Jump to content

Club statement | Resolution not deemed competent


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 27.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

WE have been presented with evidence via a whistleblower that raises serious concerns surrounding the SPFL’s processes relating to its stewardship of the voting on the resolution presented to member C

Hope you dont mind mate but thought I'd give the Hornets nest a wee stir...  

Posted Images

1 minute ago, British_Empire said:

In that case, could Rangers present the evidence to lawyers and they could facilitate proceedings and an independent enquiry would be forthcoming, even if the majority of other teams don't vote for it anyway? there's a mechanism for it even if the teams don't vote?

The evidence needs to be presented to the police, who would investigate and report to the Crown Office, anything else is conjecture.

Sweetheart and magic8ball like this
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, backup said:

The evidence needs to be presented to the police, who would investigate and report to the Crown Office, anything else is conjecture.

What about if the evidence isn't criminal though but Rangers know an independent enquiry would be enough to show celtic's influence (which also needs addressed) but we can't get the clubs to vote for an inquiry because they are quite happy. Where does that leave us?

magic8ball and Hutton2008 like this
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Former Rangers player and director of football Gordon Smith has accused the club of only being out for themselves following their accusations of corruption against the SPFL. 

The Glasgow side called for the SPFL’s chief executive Neil Doncaster to be suspended after the governing body’s vote on how to end the season. Rangers say a whistleblower has provided them with allegations that the vote on how to end the Scottish Championship, League One and League Two was not carried out fairly. A statement read: “We have been presented with evidence via a whistleblower that raises serious concerns surrounding the SPFL’s processes relating to its stewardship of the voting on the resolution presented to member clubs.

“Rangers’ Interim Chairman, Douglas Park, attempted to discuss this evidence with SPFL chief executive, Neil Doncaster, who initially refused to do so. The SPFL followed up that call with an e-mail, which we believe was a thinly disguised attempt to silence legitimate concerns. “Rangers will not be bullied into silence. We believe it is in the interests of all Scottish clubs and supporters that the evidence, which is alarming, be addressed as quickly as possible. “The voting debacle and the evidence we possess raise serious questions concerning the corporate governance of the SPFL.”

Meanwhile, Gers’ interim chairman Douglas Park added: “The lack of leadership and responsibility from the SPFL as a members’ organisation has shocked me. “We call for the suspension of the SPFL’s chief executive Neil Doncaster and its legal adviser, Rod McKenzie, while an independent investigation is conducted.” It’s a huge stand Rangers have taken, however, Smith believes this has only been done to serve the club’s own interests. Smith, who held the position of Scottish Football Association chief executive for three years, suggested that Rangers and every other club votes based on how it suits their club ahead of what’s good for the game as a whole.

https://talksport.com/football/693730/Rangers-themselves-amid-spfl-corruption-allegations/

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KingKirk said:

People need to calm down and trust Rangers on this one park went nuclear yesterday you don't do that without substantial evidence. No just some what's app messages.

Way to many people getting their soiled knickers in a twist . It is embarrassing 

Negri's lovechild likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bluenoz said:

Exactly. Rangers lawyers are not going to turn over evidence to the perpetrator just because they ask for it. We all want to know but I would be surprised if Rangers make a statement today.

I don't think we need another statement the now mate this has a long way to go yet. We have all the aces here.

The voting is utterly meaning now regardless

bluenoz likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, British_Empire said:

What about if the evidence isn't criminal though but Rangers know an independent enquiry would be enough to show celtic's influence (which also needs addressed) but we can't get the clubs to vote for an inquiry because they are quite happy. Where does that leave us?

Therein lies the rub, the statement from the club makes no accusation of criminality, more of widespread incompetence. The statement is not as strong as suggested, releasing damning evidence can rectify that.

murzo likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be madness for Rangers to release anything they have. Keep the cards very close to our chest whilst ascertaining who else is on board to challenge this mob. Once we have the adequate numbers then go for them, get the resolutions out to suspend the usual suspects & start the inquiry. Then, and only then present our evidence. We need to play this right, if the evidence is good enough it would be criminal to let them worm their way out this by any means.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bornabear said:

Unlike the spfl board who showed the vote before it was completed, our board won't be that stupid.

Our board must have some super compelling evidence from the "whistleblower",  plus calling out the spfl with a politely worded "corruption" plus  demanding an independent inquiry plus 2 heads must roll.  A statement like that would certainly be watertight when you consider the consequences if it wasn't.

With that amount of ammunition, it would be stupid to show your hand anytime soon.

Sit back, watch what your opponent is doing, giving them enough rope etc.

In hindsight you may well be right mate, In fact having had a chance to think about it in a more calm and rational manner I wouldn’t be surprised if the likes of the Ross county chairman were being used to try and get Rangers to show their hand so the SPFL know what exactly they are up against.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, backup said:

Therein lies the rub, the statement from the club makes no accusation of criminality, more of widespread incompetence. The statement is not as strong as suggested, releasing damning evidence can rectify that.

It would be incompetent to release evidence without any formal proceedings taking place. We cannot give them any opportunity to work their way out of this.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 6superbarry6 said:

Why were the league 1 and 2 votes joined together? has the vote already failed, are we supposed to believe that Stranraer, Airdrie and Falkirk all voted for this? 

That's always been the format for voting in the SPFL. It's to stop the lower levels essentially having a veto over the rest of the leagues. It impacts the number of reps on the SPFL board (L1&L2 get one seat between them, Championship gets two and the Premiership get three)

6superbarry6 likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, scottyc06 said:

Would be madness for Rangers to release anything they have. Keep the cards very close to our chest whilst ascertaining who else is on board to challenge this mob. Once we have the adequate numbers then go for them, get the resolutions out to suspend the usual suspects & start the inquiry. Then, and only then present our evidence. We need to play this right, if the evidence is good enough it would be criminal to let them worm their way out this by any means.

I honestly don't think people are saying that mate (unless I've missed a few posts with people actually saying it) I just think people are curious the level of dirt within the evidence. 

I'm curious as to how we push through an inquiry, depending on what we've got.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, scottyc06 said:

It would be incompetent to release evidence without any formal proceedings taking place. We cannot give them any opportunity to work their way out of this.  

But there might be a point where you have to so, in order to get proceedings started. Like a chicken and egg predicament.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...