by CFC..., sorry SFA and <new league title insert here>

Sooner we GTF and join the english blue square league the better, it is not a forgone conclusion we cannot and the decision from them will be made soon enough.

Re the fine, has LNS not already ruled this out? The fine, would have to be applied to the oldco (they have even already stated newco are not under any investigation as the alleged breaches pre-date them). To become a creditor of a company in administration/liquidation process requires approval of CoS, I believe...way outwith the remit of SPL, even if we they do believe themselves to be above the law!

[nelsonRFC82 305]

SPL's problem ultimately (Court of Session) is:

- if they decide EBT loans are "payments"

- then EBTs can never be used to pay players

- because including the EBTs on contractual paperwork makes the EBT scheme fail

- but EBTs were disclosed in Rangers' accounts for a decade

- and the SPL did nothing about them

- thus Rangers are reasonably entitled to assume EBT loans are not payments

IMO courts will not allow SPL to enforce a rule which is not clear and which they contributed to the case in point.

I have said the same.

SPL/SFA were well aware of our EBT use and knew this to be outwith the contract they registered, the only logical conclusion would be that if an EBT is authentic it is acceptable by the authorities. Now that our EBT use has been vindicated, I struggle to see how they make (or should that be make up) their case against us!

[iang2911 423]

I have said the same.

SPL/SFA were well aware of our EBT use and knew this to be outwith the contract they registered, the only logical conclusion would be that if an EBT is authentic it is acceptable by the authorities. Now that our EBT use has been vindicated, I struggle to see how they make (or should that be make up) their case against us!

Re the fine, has LNS not already ruled this out? The fine, would have to be applied to the oldco (they have even already stated newco are not under any investigation as the alleged breaches pre-date them). To become a creditor of a company in administration/liquidation process requires approval of CoS, I believe...way outwith the remit of SPL, even if we they do believe themselves to be above the law!

And this is why the BTC is not unimportant. The HMRC tribunal found that the EBT payments were non-contractual in LAW. Therefore it would be very difficult, I would assume, for the SPL tribunal to use these legally non-contractual payments differently given that they were all declared. The only other point is the 5 cases where BTC tribunal said there were mistakes made, as far as I saw/read this was because payments were made AFTER the recipient had left Rangers, this is important as the SPL has already ruled that a payment in to an EBT after the player left is NOT in breach of the rules, the Juhnino ruling.

[nelsonRFC82 305]

And this is why the BTC is not unimportant. The HMRC tribunal found that the EBT payments were non-contractual in LAW. Therefore it would be very difficult, I would assume, for the SPL tribunal to use these legally non-contractual payments differently given that they were all declared. The only other point is the 5 cases where BTC tribunal said there were mistakes made, as far as I saw/read this was because payments were made AFTER the recipient had left Rangers, this is important as the SPL has already ruled that a payment in to an EBT after the player left is NOT in breach of the rules, the Juhnino ruling.

Fuck if this wasn't such a poisoned process you would have to laugh! Basically we are being investigated as to whether we failed to declare non-contractual payments in the contract we submitted to authorities, honestly what the fuck!